When I made my entry on artist neighborhoods and the evicting power of gentrification a couple weeks ago, I meant to link to an additional article in Business Week. Now I am sort of glad I didn’t because it provide me the opportunity to raise the subject of what environments artists really value.
The Business Week article, “Bohemian Today, High-Rent Tomorrow,” obviously deals with the issue of artists making neighborhoods too cool for them to live in.
One of the things the piece discusses is that artists will trade affordability for the chance to live near other artists or at least near people with money to consume their artistic product. The piece is coupled with a slide show of the best places for artists to live. (buttons to advance the slides in upper right hand corner.)
Interestingly, since the list came out in February, people have been regularly posting comments to the site expressing their dismay that NYC and LA and others to a lesser extent were included on the list. (Kingston, NY is the real winner in the comments.) The feeling is that some of the cities on the list are too expensive and inhospitable to artists.
The article had acknowledged this but rated other factors as compensating for these things. Given that one of these factors was a concentration of artists and arts establishments, some people are apparently willing to make the trade off. Whether they enjoy a similar standard of living as artists in the other cities on the list, (i.e. size/condition of housing and number of roommates), is unknown.
So the question for my readers is, what trade offs are you will or not willing to make in regard to the city in which you live?