Fri 28 May 2004
Brief article in today’s New York Times discusses the changes in North Adams over the last 15 years and the (alledged) connection with MASS MoCa
Once a sleepy, economically depressed mill town, with the state’s highest unemployment rate and lowest downtown occupancy rate, North Adams has changed. According to state government figures, unemployment has declined to less than 6 percent from more than 18 percent in the late 1980’s. A study conducted by the museum shows that the storefront occupancy rate, which was below 30 percent in the mid-1990’s, now stands at 75 percent. In the last five years eight restaurants have opened in North Adams.
The article, and museum director Joseph Thompson, are eager to devote as much credit for the changes in North Adams to MASS Moca. Of course, the impossible-to-answer question is what North Adams would look like today if MASS MoCa had never happened. Certainly, by the time the museum opened in 1999 North Adams had already made great strides from the pit of 1980’s despair.
There is an interesting tension here between the work of Victor Matheson — debunking the claim that public spending on sports facilities is worth the money — and the supporters of MASS MoCa who claim that public spending on art facilities is nothing but gravy for all concerned.
May 28th, 2004 at 7:58 am
Maybe I can find the citations, but there IS an economic literature claiming that public investments in art generate money for a community (compared to sports, which is almost always a loser). I’m not sure that North Adams fits the arts investments described in the literature, but the economics of investment appears to work differently than in the case of sports.
May 28th, 2004 at 8:53 am
That makes sense to me for a number of reasons. First, the sheer volume of dollars involved — investing in sports almost always involves (at least at a pro or high div I level) hundreds of millions of dollars, while art museums are far less costly, and are often, at least in part, supported by charitable donations.
Second, art museums like MassMoca are attractions that draw tourists into the area. I would guess that a vast majority of MassMoca’s visitors last year came from outside of a 50 mile radius of the museum. On the other hand, I think that, except for perhaps Fenway Park or Wrigley Field, very few sports stadiums are the primary draw for tourists. Rather, they just divert entertainment dollars of locals away from alternatives such as movie theaters, restaurants, cultural attractions, bars, etc. So while cultural attractions bring new dollars into a region, sports attractions just divert dollars that would still be spent locally, regardless, at least in large part.
Of course, I’d personally prefer a football stadium to an art museum any day, but that doesn’t change the fact that cities have been conned into pouring billions into these stadiums, only so subsidize the extravagant lifestyles of players and owners. Hopefully more and more cities will wise up and refuse to be blackmailed, so that eventually, owners will have to fund their own stadium or fold up.
May 31st, 2004 at 3:23 pm
Jeff,
Public investment in sports stadiums do more that simply subsidize the extravagant lifestyles of players and owners. It’s also a subsidy for those of us who want to watch sports in a state-of-the-art stadium. Pretty bad deal for the economy as a whole and for non-sports fans, but a great way for a sports fan to pass on the cost of attending a game to the population as a whole as opposed to paying for the cost of sitting in an expensive stadium.