Cultural Institutions: the Role of Urban Design

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Grodach, Carl (2011) Cultural institutions: The role of urban design. In Banerjee, T & Loukaitou-Sideris, A (Eds.) Companion to urban design. Routledge, United Kingdom, pp. 405-418. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/74527/ c Copyright 2011 The author This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected] Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. http:// www.routledge.com/ books/ details/ 9780415553643/ BETWEEN PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL CULTURE: THE ROLE OF URBAN DESIGN IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS Carl Grodach Governments and private patrons have long sponsored cultural institutions-- public or nonprofit organizations engaged in artistic, intellectual, and educational activities such as museums of art, culture, history, or science and performing arts organizations-- to symbolize their wealth, civic commitment, and devotion to the fine arts. Today, however, as cities have become more focused on economies of culture, consumption, and entertainment, they are increasingly likely to commission a museum or performing arts center to demonstrate their global city status and spark economic revitalization. Simultaneously, cultural institutions have evolved from classically-inspired, inwardly-focused temples of art and history into more commercially viable, publically accessible, and broadly appealing destinations. Cultural institutions have sought to reach out to new audiences both by attempting to represent the specific interests and experiences of diverse groups and by defining new, shared experiences that revolve around consumption and spectacle, all while retaining their cultural authority and role as tastemakers. Although the iconic architecture of some cultural institutions has tended to dominate the media spotlight (think of the Guggenheim Bilbao) urban design plays an important role in negotiating these competing objectives and in promoting the use of cultural institutions as an economic development and urban revitalization tool. Such tasks represent an important facet of urban design work more broadly and are increasingly relevant as public life takes place less in traditional forms of public space-- squares, plazas, promenades-- and more in semi-private spaces of consumption and entertainment. As such, cultural institutions offer a rich site in which to study how urban design is used to adapt to changes emanating from the local and global levels and the associated effects on the use and meaning of urban space. To this end, the essay provides an overview of the defining and emerging trends in the design and planning of contemporary cultural institutions. The first section sets the stage through 1 a brief review of the primary roles, characteristics, and urban design of early public museums and arts theaters. The following section examines how changes taking place inside and outside cultural institutions beginning in the 1960’s altered their design and mandate. Finally, the discussion turns to the emergence of cultural institutions as sources of urban revitalization. Drawing on four representative examples, this section considers the role of urban design in each project. The conclusion summarizes the challenges urban designers face as they attempt to navigate the terrain between public and commercial culture in the context of contemporary cultural institutions. PRECEDENTS Public cultural institutions originated in Europe during the 18th century. A key example is the Louvre, which was formed during the French Revolution in a former palace to publically display the royal art collection and create a defining symbol of national heritage and identity (Duncan 1995). Decades later, the first permanent public museums appeared in the US such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and, by the early 20th century, virtually every major city in the US had constructed their own temple of culture often modeled on the Louvre, down to its classically inspired architecture (Steffensen-Bruce 1998). This cultural building boom was triggered by rapid urbanization, which produced a concentration of wealthy patrons and visitors and engendered a perceived need to educate the masses. Although created by affluent individuals rather than the state, like their European counterparts, these museums and performance theaters ultimately provided a social space dedicated to cultivating and demonstrating an appreciation of the fine arts that, in turn, reinforced class distinctions (Bennett 1995; Bourdieu 2007; DiMaggio 1982). Still, museums in particular functioned not simply as exclusive bastions of high culture, but also served as a space for the 2 upper classes to inculcate in the country’s growing working classes and immigrant populations an appreciation of the arts, social etiquette, and civic virtue (Bennett 1995; Steffensen-Bruce 1998). Like Fredrick Law Olmstead’s vision for Central Park, many elites and social reformers viewed museums as a space that could counter the negative affects associated with industrialization and urbanization and improve the cultural life of US cities, though one largely defined by the bourgeoisie. Architecture and urban design supported these roles. Intended as a refuge from the coarse realities of daily life in the industrial city, many early public cultural institutions were located in parks (Steffensen-Bruce 1998) and numerous European cities confined the fine arts to dedicated compounds such as the Museumminsel (Museum Island) in Berlin. Across the US, City Beautiful planners and architects in cities relied on fine arts institutions to reinforce their design objectives. Typically arranged with other public buildings at the terminus of a grand boulevard and surrounded by fountains, plazas and sculpture, cultural institutions served as monumental anchors of their grand plans dedicated to urban order and beauty (Wilson 1989). As in other public buildings of the time, architects employed a mix of neoclassical and Beaux-Arts styles to recall ancient, yet highly evolved civilizations and Enlightenment philosophies as well as to signal the aura of the art inside (Steffensen-Bruce 1998; Yanni 1999). These districts physically isolated the fine arts and culture from more lowbrow recreational activities and the surrounding city where most people lived and worked. The segregation of high culture culminated in the 1950’s and 1960’s with projects like Lincoln Center in New York and subsequent imitators such as the Kennedy Center in Washington DC and the Los Angeles County Performing Arts Center. Urban design was integral to the experience: the isolated cultural compounds typically contain a collection of fine arts 3 institutions that face an interior plaza turning their backs to the surrounding streets. Often, the site is elevated above street level with underground parking so that visitors can directly enter and exit the complex without coming into contact with the surrounding urban environment. This introverted design was as much in keeping with traditional notions of public cultural institutions as it was a response to the declining conditions of many central cities in the US. At the same time, Lincoln Center, marked the beginning of a shift toward thinking about cultural institutions as a source of urban attraction and renewal. Robert Moses expressly conceived of the cultural complex as a catalyst for raising property values and attracting higher-end uses to the Upper West Side of Manhattan and, for the first time, demonstrated the potential of culture as a tool for generating wealth by altering the character of a place. Still, the isolated cultural enclave remains a fixture in many cities today and some new museums such as the Getty Center in Los Angles, with its hilltop campus looking down on the city below, continue to follow this model. CONTEMPORARY TRENDS As cities began to recognize cultural institutions as a source of urban renewal, their mandate, function, and physical form began to change as well. Although in some regards they remain high culture houses for affluent audiences, since the 1960’s cultural institutions have worked to alter their traditional mandate. For one, rather than solely focusing on arts and history from a classical European vantage point, museums and art centers have slowly responded to criticisms of elitism and unequal representation. Many have attempted to reflect the cultural expressions of different groups in their programs, engage a wider range of communities in dialog, and, at times, provide a staging ground to debate pressing local and global issues

Load more