ریسک مذاکره در دارایی ها مبتنی بر توسعه هنر های اقتصادی: بررسی همکاری های توسعه نوآورانه، اما نابه هنگام متقابل بین موزه هنر سیاتل و واشنگتن
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|15205||2014||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 11625 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Cities, Volume 37, April 2014, Pages 92–103
Property-led arts development (PAD) is central to urban policy and planning. The demand for physical arts infrastructure runs parallel with the public call for arts nonprofits to act more entrepreneurial in shaping and re-imaging urban space. Increasingly, these groups have become active property developers negotiating the risks and rewards of land development rather than remaining passive fundraisers of bricks and mortar campaigns. This shift in organizational identity raises questions about whether the politics of urban arts development have changed. This study asks four questions: (1) how are nonprofit arts organizations becoming more entrepreneurial in property development, (2) how are nonprofit arts organizations reshaping the urban landscape through development partnerships, (3) how are nonprofit arts developers responding to the 2008 economic crash, and (4) how does PAD align with new thinking on downtown development alliances? This research explores the innovative but failed land development deal between the Seattle Art Museum and the now-defunct Washington Mutual to build a joint tower in the central business district. Their atypical private/nonprofit partnership changed Seattle’s downtown landscape through flexible ownership structures, generous planning incentives and off-budget municipal maneuvers. The lauded project turned sour when the homegrown financial institution collapsed, forcing the museum into debt with limited private or public sector solutions. While SAM overcame the immediate crisis, the case is a cautionary tale about the long-term risk of contemporary PAD. The case shows that innovative practices do not predetermine success. Further, the partnership study illuminates how contemporary arts investments reflect as well as contradict new thinking in urban politics literature about evolving patterns of influence in U.S. downtowns
Arts economic development or “culture as development” (Strom, 2003, 248) policy seeks to grow regional industries, revive crumbling places, stimulate neighborhood change, attract educated workers and raise cultural stature (Johnson, 2008). Property-based or physical arts development (PAD) is one of the more popular strategies focusing on a diverse set of bricks and mortar projects to achieve physical rehabilitation and coveted place transformation (Sagalyn and Johnson, 2013). This diverse project portfolio ranges from large arts anchors, such as flagship projects, to smaller efforts, such as live/work space. Debates abound about the politics of arts and urban development: critics question public investment in risky projects for the elite while others scoff at public expenditure for private arts and entertainment projects. The politics are more pronounced today due to uncertainty over resources, philanthropic patterns, civic leadership trends (Kwatinetz, 2011) and concerns about post-2008 ramifications.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This case study of an innovative but failed partnership between SAM and WaMu makes several important points. First, PAD needs to be studied through an urban redevelopment lens to better understand how development occurs. This is particularly relevant as arts organizations are expected to become more entrepreneurial and innovative as anchor organizations and creative place-makers in cities. Second, this case is a cautionary tale for PAD supporters. Innovation does not necessarily lead to project or organizational success. SAM’s expansion is an impressive downtown development experiment in its execution and partnership. However, the immense risk and reliance on a single corporate institution – no matter how invested and rooted in the community – is perhaps an unwise move when the development and income portfolio is overstretched and specialized. Third, this case uncovers an atypical development partnership between a nonprofit and for-profit group. This is an alliance that is often overlooked in urban redevelopment conversations. Fourth, the arts continue to be part of a shuffling game in the urban landscape as civic pressures for transforming parts of city life are placed upon these institutions. The promises of generous support need to be considered against organizational capacity and different planning agendas.