Seattle is in the middle of a bitchin’ mayoral race. Nickels bit the
dust in the primary, leaving two greenhorns on the field and saving us
from interminable debates about the past eight years. The campaigns
will concern the future—and offer a rare opportunity to
restructure the city’s political priorities.
The fact that culture isn’t a campaign platform—like
transportation and housing—is insane. Seattle is packed
with artists and institutions that have palpable public benefits. It’s
time for them to stop apologizing and start demanding. Rocco Landesman,
the new NEA chief, is marching into D.C. wielding a torch and a sword
against myopic conservatives and the mealymouthed capitulators who’ve
been “advocating” for the arts for the past eight years. We should do
the same here and now. Culture has a constituency, but it doesn’t have
candidates—yet.
Let’s leave aside the sanctimonious, art-is-good-for-you arguments
and talk money. A few numbers from an exhaustive 2005 report by
Americans for the Arts: Nonprofit cultural organizations generated $330
million in economic activity in Seattle. (An ArtsFund study puts the
figure at $1 billion in King and Pierce counties.) Almost five million
people attended those events—more than the 4.2 million people who
attended professional sports. Thirty-seven percent of them came from
out of town, spending their money here instead of there. In
2005, the city’s Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs got $2.57
million for operations and allocations (minus money for public art) and
helped turn that into $12.3 million in local government revenue.
Culture is a smart investment. And that’s just the nonprofits—it
doesn’t count rock shows, clubs, etc. Serious studies about how culture
raises property values, attracts business, and feeds a city of ideas
(that become profits) haven’t been done.
What are the mayoral hopefuls saying about this? So far, Mike McGinn
looks more attractive than Joe Mallahan. In an interview with local
blog Publicola, Mallahan proposed cutting the city’s Office of Arts
& Cultural Affairs—the one that nearly quintuples its
budget in return revenue—as a cost-saving measure. (He also
suggested subordinating it to the Office of Economic Development.)
Last weekend at the Rendezvous, McGinn met with club owners, theater
directors, and other cultural industrialists. At a party afterward,
among the celery sticks and glasses of bourbon, McGinn called
Mallahan’s proposal “foolhardy.” “If anything,” he said, “that
office is not being leveraged to its full potential.” That’s what I’d
hoped to hear.
Mallahan will meet with arts leaders later this month and might make
a stronger case for himself. Either way, this election is a chance to
shove culture to the center of the debate, where it belongs. Culture
is a constituency, one with clout and money and public
interests—and sexy actors who’d make persuasive door-to-door
canvassers. 
Note: After this column was published, the Mallahan campaign backed away from his statement about the Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs, saying Publicola misrepresented their position. Josh Feit, who was present at the Publicola interview denies this, saying Mallahan “definitely told us” he would likely cut some smaller departments like the arts department and merge it with the Office of Economic Development. “He’s accused us of ‘misquoting’ him before, Feit adds, “but then he apologized to us when he realized he was wrong about that.”
More than anything I think the city needs to adopt an attitude that all the arts contribute to the livability of an urban Seattle. This means more than just keeping the Office of Cultural Affairs alive and funded. It also means embracing a growth plan that doesn’t just reward density in neighborhoods, but recognizes that the desirability of neighborhoods is often based on the accessibility and quality of arts opportunities in those neighborhoods. If I remember right, the so called “Toronto Plan” is an urban development model that stresses importance of arts, clubs and bars, and restaurants as magnets for development. But it also calls for smaller, “street friendly” development projects that tend to ease rapid gentrification and the economic strains that development often places on struggling arts organizations. The rush to density at any price that Seattle has implemented over the last decade or so has severely reduced the availability of the type of affordable commercial spaces that the arts need in order thrive. What we got instead are blocks of tin and glass condos, with a seemingly endless supply of Thai restaurants and Subway outlets at street level. Much of this space is empty, or being auctioned off.
Besides development issues, the city needs to take account of the impact that new revenue proposals may have on struggling arts organizations. Our soon departing Mayor floated the idea of extending parking meter hours to 10pm or later. This could severely constrain theater audiences. Special tax districts that are implemented in order to fund projects like streetcars also put an intolerable strain on arts organizations, since those inflated property taxes end up as higher rents which force arts organizations to close or move to other areas.
As the city and the area struggle to attract and retain employers, the city leaders need to remember that livability means not only urban amenities like streetcars and Subway outlets every block, it also means a vibrant, diverse, and secure arts scene to make the city truly desirable. Otherwise, we might as well be in Topeka.