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.