Q: Why could artists be urban pioneers?
JK: There are a number of reasons why artist housing and artists can turn around neighborhoods. First, artists are interested primarily in space: high ceiling, few obstructions, nice light and cheap. Now what I described, high ceilings, few columns, nice light, is primarily warehouse, light industrial space. You find it in most cities, warehouse district, light industrial, manufacturing zoned districts. And these are very appealing to artists because they have the physical characteristics that artists need. And the reason we refer to them as urban pioneers is because most often since the cost of space is of primary importance to an artist; they want space that is relatively low cost. They go to neighborhoods that aren't really competitive in the real estate market. They go to neighborhoods where the building stock might be a little rundown, where there aren't really many amenities, and these areas aren't necessarily attractive to businesses but they're attractive to artists because what the artists is primarily concerned about is cost. So if they can find a cheap space that has physical characteristics that serves whatever their arts discipline need is they're likely to find that in an area of town that is what we refer to as economically depressed. So they go to those neighborhoods, they rent that space and they begin to bring life to a neighborhood that was sort of on the downside of its vitality. And once they get there what we've seen is a pattern that you see repeated across the country. The artists move in first. The next thing you know there's galleries, exhibition spaces, often small spaces, storefronts that run by the artists themselves. Occasionally commercial dealers come behind them. And now once you have the commercial dealers and the non-profit galleries you are beginning to develop pedestrian traffic, that means the guy who wants to open a coffee or sandwich shop come in, he can make some money off the people who are wandering from the galleries. So what you see gradually in one of these urban pioneer neighborhoods is a transformation from no street life, very limited vitality, to an area that has people who are living, working 24-hours a day, to galleries which are pedestrian friendly which are lures to tourists and visitors, to the services that follow that serve those visitors and tourists, the restaurants, the bookstores. So you can see a neighborhood totally revitalized as a result of artists being the urban pioneers that move in.

Q: That's not necessarily the way it always pans out.
JK: That's correct. That is … in some cases … if you go, for instance, to Minneapolis where they have some wonderful artists housing projects, many of the artists housing projects are in industrial neighborhoods that haven't developed the galleries, the restaurants, the coffee shops that follow, but that's not entirely bad. What that means is that neighborhood is going to remain affordable to artists. What happens when you do get the coffee shops, the galleries, the bookstores, is there's a slow gentrification of those neighborhoods, and often artists then become victims of their own success. So in some cases, and I think you do see this in Minneapolis/St. Paul, they've remained fairly industrial neighborhoods which happen to have artists living in them. And that's not entirely a bad thing for the artists either because it really creates as I say those additional opportunities for other artists to come in to real estate that is still affordable. Once this transformation starts … you know the oldest story in the arts is the pioneers are the first victims of the transformation of that neighborhood because they can't any longer afford the rents as the leases expire, and the market rate increases they're often out looking for the next neighborhood to pioneer. So it isn't always the case and it isn't always a negative thing when that doesn't happen.

Q: That's what is happening in pioneer square.
JK: Right. There are two primary reasons why the public sector, which I represent, get involved in things like artists housing. One is as a tool for economic development. To look at a neighborhood that is economically depressed that the city is interested in turning around and beginning this process of encouraging artists to start this evolution. But in the case of Seattle, that's not the situation we're facing at all. What we're facing is the results of the high price of real estate. The success of the transformation of Pioneer Square. Twenty years ago no business would locate in Pioneer Square. Pioneer Square was a neighborhood that had a lot of social service agencies, gospel missions, low income housing, and services for homeless, at-risk people, and uh it wasn't particularly attractive to a business looking to establish itself. That's changed in Seattle. The price of real estate is at a premium. This is a dot-com society here in Seattle now, a lot of high tech businesses. And they've all looked for the same kind of space: high ceilings, column free, funky neighborhood. They like the traditional building stock that is in Pioneer Square. So what we see in this case is economic development being so successful that artists can no longer afford to live in the neighborhood that they pioneered. So what the public sector in Seattle is trying to do is not use artist housing to spur economic development, but try to provide a place for artists to remain an important fabric of our community. The arts in Seattle and King County are very strong. We have major organizations in six disciplines. We have an opera company, Seattle Opera which is internationally known. Seattle Symphony. Seattle Repertory, ACT - A Contemporary Theater, the Intaman Theatre, Grey Theatre, Pacific Northwest Ballet, Seattle Art Museum, a major visual arts institution. So we have visual arts, we have dance, we have symphonic music, we have opera, we have theater. Not many communities can boast major institutions in all these disciplines. So we're one of the rare one. We have as a result of having major institutions that are so strong, a really thriving early career artists scene. Young artists who come to Seattle to make their careers. We have a great non-profit theatre community. We have more theatre in Seattle than we do in San Francisco. King County was rated in a survey in 1997 by the NEA the number 2 community in the country for per capita dance attendance. We have more theatre than any community except New York City. So this is an area in which it is very important for us to be able to maintain opportunities for those young early career artists to establish themselves. So what we're trying to do in Seattle and King County is simply make sure that there's an opportunity for early career artists to contribute to the vibrancy of what is a first rate, nationally recognized arts community. And that's almost a more difficult struggle. As hard as it is to get artists to go into neighborhoods that are depressed, it's virtually impossible to find opportunities for artists to survive in a city in which they cannot afford space. So that's what we're dealing with. A successful real estate market. How do you develop artists housing not in economically depressed neighborhoods but in an economically successful city?

Q: What is the public role in economic development?
JK: Actually the public sector has tremendous tools at its disposal. And I'll talk about things that are available in other communities that we haven't even gotten to the point of adopting here in Seattle. But, first of all, most public agencies whether it's a city government or a county government, own buildings. In some cases, in an example of New York City, landlords walked away from buildings 20 year ago because they just didn't have enough financial return. "In -rem" buildings are buildings that cities seize in lieu of real estate tax payment. The City of New York, for example, owns a tremendous number of buildings, which it decides what to do with. Does it sell it? Does it develop it for low-income housing? Does it develop it for low-income social service activities? Or does it promote use of these buildings for artists? So what you see in a city like New York is a lot of abandoned buildings turned over to artists and arts organizations. One of the reasons New York is so successful is because they do have opportunities for artists to find space to work in. But some of the other tools are much more creative. I would encourage communities to look at their zoning code. You know, private developers, private individuals have an absolute right to develop what they want on property they own. But what we see in a lot of cities is that zoning envelopes are inadequate to build the kinds of buildings that have an economic return. So what you often see is developers approaching cities about getting bonuses, buildings slightly larger than the envelop allows, or slightly closer to the street than the set-back laws allow, changing the use of a building from one use to another that wasn't in the original zoning. So whenever a developer approaches a city and asks for bonuses, or asks for a variance in the use of a building, the city has the decresion to say yes or no. Years ago cities tended to want to promote economic development and they simply said yes. But one of the things that some cities have learned is that if somebody expects from the city, the city has an absolute right to ask for something in return. So what we see cities doing successfully in the arts is using their zoning code to create artists space. For example in New York, if a developer wanted to get an additional height on his building, in essence looking for a bonus, the city began to negotiate that. And say, sure, we'll give you the opportunity to build a larger building than the zoning envelop allows, but what we want from you in return is that you set aside some area of the building for non-profit art uses. So they can use even successful development to create space. Arts don't thrive anywhere unless there is a place for artists to create, perform and exhibit their work. And real estate becomes, in a very odd way, the driving factor on whether or not cities have a thriving arts scene. So, cities can use their zoning code. They can use the application for building permits as a way to encourage developers to participate in the life of the city by providing spaces for artists. In fact in some cities what we see is many cities have percent-for-art ordinances. And most percent-for-art ordinances have to do with publicly generated construction projects. The city is building a building to house city offices, or to house a court, for example. One percent of the square footage or one percent of the cost of that building is set aside for public art, to enhance public structures. Some cities that have adopted public art ordinances more recently are looking at all construction that goes on in their city. And they give developers an option. They actually require private developers on private pieces of property to contribute 1% of the construction budget to public art. Or if you don't want to contribute to our public art fund, you can spend 1% yourself on public art. Or if you don't want art in your building you can set aside 1% of the square footage for non-profit art uses. Or you can take the equivalent of whatever that 1-% contribution might be and put it into a fund that the city uses to promote arts activity. There's lots of ways that cities can use just normal development for arts development. And it goes beyond just selling a city owned building. It's really using the tools at the city's disposal. And remember there's a lot tools at the city's disposal that are designed to allow a city to evolve in a logical way. You don't want people living next to a manufacturing site. So you separate in zoning residential neighborhoods from heavy manufacturing, from light manufacturing, from commercial. All cities are doing when they set up those zoning codes are recognizing a city involves many different activities. And there should be appropriate places for all of these activities to occur in ways that they don't intrude on each other. Zoning is a very active way for cities to promote the development of art space.

Q: Is there a critical mass needed to spur an arts community?
JK: You mean, can you change a neighborhood with 36 artists units in the neighborhood? Probably not. I don't think there's a hard-fast number. In fact what I think is more interesting, or more important than the number … I would rather have, if possible, 10 artist in three buildings in a neighborhood than 30 artists in one building. Because what you want to do is sort of spread it out. You want this activity to sort of permeate a neighborhood. Not have one focal point. But one of the things you will see in Seattle is there are various neighborhoods that have artists housing projects. So it allows more communities to build their social life around that arts activity. There's a great neighborhood, just north of downtown, called Fremont. Fremont bills itself, tongue in cheek, as the center of the universe. And they have a number of artists' foundries, artists' studio projects- not live/work - but studios, and some artists housing. But Fremont has established itself as a little arts Mecca. So has Pioneer Square. So has Capitol Hill. We'd like to do the same in the Cascade neighborhood, which is directly south of Lake Union. So I think there isn't necessarily a hard-fast number that says this number equals vibrant neighborhood. But I do think the sense that the arts are permeating a neighborhood and not just locating in one site certainly enhance that neighborhood's ability to be an arts district.

Q: Where does the vision lie? With the public sector?
JK: I think so. I think the public sector needs to decide, just like it decides zoning, where do we want manufacturing to occur? Where do we want the banking and commercial office spaces to be? The city has to decide what kind of a city it wants to be. The wonderful thing about the arts, not only are the visual art galleries fun to visit on a Saturday afternoon, and people love to wander around from gallery to gallery. We have something here in Seattle called first Thursday. The first Thursday of every month is gallery night. All the galleries, Seattle Museum, everything is open for free. And people gather at about 6 o'clock and go on walks. And from about 6 o'clock to 8 o'clock, every first Thursday, you'll see tremendous pedestrian traffic wandering around going into the galleries. And all the galleries gear their openings to First Thriusday. So on First Thursday you can go wander into a gallery, often meet the artist, maybe have a glass of wine and hor 'devors, look at the work, wander next door to the next gallery, stop at a coffee shop on your way. There's tremendous foot traffic around. So a city has to ask itself what it wants to be at nighttime. What does it want to be on weekends? Cities don't want to be places where from 9-5 there's a lot of activity and at 5 o'clock they roll up the sidewalks, people go back to their suburban homes, and the city is fairly quiet. Weekends, nobody's working in their office spaces, you go downtown, "Gee there's nobody around. That's not an exciting thing for a city to be. Cities have to decide if they want to invest - what aren't even a lot of resources - in developing the kinds of neighborhoods that encourage pedestrian traffic and social interaction. That's where cities develop their life. There's a wonderful story that Maryann Peters, a local artist was telling at a community meeting last night, about how she's been in the community of Pioneer Square as an artist for so long. And artists work odd hours. You know, when the artists have the impulse to paint, it might strike them at 11 o'clock and they'll work until 3 in the morning. And at 3 in the morning they'll come out of their buildings, and you know in any city at 3 o'clock in the morning y9u always wonder how safe you are. But Maryann feels that she is so much a part of the community and she's been working so long that if she were walking down the street at 3 in the morning and she felt uncomfortable, she could duck into any store, any all-night restaurant and they know who she is. They know she's an artist who works in this community. So there is this sense of community, of people looking out for each other. Of people contribute to the economic vitality of the businesses that they share the neighborhood with. So you do recreate a sense of a living city. And I think what cities have to do is to ask themselves, what do we want to be? Do we want to be the kind of city that people come into during the day, work, eat lunch at the lunchtime restaurants and go home? Do we want to be the kind of city that is quiet at night? Do we want to be the kind of city that's quiet in the evening? There's a lot to be said for quiet. You need less police if the streets are quiet. You need less garbage pickups, sweeping the streets if there is nobody walking around. You know, I could see some cities saying, "Hey, let's be the quiet burg." But if you really want to be a vital city, a place that people seek out, a place that people talk about after they return from a visit, then things like the arts add tremendously to the social vitality of a city. And if cities want to have those kind of places, they can do it through zoning. They can do it with selling publicly owned building stock. They can do it by setting aside some of their general fund in promoting arts activity. Seattle has an arts commission that's been around for 30 years. King County Arts Commission has been around for 30 years. These are long term investments in the life of the city. And I think it's important for cities to ask that question, what do we want to be? And if they do want to be a place that has some buzz one, option available to them is to promote the arts.

Q: Saving the character of the neighborhood.
JK: Let's talk about Pioneer Square in the context of historic preservation. Pioneer Square 20 years ago was, there were city officials who actually thought Pioneer Square was beyond redemption. The buildings were, uh, though they did house a lot of artists, many of them were abandoned. The city had basically moved up town, and Pioneer Square was left in the lurch. Pioneer Square is home to the original Skid Row in the United States of America. A lot of social services, I mentioned the gospel mission, a lot of those mission-type activities. Pioneer Square was not something the City was proud of. And there was actually a move afoot to just knock all the buildings down and put up parking lots, to serve the downtown community. Fortunately, some preservationists stood up and said this is not the thing you do to an historical neighborhood. This is a neighborhood that was built primarily post-Seattle fire, which is like 1905. And it's tremendous history for Seattle. We shouldn't be knocking these buildings down. We should be better stewards of our history. So, Pioneer Square was designated a historic district. And when you designate a historic district what you're really talking about is the architecture of the district. They said the architecture of this section of town is worth saving. That's a form of historic preservation. And because of that, for 20 years, Pioneer Square evolved as an arts Mecca. Artists were perfectly happy to come into these abandoned buildings. Galleries followed. Arts services, the art supplies store, the all night coffee shop, all the things we talked about followed. And Pioneer Square became an artist's Mecca. It was known as the place you went to in Seattle if you wanted to see contemporary art created here in Seattle. When the stadiums were built, the new baseball stadium and the beginning of the construction on the football stadium, they were built on land that occupied by light manufacturers. And light manufacturers that were displaced by these stadiums looked around and they saw Pioneer Square and began to rent spaces in Pioneer Square that traditionally had been rented by artists. The dot-com industry developed, and there was a lack of space for them. They looked at Pioneer Square and said this would be a great place to be. So all of a sudden real estate that nobody wanted was now real estate that everybody wanted. So the artists were finding themselves squeezed out. Now, let's go back to the notion of historic preservation. Is historic preservation only about preserving building stock? What about preserving those community characteristics that have become recognized, locally and nationally, as being examples of what this neighborhood is all about? This neighborhood isn't thought of as dot-com neighborhood though that's what it's become. People from around the country, if they know any thing about Pioneer Square, think of it as an artist's district. So as the neighborhood changes, we can successfully save the buildings, but there's more to a community than buildings. There are the activities that made the community attractive to live in, attractive to visit. And in the case of Pioneer Square that community-character was contributed by artists. So, what we're trying to do in Pioneer Square, in light of a real estate market that is becoming is becoming unfriendly to artists, is to at least preserve some opportunities for the community that for the last 20 years has made this their home to be a part of it in the future. And that's what preserving community character is about. Nobody is going to come to Pioneer Square to visit the neighborhood where upstairs the dot-com companies are. People will visit a neighborhood knowing that there are artists that are working upstairs, whose studios you can visit, who are exhibiting work in some of the small non-profit galleries. That's what draws people to visit a neighborhood. So I think that preserving community character is every bit as important as preserving community architecture.