A short introductory talk given 26th September 2015 for a panel discussion in the Design Museum‘s Super Talks, on the theme:
I’ll just throw out a few obvious thoughts and questions, and some visions you may not have seen before.
Why do studios migrate? An obvious factor is that they are pushed out by gentrification. We all know the pattern – artists colonise neglected buildings in low-rent areas, the area gets cool, the rents get hot, the developers move in, and the studios migrate. Artists and galleries started colonising this area (in London) Shoreditch/ Hoxton in the 1990s. We all know how it is now. The creative energy moved up the Kingsland Road to Dalston, the money followed, now the cool place to be is Stoke Newington.
Where will the studios be pushed to next? Stamford Hill? Seven Sisters? Tottenham? Can we imagine hipsters in Tottenham? Are hipsters necessarily creatives anyway? Or are they the forward troops of social cleansing?
Has regeneration become synonymous with social cleansing, erasure of history and local identity, feeding developer profits, and making everywhere super-clean and anodyne?
If you lived or worked in one of those places, who could blame you for feeling angry? There’s something of that in the work of artist Laura Oldfield Ford, which is usually a drift through dispossessed urban landscapes, often social housing. But I chose this picture because (a) it looks like there may be some studios lurking there and (b) she literally spells out her anger as the developer approaches. I think that anger is back.
(Post-script: the evening following the talk, a Class-War demonstration converged on a Shoreditch cafe)
We see the same patterns and the same issues all around the world. In the 2000s, Manhattan creatives colonised Williamsburg, now the place is prime real estate. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Stadmitte became this gritty artistic Nirvarna with a crazy 24-hour underground scene, now it’s almost Mayfair.
It’s been said that Belgrade has what Berlin had: urban cool on the cheap, hip bars and all-night partying, the lingering traces of socialist days a backdrop to booming creative activity. This (above) is a street in Savamala famous for its street art. (The scale and building typologies are similar to Laura Oldfield Ford’s picture)
This picture shows what United Arab Emirates developers propose for Belgrade. It’s called Belgrade Waterfront, and Savamala is at the right hand edge of the development. Savamala’s reputation as a creative hub was used in the literature promoting the scheme.
There are two sides to the story. Belgrade wants investment and employment. And who are we to say they can’t have a 21st century city?
Cities know that creatives are a fertiliser they can use to grow development. Dubai knows that. Whatever you think, Dubai (as a whole) may be the most successful contemporary urban phenomenon in the world.
This is the Dubai Design District (d3), as visualised by Norman Foster’s studio (who are masterplanning it). There is so much talent and vision in Foster and his practice, I’m not knocking them. But what about their visions for creative space? The PR says abut this that it will be an…
“… incubator for emerging local designers and artists, as well as bespoke environment for art galleries and studios wanting to showcase their pieces. The Creative Community is designed to evolve organically, as its unique ability to adapt to any purpose will … cater for regular changes in its occupancy”.
I wouldn’t mind being there. It looks pleasant, perhaps rather a shopping centre without the branding. Designers work and sell their output here, so it has the retail aspect. Occupancy may change- studios may migrate. (And the public-access spaces are programmed with performances and public art).
But is this a future for creative space?