David Michael Miller
Becoming a top-notch cultural destination requires a plan. And, although not many people know about it, here in the capital city we have a plan, known as the Madison Cultural Plan. Developed by the city’s Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development, it was adopted in August 2013 by the Common Council.
So, six years into the plan, how are we doing?
For the most part pretty good, but in some areas not good at all. It depends on which of the plan’s 51 recommendations you look at. One called for the city to “employ more arts staff.” That didn’t happen. Right now, we only have Karin Wolf, the city’s arts program administrator. The plan also calls for spending $100,000 to launch a local arts council (never happened), and to undertake significant efforts to “help Madison learn more about the different kinds of cultural districts that [already] exist” (didn’t happen).
“It’s an ongoing struggle. We all knew it would be,” says Patty Elson, who was the Madison Arts Commission vice chair when the plan was developed.
Anne Katz, executive director of the nonprofit Arts Wisconsin, agrees, calling it “a work in progress.” She chaired the Cultural Plan’s steering committee.
“It seems that the Cultural Plan has been an important guide to the city’s work in and for the arts, and to help integrate the arts and creativity into the city’s infrastructure — physical and conceptual,” says Katz.
There had been other studies and surveys, but never anything so detailed and data-driven. “It was a major feat,” says Elson. The Cultural Plan cost just under $64,000, at a time when the Arts Commission’s entire budget for grants to artists and arts groups was only $67,000.
Nearly two months after the Cultural Plan was adopted, on Sept. 30, 2013, the city received a working draft of a separate Performing Arts Study, intended “to build on the findings and recommendations coming out of the Cultural Plan.”
That study cost the city $125,000 and, among its conclusions: “Madison may be nearing its limit in terms of funding capacity for the arts in today’s climate.”
Knowing that we paid so much to learn how little we have may make you roll your eyes. However, it illustrates the climate in which the Cultural Plan was assembled. “We knew we were facing political odds, but we did want to have it in place,” says Elson.
The plan was based on surveys of 193 arts consumers, 240 artists and creative workers, and 79 nonprofit arts and cultural institutions. Its stated purpose was to provide “a roadmap for igniting Madison’s creativity and innovation.”
Data collected from arts/culture workers showed that more than half (61.6 percent) were self-employed, and 49.1 percent said their income was “unsatisfactory”; 40.6 percent earned less than a living wage, and 9.3 percent had no health insurance; 55.6 percent said their workspaces were “poor” or “weak,” and affordability was their top concern.
They reported that word of mouth was their most important marketing tool. Disturbingly, 5.9 percent didn’t market their work at all because they didn’t “know how” or lacked resources.
To help meet those needs and others, the Cultural Plan included “nuts and bolts recommendations for strengthening our creative infrastructure; increasing public access to creative activities; integrating creative resources into civic development; and sustaining creative workers, businesses and institutions.”
“I feel we’ve achieved a lot of those recommendations — that were in our control to achieve,” says Wolf. “It was a community plan. I can only influence.”
Wolf keeps careful track of all 51 recommendations, marking progress. Notable accomplishments include a change in ordinance to broaden the Arts Commission’s role to oversee the performance of the city’s arts contracts, from $500 BLINK projects up to the $2 million contract with Overture, and converting Breese Stevens from a minimally utilized sports field to a multi-purpose stadium that accommodates large performing arts events.
The work of the Task Force for Equity in Music and Entertainment, and improvements in the way police engage with nightclub owners and performers, begins to address what the plan called “over regulation” of hip-hop.
The Common Council passed a “percent for art” ordinance in 2017. That means, starting in 2020, 1 percent of the city’s capital projects above $5 million will go toward funding public art.
Many of the recommendations rely on partners, such as UW-Madison, the local school district, the parks department and Destination Madison (formerly the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau).
A great deal of work was also tasked to other entities that were never created: a Cultural Initiatives Staff Team, a Cultural Coalition, a Creative Sector Coalition and an Ad hoc Committee on Fairs, Festivals and Special Events.
Wolf says the mayor’s planning team has taken on much of what was intended for the Cultural Initiatives Staff Team. Then there’s this recommendation: “The Madison Arts Commission should take steps to reprioritize staff responsibilities, making room for [other] obligations.”
Wait, the commission has staff?
“Me,” says Wolf. “They’re talking about me.”
“Karin is the bulwark of everything,” says Elson. “I admire her.”
It was never clear how the Cultural Plan’s “nuts and bolts” recommendations were to be funded. Back in 2009, when work on the plan started, Elson told Isthmus, “We have several different ideas of where we might obtain the seed money. We may have to go to the private sector to raise that money.”
Katz says she was always dubious about obtaining funds to implement the Cultural Plan. “The good thing is that a lot of the work outlined in the plan didn’t necessarily require new money, but could be integrated into the work that the Arts Commission and the city was already doing: things like zoning issues, public art integration, and so on,” she says.
“Karin [Wolf] deserves the credit for making those things happen over time, with a supportive commission, city staff, and public officials.”
