north adams and mass moca - williams college€¦ · north adams “a hard-luck mill town with no...
TRANSCRIPT
North Adams and MASS MoCA:evaluating the impact of creative community development
Stephen Sheppard, Williams College and C3DBlair Benjamin, MASS MoCA and C3DKay Oehler, C3D
North Adams and the MASS MoCA story
What is the MASS MoCA recipe?
Eve Andrée Laramée: Apparatus for the Distillation of Vague Intuitions, from the exhibition Unnatural Science, 2000
2828--building mill complexbuilding mill complex- 750,000 SF on 16 acres- Comprises 1/3 of downtown
business district- National List of Historic Places
North Adams
“a hard-luckmill town with no future” New York Times
1988
Add…Major in-kind contributions, staff time and volunteer time provided by Williams College (including several tireless and visionary administrators at the college museum, one of whom went on to become MASS MoCA’s founding Director)Energetic leadership by local elected officials, business leaders and other civic leaders10,000+ signatures on a petition$37 million in state capital grants$6 million in federal grants and loans$5 million in private cash contributionsAll the land and buildings acquired and controlled by MASS MoCA for $500,000Important programmatic partnerships with the Clark Art Institute, Williams College, Jacob’s Pillow, etc.More than a dash of good luck and good timing…
Stir for 10 to 15 years…
MASS MoCA 1.A dynamic platform
for the best visual & performing arts of our time … not a fixed box for static displays.
And the largest center in the United Statesdevoted exclusively to new art, in all disciplines.
MASS MoCA
1. A dynamic platform for changing visual & performing arts . . . not a fixed box.
2. A nationally-recognized workshop-laboratory for creating new art in all media.
MASS MoCA
1. A dynamic platform for changing visual & performing arts, not a fixed box.
2. A workshop-laboratory for creating new art.
3. A powerful economic, educational & social catalyst.
What is MASS MoCA catalyzing?Entrepreneurs, grassroots arts organizations, artists and other members of the “creative class” have been drawn to the town (attracted by cheap space and arts image)A softening of the social divides between North Adams and WilliamstownMiddle class housing returning to the downtownRe-discovery and renovation of the Victorian housing stock by both natives and newcomers, and the beginnings of a “second home” housing marketA positive identity for the city as a place where new businessesand residents are re-locating, community change efforts are succeeding, and ambitious programs are being attempted (Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative, etc.)
How does MASS MoCA operate?70 employees (including permanent part-time), 5-15 interns each season, and roughly $6 million annual operating budget in FY07
Collaboration, Collaboration, Collaboration
Gross revenues generated from…Contributed income $3.0 millionTicket sales & program reimbursements $0.9 millionRetail operations $0.6 millionLease & other investment income $1.5 million
Major operating expenses…Building maintenance, utilities, debt service $2.5 millionVisual arts operations $1.0 millionPerforming arts operations $0.8 millionRetail operations $0.4 millionBox office, admin staff, health insurance, etc. $1.3 million
Commercial Lease Revenues
$1,250,000$1,082,020
$450,652$305,919
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
FY2003 Actual
FY2004 Actual
FY2005 Actual
FY2006Projection-----------Actual
The MASS MoCA StoryThis presents an encouraging story for the arts and community developmentKey questions are …Is it more than a story? Can we reliably measure the effects?
MASS MoCA has made a significant claim on resources• Direct financial resources from the public sector• Indirect financial resources as a tax-exempt non-profit• Site resources – occupies a central location in the community• “Attention resources” – the basis for town identity
Is the resource commitment justified?Similar questions arise around the country
Contribution of arts to community developmentEvaluation has been criticized• Weakness of empirical methods• Absence of specific linkage or mechanism for contribution• Failure to consider opportunity costs
Recommendations made to consider “intrinsic benefits”• Little information on how to establish standards for evaluation
of these benefits• Limited role if we cannot evaluate and compare
Importance of standards for evaluation• Large requests for resources are being made – resources with
many alternative uses• Credibility of request depends on clarity of evaluation and
comparison with alternative uses
Standards for evaluationEvaluation strategies require methods of measurement and analysisDevelopment of methods requires extensive data collectionIdentifying the link between methods for measurement and beneficial outcome requires testing in a controlled settingIdeal setting – a controlled experiment or “natural social laboratory”• North Adams and MASS MoCA• Close cooperation between research and arts organization• Extensive data collection• Details on gallery and performing arts audience• Residential addresses for mapping and analysis
Example: Income and employment generationEvaluate using model of economic interaction• Increased local income generation• Increased local employment
These methods are widely applied, but …• Rarely do we evaluate alternative uses of a site or alternative economic
sectors as candidates for local economic development• Often alternative sectors are not mutually exclusive• MASS MoCA + Law Offices + Publishing + …
Resources to encourage and support the sector are limited• What to compare?• Consider enterprises in alternative sectors with the same total budget• For each evaluate the total impact on local income generation and
employment
Cultural sector can be competitiveIn many cases cultural development is one of the top 2 or 3 sectors!
• Even excluding the impact of visitors from outside the area
$6,670,728$535,993$1,181,447Electronic component manufacturing
$8,736,489$3,122,889$660,312Computer Systems design services
$6,646,255$839,141$853,826Plastics packaging materials and sheet
$9,268,602$1,819,049$2,496,266Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles
$9,431,157$2,137,708$2,340,160Museums, historical sites, etc.
$10,019,587$4,147,665$918,634State and Local government transit
Total $Induced $Indirect $Industry Definition
There is no guarantee –• For one of our case studies – the arts organization is ranked 88th
• Possible that a project in one of these other sectors would be feasible – and generate larger changes in local income
“Intrinsic” benefits of the artsThis concept is useful if we can evaluate intrinsic benefits in a way that• Is credible• Is replicable• Permits comparison for evaluation and advocacy
Identify some “observable” implications of benefitsThe cultural sector improves the quality of life in a community• Increases the desire for residence in the community• Increases the productivity of labor in the community
These intrinsic benefits generate observable implications
Impact of improved quality of life in community
Property Values
(rents)
Wages
Constant Household Welfare = V
Constant Profit = π
V’
W*
R*
R’
π’’
R’’
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400550Meters
North AdamsLog-linear Model Impacts! 0 - 3,000
! 3,001 - 6,000
! 6,001 - 10,000
! 10,001 - 25 ,000
! 25,001 - 73 ,769
[ Mass MoCA
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
!!!
!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
! !!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!!!
! !! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! 
Comparing Total Impact
9.9%Beacon %
$28.2MTotal Impact
$26.6MTotal Impact
9.1%North Adams %
Impact on Property Value
$281MBeacon (2003)$292MNorth Adams (1998)
Total Assessed Value of Res. Property:
Commercial property improvements are not included
Extending this standard for wider use
ConclusionPossible methods for evaluation of both “instrumental” and “intrinsic” benefits Consideration of other opportunities is important – and often the cultural sector is the most promising optionSome intrinsic benefits give rise to observable implications that permit evaluationEvaluation is most useful in the context of standards• Comparison for policy• Comparison for arts advocacy
Evaluation is most easily developed and tested in the context ofnatural social laboratories• Data collection and analysis partnerships are essential• Support should be offered for organizations to participate• Significant benefits for cultural organizations are possible