Location matters, even in the arts
A white paper from the National Center for Arts Research in the U.S. presents some intriguing findings about how location influences participation in the arts.
This is a subject that has been studied in broader settings. “Location, location, location,” after all, is a popular catch phrase in the real estate business. For the arts, however, this study breaks new ground, and some of the results are surprising.
The researchers examined box office data for a total of 90 “visual arts, performing arts, and community-based organizations” in five different population centres to get a better sense of how the distance between where people live and cultural venues of various kinds affects their decisions about live attendance at arts events.
The cost of going to an event, whether in terms of time, effort and actual monetary expenditure, increases with distance, and it is only logical that participation rates decrease proportionately. But at what rate, and what distances are relevant?
They had an idea of what to expect. Comparable studies in the retail field showed that a person living about 12 kilometres from a given location is 80 per cent less likely to patronize it.
The arts, as it turns out, are hyper local: Analysis of the data revealed that “in the average community … patronage likelihood drops off by 80 per cent at around 1 mile (1.6 km) from the organization — not 7 miles (12 km).”
There are some ancillary findings: The arts become even more radically local for those in lowincome areas. Arts organizations surrounded by complementary amenities like bars, restaurants and hotels attract over greater distances. Ditto those in an area where there is a concentration of cultural attractions.
But it’s that one-mile radius that is so intriguing.
It brings to mind, first of all, the “kilometre of culture” concept that was a critical component of Kitchener’s first “Culture Plan” (we’d originally said a mile, but decided to keep it metric).
The aim here, more than anything else, was building on what already exists. A good proportion of the city’s assets stand within a radius of a kilometre or so from the intersection of King and Queen. There would be concentration, but in a mixed urban setting rather than within narrowly specialized “arts zones.” No one imagined that patronage could be concentrated in similar ways.
The findings in the report justify cultural development in central areas, where population density is the greatest and where ancillary amenities exist. It also justifies reaching out to people where they live, especially in neighbourhoods nearby, but also in outlying areas.
I’m not so sure anymore that working from the centre out is the best approach for cultural development. If arts patronage is really as hyper local as this study suggests, the ideal model for cultural development may be from the edges rather than the centre, in the areas where the city’s commercial and civic districts meet adjacent neighbourhoods.
It is commonly believed that Centre in the Square was built too far from the business district, but this study suggests that the location is close to ideal. The mistake was bulldozing a major portion of a historic neighbourhood to make room for it and surrounding it with parking lots.
Development in the downtown area has now progressed to the point where the powers that be will soon be able start approaching the future with an attitude of confidence rather than the desperation that has prevailed for so long. This is a prerequisite for a consideration of the full potential of areas such as midtown, the market district, or the Charles Street bus terminal area from a cultural development perspective.
The 1-mile radius figure also suggests a whole city and all-region approach. Visual arts, performing arts, and community-based cultural organizations belong in every neighbourhood, like parks, churches, schools and library branches.
“At What Cost? How Distance Influences Arts Attendance” can be downloaded from SMU National Research Center for Arts Research website.