I I I I I I

CLI It LI r a 1 hst it ut ions

I in Baltimilrre \ I I I I I I I

I I Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 4 2. Theoretical Assumptions ...... 10 I 2.1 The Central Place Theory ...... 11 2.2 The Export Base Theory ...... 20 2.3 Social Spaces and the Location of Culture (Hourdieit's I Theory1 rn rn . rn . rn w a s rn 27

3. Methodology rn rn rn . rn ...... 31

I 4. Results rn . rn . 0 rn rn rn rn . 6 . . . 40 4.1 The Institutional Approach ...... 41 4.1.1 The Absolute Significance of the Institutions . . . . 43 4.1.2 The Impact Area Size of the Institutions ...... 4'3 I 4.1.3 The Relative Significance Of The Institutions . . . . 53 4.2 The Urban Versus Rural Approach ...... 55 4.2.1 The Absolute Significance of Rural and Urban I Institutions ...... 58 4.2.2 The Impact Area Size of Urban and Rural Institutions . 58 4.2.3 The Relative Significance of Urban and Rural Institutions ...... 60 I 4.2.4 Impact Areas and Visitor Flows Among The Counties . . 62 4.3 The "City Versus Siiburbs" Approach ...... 65 4.3.1 The Absolute significance of Downtown and Suburban Institutions ...... 67 I 4.3.2 The Impact Areas of Downtown and Suburban Institutions ...... 69 4.3.3 The Relative Significance of Downtown and Suburban I Institutions ...... 71 5. Summary and Conclusion ...... 73 I References Appendix Questionnaires I Introducing And Reminding Letters Cultural Facilities in Metropolitan Baltimore - A List I I I I Table of Tables Table 3.1: Cultural Institutions grouped by Week of Return ...... 32 Table 3.2: Shares of Some Visitor Characteristics Broken Down by Record-Holding of the Answering Institutions ...... 37 I Table 2.3: T-values and Probabilities of Wrong T-values and their Interpretation for the Null Hypothesis ...... 38 Table 4.1.: Crosstabulation of the Counties of Location (COUNTY) Ry The I Arts Institutions (INGROUP) ...... m . . . . 41 Table 4.2: Visitors per Year (VISITORS), Visitors per Opening Hour (VIHOURS) and People Capacity (CAPA) for all Institutions, Galleries, Museums, Performing Arts Stages and Music Venues. I ...e8e..e.me.e.e..~.ae~~e~~eea~ee~~~m43 Table 4.3r: Crosstabulation of the Number of Visitors (VISITORS) and the Cultural Institutions (INGROUP) ...... 46 Table 4.4: Cvosstabulation of Visitors Per How (VIHOURS) and Cultirral I Institutions (INGROUP) iw~~e.m.~rn~.ee~...a.~mrn~a~e~mee~e~rnae47 Table 4.5: Crosstabulation of the Capacity of the Institutions (GCAPA) I By the Institutions (INOROUP) ~e.e.me.eumnea~eeeeea~~~~~~ew~ee~eeea48 Table 4.6:: Crasstabulation af the Types of Institutions (INGROUP) By the Impact Area Size Level (IMCIRC) I eme.m=.e..sm..~~e...eeee~mam~~wa~~em~51 Table 4.7: Crosstabulation of INGROUP (Institutions, Grouped) I By GPEQPLE (Impact Area Population, Grouped 1 s.~me.ee~a.e~em.emm.e~~~eo~om8~~~~e~a52 Table 4,8: Crosstabulation of INGROUP (Institutions, Grouped1 By GIMCOEFF (Visitor/Population Ratio = I,,,ff 1 I .~mam.m.m..mm.~a..e..~.... 54 Table 423: Crosstabulation of URBAN (Urban/Rural Areas) By INGROUP (Institution Types) ...... I ...... 97 Table 4.10: Visitors/ Year, Visitors/ Opening Hour and Capacity Broken I Down By Urban Versus Rural Location Of Cirltural Facilities mama-. .m.8~m.em.18m....mm.~~m~w~~w~~m58 Table 4.11: Crosstabulation of URBAN (Differences in Urban To Rural Areas By IMCIRC (Impact Area Size Level) ...... 59 I Table 4.12: Cvosstabulation of URBAN (Differences in Urban to Rural Areas) By GPEOPLE (Reached Population in the Impact Area) . 60 Table 4.13: Crosstabulation of URBAN (Differences in Urban to Rural Area) By GIMCOEFF CVisitor/Residents Ratio) ...... 62 I Table 4.14: Visitor Streams to Cultural Facilities between the Counties of the Baltimore Metropolitan Area (in XI ...... 63 Table 4.15: Crosstabulation of CIRCLE (Concentric Zones) By INGROUP I (Institutions, Grouped In Main Categories) ...... 67 Table 4.16: The Absolute Significance of Galleries, Museums, Performing Arts Stages and Music Venues in the Three Zones Downtown (DT), Outer City (OC), and Suburbs (SUI. . a a . . . . a . 68 I Table 4.17: Crosstabulation of CIRCLE (Concentric Zones)

Ey GVISITOR (Visitors/Year, Grouped) ..I 68 Table 4.18: Crosstabulation of CIRCLE (Concentric Zones) By IMCIRC (Impact Area Size Category) aa.mmmama 70 I Table 4.19: Crosstabulation of CIRCLE (Concentric Zones) By GPEOPLE (Population in Impact Area, Grouped) . . . . . a a . . . . . 71 Table 4.20: Crosstabulation of CIRCLE (Concentric Zones) By GIMCOEFF I (Visitor/Residents Ratio) . . a . a . . I a . . . . a . . . . 72 Table 5.1: Results in Statement Form ...... a . . . . . 73 I I I I 1, Introduction I "Blackmailing could cure county stinginesstt proposes Michael Olesker in I a Baltimore Sun commentary COlesker, 1383) in reference to the recent strife between city and county concerning the funding of city cultural institutions. I Mr. Oleaker suggests that this polictical tactic is justified by the policy of the adjacent county administrations regarding the problems of Baltimore, their

I central city. "There is surely a sense of short-sightedness, a sense that, by I turning away from city prsblems, [the countiosl can keep them from becoming county probXems" COlesker, 1'383). The latest example of this attitude of I self-centeredness, flr. Olesker maintains, can be found in the unequal financing by different jurisdictions of cultiwal institutions in the city of I Baltimore. A recent study' shows that county residents constitute approximately 53% of all of the patrons of the 12 primary regional cultural I institutions Cwhich, with one exception, reside in Baltimorel, and yet, the county jurisdictions contribute only 13X of the local governmental funding for I the operating expenses of these institutions. The city of Baltimore provides the other 87% (RPC, 1983). This distribution of the costs is unfair. To make

I the distribution more equitable, fir. Olesker proposes the introduction of a

special box office tax for county residents who wish to enjoy the arts and I culture offerings of the city of Baltimore. I

I ~- - ' This study is cclrnpiled by the F:cqicmJl Planninq Ccuncil, a metrlzlpcditan planning .wthcwity compr ised {:If representat ivers from Ealt imore and the five surrminding cclcint ies. Ealt imclre City, Anne I Arundrl C:ounty , Ealt imnre Ccunty , Ihrrcdl County, Har fclrd Cclunty and Hcnward Cclunty represent the metrclpctlitan area of Ealt irnlrlre. The metrc1politan area is the geclgraphical frame of this work. It is I displayed in the map 1.1 at the end 111f this part. I I I 5

I This controversial commentary by fir. Olesker was a specific example of the response of the Baltimore media to the RPC report. The fact that this I report has provoked such a strong response in indicative of the significance I of culture and arts to the city as well a5 to the entire metropolitan area. There has been a general acknowledgement by the metropolitan, as well as the I county, residents that culture and the arts are both economic and sociological assets, These assets have been defined in terms of the ability of the arts to I create an image for an area and improve the quality of life of its residents. This acknowledgement is the result of several factors. Initially, during the I revitalization of the Baltimore downtown district which began in the mid 1370%, it originated with the decision to use arts and culture as a k.ey I component of this revitalization process (Szanton, 19865. From this act followed increased allocations far the arts in the city budgets (which were I incidently paralleled by state and federal increases in subsidy.) Finally, I the neighboring counties developed a greater awareness of the impact of these city cultural institutions on their quality of life and began to be concerned I with maintaining the level of culture and the arts in the center city while still falling short of financially ~iupporting the maintanance of these I institutions.

I This general acknowledgement of the importance of art and culture has prompted the city to demand a higher contribution from those areas which I profit from this asset. The RYC report determines this degree of profit by measuring the flow of people from the counties to these city cultural

I institutions. It is necessary for a fair resolution to the city - county conflict concerning subsidy to analyze two contributing factors to this

I con f 1ic to the significance of these cultural institutions and their I geographical impact. I I I I d

This study will attempt to describe the significance of cultural and I arts institutions in the metropolitan area of Baltimore and to analyze which I areas are affected by these institutions. It will treat this topic by addressing two main questions:

I 1m How significant are the various cultural and arts institutions for the Baltimore metropolitan region?

2m Upon which geographical areas do these various institutions I have an impact?

I One of the main h015 used by this study will be the analysis of the flow of people from different geographical areas to cultural institutions. This was I accomplished on a general level by the RPC report; however, this study will attempt to provide further information about a wider scope of cultural

I institutions as well as a more detailed analysis of their locations and I "impact areas. I' I The data used in this analysis was obtained from the entire metropolitan area and not just from the city of Baltimore. One of the aims of this survey I was to reach as many cultural facilities as possible. As a result, the conclusions are based on a sample of 136 institutions in five different I fields:

lm mu se 11m s 2. galleries I 3m performing arts stages 4. music venues , c I Jm mov i e theatres The sampled pclpulatilm is assumed to bo 242 cultural and arts I inst ituticlns. This number will be explained later in the methdz; 5ec t im. Su f f ic ient per I: ent ages 111 f the sarnp led populat ion were obtained in this survey fclr galler ies (:G3.0%:), museums (:68.2X:), per flflrming art5 stages (73.8%), and even music venues (37.9%). Hclwever, nnly 18.4% of the mclvic theatre facilities responded. Therefclue, I cinema5 will clnly be inlzluded in general discussiclns. There will be no I I I I 7

Eighty of the institutions which responded are located in Baltimore

I city. This fact allows a closer analysis of the overall distribution of these I institutions within the city, as well as a comparison among their differing locations, significance, and functions. I Ultimately, this research attempts to explore the different meanings of I "significance" in this urban context with respect to culture. On the one hand, the significance of a cultural event may be evaluated by the number of I people who attend this event and by the distance they cover to attend it. On the other hand, significance may be assessed by assuming that a cultural

I institution can be extremely significant even if it has a relatively small

number of attendees, provided that it has a small impact area with a high I serving intensity. In other words, a cultural event is important if it I reaches a high share of the residential population in this area. A11 in all, significance has three different connotations. One can define an "absolute I siginificance" as the absolute number of visitors, a"geographica1 significance" as the impact area, and a "relative significance" as the impact I intensity on the impact area.

I This study will not measure expenditures and revenues of cultural institutions Cthis was accomplished in the RPC study), and it will not pursue I in detail economic equations to explain once again the economic impact of culture on the city. There have been studies which have successfully treated

I this question for a line of American cities. I I special quantitative analysis ctf this field. I I I

8

I The questions treated in this work have an impact on economic and I political issues and their discussion. The political dimension will be scratched by the evaluation of the distribution of cultural amenities over the I analyzed geographical area. Knox stresses "territorial inequity" as one source of political conflicts (Knox, 19873, rln aim of urban policy should be I to put urban services and amenities in areas in proportion to the local levels of need. These amenities can have positive, but a150 negative, effects on I their neighborhoods 3 . Under the assumption that urban culture should be distributed fairly and should be accessible, one has to look for same I evaluation of fairness and accessibility to assess the si~ccessof application I of urban policy.

This report is divided into' three main parts. The first part explains

I the primary theoretical assumptions which are used in the construction of this I social research, and translates them into the framework of hypotheses which can be tested by this research. The second part shows the translation of I theoretical assumptions to an empirical study, i. e. the collection of a complete sample of cultural institutions, the search for indicators I corresponding to the hypotheses, the formulation of the questionnaire addressed to the cultural institutions. The third part presents the results I and disciisses the formulated questions in terms of conclusions from this effort. These results have inevitably an effect on the cultural and arts I policy in the Baltimore region. I

A conflict can be generated by the ncln-t7:/;istt7nce c1f a cul.tcrra1 I facility with pclsit ive externalit iec, ifr ingc benefits fclr the cclmmunity is. mare business:) or by the existence nf a facility with negative externalities (negative influences on aspects nclt related t.ct culture, I i.e. traffic or parkinq:). Sclrnetirnes, the evaluatictn of t3:/;ternalities as negative cIr positive differs within a cwnmunity. I I 9 Rap 1.1: The Baltimore Metropolitan Area

PENNSYLVANIA \

! NEW JERSEY I I I i I 10

I 2. Theoretical Assumptions

I Two principal geographical and economic urban theories will be employed I in this study. One theory, Cristaller’s Central Place Theory Eristaller, 1’3331, provides indicators to disclose the degree of centrality by examining I the goods and services a center offers. The other theory, the E>:port Base Theory CAlexander, 19561, provides a functional definition of urban centers I and their effects on their surroundings. Furthermore, there is one sociological theory founded by Bourdieu which treats cultural institutions I explicitly and which will be considered in this work (Bourdieu, 1384). Each of thew theories offers a considerably different perspective on urban

I development and each of these theories will provide 5ome of the hypotheses I which will be tested against the Uata from this survey. I The relative position of the central city with respect to surburban and other competitive areas has been described by sociologists Ce.g., Friedrichs & I Goodman, 1997:) and economists hg., Mill, 13721. These theories are derivatives of Christaller’s Central Place Theory. In these theories, a center I is defined a5 a location which offers special goods and services. Centers have relative degrees of centrality based upon the variety of goods which they I offer. The importance of a good may be assessed by the distance people will travel to obtain the good. Even in Christallervs early theory, culture was I included as an important good for a major central place.

The Export Ease Theory evaluates centers as important and prospering if

they export goods and services to the surrounding regions. Consequently,

significant cultural institutions would be those with a large impact area.

This analysis has been expanded to include economic evaluations of the I 11

I "multiplier effect" of arts and culture on the urban economy.

I BoiwdieiPs sociological theory regarding culture provideo an explanation I for the location of cultural institutions within an urban area. We interprets different cultural behavior a5 an expression of membership to a certain social I group. He asserts that the cultural institutions of a certain class will be located in areas which are attractive to this class, thus making the members I of this class more likely to live in the vicinity. Bourdieu thus concludes that the geographical distance of residents from these centers of culture is I little more than "social distance" from these facilities.

I How can these theories be applied to analyze the concepts of significance and impact areas a5 they pertain to cultural institutions? Which I hypotheses can be formulated from these theories to address the issues of I i mp ortanc e to t h is work ? I 2.1 The Central Place Theory I

I In their book., The Chanqinq fiowntown, Friedrichs et al. derive a model which is analogous to the Central Place Theory and apply this model to the I cities of Ealtimore and Hamburg (Friedrichs et al., 13871. They define three dimensions which are critical to their analysis of the relative position and

I importance of the Central Business District: an economic, a social, and a I cultural dimension. I These are defined as follows: I I I I 12 The economic dimension is the strength of the center as a marketplace for goods and services and as a center for the exchange of information. The higher the share of jabs, retail I sales, and office spaces in relatian to the share af other centers in the metropolitan' area, the higher the degree of centrality of I the center. The social dimension is the socio-economic status of the residents of the center and of the visitors to the center. Within this dimension is included an analysis of the motives for vir;iting the I center and an analysis of the behavior of the visitors in terms of frequencies of visits and number of visits to this center compared I to other centers, Ttm cultural dimension is defined by the variety and quantity of cultural and leisure facilities in the center. They theoretically quantitate thi5 dimension by the size of the institutions, the I number of institutions in the center, as well as the expenditure levels of these institutions.

I These dimensions are then used to analyze the survey data they collected

from the two cities and to compare the relative positions and importance of I the CBWs and the surbiwban centers in these two cities. They conclude that I the suburbanization of Baltimore has proceeded to a much fiwtker degree than that of Mamburg. Their theoretical foundation is one which may be easily I applied again to the city of Baltimore,

I The predominant dimension of interest in this work is the cultural one which has been emphasized by the city during the renovation of the downtown I area as being of key importance in sustaining the position of the CBD. From this moment forward, the cultural dimension also began to play a key role in I the revitalization of the city, as the suburbs a150 began to realize the value of this dimension in the organization of their centers. This cultural

I dimension actually dramatizes a more fundamental dimension which was not

elaborated upon by Friedrichs et al.: the political dimension. Thi s I dimension is reflected by the degree of centralization or decentralization of I power with respect to the different urban jurisdictions. The effort to I I I 13

I sustain the regional significance of a downtown area in a politico-socio- economic sense is directly correlated to the ability of the CBD to attract I households, jobs, and visitors from other strengthened parts of the I metropolitan area Cif not from beyond this area) back into the city. The issue addressed in this work. is how far does culture support this effort. I In order to understand the role that culture can play in recentralizing I the city, one must first understand why the city became decentralized. Urban economists such as Mill have shown that the decentralization of households and I jobs is a function of high transportation costs and the exhaustion of economies of scale in the CRD4. For decades, entrepreneurs and residents in I the urban fringes of many cities including Baltimore have seen the benefits of decentralization since it has been' too expensive to work or shop downtown (the I economies of scale have been exhausted), and since it has become too costly to I commute downtown in terms of time and money. Both of these factors have led to the development of new, noncentral locations away from the CBD. The I residential shift to a better economy of scale for them was followed by an exodus of retail and service companies from the CBD. This CBD thus became a I declining, partly abandoned zone.

I Agergard et al. maintain in their article, "The Interaction Between Retailing and the Urban Centre Structure: A Theory of Spiral Movement", that I the position of the CED does not necessarily have to decline if this district I

An eclmcmy af scale occurs when the hiqher cqmcity of I prclduct ion causes lclwer costs c~fprcduct ilzln. These economies can reach a satcwatim level in terms of lcjwering the ccmsumer 035t5 of goclds and actually begin tcl recede to a nclrmal lrlr higher level #:If costs when the degree of centrality of the center i5 very hiqh. This I is due tcI the increased demand an the urban real estate in the center whl~eincreased cc15t5 are then passed an to the ccmsurner. I I 14 I is able to establish new highly specialized goods and services (Agergard et

al., 1970). Could culture be one of these new highly specialized goods or has I culture been forced to follow the general spatial trend to new centers of I lower centrality? I flill% idea is consistent with the Central Place Theory in that it uses the traditional model of explaining the location of facilities by the I hierarchy of' settlements. The Central Place Theory states that the provision of various types of goods and services is geographically distributed among I centers;. These centers are constrained by their different economies of scale to offer goods with varying degrees of specialization. The degree of

I specialization of the goods of a center determines the degree of centrality of

its location. Therefore, Cristaller claims, it is logical to find a small

I farmers market in a sub-center of the regian and the opera house in the center I city (Cristaller, 1'333). Specialized goods and services (e.g. cultural offerings) are dependent upon a rather small clientele compared to other goods I and services. To reach all possible demanders equally, these specialties have to be at a place which is optimally accessible to all of the demanders. The I higher the degree of specialization (Le.? the smaller the density of the demand group> the more centrally located the supply must be, provided that the I demand group is geographically disperse. Applying this concept to cultural offerings in the Baltimore area, it should be revealing to determine whether I the more specialized cultural institutions are located downtown and whether the geographical origins of the visitors of these specialized institutions are

I disperse. In a simplified model, the user population of a cultural facility lives either concentrated in one place or spread out over the city. The more I dispersed the user population is, the more difficult it is for a facility to I offer equal access. Therefore it is forced to find a more central location. I I I I 15 I These theoretical assumptions translate into the following hypothesis: H 1: The larger the impact area, the more central the location of I the cultural institution. In other words, a cultural facility which defines its clientele by I specific, narrow spatial borders would tend to be located within these borders. On the other hand, a cultural facility with a comparitively broad I spatial definition of its clientele would tend to be located downtown. I This same idea can be formulated by u5ing the concept of an "impact I area." An impact area is defined as the smallest geographical area from which the tligtlest proportion of the visitors of an institutian come 5 . The larger I the impact area, the larger the diversity among the people within this area will be. Thus, an institution with a small impact area will cater to a more I homogeneous group of people than an institution with a large impact area. There wil! therefore be a higher correlation between the social composition of I an impact area and the cultural programs offered by an institution with a small impact area than between the social composition of an impact area and I the cultural programs offered by an institution with a large impact area. By

H I, institution with smaller impact areas are located outside of the downtown I area. Thus, the distance from the downtown area should correlate with the I The precise fcIrmulc7tilm af impact area may be defincd differently according to different sitciatilrlns. The percentage required I tc~define an impact area will vary among different studies depending an what is .being studied. Fclr example, a 75% cut-clff will yield larqer impact areas than a 50% cut-off, hctwever these areas may not be g e ~1 g r a p h ic a 11 y s ign i f i c ant . The critical issue is to define a I percentage which will be large enough tcl be significant to the institutian, yet small encugh tcI yield a correct portrait clf the larqe geographical area it represents and not .just sclme geographical element I within it. I I I

16

I homogeneity of the impact areas. A high homogeneity corresponds with a small I impact area, i.e, with a high percentage of visitors from the immediate vicinity. These ideas may be formulated in the following hypothesis:

I H 2: The homogeneity of an impact area increases as the distance from the downtown area increases.

I From the previous hypothesis, a second definition of the word "significance" from an urban context may be derived. The Central Place Theory

I states that institutions with small impact areas have little significance for I the region. However, it is clear that an institution with a small impact area can have a large relative degree of significance with respect to its impact I area. This will be defined as the "relative significance" of a cultirral institution. The relative significance may be quantitated by a simple quotient

I aDaD the number of visitovs from the impact area to the facility divided by the I population of the defined impact area. These assumptions may be expressed as follows: Since by H 1, the more I centrally located the institution, the larger the impact area, and by H 2, the larger the impact area, the less homogeneous the population, one might expect

I a "dilution effect" and therefore that the more centrally located the

institution is, the less relative significance it will have. Logically, I however, this does not follow, because the larger the impact area, the more I visitors the institution is likely to have, and thus, the overall quotient should remain the same, and not decrease.

I H 3: The relative significance of cultural institutions is not a function of their location.

I The three hypotheses are illustrated in Figure 2.1. The impact area I size will be measured by the number of people living in this area. The I I I

18

I From this diagram, one notes that the number of visitors to a cultural I facility decreases with increasing distance from the downtown district. The relative significance of cultural facilities is independent of the location. I Thus, one may conclude, for H 3 to be true, a cultural facility farther away from downtown has to gain a higher proportion of visitors from its smaller I impact area Cmostly the number of visitors from its immediate vicinity:) in order to maintain the same level of relative significance as an institution I located downtown. This can be done with the aid of H 2 since the programs of these cultural facilities are more adjusted ta their mare homogeneous I pap u 1at i on s .

I There are two different problems for cultural institutions within this I framework: one for the downtown c'ultural institutions and the other for the rest of the institutions. Both of these groups wish to maintain if not I increase their significance. I The cul.t;ural institutions not located within the downtown area seek to increase their relative significance since their survival is dependent upon I the local community. They do this by specializing their program 50 that it appeals to higher percentages of their impact areas. I The downtown cultural institutions, in order to take advantage of their I central position, cannot offer a more specialized program which would only appeal to certain groups not homogeneously distributed amongst their impact

I area. This would run against the interests of their central position. For a

less specialized program, or a more popular culture, it is not necessary to I pay the high real estate costs associated with the downtown position. Thus, I these institutions must ever seek to broaden their impact area, thereby I I I

13

I increasing their absolute significance in terms of other cities. Since the I downtown institutions have such large impact areas, they are used by the city to stabilize the hierarchal position of the CBD. The competition between I cities in post-industrial times for new inclining, or prospering, industries has caused the municipal administrations to deploy cultural amenities a5 a I lure in this competition. Cultiire is part of a location policy which is used to attract corporate headquarters and their white-collar employees (Goddard ti I Marshall, 19831. This policy helps to sustain or increase municipal revenues. Thus, the city cultural institutions coexist in a type of symbiosis with the I city wheue the interests of one are generally the interests of the other in a I practical 5en5e. I I I I I I I I I I I I

20 I 2.2. The Export Base Theory I Even as early as 1'307 Sombard defined "centrality" in his book. about capitalism, Der moderne Kapitalismus, by the degree of connection to the I surrounding world (cited by Hewr, 1977). The urban population is d i stingu i shed by I-I i m into "St ad t b i 1der '' ( town-c reat ors l and "S t ad t f ue 11 er I' I (town-fillersl. The former create a settlement economy by exchanging their products with other regions, the latter live in the city by profiting from and I using the surplus of the to~n-~reator~.30 years later, Alexander (1'3561 reformuJated this idea in a Basic-Mon-Basic Concept of Urban Economy. In the

I heyday of the secondary (goads producing :) sector in the economy, the 'hardware' industry was illitstrative of the fundamental idea behind

I Alexander's concept: Goods were produced and @:.:ported to augment the affluence

of the city. The 't~wn-fillers~. worked in the non-basic component of urban

I economyI e.g. the employees in the municipal services and art industry: These I services were assessed as unimportant in terms of increasing urban prosperity. I In the following decades, especially with the dramatic decline of the secondary sector as a major labor market in the 1380s, the categorization of I basic and non-basic changed. With the increasing share of jobs in the tertiary (service) sector in the urban labor market, these jobs have been I increasingly acknowledged as export-oriented and, therefore, 'basic' for the urban economy. The categorization in 'basic' and 'non-basic' also applies to I cultural institutions, as the long list of 'economic impact' studies about this urban service branch has revealed (see, among others, the examples in

I UIG, 1373).

I The cultural institutions in the center city provide the surrounding I region with many cultural services. Residents of the suburbs as well as I I I

21

I visitors from locations farther away use these inner city facilities and I contribute to the business volume of restaurants and hotels, for example. They support not only jobs and wages in cultural institutions, but in a I 'trickle down' effect they support other areas of the economy by providing potential customers for other goods and services. These jobs become even more I valuable as the share of industrial jabs declines. Additionally, careers in the arts are often very specialized ones: employees (e.g. visual artists, I actors or musicians) have difficulty finding other appropriate jobs which use for their %kills WIG, 1'3733. TPIUS, this type of work. made available to the I community by these institutions is often unique and not easily transferable to I other economic sectors.

The "trick.le down"-effect of spending in cultural institutions has been

I analyzed by various economists. They generally use a 'multiplier' for I indicating the economic impact of culture. In a simplified model, the multiplier describes the additional impacts generated by cultural facilities I per one unit (e.g. one dollar:) spent inside these facilities. A multiplier of 1.8 means that an expenditure of 1 dollar generates $1.80 of benefits for the I community. The multiplier concept is central to many 'economic impact studies' . I The multiplier is a function of the number of cycles of spending that an I economic entity, i.e. here the community, can support. In reference to the export base theory, one can say that an extremely import-dependent community

I has a multiplier of perhaps 1.1, Le., a 1OX increase in community revenues

above the initial cultural facility income. An extremely self-sufficient

I community which does not import goods and has no savings (a theoretical I assumption, certainly) has a multiplier of perhaps 3, i.e. a 200% increase in I I I 22

I community revenues. An export-oriented community can increase the value of I the multiplier, if a lot of out-of-town visitors use the cultural facilities in this community. This is the case with Los Angeles which has a relatively I high multiplier (:2. 01 despite its correspondingly mall number of cultural offerings. The multiplier is high because of the high share of tourists who I attend these relatively few events WIG, 197'3).

I The multiplier uses the postulates of the export base theory in the following general equation. This equation creates the local business I multiplier LNM, The concept behind the equalion assumes that the portion of a dollar given by an audience member is spent PiCIlPr in service5 or goods from I the local business, or in services or goods from businesses outside the I community. The local portion is "the "marginal propensity to consume locally" I"IPC. The non-hcal portion spent in non-local businesses i5 everything else, I or C 1-MFC I. 1 LEM = I 1 - MPC (with 0 4; MF'C ct 11 If the OF'C is high (the local economic base is important:), the local I business multiplier is high. If (1-OF'C:) is high, the multiplier will be low since people spend their money elsewhere. To calculate an accurate multiplier I value it is necessary to empirically observe the money flow from the arts institutions, from their employees, and from their audiences, into the urban I bi~iness volume. Impacts on job creations, income increases and purchase I power increases must be into consideration, too.

The most precise analysis of this multiplier for Baltimore , as well as

I other multipliers) was conducted by Cwi t Lyall (1378) in a case study I regarding the economic impact of important Baltimore cultural facilities. Cwi I I I 23 I b Lyall distinguish five "impact cycles" S These cycles are illustrated by I figure 2.2. I Cwi and Lyall suggest applying the multiplier concept to different cities based on the market size of these cities, by using national data. The I Urban Innovation Group €1979) estimates the value of the multiplier effect of expenditure in a local community tQbe between 1.15 and 2.5 for American I cities. To fill in all suggested variables with empirical data exhaustive institution, employee and audience surveys are necessary, Because the method I is so intense, ather less accurate, albeit appropriate, methods to measure the I economic impact using a minimum amount of data have been developed. These I I I I I I I I I I I I 24

I approximation methods make assumptions with respect to the different

multipliers necessary. A study in New York estimates an average multiplier of

I la6 for the large US-American cities CUIG, 1’37’3). I Figure 2.2: Impacts of Cultural Facilities On the Urban Economy I CULTURAL FACILITIES

JORS I N RELATE11 JOBS IN CULTURE I MUNICIPAL SERUICES I PERSONAL\ INCOME I FACILITY VISI TORS EMPLOYEES I EXPENDITURES- EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE I TAXES4-STIMULATION OF LOCAL BUSINESS mm\ STIMULATION OF STIMULATION OF STIMULATION OF I BUSINESS PURCHASES BUSINESS JOBS BUSINESS INCOME I

I ADDITIONAL PURCHASE OF DURABLE GOODS I This value increases or decreases depending on the degree of self- I sufficiency of the observed city. The less a urban population is dependent on other regions to satisfy its needs, the higher is the degree of self- I sufficiency. Accordingly, a report in San Francisco estimates a high

multiplier of 2.2 for San Francisco because of the high self-sufficiency rate

I of 55X for this metropolitan region. I I I I 25

I Analyzing the multiplier effect with respect to the export-base theory, visitors from out-of-town (especially tourists not from the immediate I surrounding region) increase the multiplier effect. Their expenditures are I generally greater since they have additional costs for haitsing, food and transportation. Therefore, the export-factor of the multiplier should be I increased. If a cultural institution receives plenty of out-of-town visitors, it contributes a part to the export-based economy of the community. A high I export-orientation in this sense increases the "marginal propensity to consume locally" (under the presumption that the visitars stay in town after or before I the cultural event). A modification of the general multiplier equation is, therefore the following export-dependent multiplier:

I 1 EDM = 'Cmv pv> (mv pvI= MPC 1- * , with I 10 10

EDfl = ~3xpor t -d ep en d en t mu 1t i p 1i er ; I MPC = marginal propensity to consume {ocally, 0 <: MPC 1; mv = out-of-town visitors multiplier ; pv = porticn of out-of-town visitors in all visitors of cultural institutions, with 0 <: pv < 1; I 10 = normalization factor. This equation assumes that 100 31 of the expenditures of the out-of-town

I visitors will be in the community. "pv" should be multiplied by a ratio "ev"

We. the portion of local expenditures), if the appropriate data exist. I Since mv and pv are directly related to the impact area size, one should I easily be able to verify that institutions with larger impact areas have a greater multiplier effect on their economic home community. Thus, centralized

institutions with large impact areas have by virtue of their location a much

larger effect on the business community than not central located institutions. 26

This study will gather data about the portion of out-of-town visitors.

Under the assumption of a visitor multiplier af 5.0, comparisons between the different jurisdictions af the Baltimore metropolitan area will be possible.

The above formulated argument gives rise to the following hypothei;is that, the larger the impact area, the higher the ratio of the multiplier effect and the number of visitors.

It is intevesting ta browse some empirical data abaut economic impacts of cultural instibbutions in different cities: The UIC-study (13731 lists some of these effects. A 197G-study for New York City mentioned a multiplier of

L6. The Urban Innovation Group d'etermines a 1.38 multiplier for Los Angeles.

The Baltimore Study announces a value of 1.11 Kwi I: Lyall, 1377: 80;

MetroCenter, 1976: 20 and Footnote 5). Seiffeut b Weissert W375:'3) list multipliers for Washington (2.01, Mew York. (2.5:) and Philadelphia (1.8). Other studies refuse to use multipliers since the effects of the different ci!ltural categories are too various 8 . There are now more than 50 economic i mp ac t stir d i es a va i 1ab 1e. I I 27

Using the Export Ease Theory, the question remains as to whether money I spent on cultural institutions will benefit only the local economic community I or whether it will drain to other communities. One argument of proponents for a decentralized community culture is that the local economy will totally I benefit from the expenditures for these facilities. According to adherents of this theory, centralized culture endorses a "geographical raid whereby one I area is just draining the potential benefits of another local economy" (Brimaggi, 1377: San Francisco Civic Arts Fundinq: Who Partj? Who Benefits?, I cited by UIG, 137'3:). The Export Base Theory i5 a good theory to test this I ar g it men t . I 2.3 Social Spaces and the Location of Culture CBourdieu's Theory) I This entirely different approach to explaining the significance of culture in the city is neither a geaqraphical nor an economic approach but a I fundamentally sociological approach. In his book Distinction, the French sociologist Pierre Eourdieu perceives cultural behavior and the spatial I location of culture as symbols for distinguishing the multiple differentiation of society. I He explains the two connotations of culture by using a similar, but not I equivalent, word: taste. Taste is on, the one hand, the "cultivated disposition C.. .I of immediately and intuitively judging aesthetic values". On I the other hand, it is "the capacity to discuss the flavors of food which implies a preference for some of them" CBourdieu, 1984: 991. The former I definition of taste is also valid for the use of the word "culture" in a I normative sense. In this sense culture is being applied to legitimize or to I I I 28

I delegitimize art k.9. music or movies). The second definition of taste is I applicable to cultiire in a broader, anthropological sense. Culture is used in Hourdieu's study in a more precise, albeit less comprehensive sense. This I connotation emphasizes the two perceptions of culture a5 "high" and "popular" or "low". Culture in this sense can explain the distribution of different I cultural institutions over a urban area. Nevertheless, the anthvopological notion of "culture" and the normative application of "cultiiral values" are I overlapping: The sub-culture of a social bracket determines for members the evaluation of a particular art event as high or low culture, as appropriate I for the group ar as foreign.

I The social assessment of art explains why people afford to cover a long distancs for their needs, even if this does not correspond to transportation

I costs or their economies of scale. The necessary effort to cover a high I distance is a part of making a 'special' good even rarer. Rare culture is an object of competition: Most highly legitimate ciiltiwal goods are per 5e not I easily accessible. People who are privileged enough for access have to belong to a 'distinguishable' social group, There are thresholds to hinder other I parts of society to participate, not only the geographical accessibility, but also the necessary educational level to comprehend the cultural information, I and the admission fee. Members of a privileged social group strengthen their I group identity by attending 'their' cultural events. Spatial patterns are a reflection of social patterns. By moving in or

I out neighborhoods with a corresponding cultural image, one moves in or out

social spaces. The move toward and the attending of art events performs in

I public a distinctive life style. I I I I 23

I By analyzing the impact areas of different cultural institutions one can generate statements about the social spaces of the patronage of these I institutions. Boirrdieu summarizes this in the equation I Behavior (practice) is always a function of the concrete environment (field) I of the behavior, the different abilities of the actors (capitals) and his individual experience background (habitus) (Rourdieu, 1984: 101 >. I Rourdieu describes life in society as an interplay of three dimensions I which bound the position of everybody in social space. The ~conc9miccapital restricts access to facilities by the income threshold. The cultural capital I determines the height of the threshold mostly by the level of received education. The social cgpital restricts or facilitates the access to cultural I events by the social origin or class membership. I Social space is generated by these dimensions: They can be corresponding I (such as a senior executive with a high economic, cultural and social position:) or contrasting (such as a secondary teacher with a high cultural but I a low economic position:). There are three main social groups in society (Eourdieu, 1984: 114ff :I: I * The fraction richest in cultural capital invests mostly in social capital (education:) and less in I economic capital. * The fraction richest in economic capital invests mostly in economic investments; however, the "new bourgeoisie" is interested as well in economic as cultural matters.

* ' The fraction richest in socidl capital (highly acknowledged by society> is relatively well endowed in culture capital. This group practices "culture" as a way to keep 'honorability? and 'respectability, as their genuine image. Corresponding to the structure of society is the geographical I 30

I distribution of social groups CIcourdieu, 1984: 1241. The feasibility of I social class member to move to a higher social group depends on their ability to deploy the listed capital forms. They have to deploy these kinds of I capital for consuming assets which are rare in 5ociety. "Rarened' of assets means often a unequal distribution of goods within a geographical area. I Therefore, a social distance is linked to the geographical distance. The geographical distance "depends on the group's spatial distribution, and, more I precisely, its distribution with respect to the 'focal point' of economic and ci\ltural value"

I This study reduces Eourdieu's observed geographical area (a whole

nation) to a metropolitan area.' However, even in this area there is a I reflection of social spaces in locations of cultural facilities. Here too, I one finds 'focal points' a5 symbols for high economic, social and cultural capital, and the promotion of people is symbolized either by .their residences I relatively near to this 'focal points' OX by their frequent visits to their cultural facilities. The here approached 'focal points' are institutions of I the "high culture" compared with institutions of the "popular culture". I I I I I I I I

31 I 3. Rethodology I The analysis of culture in the city of Baltimore is based on data I material provided from the culture institutions of this region. On this (macro-) level it is not possible to gain information about exact I characteristics of the iiser~of these insti%utions. Therefore, this research is located on a macro- not a micro-sociological level. Neverthe 1ess, I statements about individual behaviors are possible in a restricted sense since the institutions have been asked about the gender, age and income structure of I their patron aqe.

I The findings of this report are based on a primary data gathering. In

the last week of January 1389, 'the author Csiipported by the Institute of I Policy Studies at The Johns Hopkins University) mailed questionnaires and I introducing letters to 242 cultural institutions in the region Cthe letters are documented in the appendix). I In the second week after the mailing, a first reminder-letter was sent; I in the third week a second reminder followed; and in the fourth week a telephone call to the non-respondents complete the reminder phase. After I eleven weeks the respond-period was finally completed. 135, Le. 56Y. of the addressed institutions sent the questionnaire back. The different 'feedback I waves' are documented in the following table 1. I I I I I I 32 Table 3.1: Cultural Institutions grouped by Week of Return I Response Week of Week of Week of Week of 5th Week 6th Week 7th Ueek 8th leek 3th Week lOthUeek llthUeek Week ---> Nailing 1st 2nd Phone after after after after after after after Row Reninder !hinder Reaainder Mail ing Hailing Mail ing Hailing Mail ing Hailing Mail ing I Institution Type: 1st 2nd 3rd 4t h 5t h 6t h 7t h 8t h 9th 10th 11th I 6al1 er ies 13 14 6 3 6 3 2 2 1 1 52 #useurns 8 6 3 3 2 1 5 1 1 30

I Cinemas 3 1 4 1 9

I GET for ising art 5 4 4 7 6 5 1 2 1 i 31

flusic venues 2 2 c 4 1 14 I ------Column 25 23 19 21 is 5 a 4 2 2 3 136 I Total 18.4 21.3 14.0 15.4 . 13,2 3.7 513 2.3 1.5 1.5 2.2 loo.(:, I A response rate of 56% or 136 is appropriate enough to allow general statementsabout the cultural facilities. The sample is a real picture of the I distribution of museums, performing arts stages, galleries and music venues in the region. The total percentage of museums in the MSA (Metropolitan I Statistical Area) is 22%, in the sample it is 18%. Performing arts stages are with 23X represented in the sampled papulation (in the sample: 18%.), galleries I with 38X (to 34X in the sample.), and music venues with 11X (in the sample: lZi%>. The only group with a serious bias from reality to sample is the cinema I bracket. In reality this group contributes 20% to the cultural life of the region (measured by amount of institutions.), in the sample 7%. A special

I interpretation of this group is, therefore, not allowed. The weak response

rate is due to aS the dominant organization of cinemas in inter-regional I c ha i n s . These chains with headquarters out of the region are huge I entertainment companies who react very inertly to the request of information. I

33

I Further on, it is due b) to the anxiety of some movie theatre managers to I offer internal data while the cinema structure is in a strong changing process; they don’t have access to the further use of the offered data by the I people who ask for them, and therefore, they refuse to give them. CGiiiliano (1989:) wrote recently an article about the movie theater changes in I Baltimore. >

I Uhich effect have the follow-up on the response-rate? An unk.nown item is the delay between cause (receive of the reminder:) and effect (return of the I questionnaire:). Assuming that this delay is one week. and according to the displayed table, the first reminder had no effect on the response rate asftrr

I one week; the response rate declined from 21 to 13 questionnaires per week.

The second reminder-letter had ‘ an positive effect, and especially the

I telephone call reminder helped obviously to stabilize the response number from I the fourth to the fifth week. In contrary to other response flows (Bailey, 1987: 16411, this response was surprisingly stable over the long period of five I weeks. The response rate per week stayed between 18 and 21 questionnaires for this period, compared to a range from 5 to 30 in other mailing surveys I (Bailey, 1387:). Responsible for this and the relatively long response period of almost three month is besides the intense use of reminder tools the special I striicture of the addressees. llwring the telephone call phase several contributors consented their participation but asked for time; they had the

I questionnaire on their desks but had literally not the time to go through it.

I A further necessary part of this chapter is the explanation of the

sampled population. How were the number of 242 cultural and arts institutions

I be gathered? I I I I 34

I First of all, there has be a definition of "cultural institutions". I They are facilities that offer goods and servims uhich demand a certain Cor different types of.) understanding of the arts. Urban cultural institutions in I this survey have additionally the condition to offer their goods and services to the public of the metropolitan area. In this definition one can subsume I non- and for-prafit galleries, museums (and, partly, other exhibition places:), performing arts stages (from comedy clubs to the opera), and the (mostly as I places for popular culture laboledl facilities movie theatre and music venue I Cwhich includes open air concert facilities, too:). This scope does not include facilities that have mainly or purely a I entertainment function witl-lou% an arts background in the mentioned connotation

(such as discotheques:), or facilities that exhibit mainly or purely scientific

I contains (such as, e.g, the Maryland Science Center or the Goodard Space I Center), Naturally, some decisions of in- or excluding facilities can be criticized. It is not easy to evaluate e.g. the cultural aspects against the I scientific aspects of some museums or the necessary proportion of life music in a music venue to add it to the cultural facilities. Therefore, the I selection shall not be understood as a dogmatic one, although it is a quite good reflection of the cultural life in and around Baltimore (a list of the I institirkions is in the appendix:).

The sources for the 242 institutions are I - the "BaXtimore City Paper", published weekly by the Scranton Times. For the selection the listing of cultirral facilities (especially music clubs and concert sites, play ~OCIS~Sand comedy clubs, galleries I and museums:) in the week from September 30 to October

' 6, 1388 were analyzed Nol. 12, No. 40:).

I The "Maryland LifP section of the Friday edition of the Baltimore Sun, published weekly by the Baltimore I Sun. Especially the listing and the advertisements of the movie theatres were analyzed (October 7 and I October 14, 1388). I I I 35

I The "Baltimre Scene Magazine", published quarterly by Intramedia Network Coup. Baltimore. This is primarily a tourist guide supported by the Greater Baltimore Convention and Visitors Association. It was used for I information about cultural tourist attractions like miwmrts or some facilities at the Inner t-larbor of Baltimore (two editions were examined: July - Sept., I 1988, and Oct. - DEC., 13138>. The Baltimore "Ydlou Page5" of the C ti P (Atlantic Hell :) Telephone Company with the sections "Community In terest S tto w c a se 'I , 'I Pop 111 ar Des t i n ati on Pa i n *kc, an d I "Theatres" fedition Nov, , 2987 - October, 1388:).

I Furthermore to mention are information and PH-material from various institutions SUC~I as the Society fou the Preservation of Federal Hill and I Fell's Point, the Charles Street Management Corporation or the (Art:) School 33 which provided the study with an immense amount of information abaut galleries

I in Baltimore (by the organization of the First Annual open Studio Toiw3.

I After completed the list of addressees, the next step wa5 the I construction of the questionnaire. It can be seen divided into three parts. The first part compiles questions about the internal structure of the I institutians such as size, number of visitors, age of the facility, and op en i n g hair r s . Mo5t of these questions examine the importance (in I quantitative units:) of the facility. Some questions about visitor traits such as their gender, age and income complete this part. The second part of the I questionnaire asks for information about the spatial origins of the patronage, Le. the places where visitors live and crr,ually come from to attend the I cirltirral event. This information can be broken down by counties and, if given, even by neighborhoods Cin the city) or ZIP-code-aueas Cin the

counties:). The third part of the questionnaire examines some aspects of the kind of impact institutions have or try to have on certain groups of the population. This part contains questions about advertisement areas and intensity, the main target group, minority engagements, and "special days" to 1 36

I attract e.g. new clientele. llciring the questionnaire construction it became

evident that the variety of the chosen cultural institutions forced to send

I three slightly different questionnaires with slightly different questions. To I ask. for the number of public rooms has for museums a completely other moaning then far movie theatres. This qwestion and some others had, therefore, to be I ad jwsted (see questionnaires for "exhibition places" (museums and galleries:), "performing arts stages" (theatres and music venues:) and "movie theatres" in I the append i:.: 1.

I This report can and will not illiistrate all possible findings out of the matri:.: of 33 original variables Le. gained facts:) and 135 interviewed I institutions. The major part will be focussed on the description af the I constructs "significance" and "imp.act area sire" and their relationships. I The reliability of answers cannot be tested entirely since there are no extern data comparable to the survey data available. Especially the indirect I survey of characteristics of the visitors should be compared to a direct survey, i.e. a direct interview with visitors Ce,g. by audience surveys or I representative telephone surveysL Statements about the patronage structure in this study are, as mentioned, only possible in an indirect way: the I institutions report their estimations in the questionnaire. It is therefore essential to know whether these estimations are based on reliable facts or I piire and whether an eventual guesswork has a high degree of reliability, too. This is measurable: one question asked for the existence of

I audience records in the institution; hence, some answers of non-record- I institutions shall be compared to answers of record-holding organizations. I I I I 37

I 37 institutions (71.8Y.1 have no records about their patronage, 38 f28.2X) have these files. It is now assumed that in regard to the variables I "Share of Senior Visitors", "Share of Affluent Visitors", "Share of Visitors I from the Immediate Vicinity" there are no differences in the answers of record-holding to nun-record-owning ins%itutions. A first look on the I corresponding cross-tabulations Ccolumn percentages1 discloses that more neighbors attend institutions without record-holding, slightly more seniors I come to facilities with files about visitors, and slightly more affluent I people visit record-holding institutions (cf. Table 3.2:). Table 3.2: Shares of Some Visitor Characteristics Broken Down by Record-Holding of the Answering Institutions

I Visitors: NEIGHBORS SENIORS AFFLUENT Count No 3Records No 3Records No 3Rec ord cs Records 3 Rec'ards 3 Records 3 Col Pct 1.003 2.00 1.003 2.00 1.003 2.00 I 3 3 3 33 3 20 65 3 22 42 3 13 0 to 20% 3 3 3 I 43.4 3 60.6 77.4 3 68.8 61.8 3 52.0 3 --3 .a 3 13 3 13 17 3 7 18 3 '3 21 to 40% 3 3 3 I 13.0 3 24.2 20.2 3 21.3 2G.5 3 36.0 3 3 3 11 3 3 23 3 83 1 41 to 60% 3 3 3 I 13.9 3 3.1 2.4 3 3.4 11.8 3 4.0 3 3 3 10 3 2 3 3 2 I 61 to 80% 3 3 3 12.7 3 6.1 3 3 8.0 3 3 3 43 3 3 I 81 to 100% 3 3 3 5.1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Co 1umn 73 3 33 84 3 32 68 3 25 Total 70.5 3 23.5 72.4 3 27.6 73.1 3 26.3

Are these differences artifacts of the different sample qualities or

real differences in the sampled population? A t-test can answer this by I 38

I analyzing whether dif ferencer; of means between the groups "recard"/"non- recordl'are accidentally in the sample or real. The t-value is based on the I 2 means b[:)pthe number of observations W:) and the variances CS :) of the two I groups (1,2>: I

The higher thc; t-value, the surer the statement that the two sample I groups are indeed belonging to two different populations "in reality". A t- I value of 1.0 is a convenient mark far the interpretation. Additional, the prob-value exhibits the probability of an accidentally t-value, even if there I is no difference between group means in the sampled population (t should be 0, then:). The analyzed variables have the following t-values and Cerror:) I probabilities:

Table 2,3: t-values and probabilities of wrong t-values and their I interpretation for the null hypothesis I Var iab 1e t-value prob. n 111 1 t-1 y p o t hes i s

Neighbors Share 2.03 8 05% rejected

Seniors Stlare 2.22 8 03% rejected I Affluence Share 1.27 .41% rejected (:with a 41% error-prob. > I This confirms that the difference of the group means for the share of neighbor visitors (32% by "non-record-facilities"/ 22% by "record- I facilities":), for the share of senior visitors (12W 20%:), and for the share of afflitent visitors Cl3%/ 25Y.j are expressions of indeed real differences in I the sampled population and not an artificial result of the record-quality in the sample. I I I I I 33 I Therefore, the quality of answers should not cause doubt due to the non-existence af written records. In each case, the answers came from

I experienced staff members, either directors or specialized persons in the I greater institutions. They received their experiences over years. Further more, it can be assumed that addressed persons who have doubts about their I ability to answer questions either skipped them or refused to return the quest ionnaire. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 I 4. Results

I The results are broken down into three parts; each part represents a I different approach to examine different impacts of culture on the metropolitan area of Baltimore. The first approach is an institutional approach. As I described in the preceding parts, the ciiltirral institukions are divided into galleries, museums, performing art stages, music venues, and cinemas. These I groups will be examined with respect to a3 their dhsc7,lut~significance Le, their number of visitors per year, their average number of visitors per opening hour, and their capacity to I accommodate a certain amount of people>, b> their ii))pdct arm 512~sLe.p the areas they serve with ciiltiwq and the nurnbw of people living in the analyzed impact area:), and c> their rplativr significanc~timem9 the number of visitors in relation I to the number of people living in the impact area:). Another word for this will be "degree of impact". I The second approach uses spatial differentiations. It is based on a I differentiation into urban and rural areas. Institutions within the strongly urbanized areas around Baltimore and in the principal cities Columbia and I Annapolis will be compared with the institutions in the more rural areas siich as parts of Warford County, Carroll County and even Baltimore County or Howard I Colin ty. The search will be concentrated on differences in absolute significance, impact area size, and relative significance between urban and I rural areas.

I The third approach is based on a spatial differentiation of the closer Baltimore area into dc?w)~tcwn, outer city and suburbs. In contrary to the

I second approach, this part will only focus on institutions in Baltimore (:from

downtown to the Beltway:). The indicators listed for the first approach

I Cabsolute significance, impact area size and relative significance) will be I used again to examine differences amongst the institutions in the city zones. 41 4.1 The Institutional Approach

The survey contains 136 cultiiral facilities, divided into 52 galleries, 30 museums, 31 performing art stage5, 14 music venues. The distribution of these institution groups over the city and the surrownding five counties is displayed in Table 4m1mm

Table 4.1- : Crosstabulation of the Counties of Location' CCOUNTY :) By The Arts 1n s t i t ut i on s C I WGROUP Count 3 Exp Val Xaller- 3Mus~ums3Per form-3llusic 3 I!lG?OUP->- Rtjw Pct 3 ies :3 3ing Asts3Venues 3 Row

Col Pct 3 3 4 3 3 Total~~ COUNTY: 3 223 203 183 33 75 City laltir~lclre 3 30.7 3 17.7 3 18.3 3 8.3 3 59.13: 3 37.32 3 26.72 3 24.0:'. 3 12.02 3 3 53.8% 3 wz3 sa.i%3 44.3~3

~ ~- 3 a3 43 73 23 21 County Ealtirnore 3 806 3 5.0 3 5.1 3 2.3 3 36.5% 3 33.11 3 13.0% 3 33.33: 3 3.5% 3 3 15.4X 3 13.X 3 22.62 3 14.31 3 3 23 03 13 02 3 Har ford County 3 1.2 3 .7 3 a7 3 03 3 2.4% 3 66.7'1. 3 0.0% 3 33.3% 3 0.0% 3 3 3.81 3 0.0% 3 3.2% 3 o.0~3

3 73 33 13 23 13 Arundel County 3 5.3 3 3.1 3 3.2 3 1.4 3 10.2X 3 53.8% 3 23.11 3 7.72 3 15.41! 3 3 13.5% 3 10.0% 3 3.2% 3 14.3X 3

3 73 03 43 13 12 Hovar d County 3 4.3 3 2.9 3 2.3 3 1.3 3 3.42 3 58.32 3 0.0% 3 33.32 3 8.31 3 3 13,X 3 0.02 3 12.31 3 7.1X 3

3 03 33 03 03 3 Carroll County 3 1.2 3 .7 3 ,7 3 .3 3 2.4% 3 9.0% 3 100.02 3 0.0% 3 0.01 3 3 0.0% 3 10.02 3 0.N 3 O*O% 3

(Chi-square = 19.3, Sign. = 19.31470, Number of Hissing Observations = 9) I 42 I Cinemas are, as mentioned before, not taken into consideration9 . Mast I of the facilities are located in Baltimore City. But are these institutions more significant fov the region than the institutians in the calm-ties? I Furthermore, which kind of institutions is more important than the others? To answer these questions, the above mentioned indicators were deployed: The I number of visitors per year, the number of visitors per opening hour, and the capacity to accommodate a particular number of persons. There are three I different indicators far the absolute significance because they measure I different sub-dimensions of absolute significance. The number of visitors per year is an indicator for the cantinwinq I offering of cwl%ure. It is canstruc%ed from the average number of visitors I per week and the annual amount of "weeks open to the public. I The average number of visitors in each opening hoirr is an indicator for the density of visitors in an institution. Cultural events like open air I festivals or summer concerts happen rc;la.tively seldom, but they can attract ten thousands of people for a few hoirrs. This indicator i5 constructed of the I number of visitors per year divided by the opening hours per year.

I The capacity indicator displays more a physical significance. The physical size of an institution is reflected by the amount of people it can I accommodate at once.

I These three indicators for absolute significance will be discussed I first. I I I I 43

I 4AA The Absolute Significance of the Institutions I Table 4.2 compares the main indicators for absolute significance first for all I institutions, and then broken clown for each institution type. Table 4.2: Visitors per Year (VISITORS:), Visitors per Opening Hour (:VIHOURS> and People Capacity (CAPA:) for all institutions, galleries, I museums, performing arts staqes and music venues. (All Inst itutionsl I Nudtber of Val id Observations = 135.00 Variable flean Std Dev CGPA 543.25 1056.11 I VISITORS 55'393.22 123120.43 VIHOURS 58.78 145.83

I 55.00

Variable Mean Std Dev CGPA 137.75 129.62 I VISITORS 15315.33 40338.43 VIHOURS 6.43 10.73 I (A1 1 fluseums) Number of Val id Obwrvat ions = 30.00

I Variable !pan Std Dev CGPA 440.23 735.17 VISITORS 95171.07 174636.37 I VIHOURS 33.05 57.33 (All Performinq Arts Staqes) I Number oi Val id Observations = 31 ,oo 'Jari ab 1 e Hean ftd Dev CAPA 728.77 781.3 VISITORS 1077SS.67 163555.36 I VIHOUES 141.37 136.49 (All flusic Venues) I Number of Val id Observations = 14.00 Variable lean Std Dev CAPA 1600.00 2542.18 VISITORS 12343.33 7231.134 I VIHOURS 147.17 309.53 I I I I I 44 The performing arts stages have the mast visitors during one year, wi-tl-l

the Meyerhof f Symphony Hall on the top (over 700,000 vicsitors), closely I followed by the museums (the historic site Fort McMenry counts over 700,000 I visitordyear I. Compared to these institutions, the galleries and the music venues have only small amounts of visitors. The Albin 0. I(irisn Gallery I announces an extremely high number of 270,000 visitors per year. However, a lot of visitors are in this gallery (that belongs to the University of I Maryland Baltimore County> for using the included library. More realistic are the following gallery numbers: The Gormley Gallery in Baltimore has about I 41,000 visitors and the Columbia Association for the Arts 36,000 visitors per year. The higl-lest number of visitors for the music clubs has "Ma:Ps on

I Rrsadway" with 26,000 visitors per year. (It has to be mentioned that one of the major life music venues in Baltimore, "Hammerjacks", did not participate

I in the survey. This "mega club" in South Baltimore attracts between 500 I (weekdays:) and 3,000 (weekends) young people each open evening (see Yockel, 1989:). 1 I Necai!se of the time restrictions of their kind of culture, the I performing arts facilities have a higher number of visitors per opening hour than the visual arts facilities. On the top of their category are the Lyric I Opera and the Recital Hall of the Esse): Community College with more than 1000 I resp. 600 visitors per opening hour. The physical largest cultural facilities in the metropolitan area are

I the Baltimore Festival Hall (with a capacity of approximately 4000 people:),

the Merriweather Post Pavilion in Columbia (an open air amphitheater for more

I than 6000 people), and the Pier Six Pavilion at the Inner Harbor (a huge tent I for approximately 3000 people). The largest gallery in the area is the I I I 45

I Maryland Art Place which is able to accommodate about 500 people. In %he I average, the museums do not reach the performing arts capacities; however, they have the highest number of rooms. Fort flc Henry and the Baltimore Museum I of Aut have a disposal. af more than 60 rooms each. In the countryside, the Carroll County Farm Prirsr;irm with about 30 public accesible rooms is thu largest I mus e itm

I It does not surprise that the correlation for the number of visitors/ year and the nirmber of visitors/ opening hours is high (r = .52:), since both I are developed by the same data base. More interesting is the high correlation between visitors/ opening hour and the capacity (r = .81L Facilities like I the flerriweather Post Pavilion or the Slimmer Theatre in the Annapolis Llowns

Park need a large size to accommd'date a high number of people for the short I periods in the year they can offer performances. I An exact picture of the relations between the number of visi*l;ors and the I here irsed types of cultiiral institutions show5 Table 4.3.

I Comparing the column percentages in the cells with the row total percentages on the right side, the galleries have a very small visitor I average; more than 30% of all galleries have below 3000 visitors/ year (compared to an average of 16X for all institutions:). The opposite show the I performing art facilities: Over 40% of them count more than 25,000 visitors per year. The museums have a fairly equal distribution of visitor numbers

I over all here examined museums. I I I I I

46 I Table 4.3: Crosstabulation of the number of visitors (VISITORS:) and the Cultural Insti*t;utions CINGHOUF) I Count 36aller- 3Huseuns 3Fer form-3Music 3Cinemas 3 ItJijROUP-> Col 2ct 3 le5 3 3ing Arts3 Venues 3 3 EOid 9 9 3 ‘I 3 3 Total VIS I TORS: I 3 143 33 13 13 13 20 1 til 3000 people 3 31.1 3 10.7 3 3,i 3 3.3 3 11.1 3 16.5

8 3 143 33 33 23 23 24 I 3001 to 7500 p. 3 31.1 3 10.7 3 11.1 3 16.7 3 22.2 3 13.8

3 63 43 23 43 23 18 I 7501 til 13000 p. 3 13.3 3 14.3 3 7.4 3 33.3 3 22.2 3 14.9 3 33 73 43 43 3 13 I 13001 to 23000 p.3 6.7 3 25.0 3 14.8 3 33.3 3 3 14.3 3 73 53 63 13 23 21 23001 to 75000 p.3 15.6 3 !7.3 3 22.2 3 9.3 3 22.2 3 17,4

I 3 13 63 113 3 23 20 actre than 75000 3 2.2 3 21.4 3 60.7 3 3 22.2 3 16.5

?@ I Ccrl uan 45 LU 27 12 9 121 Total 37.2 23.1 22.3 3.3 7.4 100.0 I Number of Missing Observation5 = 15 The following tablc. 4.4 shows that almost half of all observed

I institutions have about 20 to 40 visitors per opening how. The rang of the

galleries is the lowest: 53% of the galleries have only 1 to 20 visitors in I each of their opening hours 10 The performing arts facilities are above I average; 10% of these institutions accustom more than 500 visitors per opening hours, compared to only 3% of all facilities of the survey. I I I I 47

I Table 4.4: Crosstabulation of Visitors Per Hour (UIHOURS:) and Cultural Institutions (INGROUP> I Count 36al ler- 3Fluseuss 3Perfor~-3!usic 3Cinewas 3 INST.---> Cljl Pl:t 3 ips 3 3ing Arts3 Venues 3 3 Row 3 3 3 3 3 Total v I HOURS: I 3 243 43 3 3 23 30 3 22.2 2d 25.0 1 to 20 Vis. :3 53.3 3 14.3 3 3 3 203 153 103 73 43 56 I 21 to 40 Vis. 3 44.4 3 53.6 3 38.5 3 58.3 3 44.4 3 46.7 3 13 43 63 33 33 17 I 41 to a0 Vis. 3 2.2 3 14.3 3 23.1 3 25.0 3 33.3 3 14.2 3 3 53 63 3 3 11 I 81 to 250 Vis. 3 3 1?.9 3 23.1 3 3 3 3.2 J 3 3 13 13 32 251 to 500 Vis. 3 3 3 3.8 3 8.3 3 3 1.7 I 3 3 3 33 13 34 mwE than 550 Vis. 3 3 3 11.5 3 8.3 3 3 3.3 Col tlsn 45 28 26 12 3 120 I Total 37.5 23.3 21.7 10.0 7.5 100.0 Number of Hissing Observat ion5 = 16 I

I The capacity variable is, as mentioned, a reflection of the visitor/ opening hour variable. Especially music venues need the high capacity; 28X of

I them have place for more than 1000 persons.

I But most of the facilities (one third:) are able to offer space for 100 I to 300 people (:see table 4.51. I I I I I I 48 I Table 4.5: Crosstabulation of the Capacity of the Institutions (GCAF'A:) By the Institutions (INGROUP1 I hunt 3iial ler ie3#useums 3Per forai3Music Ve3Cinemas 3 INGROUP-> Col Pct 3s 3 3ng Art; 3nu~s 3 3 Rl?d 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total GCAPA I 3 173 33 13 3 3 27 1 to 50 PFOPlF? 3 33.3 3 3?.0 3 3.2 3 3 3 20.0

3 163 23 3 23 23 22 I 51 to 100 people 3 31.4 3 6.7 3 3 14.3 3 22.2 3 16.3

3 143 103 103 63 3 40 I 101 to 333 p~0ple3 27.5 3 33.3 3 32.3 3 42.3 3 3 29.6 3 43 53 93 I3 23 21 I 334 to €66 p~ciple3 7.8 3 16.7 3 23.0 3 7.1 3 22.2 3 15.6 3 3 23 93 13 13 8 667 - 10(',0 people3 3 5.7 3 12.3 3 7.1 3 11.1 3 5.3

I 3 3 23 73 43 43 17 more than 1000 p.3 3 6.7 3 22.6 3 28.6 3 44.4 3 12.6

Col uain 51 30 31 14 9 135 I T~tal 37.3 22.2 23.0 10.4 6.7 100.0

The two groups of performing arts facilities can accommodate more people than the visual arts facilities and, therefore, attract more people per

open i n g hour.

I However, the two types of visual arts institutions provide a cultural service over long time periods continuously and can by that, looking on the I museums, accomplish the same number of visitors per year like the performing I arts stages. I I I I

43

I 4A2 The Impact Area Size of the Institutions I Impact area size can be measured in a spatial or in a demographic way. I Both definitions will be used here. The spatial definition of impact area size is constructed by a model consisting of different concentric zones I C”1evelf; of impact area size”:) around the facility. The mare concentric zones a facility needs ta reach SOX of their patronage, ttls larger i5 the impact I area, the higher is the level value (:between 1 and 5) Csee figure 4alI” I Figure 4=1: Impact Area Sizes from Level 1 to Level 2 I

I \ I I Highest Visitor Flow I I \ ’/ Out -Of -St ate I (=AREA 5)

I - The level 1 is the smallest spatial size of an impact area. It consists solely of the immediate neighborhood the facility is located in. If 50% or I more of a facility’s visitors come from this area it receives the level value I la Level 2 consists of the level 1 and the surrounding county Cor city, in I I I 50

I the case of Baltimore>. Level 3 consists of the level 2 area and the rest of I Maryland. Level 5 consists of the level 4 and the regions beyond the state of Maryland, i. e. the Maryland surrounding Atlantic 5tates. I . 38X of all institutions name their county as their impact area. 20% I name their immediate vicinity a5 their area of influence and 16% and a further neighbor county to their own county as impact area. I Table 4,d shows the art institutions broken dawn by their averages I impact arm sizes. Galleries have mostly an impact area smaller than a county. For performing arts 52;ages and music venites, it is more than their

I awn county, and for miwmmsi (including historical sided it is often the whole

state of Maryland. An impact area 'even beyond the own state have the Baltimore

I Maritime Museum, the Top Of The World Exhibition Floor, the Public Works I Museurn at the Inner Harbor, the Robert Long Mouse and the Babe Ruth Birthplace Museum in the remaining EWtimore and the U.S. Naval Museiun in Annapolis. I Many of these institutions are visited by tourists what has an important influence on the size of the impact areas. Tourism and culture are often not I easy to distinguish. I I I I I I I 51

Table 4.6: Crosstabulation of the Types of Institutions CIMGROUT-':) By the Impact Arm Size Level CIMCIRC:)

Count 3 Exp Val 31 = 31+Cuunty32+Neigh133+nary- 34tOut 3 IHCIECO). Row Prt 3'Yil:inity3 31~0, 3 land 3 State 3 Row Col Pct 3 q q 3 r) 3 Total I N680UP 3 133 133 63 63 03 38 Gal 1er ies 3 8,!? 3 17.9 3 a,(! 3 3.6 3 1.1 3 36,2x 3 34.3 3 50.0% 3 15.6% 3 0.0% 3 9.62 3 3 59.1% 3 33,6%3 27.32 3 0,OX 3 0.01 3 E 3 13 93 53 83 33 26 !useuutils 3 5.4 3 11.3 3 5.4 3 2.5 3 .7 3 24.82 3 3.91 3 34.62 3 19.23: 3 aar, 3 1i.x 3 3 4.5% 3 19.8X 3 22.7% 3 8010% 3 100.0% 3 E 3 53 153 73 23 03 23 Feriorainq Arts 3 6.1 3 13,3 3 6.1 3 2.8 3 .8 3 27,EX 3 17.2% 3 512! 3 24.14 3 6.3% 3 0.M 3 3 22.72 3 31.3% 3 31.8% 3 20.01 3 0.0% 3 E 3 33 53 $3 03 03 12

flusic Venues 3 2.5 3 5.5 3 1. 2.5 3 1.1 3 .3 3 11.4% 3 25.0% 3 41.7% 3 33.32 3 0.01 3 0.0% 3 3 13,62 3 10.42 3 18.22 3 0.02 3 0.0% 3 E Coluatn 22 48 22 10 3 105 Total 21.07: 45.7% 21.0% 3,52 2.3% 100.0X

Another way to estimate impact areas is the demographical one, Le. the

calculation of the number of people living in the defined impact area. The

census tract 1980 provides data for ZIP-code-areas in Maryland and considers

even the borders between the jwrisdictions (Regional Planning Council, 1383:

Census '80, ZIP Code Data; and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,

1386: Statistical Abstract of the United States:). I The number of residents living in an impact area is equal the sum of the I population of all ZIP-code-areas in this impact area. Derived from this I I I 52

I indicator, the smallest population of an impact area has a gallery, the I Baltimore Clayworks in flaunt Washington C10,500 residents), and the largest impact populations claim the above mentioned museums with an estimated 22. G I mio papulation. The impact population average of all instit~\tions is 1.3 million people. The high standard deviation of 3.9 million is explainable by I the different institutians, again. As a mean, museum reach approximately 4.5 mio. people, performing arts facilities and music venues aboiri; 600,000 people I and galleries 170,000 people. Table 4.7 confirms the dominant position of the museums: Over SOY. reach a population above 760,000 people, compared to about

I 20% far *the performinq arts facilities, 1631 for the music VE?~M~S,and 10% for the galleries. The high chi-square (43.51:) is an indica-tor for the high

I capability of the impact area population to show differences between the types I of cultural facilities. Table 4.7: Crasstabulation of INGAOUF' (Institwtions, Grouped I I By GPEOF'LE CImpact Area F'opulation, Grouped) Exp Val S10,00@-5350,000- 13100,OOO-3 150009-73: 7600003 GPEOPLE-> Acsw Pc t 3,000 300,OCtO 3150,006 366040 3 3 klU Col Pct 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total I 1NI;RUUP: 3 73 163 92 23 43 36 Gal 1FI- ies 3 5.1 3 3.3 3 6.5 3 4.3 3 13.8 3 3S.X 3 18.4% 3 42.1% 3 23.7; 3 5.3X 3 10.5% 3 I 3 56.0% 3 6'3.63; 3 50.0% 3 16.7% 3 10.5% 3 E 3 13 03 13 43 203 26 I Muse 11m s 3 3.5 3 5.7 3 4.5 3 3.0 3 3.4 3 xa:! 3 3.82 3 o.ox 3 3.31 3 64%3 7s.x 3 3 7,11 3 0.0% 3 5.6% 3 33.32 3 52.61 3 E I 3 43 63 73 43 a3 29 Performing Arts 3 3.3 3 6,4 3 5.0 3 3.3 3 10.5 3 27.62 3 13,82 3 20.7% 3 ?4.1Z 3 13.8% 3 27.62 3 3 28.61 3 26.13; 3 38.91 3 33,32 3 21.1% 3 I E 3 23 13 13 23 63 12 Husic Venues 3 la6 3 2.6 3 2.1 3 1.4 3 4.3 3 11.4% 3 16.7% 3 3.3% 3 8.3% 3 16.7% 3 50.01 3 I 3 14.32 3 4.32 3 5.6Z 3 16,X 3 15.8% 3 t Col ufin 14 23 18 12 38 105 I Total 133 21.31 17.1% 11.41 36.2% 1GO.OZ I I I 53 I 4.1.3 The Relative Significance Of The Institutions I I The relative significance of an institution is an indicator for the degree of impact on the population living in the impact area of this I inst itiit ion. This indicator will be abbreviated as Icljeff. ?:,,ff is constructed of the number of visitors per Year U, the population of the impact I area P, and the actual percentage of the patronage from the impact area p.

I" v*p with p Icopff -' >. 50% I N I In the si~rvey, I,oeffhas a range from 0.0001 (the lowest impact degree has the Robert Long tlouse:) to over 3.0 Cthe Dunbar Performing Arts Center in I Washington Hill >'! F'erforming arts institutions have the higtlest impact on their impact areas (average Icifeff = 0.45>, followed by the galleries with 0.22 I Cthe maximum impact have the above mentioned Baltimore Clayworks and the Cardinal Gallery in the Maryland Hall for Creative Arts in Annapolis, with I about 1.6 each:). A relatively small significance have music values (average

Ic1,ef f = 0.10; ma:.:imum impact = 34, by the "Firehouse Tavern" in F'arkville, a I suburb of Baltimore:) and miwwms (average ICoeff= 0.05; maximum impact by the Walters Art Gallery with 0.522:). Table 4.8 displays the relations between

I impact degree and institution. I I I I I I 54

Table 4.8: Crosstabulation of INGROUP CInstitutions, Grouped$ By GIMCOEFF (Uisitor/Population Ratio = IcDpff:)

Count :3 Esp Val 3( 0.01 30.01- 30.02- 30.08- 3;. O.26 3 rj I flCOEF F - > Row PI: t :3 3 0.02 3 0.Oi3 3 0.26 3 3 813w Cill Pct 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total I HGROU?: 3 53 83 103 93 43 36 Gal leu ies 3 8.2 3 7.1 3 7.4 3 6.7 3 6.7 3 37.1% 3 13.3% 3 22.21 3 27.82 3 25.01 3 11.1% 3 3 22.7% 3 42.1% 3 59.0% 3 5o.ox 3 22.2%3 r 3 123 73 13 33 23 2s Museums 3 5.7 3 4.3 3 5.2 3 4.6 3 4.6 3 25.5% 3 48,OX 3 28.02 3 4.0% 3 12.0% 3 8.?1 3 3 %,X! 3 36.84 3 5.0% 3 16.7% 3 11.1% 3 E 3 13 43 53 53 103 25 Pwforming Arts 3 5.7 3 4.3 3 5.2 3 4.6 3 4.6 3 25.8% 3 4.0% 3 16.0% 3 2010~3 20.02 3 4o.ox 3 3 3.5: 3 21.1;! 3 25.01 3 27.8% 3 55.62 3 E 3 43 03 43 13 23 11 flusic VEnues 3 2.5 3 2.2 3 . 2.3 3 2.9 3 2.0 3 11.3% 3 36.42 3 0.0% 3 36.42 3 3.1% 3 18.22 3 I 3 li3.22 3 0.M 3 20.0% 3 5.6% 3 11.1X 3 E Go1 uam 22 19 20 18 18 37 I Total '22.72 13.6% 29.6% 13.61 13.62 100,OZ Nu~iher rJf lissing Observations = 33 I The crosstabulation of table 4.8 has a chi-square of 32.7 with a I significance of 0.001. That means that the institution assignment in the used groups (galleries to music venues:) is good for explaining the variety of I impact degrees. Galleries are widely spread over the five Iil:leff-groups. On the contrary, the museums are concentrated in the lowest I,,,f -class cinder

0.01 with a slight maximum density in the impact degrees between 0.02 and

0.26. The performing arts facilities are concentrated in the highest Ii:i~eff-

class over 0.26. flusic venues are more spread over the five Icoeff-clas~es. I I

I I

rtJJ

I 4.2. The Urban Versus Rural Approach I I In his book. CJvban Social Geuqraphy Kno:.: (:I9871 intuoduces the notion "territorial justice" for the correspondence of population needs and the I distribution of services. Under this frame of rti?ference, it is interesting to compare the distribution of' cultural facilities in the Baltimore region. The I metropolitan area is distinguihed into more urban and into more riwal terrain I with a low density of cultiwal insti*t;uticrn~in the rural regions. The differentiation in urban and rural parts is conduc-ted with the

I support uf the Annual Seminar Map (Land Development Consultants Daft, McCune & Walk.er, 19E18:). They divide the "nretropolitan area into three major types of I land use: urban residential, urban industrial and rural. Applied to a ZIP- I code-map, prepared by the Regional Planning Council (1'383:), one can display distinct urban areas in and around Baltimore as well as in the two principal I cities Columbia KW-codes 21044 to 21046) and Annapolis (ZIP-codes 21401 to 21403:). The i!IF:'-.cude-areas are assigned to the urban or the rural area as I shown in map 4.1. I I I I I I I I 56

I Hap 4.1: ZIP-Coder; In The MSA Baltimore, Urban Areas In The Ealtimore- Beltway-Region And In Columbia/ Annapolis Are Marked In Grey I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 57

I There are 117 cultural institutions in urban areas and 17 in rural

areas’? The distribution of these institutions over the urban and the rural

I areas is displayed in table 4.3.

I Table 4.9: Crosstabulation of URIE{AM (Urban/Riiral Areas:) By XblGROUF‘ Ins%itwtion Typed

Count 3 I Exp Val 36alIEr- 3Museues 3Fer form-3Music 3 INGROUP-> Row Pct 3 ies 3 3ing Arts3Venues 3 Htiw Col Pct 3 0 3 0 3 Total URBAN I 3 45 3 27 3 27 3 12 3 111 urban area 3 45.4 3 26.2 3 27.1 3 12.2 3 87.42 5 4O.5? 3 24.32 3 2413%3 l

CoI umn 52 36 31 14 127 I Total 46,’34 23,52 24.42 11.01 1OO.OX I I

There i5 no difference in the type of cultural institution with respect

I to their locations in urban or rural areas. The proportions of galleries,

museums, performing arts 5taqe5, and music veniim in the urban as well as in

I the rural areas are almost the same. I I I I I I I 58

I 4.2A The Absolute Significance of Rural and Urban Institutions I What i5 the absolute significance of rural cultural facilities compared I to their counterparts in the cities? The following table 4.10 shows differences of urban and rural areas by using the main indicators for absolute I significance. Table 4,lO: Visitors/ Year, Visitors/ Opening Hour and Capacity Broken Down By I Urban Versus Rural Location Of Cultural Facilities weans Vi ./HCW Vi./Year People Capacity I Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Gal 1er ies 6.2 '3.1 16,200 14,006 140 120 Museums 41.1 12.6 100,400 27,000 467 135 Perf. Arts 152.4 80.5 193,600 37,000 735 2% I Music Ven. 29.9 733.3 12,206 16,600 1117 4500

The galleries show neittw i'n 'the total number of visitors per year nor

I in the visitors per opening hour nor in the capacity a distinct difference

between rural and urban parts. This is not the ca5e with the museums: For all I three indicators the wban museums are far more important than the rural I museums. The same is true far the performing arts stages but not for the rniisic venues. Due to the need of the open air music venues for space they are I often 1ucatc;d in the countryside, Corresponding to this, the time for cultural events in the rural areas seems to be restricted: The urban mi~iic I venues have an average of 730 opening hours per year, the rural music venues I only one of 30 opening hours per year. I 4A2 The Impact Area Size of Urban and Rural Institutions

The impact areas of the rural cultural institutions are mostly identical with

I the own county. For an additional fifth of these institutions, the impact I area includes Maryland. This is especially true for the Carroll County Farm I I Museum and the Union Mills Homestead, The urban institutions are more equally

distributed over the five impact size levels (see table 4.11:). I-lence, about one quarter of the urban institutions serve only their immediate vicinities,

but also 11% s~rveMaryland and regions out of this state.

Table 4.11: Crosstabulation of URBAN (:Differences in Urban To Rural Areas By IMCIRC (Impact Area Size Level:) count 2 Exp Val 31 = 31tCc1unty32tNeigh.33t~ary- 34tOu-k of3 IMCIRC-> Rljy Pct 3Viiinity3 3Co. 3 land 3 State 3 Kov CQ1 Fct 3 3 n 3 Total URBAN 3 25 3 41 3 21 3 fl 3 3 3 39 urban ~YW 3 23,? 3 44.2 3 19,l 3 3.7 3 2.6 3 85.72 3 25.5% 3 41.2% 3 21.4% 3 8.2% 3 3.1% 3 3 32,6'/. 3 80.41 3 35.X 3 80.02 3 100.0Z 3 E rural area 3 '13 103 13 23 03 15 3 3.6 3 6.8 3 2.3 3 1.3 3 .4 3 13.3%

3 13.33: 3 66.72 3 ' 6.735 3 13.31 3 0.0% 3 3 7.4% 3 19.6% 3 4.52 3 20.0% 3 0.0% 3 E Ccll um 27 51 22 10 3 113 Total 23.33: 45.11 13.5% 3.31 2.71 100.0%

The small chi-square of 4.9 indicates that there is no or not a big difference between the (spatial:) impact area size of urban to rural

i n st i t 11 t i on s .

I Considering the demographical derived definition of impact area size, there are more distinct differences between urban and rural institutions (chi- I square = 14.8, table 4.12:). The urban institutions serve more people in their

impact areas than the rural institutions. One third of the urban facilities

I serve more than 760,000 people, compared to less than one sixth of the rural I facilities that serve the same amount. Table 4,12:Crosstabulation of URBAN (Differences in Urban to Rural Areas) By GPEOFLE (Reached Population in the Impact Area>

Count .3 Exp Val 310,000- 250,000- 3100,0@0-31j0,000-3>760!0~03 GPEOPLE-> Rtjv Pt:t 3 50,000 3 100,0003 150,0003 760,0003 3 xctw CUI Pct 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total URBAN 3 12 3 28 3 12 3 10 3 36 3 38 urban area 3 12.1 3 25.2 3 16.5 3 11.3 3 33.0 3 86.7% 3 12.21 3 28.61 3 12.2% 3 10.2X 3 36.72 3 3 85.7% 3 36.6'3, 3 63.2'1, 3 76,'37. 3 34.72 3 E rural area 3 23 13 73 33 23 15 3 1.9 3 3.8 3 2.5 3 1.7 3 5.0 3 13.31 3 13.3): 3 6.7% 3 96.7% 3 20.N 3 13.31 3 3 14.3X 3 3.4% 3 36.82 3 23.12 3 5.3% 3 r

4.2,3 The Relative Significance of Urban and Rural Institutions

Looking on the indicators for the absolute significance, there is a

dominance of urban institutions. However, this will be reduced by looking upon the relative significance. The absolute number of visitors/year may be higher

in the urban institutions but the ratio of the number of visitors to the

number of residents of the impact area shows a greater impact of rural

institutions on their people (see table 4.131. Table 4J3: Crosstabulation of URBAN CDifferences in Urban to Rural Area:) By GIMCOEFF (Uisitor/Residents Ratio:)

Coufit 3 Exp Val 3( 9.01 30.01- 30.02- 30.08- 3> 6.26 3 GIKOEFF-? ROW Pct 3 30.02 30.03 30.26 3 3 RtjW Col Fct 3 r) 3 3 3 3 Tiital URBAN 3 21 3 17 3 16 3 13 3 18 3 31 urban area 3 13.3 3 16.5 3 18.2 3 1a.2 3 18.2 3 36.74

3 23.1;! 3 18.7% 3 17862 3 20.3% 3 19.8% 2 3 ‘31.3% 3 9’3.3 3 76.22 3 30.52: 3 35.7% 3 t 3 23 23 53 23 33 14 rural area 3 3.1 3 285 3 2.8 3 2.8 3 2.8 3 13.31 3 14.3% 3 1483% 3 35.7% 3 1483% 3 21832 3 3 8.731. 3 10.5% 3 23.8%3 3.52 3 14.3% 3 C 3? Col uliln Ad 13 21 21 21 105 Total 21.9’1. 18.K 20.01 20.0% 26.N IOD.OX

The urban facilities have a bivariate distribution of their values of

relative significance: 23% have an- Icc,eff4; On01 (i.en low impact degree:), and

almost 20% an Icoeff>* 0.26 Le. high impact degree:). On the contrary, the

rural institutions have in their majority an ICoeffbetween On02 and 0.08, and

more than 21X have an IcOeff:>e 0.26.

4,2.4 Impact Areas and Visitor Flows Among The Counties

The comparison of urban to rural institutions will now be completed by a I comparison of the visitor flows among the si>:jurisdictions of the Ecaltimore metropolitan area. As mentioned earlier, most of the cultural institutions

I serve their own county population first. Nevertheless, there are some

institutions which reach a considerable share of visitors from outside their

I own counties -- and they are not only in Baltimore City. I 62

I The exchange of visitors is displayed in %he following table 4.14 (see also figure 5.4:). It shows the average percentages of visitors from ~ioirrce I counties and to destination counties.

I Table 4.14: Visitor Streams to Cultural Facilities between the Counties of the Baltimore Metropolitan Area (in %:I

TO-->: Ba1tirr;we bal t imitve Hovard Har ford Carol 1 Arundel I FROM: City County Cllun # y County County County

8al t imore 56.1 i3.5 6.3 5.0 14.0 3.3 I Balto. Co. 1% 0 62.5 5.6 5.0 11.5 0.0 HQ'ddYd Go. '?b, 9A 2.6 60.4 0.0 2.5 1.4 Hai-forri GO, 0.7 4.1 0.3 87.6 4.9 0.0 Carroll co. a,a 2.3 2.9 OD0 15.1 0.0 I Cli.ulidel h. 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.0 6.5 73.0 Rest Mar yl and b,S 4.4 li!B 1 0 .rj 15.5 5,s I out -Of -st ate 1202 4.1 8.1 3.0 20.0 3.9

I The matrix diayonal shaws that most of *the visitors come from %he county 13 I the insti*t;ution i5 located in . Baltimore City has the highest share of visitors from outside (100 - 56.1 = 43.9%:1. However, the majority still comes I from the own jurisdiction. There is a general trend that, the more rural the county is, the higher is the proportion of visitors from the own county. This I corresponds with %he "self-sufficiency concept" of the Export Ba5e Theory.

I Strongly connected are kaltimore City and Baltimore County, they have an approximately balanced visitor exchange. However, for the other counties it I seems that there is not an important exchange among them, especially not to Ealtimore City. Slightly higher proportions come from the rest af Maryland

I Cto Howard Coirnty and Baltimore City) and from outside Cto Baltimore City, I I I I I 63

I Anne Arundel County and Howard County:). Due to the papulation concentration in Baltimore City, most of the county institutions are partly dependent on I visitors from this city. The city supports by its visiting residents the I institutions particularly in Baltimore Gaunty, tiarford County and Howard County. (This is also tvire for the Carroll County Farin Museum. :) An exception I is Anne Arundel County which receives almost 10% cultural visitors from out- of-skate. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 64 I 4.3 The "City Versus Suburbs" Approach I I This part of the report pays particular attention to the cultural institutions in the Baltimore-Beltway region, i.e. Baltimore City and the I surrounding communities along the Beltway (a Baltimore City by-passing highway systeml. It reveals intra-urban relatians between location patterns and I absolute significances, impact area sizes, and relative significances.

I Baltimore is a typical example for a aver a long period declining central business district, that competes with at least five important sirbirrban I centers in the urban fringe: Towsan, Security Square, Hunt Valley, Golden Ring and White flard-1. The question was a5k.ed wtlether the observed subiwbanization

I process is also accompanied by %he emigration of cul*tural facilities out of I the city. Since this is nat a historically oriented study there can be no statements about development over time. Nevertheless, this study examines I whether the significance of downtown institutions differs from that of the citywide <"outer city"> or the suburban institutions today. The following map I differentiates Baltimore into a downtown area, an outer city zone (:within the city limits), and a sirbirrban zone (from the city limits to communities along I the Beltway I. I I I I I I I 65

I Rap 4.2: ZIP-code Areas of Baltimore, Divided into Three Zones: Downtown (Dark. Grey:), Outer City (Medium Grey:), and Suburbs (Bright Grey:) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 66

I 4.3,1 The Absolute Significance of Dountown and Suburban Institutions I I 100 of the examined institutions are located in the area c1.o~~;to Baltimore. Of *ttme, €4 are in downtown, 20 in the remaining city, and 20 in I the siibiirbs of Baltimore. Neglecting the movie theatresl these cultural institutions are distributed over the three zone in a in $able 4.15 displayed I way.

Table 4,155 Crosstabulation of CIRCLE (Concentric Zones:) By INGROUP I I n s 2; i *kitt i on s , Group ed I n Pt a i n Ca keg or i es 1) Count 3 Exp Val 3€ial!e7- 3fiuseums SPer for~1-3flusic 3 I ING80U?-) Rou Pit 3 ies 3 3iny Arts3Venuss 3 Row Col Pct 3 3 3 3 3 Total C IRCLE 3 193 153 143 83 56 I Inner City 3 21.1 3 13.8 3 15,l 3 6,O 3 60.21 3 33.91 3 26.8% 3 25.0% 3 14.3% 3 3 54.3; 3 G,2%3 %,O% 3 90.0% 3

I 3 33 43 43 13 13 Outer City 3 6.8 3 4.5 3 4.8 3 1.9 3 13.4X 3 50.(?% 3 22.2% 3 22.22 3 5.6% 3 I 3 25.72 3 17.4% 3 16.02 3 10.0% 3 3 73 43 73 13 19 Suburbs 3 1.2 3 4.7 3 5.1 3 2,0 3 20.4% I 3 36.8’1. 3 21.1% 3 36.8% 3 5.32 3 3 20.01 3 i7.a 3 28.07. 3 to.(rx 3

‘IC Cljl umn 3; 23 LJ 10 33 I Total 37.62 24.71 26.92 10.8% l@O.(iX

I Music Venues are more concentrated downtown than in the remaining city or in the SilbiirbS. Museums and galleries are more located downtown, too.

I More equally spread over the area are performing arts facilities with the

highest share of all in the 5iIblirb5. This i5 particiilarly true for dinner

I theatres, a typical cultural institution in the urban fringe. I I I I 67

I A look on the indicators for absolute significance shows that far three

of the institution types downtown is still the dominant place: Performing arts

I stages have there an average of 160,000 visitors per year compared to 40,000 I in the 5itburbs. fluscums have an average of 123,000 visitors clowntown compared to 20,000 in the ~iibiwbs. Similar statements are valid for the music veiiiies. I Different is the situation for the galleries: Each downtown gallery (including the galleries in *the major arts district fit. Vernon:) has an average of only I 6250 visitors per year compared to 54,000 visitors per year in the suburban I galleries (see table 4.16:). Table 4.16: The Absolute Significance of Galleries, Museumr;, F'erforming Arts Stager; and flusic Uenues in the TI-~rec;Zones Downtown CDT:), Outer I City COC:), and $ubiwbs CSUL Y i;itersfYear Y i si tor s/Hour faci!ity: DT oc SU I)T oc SU I Gallery 6,255 11,632 54,123 3.85 6.35 15.45

fluw~ 123,330 146,120 20,475 44 ' 83 70.52 22 I !;3 PWf, art 159,821 38,750 40! 703 211.66 123.17 42.83 I I?usic Ve. 12,293 13,500 3,100 30.03 25.00 1186; Table 4.17:Crosstabulatian af CIRCLE (:Concentric Zoves> I GU I S I TOR ( U i s i tors/Y ear, Group ed I Count 3 Exp Val 31 - 35,000 - 315,000 -325,000 -3 >75,0003

GVISITOR-> ROV ?l:t 3 5,000 3 15,(!09 3 25,000 3 75,000 3 3 RClV I c'ol Pct 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total C I RCLE 3 153 143 103 33 123 54 Inner 1: i # y 3 12.3 3 15.3 3 8.6 3 3.0 3 3.2 3 61,4% I 3 27.m 3 xi 3 18.5~ 3 5.6% 3 ?~.z3 3 71.4% 3 55.07, 3 71,4% 3 23.1% 3 80.0% 3 E I 3 43 33 23 53 13 15 Outer City 3 3.6 3 4.3 3 2.4 3 2.2 3 2.6 3 17.01 3 26,77, 3 29,01! 3 l3,X 3 33.3': 3 6.7% 3 3 13.0% 3 12.01; 3 14.32 3 38.5% 3 6.71 3 I E 3 23 f13 23 53 23 13 Suburbs 3 4.5 3 5,4 3 2.0 3 2.3 3 3.2 3 21.6% 3 1O.X 3 42.11 3 30.52 3 26.3% 3 10.5: 3 I 3 3.51 3 32.01. 3 14.3% 3 3a.x 3 13.3~3 E Col urn 21 25 14 13 15 38 I Total 23.92 28.4% i5.X 14.8% 17.0% 190.01 I I I 68

I Table 4.17 showed the distribution of the number of visitors per year af

all institutions aver the three zones. Clearly is the high share of

I facilities with a very high visitor amount over 75,000 a year. More than 40% I of the suburban institutions but only one quarter of the downtown institution have a mediocre amount of visitors (5,000 to 15,000:). The difference would be I even more striking, if the galleries show not an opposite trend from downtown to the subitrbs. The decline of the gallery significance from downtown ,to the I suburbs mitigates the dominant position of downtown to a certain degree. I I 4-32 The Impact Areas of Downtown and Suburban Institutions

I The size of the impact areas decreases distinctly from downtown to the I suburbs. A11 institutions with a impact area beyond Maryland are located downtown (:most of them in the Inner Harbor Areal. Only 8% of the downtown I facilities but 40% of the citywide institutions and 30% of the sitbiwban institutions have an impact area that is identical with the immediate vicinity I (see table 4.18:). I I I I I I I I 63

I Table 4.18: Crosstabulation of CIRCLE (Concentric Zones:) By IMCIRC Clmpact Area Size Category:)

CDunt :3 I Exp Val :3Iffiui. 31+County32+t~eigh,33~~ary-34tOut-of3 IMCIRC-> Row Pct ::Vicinity3 3C0, 3 land 3 State 3 Row Col Pct ;3 ? 3 't 3 3 Total I c I RCLE :3 43 233 143 43 33 48 Inn~rCity 3 3.4 3 21.7 3 11.7 3 3.5 3 1.3 3 53,X :3 3.3% 3 47.9% 3 23.2; 3 8.31 3 6.3% 3 I :I 25.0% 3 62.2% 3 70.03: 3 56.72 3 100.07, 3 E 3 73 73 33 03 63 17 Outer City 3 3.3 3 7.7 3 4.1 3 1.2 3 .6 3 20.72 I 2 41.2% 3 41.2i: 3 17.62 3 0.0% 3 0,OX 3 :3 43.8% 3 18.3% 3 15.0% 3 0,OX 3 0.02 3 E I :3 5 3 73 33 23 03 17 Suburb; 3 3.2 3 7.7 3 4.1 3 1.2 3 .6 3 20.7; 3 25.42 3 41.2: 3 17.6'1. 3 11.81 3 {LO% 3 3 31.31 3 18,9% 3 15.0Z 3 33.32 3 6.01 3 I E n-j Cirlutnn 16 37 2 (1 6 3 a3 L I Total 19.5% 45.1% '24.4% 7.3% 3.72 100.0% I

I An almost identical picture is presented by the impact area population size. However, the chi-square value is higher; therefore, the demographic

I indicator e:.:plains better than the spatial level indicator the influence of I location patterns on the size of impact areas (see table 4.132. I I I I I I 70 Table 4.19: Crosstabulation of CIRCLE (Concentric Zones) By GPEQF'LE Wopulation in Impact Area, Grouped)

Count 3 Exp Val 310,000- 350,000- 3100,000-3150,000-3~~?€0,~003 GP€IIFLE-> Rw Pct 3 50,000 3 100,0003 150,0003 750,0003 3 Row q Col Pct 3 3 3 3 J 3 Total c I KCLE 3 43 53 63 63 273 48 Inner City 3 7.0 3 11.1 3 5.3 3 4.7 3 13.3 3 58.X 3 8.3% 3 1014% 3 12.5% 3 12.5% 3 55.3% 3 3 33.3% 3 25.32 3 60sOX 3 7500X 3 31.3% 3 E 3 33 73 33 13 33 17 Outer City 3 2.5 3 313 3 2.1 3 1.7 3 6.9 3 20.72 3 17.62 3 41mZX 3 17.6% 3 5.3X 3 !715% 3 3 25.0% 3 36.8% 3 30.02 3 12.5% 3 3.12 3 E 3 5:: 73 13 13 33 if Suburbs '3 2.5 3 3.3 3 2.1 3 1.7 3 6.8 3 20.72 3 23.42 3 4!.2X 3 5.9% 3 5.32 3 17.6% 3 ,3 41.7X 3 36.8% 3 IrJmOX 3 1?.5X 3 '3.1X 3 E Col um 12 t '3 10 a 33 82 Total 14.6% 23.2X '12.2; 9.8% 40.2% 100.!1%

4.3.3 The Relative Significance of Domtown and Suburban Institutions

The impact coefficient Icoeff will be used for answering how the relative I significance of the downtown, citywide and suburban institutions differ. I The results show that it is correct to assume that inner city institutions have a smaller impact on their population than citywide or

suburban i n s t i t 11ti on s. I I I L. LL w 0 0 E H c3

x fci

.-. tn at c 0 N

U -4 L mc3m m PI ccJ c3 -iJ t CiJ U

4 I r.4 Do- G. c. 0 c3 c3 m M c-3 p? c3

rq c3 m c3 4

a*b cC u U c. 01 0 A e4 n m3 m 010 w c cw I 72

I 5. Summary and Conclusion

I The results of this study about the impact of cultural institutions in I the Baltimore region can be summarized in the following table 5.1. This table contains 3 :.: 3 statements broken down in major subjects of this study (:letters I A to C), .the result!; by using certain indicators (:first numbers 1 to 3:), and more specific result!; (second numbers 1 to 3).

I Table 5.1: Results in Statement Form I

8.1.1 P~rfut-oing arts stages and (BIIS~UR~ have the highest amunt of visitor; per year vith an .ln awi-age of approximately 100,000 visitors. I A. 1.2 Perfrtrming arts stases and music venues (including concert halls and open air arenas) have the highest nu3be7 of risitws per hour (an average of approxiflatel) 145). !hlSEUrTiS have 40 and galleries only 6 visitors/hour a5 averages. A, 1.3 The capacity of the examined music venues i; by fir the highest of all exzmined I inft itutions (1500 per50n~), folluved by performing arts stages (730 persorid, museums (440 persons), and galleries i140). I- A.2.1 ttuseums have the largest impact area with a high propclrtion of instituticms which wry9 an afea larger than flarylaild. An average of approxiaately 4.5 million people live in their areas. R.2.2 The performing art institutions theater and uiusic venue have an impact area of I slightly dtc~re than their own counties. There live about 600,000 people in their average inpact areas. A.2.3 Galleries have the mallest impact area, less than their own cilunty. They reach I only about 170,000 people who live in the average impact 3rea. c1.3.1 Using the visitor/residents ratio, the performing arts stages have the highest iwpact on the residents in their impact area (impact Coefficient = ,451, followed by I galleries (.22). c1.3.2 Music venues reach a considerable proportion of their iffipact area population i,10). 8. 3.3 MUSPU~S have the lowest impact on their area population. Their visitorlresidents I ratio is only ,05, I I I I I I 73

I 8) ?ui-al and IJrban Institutions in Ccapar ison

8.1.1 Huseuns and perforaing arts stages in urban parts of the metropolitan area of Baltintore are distinctly more inportant than their counterparts in the rural areas. I They havp wre visitors per year and per opening hour, and they are larger. 8.1.2 Galleries reveal no difference tetwem their urban and rlcral locations. 8.1.3 Music kenues are clearly 1irqer in the countryside. On an average the rural I in;tituticmi attract iwre peopie than their urban o:lunterparts. B.2.1 In regard to their patronage, the urban institutions are focused on either their ovn inmediate vicinity i~pthe whole state of flaryland and beyond that. I 0.212 Rural institutions are focused on their ctwn county, 0.2.3 One third of the urban institutions serve wore than 760,000 inhabitants (of their impact areas) soapared ti] only one sixth of the rural institutions.

I 8.3.1 Rural institution have a s1 ightly higher impact on their residential population than urban inst itutioils. B. 3.2 Urban institutions can be clEarly divided into two pups: One group has a low I impact degree of less than .01, and one group has a high impact degree of .2€. B.3.3 Rural institutions are more concentrated in a higher iispact degree around .08. I Cr hwntwn and Suburban Institit ions in Colspar iwn

c.1.1 FIusEums, qalleries, and music veTrues are concentrated ilountcwn, I performing arts stage are more spread vier the whole city considerable share (28%) in the suburbs. c.1.2 The dcwntovn performing arts instituticm and mu5eu~s have iieirly more visitoi-siyedr than the corresponding suburban institut ims, Galleries get afire I visitws/year in the suburbs than in the central business district. C.1.3 222 of the downtown in;titutions have lore than 75,000 visitors .per year, ccmpared I to only 101 of thp suburban institutions. c.2.1 The iffipact iarea size decreases distinctly from dovntown to the suburbs. 30% uf the suburban institutions have their imleediate vicinity as their impact drea to only 31 nf the downtown institutions. I c.2.2 The size [if thP impact area papulation is above average for the downtown institutions, 561 of thm have an annual visitor total of more than 760,000 people. C.2.3 Suburban iristitut ions are above-average represented in the group under I N,CiOO residents in the impact area. C.3.0 Suburban cultural institutions have a higher irapact irn their residential population than dijvntwn facilities on their population. The closer an instituticn is locjted downtcwn, the lower is it5 relative significance for the population of the impact I area (i.e. impact degree). I I I I I I 74

I All in all, it is true that downtown Baltimore is still the center of cultural events in the metropolitan area. The here located cultirral I institutions have more visitors than the suburban cultural facilities, and

they have larger impact areas. Especially downtown theaters and museumr;

I attract (over one year:) hundreds of thousands of people (and by far more than I the galleries or music venues there:). However, the cultirral institirtions in suburban and even rural regions reach a relatively hiqt~er share of the I population in their impact areas.

I To mentian are two caitntnrtrends: The galleries have a clearly higher amount af visihws per year in the suburbs %han in .the city centw, and the I music venues in the mral regions have, due to the location of open air arenas there, a higher capacity to accomodate people than any other cirltirral I i n s t i tut i on . I I I I I I I I I I I 75

I Additional to these general statements, and a5 a readoption uf the

ttleoretical discussion about the Central Place Theory (see part 2.1 #.I: this

I report), it i5 interesting to have a look. on the development of the I percentages of thp patronage from the immediate vicinity with the increasing distance of the location from downtown. The correlation coefficient is I relatively high with r =: .37 (:sign. = .0023). Figure 5.1 displays the c orr e 1a% i on .

I Figure 5.1: Plot of the Percentages of Visitors from the Immediate Uicinty With the Location From Downtown in Miles. - I N 97.5x I 1 I e I i I i I I CJ I i I I I h I 1 I b 65. 0% I I I a r I s

i 32.5% I n x I I32 4 1 I 0.0% I- I .E3 2.4 4 5. €4 0 1.6 3.2 4.8 I Miles from Downtown

I It is obvious that most of the downtown institutions are not intevested in their immediate neighborhood, or that the neighborhoods are not interested I in the cultural of fwings of the downtown institutions. This situation changes with the increasing distance from downtown. The ad jiistment of not I downtown located cultural facilities to the immediate vicinity (:with a higl-i I homogeneity of the clientele:) is more distinctive than in the center city. I I I I 76

I On the other hand, the downtown facilities have a larger impact area and

serve more people than institutions farther away from the city center. The

I following figure 5.2 shows a plot of the correlation of the impact area I population with the distance of the location from downtown. The linear correlation is r = -- .17? but the relation is stronger than the coefficient I indicates since the obvious curvi-linearity of the relationship is not measured by Pearson'!; r.

I Figure 5.23 Plot of the Impact Area Population Size With the Location from Downtown in Miles.

-.I I I 24mio I T m I: :3 P I a I I C I t 16mio J: I A I I r I I e 1 I a 8mio I I I I I P H 1 I 0 I I P I 1 I I . I 1 1R T 0 L..- .I, .8 2.4 4 5.6 I 0 1.6 3. 'I! 4.8 Miles from Downtown I To complete tihe in theory assumed correlations (see part 2.1 and the I there displayed figure 2.11, the relative significance was correlated to the distance of the institution from downtown. The correlation coefficient of r =

I -.002 confirms that there exists no dependence. The plot in figure 5.3 shows

that there is not a curvi-linear relationship, either. Therefore, the

I hypotheses of part 2.1 are confirmed. I I I I 77

I Figure 5.3: Plot of the Ratio of Visitors to Residents of the Impact Area With the Facility Location in Miles from hwntown.

I U 3.75 I I i I I 5 I I I I I ; I I R 2.50 I I e I I I s I I i I I d I I . 1.25 I I I I I R I 1 1 I a I 1 1 I I t R 938 3 R i I645 11212 I t 0 0.00 I- A a8 2.4 4 5.6 I 0 1.6 3.2 4.8 Miles from Downtown

I This report will finish by going shortly into the introducing remarks

about the strife among city and counties concerning the funding of city

I cultural, institutiuns. In chapter 4.2.4 there were a table about the visitor I streams among the city of Baltimore and the metropolitan counties. The information in this table is displayed in the following figure 5.4. It shows I the main visitor streams between the jurisdictions. Figure 5.4: Main Visitor Streams 0 EX::, between the Metropolitan Jurisdictions I

5.0- I gar ford County 5.0 * I I

I County I I I 78

I Al*though Baltimore City has the highest stlare of cultural vir;itors from outside its own jurisdiction (44%) in all jurisdictions of the metropolitan

I area, there is, all in all, n& a general significant flow of cultirral I visitors between the counties. The jurisdictions serve themselves first. Baltimore City receive5 a considerable share of cultural visitors only from I Baltimore County WW, followed by the shares from Maryland outside the metropolitan area ;and from out of the state. Due to the popLilatian I concentration in BaJltimore City, the city provides more likely the ciiltural institutions in the r;urrounding counties with visitors than vice versa. This I is true especially for cultural facilities in Baltimore Couiity, Idoward Caunty I and Carroll County. However, tt~ir; paragraph has. to conclude with a short caveat: These

I statements are based on proportions, not absaliite nrmbers of visitors. In

absolute numbers, Baltimore receiver; indeed many visitors from the surrounding

I jurisdictions. Nut the discussion should be consider that by far most of the I cul%;ural visitors comr; still from the own jurisdiction - and this is true for Ecaltimore City a5 well as far the sirriwunding counties. I I I I I I I I 73

References Appendix Questionnaire Introducing And Reminding Letters Cultural Facilities in Retropolitan Baltimore - A List I I References Bailey, Kenneth D. , !lethods Of Social Research, New York., 1387.

I Boctrdieu, F'ierre, Distinction, A Social Critique of the LiUgment of Tiaste, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, 1384. I Rrimaggi, Cecilia, szn Francisco Civic Arts Funding: Who Pays? Wtia EKnnefits'?, Intersection Cmter, San Francisco, CAY 1377.

Cwi, David 111 Lyall, Katherine, The Center For Metropolitan Planning And I Research, The Johns Hopkins University, "Economic: Impacts of Arts and Cultural Institutions: A Model for Assessment and a Case Study in Ba 1t imor e", Ba 1, t imor e , Oc *tob er 1377. I Eckardt, Wolf Uon, &,ve the Good Life! CreatinqLHmap Commitnit1 Throutlfl the Arts, American Council for the Arts, New 'fork., 1382.

Fletctw, Michael A. , "RF'C Tries To Ease City--Suburb Culture-Cash Gap", The I Baltimore Ext?nj.nq Sun, March 27, 1383.

Friedland, Lois, Zimnwmann, Agnes, and RacJich, Anthony J., "Art Spaces and I Economics", (produced *for the Arts, Tourism and Cul%ural Firesources Committee uf the National Conference of State Legislatitres:), Denver, Jaiiuary 1984.

I Friedrichs, Jurgen, Goodman, Allen C. et: al. , The Chanqinq ]tiowntown, A Compaative Stuk_pfBaltimove and Hambuy, Berlin and New York., 1387.

Giuliano, flikw, "blaw Playing: ?he Regional Theater Takeover Saga", I War field's Balt:irnore Business flaqazine, January 1383, pp. 38-42.

Goodman, Allen C. P' Taylor, Ralph E., The Raltimore Neiqtlbortiood Fact I Book: 1370 R 11380, The Center For Metropolitan Planning And Research, The Johns Wopk.iLns University, Baltimore 1383.

Harris, Louis 8 The blational Research Center For The Art5, Americans And The I Arts U, New York, January 1388. Heinritz, Gcin.ter, Zentralitaet und zentrale Orte, Stuttgart, 1373.

I Heier, Hans, Soziooekonomi 5c he Rest imrnunqs f ak. toren der S tadten tw i c k limp, Stuttgart, 1377.

Hodsoll, Francis S.14. , "Ealtim~re~sSupport To The Arts" illraft for the I National Endowment for the Arts? kaltimore, The Arts in a Proud City:), Washington, 11. C. , 1885. I Kno:.:, Paul, Urban Social Genqraphy, New York., 1387.

McNulty, Robert H., Jacobson, Dorothy R., Oq F'enne, R. Leo, The Economics of I Amenity: Community Futurerj and Quality of Life, Washington, D.C. , 1385. flulcahy, Kevin V., "Culture and the Cities", pp.213-238 in Kevin U. flulcahy It I C. Richard Swaim, Public Policy and the Arts, Boulder, CO, 1982. Nast, Leonora H., Krause, Laurence N., & Monk, R.C. ieds.'), Baltimore, A Livinq Renaiss,ance, Historic Baltimore Society, Inc., Baltimore, 1382. I I I

I National Endowment for the Arts, Baltimore, The Arts in a Proud City, Washington, D.C. , August 1383. National Endowment for the Arts, The Arts-in America, A Report to the I President and to the Congress, Washington, L1.C. , October 1388. Olesker, Michael, "Blackmail could cure county stinginess", I The Ealtirnore Sun, March 30, 13133. Regional Planning Council Task. Force On Regional Arts, Cultural, And Science Irwtitution.;, "Reporl; On Financial Support Ey Member Local Gavernments I For Arts, Cultiural, And Science Institutions Of Regional Significance", Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, February 1983. I Srhaefer, William D., "Arts Policy" (Draft:), Baltimore, 1982. Seiffert, Bianne 8 Weissert, William G., The Arts In Metrapolitan Wa_shinqton. Some F's4imin,ary Data Qn Econom-ics, F"@m:in&- And Orqanization, Washington Center For Metropolitan S%udies, Washington, D. C., December I 1975, I Sombart, Werner, per moderne Kapitalismus, fliinich and Leipzig, 1321. Su1lam, Brian, "Officials Predict Freeze On City's Support For Arts'', The rcal.l;imore Sun, IIarch 27, 138'3.

I !kanton, Peter L., Baltimore 2000, a report for The Morris Galtjseker Foundation, Baltimore, 1'386.

Tacker, Ilavid, ''A Commentary On the Baltimore Symphony Strike" (Manuscript I, I WJHU-Radio Broadcast, February 2, 138'3.

The Port AwH-lority of New Yorlc. Ant1 New Jersey X The Cultural Assistance Center, Inc., The Arts as an Industry: Their Economic Importance to the I New York.-New Jersey MetropnXitan Reqion, New York., May 1383. The Center For MetiPopolitan Planning And Research, The Jotins Hopkins I University PI The Regional Planning Council, "In Search of a Regional Policy for the Arts, F'hase It', Baltimore, February 1'375.

The Center For Metropolitan Planning And Research, The Johns Hopkin5 I University, "The Economic Impact Of Eight Cultural Institutions On The Economy Of The St. Louis SMSA", Baltimore, 1378.

The Center For Metropolitan Planning And Research, The Johns Hopkins I University b The Regional Planning Council, "In Search of a Reqional Policy for the Arts, Phase II", Baltimore, 1376. I Urban Innovations Group (UIG:), The Arts in the Economic Life of the City, ScI-loo1 of Architecture and Urban Planning University of California, published for The American Council for the Arts, Los Angeles, 1373. I Weiss, Elaine F., "Stage Right: The Morris A. Mechanic Theater", Warfield's Ba1,timore Business flaqazine, August 1388, pp. 37-45.

Yockel, Michael, "Headbangers of the World, Unite: The Hammerjacks Rock Club", I Warf ield's Baltimore Business Maqazine, January 1393, pp.53-53. I I I 1 I I Shriyer Hall, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Survey of Cultural and Art Organizations (SO 1 ) 338-7 174 I of Metropolitan Baltimore, Maryland Sub-survey: Stages for the Performing Arts

This survey, sponsored by the Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies and the Maryland State Arts Council, is being I conducted by Volker Kirchberg, a sociologist from the University of Hanrburg, Vest Germany. The project is intended to provide a better understanding of the impact of cultural and art institutions on the development of this urban region. The study is solely for academic purposes; we pursue no comnercial aims. The answers uill be kept in strict confidentiality.

I Please take approximately 15 minutes to fill out the questionnaire and return it in the stamped, self-addressed envelope. We appreciate your participation and are sure that the results of this study will be of interest to you, too! I 1. What is the name of your organization? I

2. We assune that your organization is primarily a facility for the performing arts. To be more specific, please chtxk om of I the following descriptions. Your organization is ... a theater for stage plays - a auditoriun for classical music performances I a thester far stage msice!s - a stage for dance establishment is a music venue where people listen to live music, check one of the following categories: I Country and Uestern Music - Folk or Irish Music Funk and Soul Music - Jazz Music Progressive Rock - Rock In1 Roll, Rhythm and Blues

I Top 40 - none of that, but:

I 3. How many (public) stages does your facility have? - stage( s 1 What is the total nunber of people you can accomnodate? - people I 4. (for the theaters and auditori-:) How many different performances do you give annually? - different performances , (for the wsic verrres:) Hou many different performers do you have annually? - different performers I 5. What year did this institution open at its current location7 In the year - I 6. Did this institution move from another place? I - Yes ------) please continue uith question 71 - no .-.-..-) please continue with question 91 I 2

I7. From where did the institution move? Address:

8. Uhat year did the institution open at its previous location? In the year - I (If there was more than one move, please mention the years of movement and the locations: I Year of 1st move: of 2nd inove: of 3rd move: Original location: 2nd location: 3rd location: -1 I 9. Was there another cultural or arts iiistitution that occupied your facility before your organization?

-Yes ------1 name of institution: year opened: - - no

I10. Please fill in the performing hours I(for music venues: hours of life music) during a normal season: from: to: Monday I Tuesday Wednesday Thursday F r i das I Saturday Sunday

11. Cultural facilities have two tasks: (1) to s-rt artists and their art by giving them the opportunity to exhibit (2) to increase the nunber of visitors (or the cmrcial profit) to the facility. One can describe these tasks as the poles 81artistic4tand 11comnercia118on a scale. Please circle a value I you'. would choose for the function o*f your institution on the following scale. 11111 means "only artistic", 1t718means Ilonly cOmnercialt8:

only artistic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 only comnercial

2. If you charge an admission fee: I Whet is the highest admission fee for one visit at your facility? S _._ What is the lowcst admission fee for one visit at your facility? f _._ What is the average single price for one visit at your facility? S _._ What is the lowest subscription (for some rmsic venues: mahcrship) I fee for a period of one year? _._

3. How many subscribers (for some msic venues: members) do you have ? - subscribers/ members Uhat is the average share of subscribers in your performances? - percent

4. Uhat uas the average size of your audience durrng one performance in the last half year' I-audience rnehers on ueekdays -- audience mmers on weekends I' L

I 3

I 15. We are very interested in the visitors to your facility. Ue know how difficult it can be to get information about their residences. However, to the best of your knouledge, what percentage of your patrons come from...

your local neighborhood in Baltimore City % nearby neighborhoods in Baltimore City % I (its name: (their names:

elsewhere in Baltimore City % Baltimore County % I (from where in Baltimore City? (from where in Baltimore County?)

Carroll County % Harford County % I (from where in Carroll County? (from where in Harford County? Howard County % Anne Arundel County % I (from where in Howard County? (from where in Anne Arundel County? elsewhere in Maryland % out-of -state -% I (from where in Maryland? (from where out-of-state? If you can give more detailed information, please feel free to write it doun here or attach it: I I

16. We know that for some of the facilities it can be very difficult to get data about their patronage. Therefore we have provided some indicators. According1 to the best of your knouledge, please, give the following percentages, even if they are I approximations:

GENDER: female: -% male: -%

I ACE: under 20: -% 21 - 40: -% 41 - 60: -X above 60: -% I (Here you can use statistics you have about the share of students and/or senior citizens n your patronage. Do you have statistics about these groups or about the education of your patronage? - yes - no INCOME: low (under $10,000 household income) -x I 1ouer/rni ddl e ($1 0,000 to $25,000 ) : -x middle/upper ($25,000 to $50,000): x upper (more than $50,0001~: -x I 17. In the last half year, how did you advertise for your offerings? I Which media (names of the media)? In which area(s) of the region?

When did you advertise last (month/year)? How often do you generally advertise? 4

I 18. What are your target groups? Please describe in a few words the public you would like to reach: I I 19. Is your institution engaged in a program to encourage minorities to attend your performances? - Yes - no I If yes, which minorities:

~~~ ~~ ~ I 20. Do you have special days when you do not charge an admission fee (or offer special amenities)? - Yes ------1 please continue with question 21! I- no ------1 please continue with question 23!

21. How often do you have these special days?

once a week less than once a week to once a month I less than once a month to once in a half year less than every half a year to once a year- 22. Can you recognize a different patronage on these days? no I - yes --I please describe the differences between this patronage and the usual, paying patronage in a feu words. If 1 possible, use the characteristics employed in question 16: I

I 23. Do you have any further records that would indicate there your patrons are fram and hothey are? This uould include surveys, audience studies, marketing studies, subscriber lists (e.g., a list of their ZIP-codes), guest registers, rnailing lists.

7 Yes ------1 we would appreciate it if you send this material with this questionnaire!

I Please send this questionnaire back in the enclosed envelope, even if you didn't ansuer all questions! An incomplete questionnaire is more helpful than an unreturned questionnaire.

It may be useful for us to follow this questionnaire with a telephone call to clarlfy some of your answers. If that IS agree3ble I with you please write your name and telephone nunber in the space below. All of your cmnts uill of course be confidential. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION! name phone I I e ?he Johns Hopkins Uihersity I *>aQ@fi* Institute for Policy Studies Shriver Hall, Baltimore, M*qland21218 I January 20, 1988 (301) 338-7174 Dear Sir or Madam:

Volker Kirchberg, a sociologist from the University of Hamburg, West I Germany, supported by our Institute’s International Fellowship Program, is spending nine months at The Johns Hopkins University conducting research on the impact of cultural institutions on aspects of urban development in the Baltimore I metropolitan region. Among other things, Mr. Kirchberg is examining the impact of cultural institutions on economic development and the quality of life in the I central city compared to the suburban counties. We believe that cultural institutions like yours make an important contribution to the vitality of our community. With your support, this research can help us to achieve a deeper and more precise understanding of the ways in I which such institutions make their presence felt. We ask that you take about 15 minutes to respond to the enclosed brief questionnaire. Your answers will be completely confidential. Mr. Kirchberg will use them to compile data and draw I broad conclusions on the role and impact of cultural institutions in Baltimore. Mr. KirLhberg‘s report on this research will, of course, be available to you. If the rate of response to the questionnaire is high, the report should I be of substantial interest and use to you, providing information including: - - the categorization of all cultural institutions in the metropolitan area by type and location; I -- which parts of the area these institutions’ visitors or clientele come from; - - additional solcio-economic information about their visitors or clientele; and I -- the significance of interaction among the cultural institutions.

This project is a continuation of research Mr. Kirchberg has conducted on I the role of cultural institutions in German metropolitan areas. We expect the comparative aspects of the study to prove particularly interesting.

I Please support this research by completing the questionnaire. Once again, your responses and all specific information about vour orRanization or business will be strictly confidential. As Hr. Kirchberg is in the U.S. for a limited time, we request th,at you return the questionnaire in the enclosed stamped I envelope as soon as possible, at the latest by the middle of February.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kirchberg I or me at 338-7182. Thank you very much for your support. I Sincerely, fi4- Robert A. Seidel. Coordinator I International Fellowship Prograa in Crban Studies I I

I Shr-iver Hall, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (301) 338-7171 I February 1, 1989 I Dear Respondent: A week ago, we mailed you a questionnaire about the impact of your facility on the metropolitan area of Baltimore. If you did not receive the questionnaire, I please call us and we will send you another. In either case, we hope that you will take the 15 minutes or so necessary to complete this survey.

We are convinced that facilities like yours contribute to the cultural vitality I of the Baltimore region. However, while this may seem a matter of common sense, we believe that systematic research can demonstrate in more depth the role and I impact of cultural institutions in the metropolitan area. If you answer this questionnaire, you will receive a research report which will have detailed information on:. I a) the population’s use of cultural facilities in the Baltimore region; b) the residential areas that visitors to these facilities come from; and c) socio-economic explanations of the interaction between people in the I Baltimore region and the community’s cultural amenities, If some specific questions bothered you, please skip them and simply note in the margin that you are unable to answer them. If you do not have the time to fill I out the questionnaire, please ask another competent person in your organization to do so.

Once again, rest assured that we will protect the anonymity of your answers. I The results will be published in such a way that no one will be able to identify particular institutions. I Finally, please remember that this is also a scholarly enterprise which will contribute to a comparison between American and European culture. We hope for your support. If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to contact either I of us at 338-7182. ‘Thank you very much. Sincerely, I

Volker Kirchberg, R(2search Fellow Robert A. Seidel, Coordinator I Urban Sociologist Intcrnnt ion21 Fellowship Progrm West -Germany in Urban Studies I University of Hamburg The Johns Hopkins Urii-.*crsi. ty I I A List of Cultural Facilities in fletropolitan Baltirore - The Sampled Population of the Survey

I ( I XTt Ill 1- !3 1=Ga 1er 1 es , 20 1-:15=Huseums, X!1 -?.ll=Thea t er s , 43 1-426=?lu; 1 c Irenu,, , 53 i -fi43=C ;ae!~ ds! (F=P3rtit:!pi;E ~fithe S?fVPy)

1 1 I 2ecord# INST HAIE CDUNTY NB HD-T OWN REH I tJD 1 101 Cardinal Gallery, Hd.-Hall for Creative Arts A. Arundel Co. Annapolis .F. 2 102 DeMat teis 6al lery h. Arundel Co. Annapcsl is .F. I 3 103 Enchanted Ar t A. Arundel Go. Annapol is .T. 4 104 Haenond Edit ions A. Arundel Co. Annapol is f. 5 105 Haryland Federation of Art's Gallery A. Arundel Cos Annapol is .f. 6 106 Iiddleton Gallery of International Fine Art A. Arundel Co. Annapol i 5 f. I 7 107 Pascal Center Art Gallery, Arundel Cor. Coll, A. Plrundel Go. Arnold .F. 8 108 Art Guild of flaryland Baltimore Charles Village .F. 3 103 Art Attic Gallery c/o King Kong Copy Bal t irore Charles Center .T. I 10 110 C. Grimaidis Gallery Baltimore Charles Center T. 11 111 Cr aik flinner Gal 1er y Bal t itxorr! Charles Center .F. 12 112 Frank Katz Gallery Balt iaore Charles Center .Fa I 13 113 G.H. Dalsheiwr Gallery Bal t ieore Char 1es Center .Fa 14 114 Maryland Art Place Bal t iraore Charles Center .F. 15 115 Silvia Cordish Fine Art Salt inore Char 1es Center .T. 16 116 Steven Scott Gallery Baltimore Char 1 es Center .T. I 17 117 Toalinson Craft Collection, Charles Street Bal t inore Char 1es Center .F. 18 113 Watermark Gallery Balt imor e Char 1es CPnt er a Fm 19 119 Lily Gallery la1 t imore Char 1es Vi 11age .F. I 20 120 P yr am 1d CI t 1ai? t i c Balt iwore Nount Royal .T. 21 121 Harm Gallery at Cross Keys Salt iaore bunt blashington .F. 22 122 School 33 Art Center Baltislore South BaltiRore .F. 23 123 813 Gallery Baltimore fells Point .T. I 24 124 Plngeline's om A1 iceanne Bal t imore fells Point .T. 25 125 Art Gallery of fells Point Bal t imore Fells Point .F. 26 126 Conrad-nil ler Studio and 6al lery Bal t irPore Fells Point .f. I 27 127 Patterson Park Pagoda Bal t iaore fells Point .T. 28 128 Thanes Street Gallery Bal t irore fells Point .T. 29 123 6or a1 ey Gal 1er y Bal t irore Guil ford .T. I 30 130 Loyol a Col 1ege Art 6all er y Bal t iaore 6uil ford F. 31 131 Sign of the Dove Craft Gallery Bal t irore Hari 1ton .T, 32 132 A Studio Gallery Baltimore Harpden .T. 33 133 Twenty-one South Carrollton Gallery Bal t iairre West Bal t irore .f. I 34 134 Potters 6uild of Baltimore Bal t iaore 6ovanst ovn T. 35 135 Katzenstein Gallery at Scarlett Place 8al t irore Inner Harbor .f. 36 136 Point Gallery Bal t iaore Jonest own .T. I 37 137 Art Horizons, Unl irited Ea1 t irore bunt Royal T. 38 138 Art furniture and hrchitectural Design Baltimore Hount Royal .F. 39 133 Decker f Heyerhoff Gilleries, Haryland Inst. Baltirore Hount Royal .F. 40 130 Partners Art and Custom framing Bal t iaore Hount Royal .F. I 41 141 Nurphy fine Arts Center Bal t irore Horgan Heights .T. 42 142 Chameleon Gallery Bal t ipor e Hount Vernon .f. 43 143 European Interiors Bal t irore Nount Vernon .T. I 44 144 Gallery 409 in the Eubie Blake Center Balt iiore Hount Vernon .F. 45 145 George Cisile Gallery Salt irore Hount Vernon .f. 46 146 Life of Haryland Gallery in Baltirore Bal t irore Yount Vernon f. I 47 147 South Charles Street Gallery Bal t irore Wount Vernon .T. 48 148 Bal t iror e C1 ayuor ks Balt irore Nount Washington .f. 49 143 Cultured Pearl Cafe Bal t irore Uest 8a1 t irore .T. I 50 150 Knight 6orez Gallery Bal t irore South Bal t irore .f. I I

I Sl 151 Park School Gallery Salto. Corn Srookl andvi 11e .T. 52 152 Albin 0. Kulhn Library and Gallery Balto. Co, Cat onsvi 11e .F. 53 153 Dundal k $all er y , Dundal k Community Col 1ege Balto. Co. Dundal k 54 154 Humanities and Arts Gallery Balto. Co. Essex T. I Xi 15s tiarson Gallery in Hunt Valley Balto. Cos Hunt Valley .F. 56 156 Vista Fine Art Balto. Co. Luther vi 11e aT. 57 157 Harris ?or t fol io Balto. Co. Pikesville .T. I 58 158 Paintin' Place Gallery Galto. Co. Pi kesvi 11 e .T. 53 159 Renaissance Fine Arts Balto, Co. Pi kesv i 11 e el. 60 160 C. Alden Ph,elps Art Gallery Balto. Co. Reist erstown .Fa 61 161 tlar yl and fiber Center Balto. Co. T inon iua .F. I 62 162 Holtzman 6allery in the Fine Arts Center Balto. Co. Tow son .T. 63 163 Life of Haryland Gallery in Towson Balto. Co. Tctvson 1. 64 164 Roberts Gallery in the fine Arts Center Balto. Go. Towson T. I 65 165 Romberg Gallery Balto. Co. Towson .F. 66 166 Chesapeake Gall ery Harford Co. Bel Air .F. 67 167 DaPdal fine Arts Harford Co. Fa1 1st on .fa I 68 168 The Tuttle Gallery at HcDonough Balto, Co. kings flilh aF. 69 163 Coluiabia Association Center for the Arts Howard Co. Col utab i a .F. 70 170 Columbia Fine Arts and Frasring 6allery Howard Go. Colutnbia .F. 71 171 Srith Gallery, Howard Coomunity College Howard Co. Columbia .F* I 72 172 Slayton House Eallery Howard Co. Col utttb i a .F. 73 173 flargaret Srith 6allery Howard Co. Ellicott City .F. 74 174 Rockland Arts Center Gallery Howard Co. El 1 icot t City .T. I 75 175 Sheppar d Rr t Gal 1ery Howard Co. €1 1 icot t City .T. 76 176 Foundry Street Studios and Galleries Howard Go. Savage .F. 77 177 Savage Gallery Howard Co. Savage .T. I 78 178 Theatre Project Gallery Baltimore tlount Royal .f. 73 173 Torlinson Craft Collection Rotunda Salt imore Hampden .f. 80 180 AIR Gallery, fld.-Hall for Creative Arts A. Arundel Co. Annapd i 5 f* 81 iai Katzenstein Gallery at Ridgely Plaza Palto. Co. Lutherville ,Fa I 82 201 Banneker-Doug1 as Huseum A. Arundel Co. Annapol is .F. a3 202 U.S. Naval Nuseus A. Arundel Co. Annapol is .F. a4 203 William Paca House A, Arundel Co. Annapol is .F. I as 204 Savaqe tlill A. Arundel Co. Savage el. 86 205 Lillie Carroll Jackson Museum Bal t isore Balton Hill .F. a7 206 Peal e Pluseuia Salt ioore Char 1es Center .l. 88 207 Baltimore Ftuseur of Art Bait imore Charles Village .f. I 83 208 Honewood fluiseur Bal t imore Charles Village ,Fa 90 209 Robert Long House Bal t iacrre fells Point *F. 31 210 8 b 0 Railroad Huseur ea1 t ioore Hollins Park .F. I 92 211 Bal t imore Plar i t ime Huseur Pal t irore Inner Uarbor .f'. 33 212 City life tluseurs Bal t ioore Inner Harbor *F. 94 213 flaryland Science Center Bal t isore Inner Harbor .l. I 3s 214 Public Works Huseum 8al t imore Inner Harbor .F. 96 ,215 Top of the World Exhibition Ealt imore Inner Harbor .F. 37 216 U.S. Frigate Constellation Salt iiore Inner Harbor * 1. 98 217 1840 House Baltimore Jonest ovn *F. I 39 218 8al t irore City Fire ttuseur Sal t iiore Jonest ovn *f. 219 Carroll tlansion Pal t irore Jonest own .F. I 100 I I I

I 101 220 Center fur Urban Arihaelogy Bal t ieore Jones t oun .F. 102 221 Courtyard Exhibition Center Bal t iaore Jonest own .F, 103 222 flag House t 1812 fluseum ea1 t imore Jon est own .T. I 104 223 Jewish Heritaqe Center Bal t i mor e Jonest own IT. 105 224 fire tluseur Salt imore Char 1es Center .T. 106 225 fort IcHenry National Honument f Shrine Balt ilnore fout h Bal t iwor e If. 107 226 Eubie Slake National tluseum Baltimore Hount Vernon m Fa I 108 227 Haryland Historical Society flu5eue Bal t irsore hunt Vernon .F. 103 228 Walters Art Gallery Sal t imore Hount Vernon .F. 110 229 Edgar Allen Poe House Bal t isor e West BaltiRtore .T. I 111 230 831 t imor e Streetcar tiuseua Bal t iaore Reaing t on .Tm 112 231 &eat Blacks Max Huseua Baltimore 01 iver Neighborhood a F. 113 232 Babe Ruth 8irthplace & Orioles lluseur Bal t imore Ridgelys Delight .Fa I 114 233 HmLm #encken Mouse Ea1 t imore West Baltimore ,T. 115 234 Bal t ieore tluseua of Industry 8al t ieore South Sal t imre m Tm 116 235 fiount Clare flansion Bal t irsore Southwest Baltimore a Fa 117 236 C1 o ist ers Chi 1dren s nuseur Baltom GO. Brooklandville .F. I 118 237 Haryland #useurn of bfrican Art Howard Cos Ellicott City m Tm 113 238 Ball est one Hanw Biilto. Goa Essex e fa 120 239 Fire slu5eur of fiaryiand Balto. GO. Lut hervil le .Fm I 121 240 Haspton Mat ionial Historic Site Balto. COa Tow son ,Fa 122 241 Carroll County Farm Fluseur Carroll Co. Westminster .F. 123 242 Carroll County Historical Society Huseum Carroll Cir. West rinst er ,Fa 124 243 Union Hills Homestead Carroll Corn Uesteinster F. I 125 244 Historic Cider nil1 farr Howard Goa El kr idge .T. 126 245 B & 0 Railroad Station Museum Howard COa Ellicott City T. 127 301 Annapol is Sumrlter Garden Aa Arundel CO, Annapol is 8 f. I 128 302 Colonial Playm of Annapol is A. Arundel Go. Annapol is .T. 123 303 flaryland Hall for the Creative Arts Aa Arundel CO. Annapol is .F. 130 304 C h i 1d r en 5 Th Eta t r e As 5oc i at i on Baltimore Bolton Hill .F. I 131 305 Crispus Attucks Cultural Center Baltimore Solton Hill .r, 132 306 Horris Aa tlechanic Theatre Baltimore Charles Center F. 133 307 Dolrntown Dance Company 8al t imore Char 1es Vi 11 age .f. 134 308 Harbor City Ballet Baltimore Char 1es Vi 11 age .F. I 135 303 JHU Office for Special Events Balt ieore Char 1es Vi 11 age mF* 136 310 Fells Point Corner Theatre Baltimore Fell5 Point .F, 137 311 Harbor 1 i gh t s I1 i nner Thea t r e Bal t irore fells Point .F. I 138 312 Vagabond P1 ayer s Theatre Baltimore Fells Point .F. 133 313 Charm City Coliedy Club Bal t iaore Inner Harbor .T. 140 314 Conedy Fact or y Out 1et Bal t irore Inner Harbor .F, I 141 31s Pier Six Concw t Pavil ion Bal t irore Inner Harbor .F. 142 316 Lyric Opera House Bal t iaor e Hount Royal .F, 143 317 Heyer hof f Sylnphony Hal 1 8al t irore tlount Royal .f. 144 318 Theatre Project Bal t irore Hount Royal f. I 145 313 Tower Showcase Theatre 8al t irore Char 1 es Center .F. 146 320 Center St aqe Bal t irore hint Vernon .F. 147 321 Peabody Conservatory of nusic ea1 t irirre tlount Vernon .F. I 148 322 Spot1 iqhters Theatre Pal t irore Hount Vernon .T. 143 323 Shal imar's Dinner Cabaret Pal t iwe €ast 8al t inore .f, I 150 324 Arena P1 ayer s Sa1 t irore Boiton Hill .F. I I I I 151 325 Dunbar Perforiiing Arts Center Salt ieore Washington Hill .f. 152 326 Burn Brae Dinner Theatre Balto. Co. Bur tonsvi 1le .F. 153 327 Oregon Ridge Ilinner Actor's Theatre 8alto. Co. Cockeysville .F. I 154 328 Dundal k Coaruriity Theatre Balto. Co. Dundal k .F. 155 323 Herr ick's Dinner Theatre Balto. Co. Essex ,F. 156 330 Rec it a1 Hal 1, Essex Community Col 1ege Balto, Co. Essex .F. I 157 331 Tracy's at the Bowman Balto,. Co. Par kvill E .T, 158 323 Act Two Dinner Theatre Ealto. Co. Rosedal e ,T. 153 333 Kraushaar Auditor iue, Goucher College 8alto. Co. Tosson of. 160 334 Touson Ensefeblie Dancers Balto. Con Towson .F. I 161 335 Towsontowne Dinner Theatre Balto. Co. Town .f. 162 336 White Harsh Dinner Theatre Balto. Co. White Marsh .T. 153 337 Chesapeake Theater Harford Co. Bel Air .T. I 164 338 Amphitheater iit Merr iveather Post Favil ion Howard Co. Columbia IF. 165 339 S1 ay t on House Howard Co, Go1 usbia .T. 166 340 Toby's Dinner Theatre Howard CO, Col uisb i a .F. I 167 331 Roc kland Art Center , Dance Thea t r e Howard Co. €11 icott City .f. 168 342 The Little Theater on the Corner Houard Co. Ell icot t City .F. 163 401 King of Francci Tavern A. Arundel Co. Annapol is .T. 170 402 Downs Park Coiicert Amphitheatre A. Arundel Go. Pasadena .F. I 171 403 He t vor k A. Arundel Co. Pasadena '1. 172 404 Baitinwe Arena Baltimore Char 1es Center T. 173 405 Buddies Pal t ifpore Char 1es Center .F. I 174 406 festival Hall c/o Irish Festival Bal t imor e Charles Center ,F. 175 407 Nicky D's 9al t inore Char 1es Center IT. 176 408 8 x 10 Baltimore South Paltinore .T. 177 403 Bertha's Dining Roor Sal t imore Fells Point .F. I 178 410 Full noon Saloon Bal t imore fells Point .T. 173 411 Hax's On Broadway 8al t imore fells Point .F, 180 412 The Horse You Caw In On Baltimore Fells Point .F. I 181 413 Sport saan's lounge Pal t itnore Nor thuest Ea1 t isore ,T. 182 414 Dutch Mill Lounqe Baltimore Hami 1ton .T, 183 415 Eubie's in Baltimore's Fishmarket Bal t iaore Inner Harbor .T, I 184 416 Fat Tuesday Pal t imore Inner Harbor 1. 185 417 Lady Bal t irorr? Bal t ieore Inner Harbor IT. 186 418 Liberty Hall in Baltiaore's Fishmarket Bal t iaore Inner Harbor .T. 187 413 tlariner's Pier One ea1 t iaore Inner Harbor .T. I 188 420 P.T. Flaqg's, Power Plant Baltimore Inner Harbor .T. 183 421 The Chaabers Pal t irore Inner Harbor .f. 190 422 Blues Alley Ea1 t irtore flount Royal .T, I 131 423 Destinations Salt irore East Bal t irore .F, 192 424 God f r ey ' s Faaous Ball r oon Baltimore Hount Royal f. 133 425 Halaser jaiks Pal t irore South Baltimore T. 134 426 The Barn Ealto. Cc7. Carney .T. I 135 427 lidway Cafe 9alto. Co. Essex .T. 136 428 Firehouse Tawn Balto. Co. Par kvi 1 le .F. 137 423 Billy's Saloon Balto. Co. Pi kesvi 11 e .T. I 198 430 Reister's Tovne Festival Balto. Co. Rei st er st own .F. 133 431 Dulaney Inn 8alto. Co. Tovson .T. I 200 432 Haxuell ' s Balto. Co. Tovson .T. I I I

201 433 0's and Ginny's Carroll Co. West ainst er .T. I 202 434 Last Chance Saloon Hovard to. Columb i a .T, 203 435 Rerriweather Post Pavilion Howard Cos Coluabia .T, 204 436 Sneakers Sports Saloon Howard Co. Col umt i a T, I 205 437 Eubie Blake Cultural Center Jazz Club Pal t imore hunt Vernon Df. 206 501 KB-Annapolis 4 Cinema A, Arundel Co. Annapol is sf, 207 502 St. John's College filns A. Arundel Co. Annapolis .f, I 208 503 Hollywood Tuin Cinema A. Arundel Co. Ar but us .T, 203 504 Anne Arundel Comunity College films A. Arundel Co. Ar no1 d IF. 210 505 Loew Crofton Cinema A. Arundel CB. Crofton .T,

211 506 GCC Harundale Cinesas A. Arundel Co. Glen Burnie ,T. I I 212 507 Loews 61en Purnie Towncenter A. Arundel Go. 61en Burnie a 1. 213 508 UA novies at flarley Station A. Arundel Co. Glen Eurnie ,T. 214 ,509 Loews Jumpers Cinemas 6. Arundel Go, Pasadena T, I 215 510 Loevs Town Theatre Bal t imore Charles Center .f. 216 511 Baltimore filre Forum, Museum of Art Baltimore Charles Village .f. 217 512 Saltimore Science fiction Society Filas Pal t imore Charles Village .F. 218 513 Johns Hopkin5 University film Series Ealt imore Charles Village ,f. ' I 219 514 GCC Yoirk Road Plaza Cinetaa Bal t iwoire Govanst own .T. 226 515 Senator Theatre Ea1 t iror e Govanst own .T.

221 516 Loyola College filas 8al t iiaore Guil ford IT. I 222 517 Loews Rotunda Cinemas Falt imore Hampden .T. 223 518 Patterson Theatre Halt irora Highland town ,T, 224 513 UA flovies at Harbor Park Ea1 t imor e Inner Harbor .T. 225 520 Loews Hippodrora Theatre Bal t irpore Char 1es Center ,T, I 226 521 flaryland Institute Fila Prograr! Ea1 t imore tlount Royal T, 227 522 Llxus Reisterstown Plaza 5-Star Salt imore Northwest Baltirore .T. 228 523 Loews Reisterstown Plaza Twin Baltimore Northwest Baltimore .T. I 223 524 Enoch Pratt Central Library Films Salt iwe Mount Ser non .F. 236 525 Lows North Point Plaza Cinemas Bal t icaore East Balt iaore .T. 231 526 Charles Theatre Baltimore Hount Royal ,f. I 232 527 Boulevard Baltimore Cfaver 1 y .T, 233 523 Uestviev Cineeas Balto. Go. Catonsville .T. 234 523 Loews 6reenspring Cinemas Balto. Co. Dumbar ton a T. 235 530 GCC Security Square Cinema 8alto. Co. Gwynn Oak/ Security .T. I 236 531 Pengies Drive-In Balto, Co, Middle River .T. 237 532 GCC Perring Plaza Cinera Balto, Co, Par kvi 1 le .T. 238 533 Villaqe 3 Cinema Balto, Co. Reist er st ovn .T. I 233 534 UA Hovies at Golden Ring M~ll Balto, Co. Rossv 11 1el Rosedal e ,f , 240 535 Lcreus TiBonium Cineras Balto. Co. Timoniur .T. 241 536 Loews Towson Twin Balto. Co. Tovson IT. I 242 537 Loews Yorkridge 4 Cinema Balto. Co. Yor kr idge .T. 243 538 Nev Hillendale Cinemas 8 a 1 t [:I. C o . Parkville .T, 244 533 Carrolltown Movies Carroll Co. El der sbur q T.

245 540 Cranberry Nall Cineaa 6 Carroll Ih. Westrinster IT. I 246 541 Beard's Hill lovie 5 Har ford Co. Lber deen .T. 247 542 Loevs Caapus Hills Cinemas Har ford Co. Bel Air .T. 248 543 Loeus Harford Hall Cinemas Harford Co. Fel Air .T. I 249 544 Tollgate Novie 7 liarford Co. Bel Air .T. 250 545 Belair Drive-In Harford Co. Churc hvill e .f. 251 546 Edgewater Twin Cineras Harford Co. Ed Q e wood * 1. 252 547 6CC Columbia Cineras Howard Co. folurbia .T, I 253 548 hews Colurbia Falace 3 Howard Co. Col urbia .T. I 254 549 Edrondson Drive-In Howard Co. Ellicott City .T. I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I