Dear Reader, About a year ago the Naturally Occurring Cultural Districts (NOCD) working group asked your Man About Town to write a nice, juicy case study about what happens when cultural organizations buy non-cultural facilities and fix them up. This three part series details my findings, although it’s well worth checking out the original report to see case studies from nearly a dozen cultural organizations across the country. You can also read Part I and Part II of this series to learn more about the unique opportunities and challenges of adaptive reuse. Continue reading
Dear Reader, About a year ago the Naturally Occurring Cultural Districts (NOCD) working group asked your Man About Town to write a nice, juicy case study about what happens when cultural organizations buy non-cultural facilities and fix them up. This three part series details my findings, although it’s well worth checking out the original report to see case studies from nearly a dozen cultural organizations across the country. Check out Part I of this series to learn more about the unique opportunities and challenges of adaptive reuse. Continue reading
ArtsBlog (the blog of Americans for the Arts) recently hosted a forum called: “So, Does Size Matter?” The short answer is hell yes it does, but I disagree with most of the writers about why. I found the best piece in the series was penned by the whip-smart Ian David Moss (Economies and Diseconomies of Scale in the Arts – Take Two), and it was his post that inspired both me to both write an initial comment, and then to take on the subject more fully below.
You see, Dear Reader, like many of my fellow funders and financiers I’ve often touted the benefits of moving toward greater scale: improved operational efficiencies, greater programmatic reach, increased access to resources, heavier political punch. But I’ve also struggled with the oft recognized but seldom addressed reality that scale is not an answer in and of itself, and that sometimes scaled solutions leave even larger problems in their wake. Thanks to Ian, I think I got the mental kick in the epiphany I needed.
And here’s why I think scale sometimes, well, stinks up the joint. Continue reading
Your Man About Town’s middle name is Moderation, Dear Reader; and although it is a somewhat awkward locution when making a full introduction, it nonetheless conveys the important fact that your Man About Town’s middle name is not Tom, Dick or Harry. I moderate. I facilitate. I have even been known, at times, to adjudicate.
So when the New York Chapter of the Grantmakers in the Arts asked if I wouldn’t mind moderating a panel on creative placemaking at the Queens Museum of Art earlier this month, I could no more deny them than I could my very nature. Or at least, the very nature of my personal brand. Continue reading
In my earlier posts on this subject, dear reader, I first endeavored to put a finer point on the more than thousand-fold revenue variation between the largest cultural organizations in NYC, and the median cultural organization. Holy stromboli you say? Yes! While the very largest nonprofit culturals have revenues of more than $300 million annually, more than half the groups in my most recent study had revenues of less than $250 thousand. What’s more, the top five very largest organizations received nearly half of all city funding (their share being a whopping $133 million).
Dear reader, your Man About Town has been to the very precipice, where I stood and looked down. It was weird.
You see, it all started when some of the lovely folks over at the Municipal Art Society (Hi Mary! Hi Anne! Hello Vin!), invited me to come and do a research project for them called “Who Pays for the Arts.” The job was to tool through data provided by the Cultural Data Project (CDP) and better understand how arts organizations in NYC make their money. To whit: in order to apply for public funding in NYC, you have to submit, like, a gajillion data points to CDP.
Exciting! Data geek that I am my little heart just fluttered with glee. Numbers! Charts! Oh yeah! Uh huh! That’s right!
So I started digging through the data and the very first question I asked was, you know, what does the distribution curve look like? Given that I’m looking at total 2010 revenues for 723 organizations, and that the whole group all mushed together made $2.5 billion, how many groups are on the high end, how many in the middle, and how many on the low end?
And this is what I found: Continue reading