Creative Placemaking is an emerging field that places arts and culture at the core of revitalization strategies, economic development policies, and community development initiatives. Over the past few decades, creative placemaking has become a popular local strategy to drive revitalization, animate spaces, or expand economic growth. Although many studies have been conducted to understand the economic, social, and environmental impacts of creating placemaking in a larger context, only a few foundations have attempted to create indicators that could evaluate the changes a community undergoes due to creative placemaking initiatives. Two foundations, the National Endowment for the Arts and ArtPlace, have created indicators in order to capture the multi-dimensional impact arts and culture can have on neighborhoods.
This paper utilizes a qualitative, framework analysis to answer questions regarding the validity of the NEA and ArtPlace indicators. The research intends to first, determine whether or not the indicators used by both the NEA and ArtPlace are reflective of the desired outcomes, mission statements and grant objectives outlined by their respective organizations, and to the community. Second, the paper analyzes whether the indicators are established in theory. Finally, it is the intent of this analysis to inquire how effective the indicators are as evaluation tools to measure the true causal impact of investments in creative placemaking ventures. The findings illustrate that discrepancies exist between the indicator sets and their respective organizations mission statement, desired outcomes, and grant objectives. Further, inter-organizational inconsistencies between the two indicator sets create confusion and weaken their attempts to evaluate creative placemaking. This study raises important questions with regard to the use of indicators as an evaluation tool. Do indicators stifle innovation? How can indicators demonstrate isolated, causal impacts of creative placemaking strategies? And, which indicators can illustrate why some creative placemaking ventures are successful while others are not?