Art: a Catalyst for Gentrification

Gentrification, the ever-controversial discussion in politics and urban planning, presents a central issue in a society more self-aware than ever of class relations. Whether seen as the key contributor or analyzed in the context of a larger capital driven process, the powerful evidence of art as a catalyst to inner-city transformation motivates policymakers to incorporate public art into urban planning. City governments aim to attract wealthier residents and artificially recreate income distribution shifts seen in Soho, New York, Fisherman’s Wharf, San Francisco, and many other neighborhoods as a result of artist-stimulated gentrification. While such policies contribute to the emerging democratization of art and an increasing inclusivity into “high culture,” they also create concerns about the homogenization of public art. 

Drawn to inner city neighborhoods for their monetary appeal, artists find inspiration in the authenticity of these urban spaces and room for aestheticization as opposed to a contrived and structured community. The resulting transformation of the neighborhood instigates a gentrification process that displaces the very artists who developed the space. Perhaps the most striking example of this phenomenon, the SoHo neighborhood of New York City now boasts one of the most expensive housing markets in the world. The previously prosperous industrial district fell to shambles as commercial concerns pulled out of Manhattan following World War 2, leaving a decrepit collection of empty warehouses dubbed “Hell’s Hundred Acres.” These large, luminous spaces attracted artists looking for affordable accommodations. Not yet understood as the asset to urban development that we know artists as today, the city looked to remove the unwelcome residents and as many as 2,000 artists living in SoHo were threatened with eviction throughout the 1960s. Isolated and without legal access to housing services, SoHo’s newest residents became the landlords, plumbers, electricians, and most importantly, designers of the abandoned district. 

Gradually, wealthier tenants moved into the now trendy SoHo district and the style of  “Loft Living” emerged. The airy, minimalist residences inspired an industrial-chic trend that dominates home decor to this day. Despite attempts to protect the pioneers of SoHo through rent stabilization policies such as the Loft Law of 1982, many artists found themselves displaced as rent prices sky-rocketed; buildings valued at $30,000 in 1960 sold for over $150,000 by 1970 and monthly rent now averages $4,097 for a single bedroom loft. Today, a sprawling collection of high-end boutiques, cafes, and galleries leave little remnants of the dilapidated neighborhood carefully reconstructed by pioneers of the art community. 

The success of SoHo revolutionized urban planning. Its organic development and minimal cost to the city inspired policy makers around the world to attempt to recreate the “SoHo effect.” In 1978, Chicago unanimously passed the Percent for Art Ordinance, stipulating that “1.33% of constructing or renovating municipal buildings and public spaces be devoted to original artwork on the premise.” The city now boasts over 500 works of public art in 150 facilities. The 1988 Action for Cities programme in the UK defended an unprecedented budget allocation to public art as a tool to “deal with the problems of unemployment and alienation in the country’s inner cities, as well as contributing to the creation of a classless and tolerant society.” 

While public art provides extensive value in urban culture, government commissioning incentivizes artists to conform in a manner that strays far from the freedom experienced by the rag-tag team of artists who took over the streets of SoHo. The unique ability of art to express the intricacies of communities provides invaluable insight into intra-neighborhood relations, and its’ politicization puts at risk this benefit. As Sharp, Pollock, and Paddison (2005) confirm, “In claiming to be a signifier for the city as a whole, of course, it hides the inclusions and exclusions inherent in any singular vision for a community.” Fiscally tying art to development influences the public experience as it attempts to impose an all-encompassing urban identity; we must be aware of how we manipulate art when using it as an urban planning tool.