[pjmorris]

It's not the 'everybody works there' that does it, it's the 'cheap enough that artists can live there' that does it. My mom split her time between art, her true love, and working as a secretary, or a maid, or an office manager. She had a way of living near where the art was happening, as artists tend to have very little money, as did she. She could afford to live just off the Lincoln Road Mall in South Beach in the mid-80's, as did hundreds of other artists. The South Beach that is now luxurious and pricey was once cheap, and shabby and a bit dangerous. That's really the seed of a vibrant inner city atmosphere. She repeated that (to smaller degrees) several times in her life.

[quicklime]

I hear about artists being the ones who create vibrant neighborhoods a lot, and I'm honestly struggling to understand the causal effect that's being claimed. Do people really care about "living near where the art is happening" to the point where it would drive up property prices?

When I talk to people from demographics that are accused of being gentrifiers (young professionals), the overwhelming reasons they choose a neighborhood are to be near restaurants, bars, clubs, cafes, shops, work and friends. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone pay a premium to be near an art gallery, or live near artists' private studios.

There are some gentrified neighborhoods that were known for their artists. New York's Soho is an example. These days the place is full of overpriced fashion stores, both independent ones as well as global chains. I can see why the shops were attracted - for branding purposes it might help to be associated with those artists. But I wouldn't say that artists turned it into a particularly vibrant neighborhood, at least not more than other neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan.

Is it that it's about correlation, not causation? It seems reasonable that artists would be attracted to an area for the same reason as, say, independent coffee roasteries (both require cheap space). I suspect it's only really the latter that are attracting new residents though.

[pjmorris]

I do suspect it's more the cheap part than it is the artist part, so it may well be correlation rather than causation. That said, given the same low rent in two locations, wouldn't the savvy coffee roaster pick the one with the artists? So, maybe there is a causal argument.

[disgruntledphd2]

So the term "artists" covers a whole lot of ground here. It doesn't necessarily mean picture painters, but it's a shibboleth for a whole bunch of people with ideas and little to no money. These people try to minimise fixed costs, and move to "bad" areas.

The conglomeration of all of these people tends to lead to events, club nights and new and interesting businesses. This makes the area more attractive, causing others to move in and thus kickstarts the gentrification process.