I want to thank the committee for inviting me to speak about cultural hubs and districts. I come as a citizen of the city of Windsor, a former member of several non-profit organizations, and as the founder of the visual arts and the built environment program for the University of Windsor.
Over the last 30 years, there have been ongoing discussions about the revitalization of older industrial cities like Windsor, Ontario, and the role cultural hubs can play in reinventing communities within the context of downtown rejuvenation, historic preservation, and tourism. We have learned about the importance of nurturing urban distinctiveness, providing a workforce for cultural industries, and attracting a creative class. Yet despite the theoretical rhetoric in urban planning, economic development, and arts and culture literature, significant city initiatives have proven to be difficult to pull off. The discourse has outpaced our communities' ability to implement change. The buzz around creative hubs is certainly promising. What is difficult is strategically addressing public investment and careful use of resources.
Few small to mid-size cities have the expertise to bridge the various federal or provincial bureaucratic structures, or work with the multitude of constituencies in developing effective cultural policy. Recognizing their lack of relevant resources, they enthusiastically commission cultural master plans from consultant planning and management firms, with the goal of creating strategies that match their community's vision. In some instances, these professionally produced plans have been helpful in gathering input and generating ideas. In other instances, they've had little impact and a short afterlife.
Occasionally, useful cultural asset maps are produced and potential cultural districts identified. However, because of their cost and the effort required, they are often not updated or maintained, making their usefulness short-lived. Those areas labelled as cultural districts are seen as important anchors, recognized for their facilities and their mixed-use amenities and services. Enthusiasm for cultural districts is generally quite high, but the necessary ongoing resources to support their needs and monitor their success is regularly left wanting.
As is the case in Windsor, the major cultural institutions are used in promotional material for the downtown core. The survival of these non-profit organizations relies heavily on support from established foundations, local, provincial and federal granting agencies, arts and cultural philanthropy, and incomes such as memberships, performances, art sales, and community events. They are pressured by the constant threat of financial reductions by their patrons and funders, as well as by decreasing earned income that could affect their continued existence.
Survival has meant doing more with less and doing some things differently. These have included shortening performance runs, relying on permanent collections, altering hours of operation, sharing production and facility costs, and in some instances, merging institutions. Now, not all of these are problematic, but they are certainly taxing and stressful.
Frequently, the argument is made that granting agencies focus their efforts on larger public cultural organizations rather than on modest neighbourhood and community cultural hubs. The concern is that if cultural placemaking is actually important, then creating more humble spaces specifically for the arts is absolutely essential. Artist centres that provide a multitude of services and opportunities can contribute to downtown revitalization. Providing spaces to work, produce, rehearse, meet, learn, and mentor are cost-effective ways to contribute to the cultural economy.
These centres play an important role in encouraging innovation and production, by becoming an asset to the neighbourhoods where they are situated. Understanding the social dimension of cultural production is critical in encouraging the development of cultural hubs and the emergence of cultural districts.
Centres contribute to interaction, the exchange of ideas, collaboration, and the testing and manufacturing of new products. The activities within these centres have a positive effect on the individuals using them and can spill over into the communities in which they are located. The formation of informal relationships between users of the centre could encourage the participation of neighbourhood residents and strengthen new ties.
Just this past Thursday, the University of Windsor formally opened the School of Creative Arts in its downtown location. The City of Windsor has been active in forming partnerships with both the university and college, in searching for creative solutions to revitalizing its downtown. It is noteworthy that it has been arts and culture that have made the bridging between town and gown a real possibility. St. Clair College's Centre for the Arts, its MediaPlex, and now, the university's School of Creative Arts are potential catalysts for stimulating new development, but this is just the first step in any renewal process.
Residents and businesses in the urban neighbourhoods surrounding these newly created cultural hubs deserve access to the opportunities these facilities offer. This requires academic institutions, the artists, the existing non-profit culture sector, the local BIA, and neighbourhood citizens and leaders to seize this moment in continuing the conversation about arts and culture as a critical element of the city's life.
Academics, like Florida and Spencer, have written about the connection between population size and a creativity index and how larger cities and regions have a built-in advantage, in terms of cultural economic development. However, for those of us who reside in small to mid-size cities, it is time to align land use, zoning, building codes, housing, and transportation planning, so that we can build a new cultural infrastructure.
Many of the tools that enable artist spaces are lodged within various municipal departments, like cultural affairs, planning and building services, economic development, parks and recreation, district school boards, and multicultural agencies. According to Markusen and Johnson, local governments and agencies need to transcend traditional turfs to help facilitate culture-driven urban revitalization. Arts and culture need to be able to operate in several domains at the same time, thereby challenging and transcending traditional borders and promoting new life in the city.
As you may be aware, Windsor shares a border with the city of Detroit and we have been carefully watching our U.S. neighbour. For some, the large-scale purchases, refurbishment, and upgrades in downtown Detroit have been phenomenal. The transformation of the once-desolate urban core into a hip corridor of real estate investment has certainly drawn international recognition and much praise.
For others, the complex problems that have faced Detroit haven't disappeared. They've simply been relocated elsewhere. The argument made is that although racial and ethnic segregation is beginning to decrease, economic segregation is still a major issue. This is a factor that Windsor cannot afford to ignore.
In conclusion, all this raises the question, is this a zero-sum game? Does this necessarily put the smaller centres in competition, especially economic competition, with the larger centres and institutions? Why not see them as complementary? Can we not design a support for the arts in such a way that we encourage a synergistic relationship benefiting all?
Thank you.