Turning up the “Volume” on planning in Portland
Art Scatter regular Tim DuRoche, a man of wide-ranging interests, has allowed us to post this account of Portland’s “Summer of Planning”, which is rapidly becoming a “Fall of Planning”. We’re especially happy to have his report of Portland planning chief Arun Jain’s talk on the last day of the “Volume” art exhibition, organized by Portlandart proprietor Jeff Jahn, in some ways the clearest expression of the uneasy relationship between art and urban planning. Tim writes about planning, urban design topics for Portland Spaces’ Burnside Blog.
By Tim DuRoche
With all the hubbub about cities and planning in arts circles—Sojourn Theatre’s Built, the Lawrence Halprin Fountain-centric City Dance, visual arts group shows Volume and the Thomas Sieverts-inspired Suddenly for starters, you kind of have to wonder—is urban planning the new black?
Or in the context of the lo-fi, local artscape, is an embrace of placemaking and the language of planning yet another double-coded, wink-wink social-practice gambit from the legions of folks making art that’s rife with sewing circle/swap meet simplicity?
The marquee-prominence of planning in cocktail-conversation Portland thrives because of civic engagement, while on the viz art end, Portland’s social-practice artists bank on a street-level participation that’s one part community charrette, part tea party, part cracker-barrel confession, and many parts Tom Sawyer whitewashing.
So what happens when an architect-planner meets a young-and-restless art posse head on?
For the closing night of the visual art exhibition Volume at WorkSound a week or two back, curator Jeff Jahn created a bold, curious pairing, inviting Arun Jain, Chief Urban Designer for the City of Portland to give a talk on Portland planning. Gallery-goers interested in how Portland’s artists (Sean Healy, Joe Thurston, Ellen George, Laura Fritz, Josh Smith, Adam Sorensen, and Karl Burkheimer, among others) are “reshaping and redefining the city, pushing it to be more truly progressive and engaged in terms of its expectations for itself” were treated to a rare opportunity to see these same issues through the eyes of designers, urban historians, planners and policy makers. A very appealing proposition.
Jain’s “What Kind of City Would You Want Anyway?” was a breezy overview of how Portland’s Urban Design Group looks at urban form, quality, and identity, history and possibility—basically creating a framework and vocabulary for you or I to engage in semi-substantive conversations on urban design concerns in the Central City and how Portland can and should develop in the future.
Jain is a very erudite fellow, a quiet philosopher-king, of sorts. He was able to shoot from the hip and frame The Portland Plan (an inclusive, citywide effort to guide the physical, economic, socio-cultural and environmental say-what of Portland over the next 30 years) for artists and civilians—beginning with a historic timeline and showing the evolution of Great Plans of Portland from Olmsted to the 1988 Central City plan (including the widely vilified, but curious 1966 Comprehensive Plan). It was a great trajectory exploring who we are/what we believe/how we became who we are and what role urban form played in inspiring that evolution. Jain hit on some well-considered historic precedents (Barcelona, Edinburgh , Glasgow , Old Kyoto, Philly, and Savannah ) and contemporary urban analogues(downtown plans of cities like Minneapolis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Charlotte, among others).
Overall Jain exhibited a cool ease in limning the connections between civic and design quality issues, social equity and balance, history and socially relevant metaphors that would have seemed tailor-made for a group of artists (challenges like fear of change, nostalgia’s burden, resilient frameworks, integrated thinking, and the driving force of Big Ideas). Jain in fact addressed with clarity and precision the qualitative differences between the urban planner and the artist’s reading of the built environment—grappling with the “urban, urbane, cosmopolitan and geographically promiscuous” themes that Volume sought to address, but only speciously tackled.
Somehow it failed to stick. What surfaced instead was kind of a second-cousin of NIMBYism—an irrational, knee-jerk fear and distrust of The Man.
In fact one woman took great umbrage because, in her perception, the talk didn’t address artists, the criminal paucity of public spaces for engagement (and police retaliation when people do gather), or most strange, Portland’s inaccessible sprawl. Another young man (after hearing about extensive public process, citizen-input and the history of civic involvement in planning) wanted to know “who was making these decisions and why weren’t our voices being heard.” Huh?
Maybe it’s a disconnect on what passes for immersion in indie/DIY culture vs. an immersion in civic life of the city. If indeed we are attracting the Young and Restless, as Joe Cortright’s suggested, how is this influx of creative-inclined energy contributing to civic culture—i.e. do they have library cards, are they registered to vote, do they volunteer, and do they feel invested enough to go to public meetings and engage? It can’t be just the bike culture, coffee and free-flowing PBR that’s drawing people here. How are they embedding themselves?
When the Portland Plan Summit was kicked off in June at the Convention Center, you could easily count the number of arts people on most of your left hand. I learned of it not through official arts and culture channels, but through the community-based list-serv of Coalition for a Livable Future. Not only did you get to have your say on issues surrounding the 20-minute neighborhood, public health, socio-cultural amenities and human service infrastructure–you got a free lunch. You’d think every young, restless creative classmate from Alberta would be there for at least the grub.
What to do, what to do. We can’t force civic engagement, certainly. We want to avoid, what Robert Putnam referred to as “civic broccoli” . But in a city that values involvement, collaboration and local decision-making, it’s a bit of a quandary.
Do we look at a more ecological, neighborhood-based, creative-economy frame that values independent artists, and informal, less “official,” undocumented community-enhancing amenities like WorkSound? Do we pay more attention to art as a community-building force as well as an asset and spur to economic capital?
We might find a way to balance dual policy goals of planning and social inclusion if we initiated (as City Auditor Gary Blackmer suggested in passing a while back) Portland Civics 101— a project that stressed social connectivity and engagement as a cultural right alongside the resistant, restless energy of youth and creativity. That might turn up the Volume for real.
Image credit: OpenwidePDX
http://www.openwidepdx.com/2008exhibitions/worksound-volume/
October 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Thanks Tim,
Art object making artists usually don’t create direct illustrations that urban designers can make direct use of, instead they create what I call “cosmopolitan pressure”.
For example, in the case of Volume they forwarded very specific spatial agenadas that in their own microcismic way do influence the macro as a kind of base level for sophisticated thinking about space. So one could ask are the designs for a new Willamette bridge as sophisticated as work by stephen Slappe and Salvator Reda?
I also think that most of the knee jerk reactions didn’t come from the (rather informed) artists in the show, but from NIMBY’s not so involved in the art scene that came to the talk with a prepapred axe to grind.
The bigger question is, “Is the city paying enough attention to the more sophisticated/reflexive concerns both Jain and the art scene are tabling?”
It is wonderful that the discussion still continues!
October 10th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Hm. I think that question is one to consider.
To shake hands with your first point, I think that urban planners and artists can certainly find “shared assets” in the realm of metaphor, i.e. in the case of a Willamette bridge: notions of span, truss, suspension,or frequency (drive your car over the Hawthorne Bridge at different mph and experience changes in musical pitch. ..what would an urban “symphony” be like?).
To partially answer your question, I think the city is paying attention to the reflexive concerns of Arun’s ideas–I think for instance the 1903 Olmsted Plan resonates as a historic analogue for what we’re preparing for in the coming decade (it was conceived at the height of a massive rise in class diversification, immigration, population change), public health, etc.
To slightly dodge the other part of the question, and allow me to clarify this by saying you curated a great group show, I didn’t feel like the show did what it said it would. Yes, these folks all “articulate, inhabit and or redefine space” but I didn’t feel like there was a holistic sense of “reshaping and redefining the city. . .pushing it to be more truly progressive and engaged in terms of its expectations for itself” through the work–merely a fantastic agglomeration of artists (both emerging, established and new discoveries).
But the real question isn’t NIMBYism, it’s about “who’s coming here” and “what’s attracting them.” And that’s where the disconnect is happening. This whole notion of how they’re embedding themselves is central. I should give some credit where credit is due to my friend Carol Hickman (director of the Nonprofit Association of Portland)–the embedding question is a perpetual point of discussion whenever we’ve talked about the alleged “rise of the creative class” here in Portland. Creative Capacity in this city is a civic value–so if part of that equation is this massive influx of 20-30-something artists, writers, musicians, DIY creative entrepreneurs–how are they contributing to the cultural and civic fabric, how are they “animating democracy.” Ferinstance, if work-live space, affordable housing is a “creative class” priority, then show-up at the public meeting, volunteer for related-human service orgs like Sisters of the Road or Central City Concern. Not to get all Heideggerian, but to what extent is their being-in-Portland achieving something beyond the ephemeral? I would just like folks to understand that there’s a big difference between art informed by so-called social practice and actual civic engagement.
And again–I totally enjoyed the range of work and can’t wait to see what comes next.
Tim
October 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I disagree of course because the way these artists engage space it does reshape and redefine the city. . .pushing it to be more truly progressive and engaged in terms of its expectations for itself. Frankly, they have been at it for years.
Also, by not by asking the city to paint its streets purple (or something equally literal) and instead simply doing sophisticated work that makes people think about space on the artists own terms is more than enough. Visual art changes people, one experience at a time in very open ended ways.
For example, when Salvator designed and burnt a condo it could be read many different ways (a realestate meltdown, a disaster recreation, a offering to the market gods in some kind of susperstitious sacrifice? Also, when Philippe installed his “Fucking Around” work in a pre-existing piece it was a form of funny comment on display conventions. They are prompts for spatial though not illustrations of prortland’s future…. that is Jain’s world and he made it very clear what the differences were between what he does and “very singular acts”.
Thus, instead of the artists bending their practice to the whims du jour of the city they present their own idiomatic spatial conventions to the people of the city. (ala Chandra Bocci doing an 85 foot otterpop rainbow in 2004) This wasnt supposed to illustrate urban involvment… these artist’s existence accomplishes the goals I wrote… an exhibition simply gave people the opportunity to experience it all in one place, under a common theme.
When artists act spatially they effect their viewer’s spatial and cultural understanding. If you want something that is more literal then you have the Keller fountain dances…. cool but more literal than vampire film conventions of preditor and prey like Slappe’s piece.
The fact is artists have been doing a lot of very serious installtion art for the past 10 years in Portland and the net effect on the city is huge.
I simply felt it should be acknowledged in the format of a show that introduced a lot of talented new names.
I ask again, is the city really listening to Jain enough? seriously… we all know Portland isnt that agressive about design. It’s more passive. The artists in Volume are very agressive (even the very subtle ones like George, Fritz and Douglass). As Portland has gotten more accustomed to very confident contemporary art it needs to get more confident about its design agendas.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Oh and here’s the Flikr site so people can see the exhibition which is now closed:
October 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
That didnt work, just cut and past this to see the show: http://flickr.com/photos/salvatorereda/sets/72157607048093878/
October 10th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Let’s see. An artist who wants to affect the development of SE Division is best employed working with Charles in the second edge cities post below. The specific face of the city needs artists in the worst (or is that best?) way, working as part of the process. Tim fears that they avoid this rough-and-tumble for more private and theoretical musings. Jeff argues that artists don’t “owe” us participation in that process, that they affect the shape and meaning of the city in the process of being artists, especially when they are being artists whose subject in one way or another is the city. Do I have the positions summarized correctly, or is that too reductive? I’m all about “and”. I’d suggest helping out Charles on SE Division and devising completely mind-altering interventions in and on the city and pursuing whatever “private” practice the artist wants.
Does the artist “owe” us that? Uh, no. What will ultimately have the greatest effect? I have no idea. But as a general proposition, I think we’d all agree that we want artists participating in the direct “practice” of the city, just as we would accountants and engineers and carpenters and nurses.
I like the “assimilation” question that Tim raises, though I don’t worry about it so much maybe. I have watched newcomers to the city create their own institutions and become involved in existing ones in large numbers. If they don’t trust “official” institutions, perhaps they will create robust unofficial ones to urge their positions with official ones. On the other hand, the official “Portland process” being what it is, I fully expect them to develop more trust as time goes one.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:47 am
That seems about right. Just different goals for different artists. Volume was a way to introduce a bunch of new names who have been helping to reshape Portland’s cultural and design expectations… through their varied approaches to space. It was a kind of abstracted skinner box…
Also, many of the artists in Volume are teaching at one of the major institutions, a big group show is just a way to acknowledge a kind of “next wave”.
I firmly believe that a city is defined by who lives there not the other way around, and if Volume is any indication the scene has gotten much more sophisticated. Many have bought homes and started families even. They have circumvented Portland’s lack of institutional support by building nationally networked careers too. Of course any help is still useful, but the art scene is still much more progressive than the institutions that supposedly support it. PAM has made some great strides though, they have coherent programs like the Miller-Meigs series, CNAA and Apex. Still The scene expects more, like a major contemporary art show (which I know Bruce is working on + China design now).
November 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Tim says, “I would just like folks to understand that there’s a big difference between art informed by so-called social practice and actual civic engagement.”
Not to mention the sweat and grind of implementing big ideas. And the receptivity of civic leaders of various types to assimilate visionary artists - who seek to be on the front line of community development - into meaningful roles in ongoing decision making and implementation. How about an artist in residence in the Planning Bureau? I could name a few good candidates without a second thought.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Perhaps someone like Mierle Laderman Ukeles, who’s been the artist in residence in NY’s Sanitation Department for years. I think in many ways if we’re not going to have a separate agency of Arts, Culture and Creative Economy (like Philly does) then arts/culture should be an area of advocacy within the planning bureau–it’s certainly a livable cities issue.
But back to the point of artists reshaping/redefining the city–I have to ask “how” and “for whom”? It’s one thing to talk about installation work jiggering our notions of space, it’s another to imply that Chandra’s otterpops are effecting policy. Bill Nye the Science Guy says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I will wholeheartedly say every single one of these artists is contributing to the creative vitality and rich discussion of what drives the city. . .but Bill’s right, the next phase is work that engagement into a much more systemic equation, something on a deeper, meaningful level. . .work that moves the discussion into one of placemaking and paradigm-shift.
Like Barry, I love the “yes, and. . .”