Is Art Still The Driver Of Urban Revitalization That It Once Was?
Do artists still represent our best chance for district revitalization? Of course we have long pointed to their pivotal role in the regeneration of Manhattan’s SoHo, Brooklyn’s Williamsburg, Toronto’s West Queen West, Miami’s Wynwood, Denver’s RiNo, Los Angeles’ Arts District and countless others. And I continue to view artsy “hipsters” as among the most likely pioneers in the revival of neglected or distressed urban neighborhoods like San Francisco’s Mid-Market, where they were a focus of an arts-driven strategy that our team, led by Urban Place Consulting and also including NOW Art, devised during the dark days of the pandemic and that appears to be gaining traction (see article link below).
And yet, I cannot help but wonder whether “the arts”, as understood for such purposes, resonates quite as strongly as it once did.
I have been wrestling with this question as part of my work in Ithaca (NY), a vibrant small city in upstate New York (MSA population: 104,000) best known for its famous Ivy League university (Cornell). Sitting at the heart of what my colleague David Milder calls an “arts archipelago“, Ithaca ranked #2 among medium-sized “arts-vibrant” communities nationwide in Southern Methodist University’s 2024 DataArts rankings, behind only Santa Fe — as based on its number of independent artists and for-profit arts businesses as well as other criteria. With this in mind, David and I have recommended that its place branding, tourist marketing and retail tenanting efforts reorient around an “arts town” positioning.
At the same time, I recognize the importance of staying one step ahead of how the consumer might be evolving. After all, what hit the mark yesterday could present as dated and irrelevant today. And while arts-loving Baby Boomers and Gen X’ers still hold a great deal of sway in the marketplace, Millennials and Zoomers now account for 50% of Greater Ithaca residents and 60% of its leisure travelers. Do they share the same interests and preoccupations?
I’m not so sure. What moves younger generations these days is… food and beverage. Millennials, after all, were the ones raised on the programming of the Food Network, the ones who became “foodies”, who turned chefs into bona fide celebrities, who elevated fast food into “fast casual” and food courts into “food halls”, who fueled the rise of “third-wave” coffee and craft beer.
I could easily imagine a Boomer couple in New York, Boston or Philadelphia drawn to a weekend in Ithaca as a top-tier “arts town.” But a Millennial or a Zoomer? Play up its food scene, and maybe you’ve got something. That’s what will get them to visit a city or a neighborhood that would otherwise not register, and as a result, that’s what has driven so many case studies of urban revitalization in recent decades.
Consider, for example, what Founders Brewing Co.’s presence and the “Beer City U.S.A” moniker has done for Grand Rapids (MI). Or how buzzy restaurants and bars have catalyzed the reemergence of Chicago’s Fulton Market, Philadelphia’s Fishtown and so many other districts across North America. Indeed, it is one of the reasons why I also pointed to destination dining and nightlife as a potential game-changer for San Francisco’s Mid-Market (in addition to the focus on the arts), and why I view the soon-to-open James Beard Public Market in a struggling part of Downtown Portland as such a master stroke.
Of course, this is not an either-or. Indeed, Grand Rapids’ broader profile has also been elevated by ArtPrize. Well-conceived revitalization strategies are diversified, proposing multiple directions at once.
More to the point, food and beverage — as understood today — is the new art form. We now think of chefs, brew-masters, mixologists and baristas as artists. We use the word “artisanal” incessantly, we talk about “craft” this and “craft” that. Our desserts are “artfully” presented and our flat whites come with “latte art.”
Art, in other words, has not gone anywhere. On the contrary, the celebration of the artistic impulse is everywhere — a parallel trend to the mainstreaming of the artsy Gen X hipster in the form of the upwardly-mobile Millennial “neo-hipster.”
But again, time marches on. Many of those neo-hipsters have now settled into family life, often in the suburbs. They are in the process of being supplanted in our urban enclaves and cultural consciousness by Gen Z, who are bringing their own tastes and preferences to the fore. Food still seems to figure prominently in their lifestyles, though in different forms. More fast-casual eateries, versus sit-down. More curiosity about different kinds of East Asian cuisines. More fun (plus sugar and ice cubes) in their coffee, less third-wave seriousness. A lot less alcohol all around.
And, it would seem, less of a fetish for art and the artistic process. Which, if true, would call into question some of the received wisdoms that we read in the linked article. Like “economic revival starts with artists”, “cities with vibrant arts scenes often earn a prestige that attracts visitors — who, in turn, bring economic rewards”, or “if all our artists leave, then we lose our cultural identity.” This is tough stuff, but if the paradigms are indeed shifting, we will need to grapple with it.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/arts/design/san-francisco-artist-city.html