G marks the spot!
On August 19, the Massachusetts Cultural Council approved
the “Literary Cultural District” application submitted by GrubStreet writing
center and a raft of other Boston literary organizations. The approval was
punctuated by the usual round of media flatulence, including this offering by BostInno dudebro Nick DeLuca:
“It marks the second state-designated area of this kind – the first, also
in Boston, being the Fenway Cultural District – and the inaugural in the nation
being of the literary variety.” This marks the fifth article on the LCD by
DeLuca being of the illiterate variety.
But in the midst of all the triumphalism an uncharacteristic
note of caution sounded from the van of the parade.
Consider the following quote in the same article from none other than GrubStreet founder and director Eve Bridburg:
Areas like Fort Point channel have
seen their artistic communities pushed out due to rising costs,
and GrubStreet faces a similar challenge as our building is being sold and
we too are being forced to consider options outside of the city. The approval
of the creation of a literary cultural district in downtown Boston is an
important milestone for a city that is trying hard to maintain its cultural
heart. With an intentional, coherent approach to our collective work as
literary organizations, publications and endeavors, we will put Boston on the
map as a literary center and destination.
I had to rub my eyes and even walk around the block when I
read this: Eve Bridburg talking about . . . gentrification? Who said anything
about gentrification? How did this notion even enter the conversation? When in
the year-long public history of this project have its organizers,
spokespersons, and media shills expressed the least syllable of concern about
the g-word?
That Gioconda smile can only mean one thing!
While we’re pondering that question (or alternately savoring
the cheeky humor behind the assertion that the city is “trying hard to maintain
its cultural heart”), let’s spice it up with two additional ironies:
1) Bridburg and Co.
have waited until the district is a done deal to say anything about
gentrification. I’ve been watching this process unfold for a year now,
thinking hard about it and doing the homework about cultural districts and
gentrification that the LCD's supporters don’t seem to be interested in. And during
that time, there’ve been some things that have struck me – as they would any
honest observer – as deeply manipulative and dishonest, including the obvious
conflicts of interest (Ayanna Pressley’s seat on GrubStreet’s “Literary
Council” and Grub board member and donor Laura Debonis’s boasted residence
“in the literary cultural district”), the deliberate deception about the
openness of the project (no substantive attempt to rally people to the “public”
hearings), and the egregious corruptions of language from people professing to
be writers or book lovers (“literary renaissance,” “branding,” and the serial
abuse of “community”, etc.). But so far nothing
beats this for sheer cynicism.
Because Eve Bridburg herself has just admitted that concerns
about gentrification are relevant to this process. In fact they are so relevant
that the very first public words out of her mouth after the district’s final
approval address this very topic. Yet concerns about
gentrification could’ve been addressed at
any time along the way. Waiting until this moment gives the impression
that the organizers failed to bring it up because they knew that due diligence and genuine democratic participation and accountability might
cause problems or slow the process. Instead, they kept their mouths
shut and rushed the process as much as possible.
By waiting until now, Eve Bridburg couldn’t have admitted
more loudly that gentrification is a legitimate concern when it comes to the
literary cultural district – and she couldn’t have added any louder that she
doesn’t give a shit.
2) Bridburg’s statement
suggests that LCD status will somehow actually help with the problems posed by
gentrification. This is of a piece with other vague assurances such as
the repeated assertions that the LCD will “help writers” by “raising their
profiles” or whatever other “branding” bullshit is on offer. But in real terms
it’s a non sequitur (as well as a plain old lie), because cultural districts, as I’ve shown
in previous posts, were developed for the very purpose of bringing up property values. The same sleazy rhetorical move is on display at the end of an unsigned
Boston Globe editorial that appeared several
days after Bridburg's statement:
Here, too, gentrification is acknowledged as a problem, but here as well the district is rhetorically positioned as some kind of vague potential
solution rather than what it in hard fact is: an aggravating factor. The idea that GrubStreet itself
might be gentrified out the area by the sale of the Steinway building is nothing but a bit of “poor me” misdirection
– loyal Grubbies have nothing to worry about when it comes to the tentpole
status of their favorite cultural arbiter. A glimpse at the overlapping personnel among GrubStreet’s board of directors and their donors make it clear that the writing center
has been steadily pimping its Muse to bigger and bigger players in the
Marketplace and will do just fine in the “creative economy” of Boston’s future.
At least the Massachusetts Cultural Council, a state agency, feels constrained in its own
announcement to be more forthright about the purpose of cultural
districts:
Take note of a couple of points in particular. The MCC reports that, "the Cultural Districts Initiative grew out of an economic stimulus bill" – an ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL, not some kind of fairy-tale, feel-good "cultural stimulus bill"! The language of the third paragraph drives the point home: to "encourage business," "expand tourism," and "enhance property values." Could it be any clearer?
Now, someone might logically point out that there are one or two points about art and culture in the description, such as "attract[ing] artists and cultural enterprises" and "foster[ing] local cultural development" – shouldn't that count for something? And of course it does: it counts for the kind of art that can "encourage business"; it counts for the kind of culture that will "expand tourism"; it counts for the type of creativity that will "enhance property values." This is a recipe for gentrification.
So to sum up, here’s what Eve Bridburg and GrubStreet and the other
“Executive Partners” in the LCD coalition (Deborah Porter of the Boston Book Festival, Henriette Lazaridis Power of The Drum litmag, plus Suffolk University, Emerson College, the Boston Athenaeum, and Boston Public Library) are telling you:
Gentrification is a real issue here, but the Literary
Cultural District will somehow help with that in some unspecified way, even
though cultural districts were designed to do just the opposite, and anyway
it’s too late because we waited until the LCD was in the bag to mention any of
this inconvenient crap.
OK, got it – thanks, GrubStreet!