As is probably clear by now, I’m deeply curious and often delighted by creative placemaking. When it comes to evaluation of creative placemaking, however, I’m stumped or underwhelmed, and I’m not alone. Over a year ago, Ian David Moss wrote “Creative Placemaking Has An Outcomes Problem” and Ellen Berkovitch wrote a summary of arguments in “Can Creative Placemaking Be Proven?”
Personally, I’m on the fence if the problem is in outcomes or expectations…
Outcomes: We’re not measuring (enough)
In some instances, funders and project organizers are content with anecdotal evidence or uncertain how to establish quantitative data for their projects. Metrics and analysis isn’t an important part of the project from conception, the effort to accomplish something is good enough.
Outcomes: We’re not measuring the right things
More recently, it’s been popular to tie artistic projects specifically to economic indicators — attempting to prove that an arts festival or mural project has increased home values or brought more jobs into a neighborhood. While these are valuable things if/when they can be proven, I don’t believe the value in an art project is in raising home values any more than I believe the purpose of a painting is to match my couch.
Expectations: Vibrancy Indicators & Causation
Creative placemaking grants from both ArtPlace America and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) are both assessed after the fact using community indicators. To simplify things, I’ll just talk about ArtPlace’s use of Vibrancy Indicators (the specifics of each program’s indicators are different; the general use and intent is similar enough).
ArtPlace Vibrancy Indicators
Indicators aren’t meant to be the equivalent of a project’s goals … which is good, because if you were handed $280,000 (the average size of an ArtPlace grant) to increase the jobs or even the walkability of a neighborhood, it’s unlikely that creative placemaking would be the tool you turned to. However, indicators are taking the place of evaluation and, as a result, projects aren’t assessed based on their unique goals and audiences. Again, this seems to hinder our ability to assess which projects are successful and which are not and the thoughtful analysis of those results.
In looking at these broad areas, the funders are evaluating changes at a neighborhood or city level that may or may not be attributable to the actual funded creative placemaking activity. These sort of changes (e.g., increases in an area’s population, restaurants or artspaces) are the result of a variety of causes and are very worthwhile to track (see Vital Signs data) but can’t necessarily provide any clarity about whether one creative placemaking project was more successful than another — let alone why.
Finally, if the end goal for funders (and creative placemakers!) is to move the dial on some of these indicators, it would be far more encouraging to engage in long-term funding of specific projects and their evaluation and refinement. While a one-year project can positively impact a neighborhood’s walkscore, it can deteriorate into a detriment three years later if there’s no capacity to maintain it.
Scott Burkholder has written about funders questioning the impact of The Baltimore Love Project:
One of my “fondest” memories made during the project was sitting in a prolific Baltimore foundation’s offices. It was one of my first pitches to a significant investor. He had the means to pay for the entire project. Trial by fire was an understatement. Despite our passion, we were not prepared to articulate a change that was of interest to him. He pretty much asked us how many kids would graduate from high school and go to college as a result of our work. We not only didn’t know the answer, we had no response.
Seeing kids graduate from high school and enter college is an extremely worthwhile goal, but it’s not something that happens with only a year of effort (as of the publication of this article, my own kid will be a mere 275 days away from this achievement, so I can say this with some authority). There are twenty Baltimore Love Project murals total — and five of those are at area schools. Will an incoming freshman be inspired by the mural at her school? Will she go to college and get an art education degree? Will she return to Baltimore and teach, having her own hand in inspiring countless graduates?
It’s all possible, but a program evaluation that occurs as a brief requirement at a project’s end can never hope to track such a thing and expecting a project to deliver on those terms is unreasonable. (I should clarify here that the Baltimore Love Project is not specifically a creative placemaking endeavor, but their experience is not a unique one.)
I think creative placemaking projects have their impact, but we’re not doing the proper work yet to best highlight those impacts. The issue isn’t just with the outcomes, but also with our expectations for the projects and the data both.
Angelique –
I believe successful placemaking is most immediately seen through qualitative indicators. A successful place attracts and retains residents, it may attract businesses and lower vacancy rates, it allows people to recognize the beauty of a space in a way they may not have before. In essence, successful placemaking creates desirability and identity through a physical definition. I long ago realized that numbers and statistics can tell whatever story you want them to tell. For one ‘pro’ number you can create three ‘con’ numbers – there’s always an argument. This makes the challenge that much more difficult, and to most of us, makes us question number-based arguments (as it should):
-People respond to people-based indicators. Yes, rent is important, but going to a place and seeing clean streets, hearing about neighborhood pride, and seeing positive activity can sell an individual.
-Numbers sell government. They thrive on statistics because its a clear cut projection of right and wrong, good and bad. It makes their work easy and justifies claims and decisions. As I’ve previously stated, numbers ain’t all they’re cracked up to be.
The argument we’re not doing the proper work to highlight placemaking impacts isn’t totally on point in my opinion. I think we’re doing a hell of a job. Rather, stating that creative placemaking projects have their impact, but government entities don’t trust the qualitative indicators enough to encourage future placemaking efforts – that may be more accurate.