Cultural mapping and sustainable communities: planning for the arts revisited

Abstract

The field of arts and cultural planning and the aspirations of cultural practitioners, arts development officers and town planners has had a long, if frustrated, history in the United Kingdom. The relationship between the land-use development system and arts and cultural policy has lacked specific provision guidance or standards. This is in contrast to other areas of leisure and recreation, such as parks and open spaces, sports facilities and libraries. In large part this is due to the discretionary nature of much arts provision and also the fact that there is no single type of provider. Arts facilities and activity are delivered directly and indirectly by local and county councils, community and independent not-for-profit arts organizations – large and small – and private enterprises in the commercial entertainment and cultural industries. The absence of planning guidance and comparable data to assess the need for, and location of, a range of cultural amenities has also hampered an equitable, distributory planning approach. However, renewed interest in amenity planning and the role of cultural activity and opportunity in “place making” is evident internationally, and in the UK in particular, as new housing growth areas, demographic change and population increases require the planning of social as well as physical infrastructure on a scale not experienced since the last major new town developments. This article reviews the evolution of arts and cultural planning in the UK, including an assessment of recent concepts, guidance and resources in the UK and elsewhere. Cultural mapping and planning approaches are then demonstrated in housing growth areas, followed by a proposed methodology and framework for populating the cultural map. Finally, conclusions are made on the state of data and policy integration in what continues to be a fragmented cultural system.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 98 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.