Moreover artist communities flourish in urban spaces with cheap rent, like New York in the 1970s, Paris in the 1920s, Berlin in the 1990s and so on. Without that you just end up with Dubai or Monaco with shittier weather.
Exactly. Wealthy residents should at some point realize that culture and entertainment venues/options are (often) created by lower income residents. If that disappears you get soulless places which are dramatically less fun to live in. Not to mention the service industry workers, who also need to come from somewhere.
That's a pretty grim scenario to imagine. Art and artists 'moved' off somewhere, while the putatively rich consume their produce through screens. All so real estate prices can climb higher?
Tell me you haven’t attended an artist commune without telling me you haven’t attended an artist commune. There’s very little like seeing someone’s performance art in person, or walking through an art installation with other artsy friends, or attending a workshop (the fees paying local artists).
Not even so esoteric as communes and performance art! Even 'normal' galleries, theater, music, are inherently analogue, physical experiences that don't translate to digital reproduction.
My wife and I watched Chris Rock from the front row at the Comedy Cellar last summer. Total cost was like $75 with drinks. Absolutely incredible. I could watch every incredible stand up special available online and it wouldnt be anywhere close to that in person experience.
I'm not saying all low-rent regions will attract art, but it's possible to generate some pretty significant cultural shifts.
San Francisco / Berkeley becoming capitals of counterculture was not an entirely obvious outcome from the perspective of the 1930s, 40s, or 50s. A friend recalls the Haight-Ashbury when it was largely a Greek ethnic neighbourhood.
Why would an artist who wants an opportunity to live somewhere as exciting as NYC want to move to St. Louis? Even if St. Louis did manage to become an artistic hub, what would stop it from going through the usual gentrification cycle and becoming unaffordable to regular people the way Portland, Austin, Oakland (not to mention Bushwick, Crown Heights, Bed-Stuy) have?
"I would put it this way: there are many ways to impose a Georgist land tax, fiscal insolvency being one of them. Very wealthy people and institutions know that if they relocate to Chicago, they will be required to ante up for the final bill. And so they stay away. For a city of its size and import, Chicago just doesn’t have that many billionaires, nor do I think a rational billionaire should consider moving there.
In other words, there is a pending wealth tax. Either directly or indirectly, this will place fiscal burdens on Chicago land, the immobile factor. And this keeps down rents in Chicago now."
Have you checked the recent rent surges? I'm not sure if it's the summer, but any hotel room in the loop is $300+ per night. Airbnb is just a scam there.
