Silvia De Nardis, Sapienza University of Rome
Definition
Creative placemaking refers to an artist-initiated, culture-driven, bottom-up, and place-based approach to imagining and realising tomorrow’s cities. The concept builds upon over 20 years of research on small cultural actors and their relationships with the place. For these actors, it generally involves long-term engagement with the place in question, and ultimately, their work changes fundamental social relations of the place while avoiding unwanted adverse secondary effects, such as gentrification or exclusion (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010; Frenette, 2017). It brings together public, private, civic, and non-profit organisations to develop high-quality places in a strategic alliance with the artists and cultural professionals who initiated the process. Creative placemaking thus assigns a central role to artists and cultural and creative industries in shaping the physical and social character of a neighbourhood, town, city, or region (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Creative professionals in various fields, such as theatre, film, art, music, design, or architecture, are crucial to promoting dialogue with residents, facilitating the emergence of their needs and desires, and strengthening community bonds and social inclusion. Creative placemaking prioritises collaborative and human-centred aspects of city-making by placing people and their relationships with the place at the forefront. As Courage (2021) argues, there is a community imperative in placemaking that unites, fosters connections, and creatively drives urban innovation. Creative placemaking thus contributes to neighbourhoods’ sustainable development by promoting local business while safeguarding community cultural heritage and raising social cohesion, with an increasing focus on green aspects and ecological approaches.
Background information and contemporary debate
The term creative placemaking was coined by Markusen and Gadwa and included in the white paper they published in 2010 for the Mayors’ Institute of City Design. Since then, it has had its roots in U.S. American cultural policy, standing out as a well-established funding trend in culture-based economic development programmes. Creative placemaking involves a wide array of private and philanthropic stakeholders, often including cross-sectoral investments in housing, health services, infrastructure, or education (Gadwa, 2013). The simultaneous participation of financial investors, public administrators, citizens and artists gives it a special visibility than the more traditional arts-based economic development or cultural planning solutions (Zitcer, 2020). Today, creative placemaking: “has successfully come into being as a unique intersection where art that is community-based, place-based, collaborative, and participatory is valued as a distinct form of community development, and one that will see continued attention, field building, and funding” (Crisman, 2022, p. 724).
Creative placemaking has spread widely in the United States, supported by strong cultural policies that promote community engagement and grassroots initiatives. In contrast, despite having a rich tradition in culture-focused policies—such as cultural planning and creative city studies (Florida, 2002; Landry, 2003; Evans, 2005)—Europe lacks a robust framework for creative placemaking. However, there are ongoing small-scale, multistakeholder processes in Europe that engage local practices and showcase potential for adaptation and growth. Together with local government, grassroots actors and citizens, the cultural workers are experimenting with innovative place-based processes targeted at economic improvement, spatial recovery, social equity and environmental sustainability. While the application of creative placemaking differs between the U.S. and Europe, the emphasis on locally based, collaborative approaches remains essential for its success in both contexts.
Creative placemaking seems to show promising opportunities for cities, suburbs and smaller towns. Nevertheless, its benefits can be dissipated and not last without strategic thinking and effective tools to mitigate some recurring challenges. Firstly, it is often difficult to measure the impact of placemaking activities, while side effects such as the commercialisation of culture in today’s neoliberal societies, gentrification and social exclusion must be constantly monitored. Moreover, the creation of strong partnerships based on shared objectives can be tricky due to the diversity of interests involved. Different actors, such as policymakers and creatives, also have different backgrounds and viewpoints that usually need time to align.
Such and other barriers to collaborative innovation in culture-led city making, or what Borén and Young (2013) call a “creativity policy gap”, require to be limited or overcome by comprehensively exploring new governance models that are effective in crossing administrative sectors and levels and involve a plurality of stakeholders. This aim aligns with Markusen and Gadwa’s (2010) ambition to build a “collaborative policy platform” that includes community, local government, private, and non-profit agencies, as well as those they refer to as “creative initiators”-artists and cultural practitioners who are crucial in shaping high-quality places through their art.
References
Borén, T., & Young, C. (2013). Getting creative with the ‘creative city’? Towards new perspectives on creativity in urban policy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1799-1815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01132.x
Crisman, J. (2022). Evaluating values in creative placemaking: The arts as community development in the NEA’s Our Town program. 44(4–5), 708–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2021.1890607
Courage, C. (2017). Arts in place: The arts, the urban and social practice. Routledge.
Evans, G. (2005). Measure for measure: Evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 959–983. doi:10.1080/00420980500107102
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how It’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Basic Books.
Frenette, A. (2017). The rise of creative placemaking: Cross-sector collaboration as cultural policy in the United States. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 47(5): 333–345.
Gadwa, A. (2013). Fuzzy vibrancy: Creative placemaking as ascendant US cultural policy. Cultural Trends, 22(1-4), 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2013.817653
Landry, C. (2003). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. Earthscan.
Markusen, A., & Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative placemaking. Mayors’ Institute on City Design.
Vivant, E. (2009). Qu’est-ce que la ville créative? Presses Universitaires de France.
Zitcer, A. (2020). Making up creative placemaking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18773424
