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.