Week 6 question

Different entities are involved in “creative placemaking”, from the cultural community, to the private sector and local and state government. Each group seeks a particular end and at times “creative placemaking” comes off as a large scale marketing scheme. Most of these “creative hubs” start off with local effort, yet once these become popular and widely recognized, too much promotion may lead to displacement (gentrification will likely follow) and a community’s loss of authenticity. Should there be a range to keep in mind in order to ensure the place remains in service of the community (in a way restrain them from getting too successful)? I believe the reason “creative placemaking” resonates with many is because it markets itself as particular to the surrounding community.

Maintenance of these places seems to be an important issue. However, these spontaneous nodes are not often built to last long. Isn’t ephemeral architecture similar to” creative placemaking”? It’s inexpensive, fast and serves a purpose. The captivating idea is the roughness and vernacular aspect of place making.

If preservation takes a new route, one that does not go after the “remarkable” works, but rather celebrated everyday authenticity, such as what “creative placemaking” seeks to do, would the field then have a larger and more supportive audience?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s