6 ms·

Would it be such a bad thing if those artists move to, say, St. Louis and create the next big thriving art hub there?

by peanuty1 4y ago

popularrecluse 4y ago
Artists tend towards progressive locales.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  See, for example, Marfa, TX. Artists seek low costs. They tend to create progressive locales. Then the gentrification cycle sets in. I'm not saying all low-rent regions will attract art, but it's possible to generate some pretty significant cultural shifts. San Francisco / Berkeley becoming capitals of counterculture was not an entirely obvious outcome from the perspective of the 1930s, 40s, or 50s. A friend recalls the Haight-Ashbury when it was largely a Greek ethnic neighbourhood.
devb 4y ago
Why would an artist who wants an opportunity to live somewhere as exciting as NYC want to move to St. Louis? Even if St. Louis did manage to become an artistic hub, what would stop it from going through the usual gentrification cycle and becoming unaffordable to regular people the way Portland, Austin, Oakland (not to mention Bushwick, Crown Heights, Bed-Stuy) have?
halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
Might as well be in Chicago, which has probably the most reasonable CoL for any big city in the US.
- csomar 4y ago
  Have you checked the recent rent surges? I'm not sure if it's the summer, but any hotel room in the loop is $300+ per night. Airbnb is just a scam there.
- gringoDan 4y ago
  For an interesting explanation of why rents are affordable in Chicago, see this post from Tyler Cowen: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/02/chicagos-land-tax-city-survives-fiscal-mess.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/02/ch... "I would put it this way: there are many ways to impose a Georgist land tax, fiscal insolvency being one of them. Very wealthy people and institutions know that if they relocate to Chicago, they will be required to ante up for the final bill. And so they stay away. For a city of its size and import, Chicago just doesn’t have that many billionaires, nor do I think a rational billionaire should consider moving there. In other words, there is a pending wealth tax. Either directly or indirectly, this will place fiscal burdens on Chicago land, the immobile factor. And this keeps down rents in Chicago now."
fantod 4y ago
Good for St. Louis, bad for NYC.

Would it be such a bad thing if those artists move to, say, St. Louis and create the next big thriving art hub there?

popularrecluse 4y ago

Artists tend towards progressive locales.

dredmorbius 4y ago
See, for example, Marfa, TX. Artists seek low costs. They tend to create progressive locales. Then the gentrification cycle sets in. I'm not saying all low-rent regions will attract art, but it's possible to generate some pretty significant cultural shifts. San Francisco / Berkeley becoming capitals of counterculture was not an entirely obvious outcome from the perspective of the 1930s, 40s, or 50s. A friend recalls the Haight-Ashbury when it was largely a Greek ethnic neighbourhood.

devb 4y ago

Why would an artist who wants an opportunity to live somewhere as exciting as NYC want to move to St. Louis? Even if St. Louis did manage to become an artistic hub, what would stop it from going through the usual gentrification cycle and becoming unaffordable to regular people the way Portland, Austin, Oakland (not to mention Bushwick, Crown Heights, Bed-Stuy) have?

halfmatthalfcat 4y ago

Might as well be in Chicago, which has probably the most reasonable CoL for any big city in the US.

csomar 4y ago
Have you checked the recent rent surges? I'm not sure if it's the summer, but any hotel room in the loop is $300+ per night. Airbnb is just a scam there.
gringoDan 4y ago
For an interesting explanation of why rents are affordable in Chicago, see this post from Tyler Cowen: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/02/chicagos-land-tax-city-survives-fiscal-mess.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/02/ch... "I would put it this way: there are many ways to impose a Georgist land tax, fiscal insolvency being one of them. Very wealthy people and institutions know that if they relocate to Chicago, they will be required to ante up for the final bill. And so they stay away. For a city of its size and import, Chicago just doesn’t have that many billionaires, nor do I think a rational billionaire should consider moving there. In other words, there is a pending wealth tax. Either directly or indirectly, this will place fiscal burdens on Chicago land, the immobile factor. And this keeps down rents in Chicago now."

fantod 4y ago

Good for St. Louis, bad for NYC.