The New York Sun - September 23, 2003

The Museum Trap

ities like New York are struggling with real problems: a stock market recession, the collapse of the dot-coms, the continued out-migration of the middle class, and the threats of homicidal terrorists. Yet,to a growing body of urban experts and city planners, hope lies not in addressing these problems head on, but in promoting “the arts” and a hip lifestyle as the solution to urban ills. To them, it’s not high taxes, inflated housing prices, the lack of middle class jobs, or overregulation that’s killing cities. We have to worry about whether we have enough good jazz venues, fancy concert halls, and spanking new art museums.

With rents stagnant or depressed, it’s not surprising to see developers, politicians, and civic boosters seize upon the arts as the new way to save the value of suddenly questionable downtown real estate. Can’t get companies to locate in lower Manhattan? Don’t worry, we were told by city officials last week, get us more art museums and all will be fine.

This approach is not limited to New York. Across the country, in cities as varied as Los Angeles, Seattle,and San Francisco, the arts as savior has become an article of faith among many urban planners and developers. Indeed even as city officials were releasing their plan to increase “cultural”offerings as the savior of lower Manhattan, another group of civic boosters across the country were pushing their own grandiose $300 million scheme to dress up downtown Los Angeles’ Grand Avenue with their own version of a faux Parisian boulevard.

In some ways, the arts have become the new favored elixir for urban ills — like pedestrian malls in the 1960s, convention centers in the 1970s and sports stadiums in the 1980s and 1990s.

Yet whether on the East Coast or West, this notion is highly suspect, and is likely to disappoint its proponents over time. For one thing, it is based on some dangerous demographic presumptions. The executive vice president of Brookfield Financial Properties, which owns the World Financial Center, Lawrence F. Graham, told the New York Times that the arts are critical since the only people likely to live in Gotham these days are “people between 25 and 40 who are smart and want to be in an interesting urban place.”

This demographic logic has become the darling of urban theorists today, since the young and hip are presumed to want to live in the urban core whatever the tax rates, the number of homeless on the street, or difficulty of the business climate. In a sense, it is a call to see every inner city as a kind of San Francisco, which has become Valhalla for the “hip” new urbanist metropolis, promoted by such notions as the Brookings Institution’s “bohemian” index, which measures the number of artists, musicians, writers, actors, directors, and designers in a metropolitan area.

Yet anyone who visits San Francisco today can see the damage done by this obsession with the hip, young, gay, and artsy crowd, to the exclusion of the middle class and families.

After inflating madly with the dot-com boom, San Francisco now has one of the worst urban economies — and highest rates of net migration — of any city in the country.

Even worse is the reality seen on the streets of San Francisco. The most expensive city in the nation, it still has a large group of wealthy devotees, who indulge themselves in the city’s wonderful restaurants, galleries, and shops. Yet, at the same time, the city has lost much of its middle class and become a favored locale for the homeless, the destitute, and the just plain loony. It has become, as San Francisco native Kevin Starr puts it, “a cross between Carmel and Calcutta.”

This is the fate that awaits New York if it follows the “arts first” approach to economic development. Under this approach, you can ignore the real problems of taxes, schools, or business climate, as long as you promote “the hip” and “the cool.” You don’t appeal to the middle class because, in large part, you have written off all but a small portion of it.

What could make it worse here is that New York is a much larger and more serious city than San Francisco, with a higher population of poor people, and a still vital middle class, particularly in the boroughs. Manhattan alone has nearly three times San Francisco’s population; the five boroughs have roughly 10 times as many people.

What makes New York still a vital city is not just its museums, boutiques, its leather bars, and its theaters, but also that there are still people who work in factories, warehouses, and on the accounting staff; people who send their kids to school, private or public, and cling to the security of their neighborhoods. They, not the self-anointed bohemian elites, must be the prime focus of efforts to turn around lower Manhattan, and the city in general.

This is not because denizens of the much ballyhooed “creative class” are not an important asset, because they are. But there are not likely to be enough of them to maintain New York as a great city. Even during the booming 1990s, notes demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution, more people above the age of 24 left New York City for other places than came here. More than 73,000 more college graduates also departed. The big shift, Mr. Frey found, came not when people turned 50, but starting at 35. Since 2000, he adds, the flood outward appears to have gained momentum.

Who are these people? They may not all be gay, single, sexually adventurous, brilliant or artistes, but include workers with some useful skills — technicians, entrepreneurs, college educated people who have married, contemplate children, or would like to own their own home.

These are people critical to restoring both lower Manhattan and the New York economy. What they need most is not another trendy restaurant, a hot club, or even another great museum. New York already offers more of these than anyplace in the country, if not the world. Instead, they require the prospect of a job with a future, the chance to start a business under reasonable conditions, and the hope that they can create a decent life for themselves and their families.

***