Preserving Industrial Buildings for Creative Use

“Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine, and at last, you create what you will” (George Bernard Shaw). Manufacturing in the U.S. has a long history that has evolved from Fordism to Post-Fordism—shifting from large firms to firms of less than twenty people comprising eighty percent of employment in manufacturing in places such as New York and Los Angeles. This is a proxy for artisan and craft-based productions, which value their interpersonal relationships with both peers and competitors as well as quality over quantity in their creations. These creative producers lean toward affordable industrial environments for “adaptive use”—leveraging these spaces as both living and workspaces—to pursue their craft. The trend we’re seeing isn’t new as it has roots dating back to 1959 when artists and immigrants were already beginning to utilize abandoned industrial buildings for the same reasons. Preserving industrial spaces is worth considering in this regard to boost local economies and support unique, cultural artisans and their crafts. We’ll examine the advantages and disadvantages of choosing to preserve industrial buildings—or not—for creative manufacturing as well as strategies to support efforts for preservation that are viable and vital to this re-imagining.

What makes a city distinctive? Culture, heritage, and lore distinguish cities from one another and by leaning into these aspects, a city can rebrand itself to boost its local economy. Part of this is executed by attracting and retaining local talent, which includes artisan and craft manufacturers to the industrial districts they seek out for affordability. Nurturing these clusters supports forming what Rodney Tolley calls “Local Industrial Linkage.” This concept delineates that the results of clustering and linkage creates the “exchange of ideas, subcontracting, and specialized processing.” In other words, creativity and innovation for the development of differentiated, customized artisanal product production that contribute to a unique city image and culture. One example are craft breweries—the third most frequented place in America outside of the home and office—which contribute to city culture and image through regional branding in craft beer names and label designs rooted in local lore. Breweries also act as social spaces with amenities like trivia, music, and even yoga classes. When these breweries cluster near one another they can sell each other’s “excess grains and hops, share equipment, and train one another’s staff” thereby creating a sustainable, innovative creative economy. Another byproduct of supporting cultural production through the preservation of the spaces they desire to operate in is stable, quality, and accessible employment.

As with any choice, there are consequences, including local policy’s decision to not preserve industrial spaces and districts. If we don’t preserve these buildings and convert them to high-density residential and commercial developments, it will affect job quality and equality. This occurs when urban economic development and gentrification prioritize highly skilled and educated populations and view artisan and craft manufacturing narrowly as a consumption-based economic strategy. The parallel demand that results when this occurs is the demand for low wage services and the displacement of small artisan businesses. Then, unique, quality and innovative creative production becomes lost in the sea of quantity and cookie cutter commercialized services and a city that looks like any other city. 

Policy’s way forward to preservation and sustainability of craft manufacturing considers—according to Pratt—social, cultural, and economic areas. Part of this is analyzing and reforming zoning policies and requirements in industrial districts. In Fredericksburg, Virginia the city capitalized on the trend of experiential retail and unique goods by improving permitting to allow for fresh, creative economic endeavors. This helped form their creative “Maker Districts” and attracted tourism and residents to boost the local economy. Another method is leveraging third party federal agencies such as the NPS, NEA, and EPA to create income tax credits for historic preservation and have twenty percent of the cost of redevelopment of industrial areas to be subtracted from federal income tax. The latter option—though not monetarily viable—is to condemn the property, pay fair market value, or remediate the environmental implications of the abandoned property. Each of these alternative options are expensive endeavors. 

Re-imagining industrial districts to support artisan and craft manufacturing also re-imagines communities and affirms their identities—willing them into reality. The desire for economic growth experiences an interplay between consumer desires born from neo-localism—seeking to experience a region’s lore and culture—and what local policymakers choose to make room for in their economies. Brand loyalty for consumers is becoming culturally driven and environmentally conscious with thirty-six percent of people avoiding products for environmental reasons. Also, there’s link between a consumer’s self-image and the attributes of a brand personality when seeking out unique products and experiences. This makes preserving industrial buildings for artisans and crafter makers vital for sustainability, economic growth, and forging a city’s distinctive culture.

Sources

Kapp, P. H. (2016). The artisan economy and post-industrial regeneration in the US, Journal of Urban Design

Grodach, C. O’Connor, Gibson, C. (2017). Manufacturing and cultural production: Towards a progressive policy agenda for the cultural economy. City, Culture and Society

Murray, A. and Kline, C. (2015) Rural tourism and the craft beer experience: factors influencing brand loyalty in rural North Carolina, USA, Journal of Sustainable Tourism