In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, downtown areas in San Francisco, Oakland, and San José have faced significant social and economic challenges. With increased remote and hybrid employment leading to higher office vacancies and diminished foot traffic, local businesses are struggling, and spaces once well-trafficked by residents, workers, and tourists are feeling unloved. In Culture As Catalyst: How arts and culture districts can revitalize downtowns, SPUR’s housing and planning policy manager, Erika McLitus, and chief policy officer, Sujata Srivastava, explore how cultural districts can play a transformative role in breathing new life into these urban landscapes. They discuss the importance of tailored cultural strategies, drawing lessons from initiatives in Boston, Cleveland, Denver, and Philadelphia, which have effectively leveraged arts and culture to foster community engagement and drive recovery. We asked them about the potential of cultural districts not only to enhance the vibrancy of downtown areas but also to promote equity and belonging within communities, ultimately paving the way for a more resilient urban future.
How do cultural districts support urban revitalization?
Cultural districts are designated areas within cities that host unique arts and cultural institutions. They play a crucial role in attracting visitors, preserving community heritage, and revitalizing neighborhoods, which can drive economic growth and social engagement.
What makes for a successful arts and culture strategy?
Successful strategies are community-centric and tailored to meet the needs of the region, city, or neighborhood. Our research suggests that such a strategy accomplishes three objectives:
- Creates opportunities for artists, entrepreneurs, and cultural organizations.
- Increases the economic health of downtown for property owners and businesses.
- Provides a positive experience for downtown residents, workers, and visitors.
Sustained funding, good planning, creative uses of vacant spaces, cross-sector partnerships, and public realm investments support and facilitate these goals.
How have San Francisco, San José, and Oakland approached development of cultural districts?
San Francisco has a long history of investing in arts and culture, beginning with the Yerba Buena cultural district. Recently, the city established the San Francisco Cultural District Program to preserve and enhance unique community histories and foster local cultural development.
San José has unofficial districts like Japantown, which is one of the last remaining Japantowns in the United States, and SoFA (South of First Avenue/Area), which local business owners created to revitalize a neglected section of downtown by highlighting its historic and cultural resources.
Oakland has no formal cultural district program, but it provides direct support to arts and cultural organizations through its Cultural Funding Program, and it recently created the Lakeshore LGBTQ Cultural District to uplift the local LGBTQ community. A coalition of nonprofit organizations in East Oakland have also established an informal cultural district, the Black Cultural Zone, to prevent displacement of Black residents and businesses while promoting Black arts and culture.
You write about Boston, Cleveland, Denver, and Philadelphia as models for how cultural development can aid urban revitalization. How do they approach it?
Each city employs strategies tailored to its unique communities. Boston emphasizes long-term cultural planning, Cleveland focuses on public-private partnerships, Denver capitalizes on public investment for urban activation, and Philadelphia promotes community engagement through arts initiatives.
Boston has implemented innovative programs like the Percent for Art. For every dollar spent on city-funded construction projects, a portion is dedicated to creating artworks in public spaces, leading to installations that enhance the aesthetic appeal of neighborhoods and attract tourism. Additionally, the Boston Opportunity Fund provides grants averaging $15,000 to local artists and creative organizations, ensuring they have the resources needed to develop projects that engage the community.
Cleveland has developed a robust arts funding infrastructure, including a $12 million annual fund generated from a cigarette tax. This fund has been crucial in supporting local cultural organizations like the Cleveland Orchestra and the Cleveland Museum of Art, enabling them to offer free community events and educational programs. Revitalization of Playhouse Square took a neglected area with abandoned theaters to the second-largest theater district in the United States.
Denver collects a 0.1 percent sales tax to support local cultural organizations, distributing around $80 million annually. Denverites also approved a $570 million bond measure to form the Downtown Development Authority to support downtown revitalization through tax increment financing. This funding is essential for projects like the Vibrant Denver initiative, which aims to enhance urban corridors such as the 16th Street Mall. The initiative has funded public art installations, improved pedestrian infrastructure, and activated vacant retail spaces, helping revitalize Denver’s downtown area. As a result, the city has seen increased foot traffic that benefits local businesses and creates a lively atmosphere for residents and visitors.
Philadelphia operates the nation’s largest mural arts program, enhancing public spaces and engaging communities in the creative process. Many murals created through the program reflect local history and culture. The Philadelphia Cultural Fund plays a vital role by granting approximately $3.6 million annually to support more than 260 arts organizations, including theaters, museums, and community arts programs. This funding has been instrumental in keeping arts organizations afloat during challenging times, contributing to the city’s vibrant cultural life and aiding in its economic recovery following the pandemic.
What do these cities’ art and culture strategies have in common?
All of them have relied on mutually beneficial partnerships of local government, business and property owners, community leaders, and artists and cultural institutions to use cultural assets as anchors to increase social engagement, draw communities together, and attract visitors that support local businesses. Their strategies have also been supported by sustained public investment and reliable funding programs.
What economic impacts have these cities’ art and culture strategies made?
Tracking economic impact can be difficult, but we do have some hard numbers for Cleveland and Philadelphia. In 2019, Cleveland's Playhouse Square, the second-largest theater district in the United States, generated 2,500 jobs and attracted 645,000 out-of-town visitors, resulting in a direct spending impact of $225.7 million. A report by the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance indicates that cultural organizations in Southeast Pennsylvania had a combined economic impact of $3.3 billion in 2023. These examples illustrate how strategic investments in arts and culture can enhance economic growth, support local businesses, and create jobs in urban areas.
Revitalization efforts can often end up hurting legacy communities or failing to represent their interests. How are the arts and cultural strategies you examined addressing equity?
Arts and cultural strategies can uplift underrepresented communities and promote inclusivity.
In San Francisco, the Cultural District Program helps districts create a strategic plan called the Cultural History, Housing, and Economic Sustainability Strategies report. The document establishes goals and strategies to stabilize the cultural district through place keeping and placemaking, preserving cultural institutions, preventing displacement of communities, and fostering economic development.
The Black Cultural Zone in East Oakland was created to prevent the displacement of Black residents and businesses from legacy communities. This initiative emphasizes the importance of centering Black arts and culture within a community development framework, thereby addressing historical inequities and ensuring that local voices and stories are prioritized in revitalization efforts.
In Boston, the Boston Creates plan aims to cultivate a city where all cultural traditions are respected and equitably resourced. The plan emphasizes collaboration among various stakeholders to support artists and cultural institutions, particularly those representing marginalized communities. This collaborative approach helps to dismantle barriers to access and ensures that resources are allocated in a way that promotes equity across different cultural groups.
Cleveland's initiatives also reflect a commitment to equity, particularly through programs that help artists find affordable housing and workspaces. Supporting artists and cultural practitioners in finding stable housing and involving residents in the planning and decision-making processes for arts-based neighborhood revitalization strategies helps ensure that the benefits of cultural investments are shared by all community members, particularly those from historically marginalized backgrounds.
Overall, the arts and cultural strategies in these cities demonstrate a clear focus on promoting equity by supporting underrepresented communities, ensuring inclusive representation, and fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders. These efforts not only enhance cultural vibrancy but also contribute to social cohesion and economic resilience in the face of systemic inequities.
What lessons can Oakland, San Francisco, and San José apply from the arts and cultural strategies of Boston, Cleveland, Denver, and Philadelphia?
Bay Area cities can adopt several strategies to make their arts and cultural development efforts a success:
- Commit to consistent funding.
- Plan for long-term cultural development.
- Use underutilized spaces creatively.
- Nurture private sector involvement.
- Invest in public realms to strengthen cultural districts.