Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony
Park, Saint Paul, Minnesota 2010
Prepared by Peter Mathison
for
University United
and the
St. Anthony Park Community Council
8/31/2010
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
Introduction – 3
Structure and Methodology – 3
Background: Urban Artist Clusters – 4
Artist Space Profiles – 6
St. Anthony Park Artist Census – 15
County Business Patterns Data – 18
Recommendations and Conclusions – 23
Appendix – 25
Resources – 33
Acknowledgments – 33
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 2
Introduction
The neighborhood of St. Anthony
Park is situated in the Northwest corner
of St. Paul, and is anchored by the
intersection of University and Raymond
Avenues. The substantial presence of
industrial infrastructure has cultivated a
strong arts community over the last 25
years, becoming a defining element of
Source: St. Anthony Park Community Council
the neighborhood’s character. The
neighborhood is understandably
interested in maintaining this character in the future, and the convergence of
a number of factors, particularly the impending loss of a significant amount
of artist work space and the construction of the Central Corridor LRT line,
has recently raised concerns over the fate of the arts in St. Anthony Park.
By providing a profile of the arts community in the neighborhood at present,
this study attempts to lay the groundwork for future action plans to reinforce
the arts’ presence.
Structure and Methodology
In order to determine how best to cultivate an urban arts cluster, it is
important to draw from a variety of case studies on the subject for
background. This study will therefore begin with such background. Crucial
to the survival of arts communities is the availability of spaces in which
artists can live and/or work. There is understandably a variety of different
forms that these spaces can take, and as such, when considering the future
development of an artist community, it is important to understand these
various artist space formats. While not exhaustive, this report draws from
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 3
several formats represented by properties in the Twin Cities, the idea being
that some, if not all of the art space templates identified in this report could
be replicated in St. Anthony Park.
The report then moves to a more data-driven profile of arts in St.
Anthony Park. This includes the results of an artist census conducted by the
St. Anthony Park Community Council, which give the spatial as well as media
distribution of artists in the neighborhood. This report also compiles County
Business Patterns data (provided by the U.S. Census Bureau) and a list of
creative industries generated by the New England Foundation for the Arts
(NEFA) to compare the creative economy of South St. Anthony Park
(approximated by zip code 55114) with three other areas in the Twin Cities
known at one point or another for their artist communities: Northeast
Minneapolis, Lowertown in St. Paul, and the Warehouse district in
Minneapolis. Because no zip codes serve as close approximations for any of
these other areas, MetroMSP.com’s data center was used to identify creative
establishments in these areas. This study also compares creative economy
data across multiple scales. Specifically, it compares creative economy data
for South St. Anthony Park with creative economy data for the MinneapolisSt. Paul Mircropolitan area as well as Ramsey County. These comparisons
highlight the significance of South St. Anthony Park’s creative economy
within the broader region.
Background – Urban Artist Clusters
If the goal is to keep artists in St. Anthony Park, it is important to
understand the factors that attracted them to the neighborhood in the first
place. By tracing the development of various other urban artist clusters,
certain commonalities emerge that suggest how and why artists cluster in
certain areas. This section of the study paid particular attention to four main
areas: 1) the now defunct arts cluster in Minneapolis’ Warehouse District 2)
the Northeast Minneapolis Arts District 3) Lowertown Arts District in St. Paul,
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 4
and 4) SoHo in New York City, which is often considered the quintessential
gentrified arts neighborhood. The primary element that these four
neighborhoods had in common before their development as arts clusters is a
history of industrial usage, followed by a period of decay in which large
industrial spaces were left unused. These spaces inevitably attracted artists
looking for work space (and in some instances, living space), generally
informally at first. Above all, however, the common trait possessed by these
neighborhoods was cheap space. Once these spaces became occupied by
artists, artists often times made improvements to the spaces. In SoHo, in
particular, this created opportunities for landlords to charge higher rent,
making it difficult for artists to stay in the spaces. In Minneapolis’
Warehouse district, artists’ presence and improvement of the neighborhood,
in combination with its proximity to downtown, attracted significant attention
from the broader public. As the area became more desirable to higherincome, non-artist groups, property values started to increase, resulting in
more expensive development. Ultimately, most artists could not afford to
stay in the neighborhood, leading to a diminishing artist presence
throughout the 1990’s.
Other artist neighborhoods have perhaps experienced more success in
confronting arts-related gentrification. In SoHo for example, in the first half
of the 1960’s, artists would live in (and make improvements to) their
workspaces illegally. In return, landlords would evict them and raise rents
for the spaces. SoHo artists’ plight led to the foundation of the first artists’
cooperative, and once loft living was legalized in 1970 (due to a substantial
artist-organized publicity campaign), artists successfully achieved a degree
of control over their residency in the neighborhood. While this did not stave
off gentrification indefinitely, the initial period of SoHo as an artist
neighborhood epitomizes organic development.
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 5
Lowertown’s development as an artist neighborhood began in a
similarly organic fashion, but efforts to redevelop the neighborhood were
soon spearheaded by the city of St. Paul, resulting in a much more
thoroughly planned-out development trajectory. These efforts were focused
on the establishment of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation (funded
by the McKnight Foundation) which would fund, plan and guide development
of the area. Artspace Projects both assisted in securing funding for the
Lowertown Artists’ Cooperative, and independently developed the Tilsner
Coop and the Northern Warehouse Artists’ Coop. Lowertown, in short,
attests to the power of institutional support for arts neighborhood
development.
Northeast Minneapolis Arts District, on the other hand, received
minimal institutional support in its development during the 1990’s and
2000’s. Major artist cooperatives are absent in the neighborhood; in their
place are substantial privately-owned and developed studio buildings, in
which artists themselves have little to no stake. The city of Minneapolis was
largely uninvolved with the area’s growth into an artist cluster. Here again,
artists were attracted by large, flexible, and cheap studio spaces. Many, in
fact, were former occupants of space in the Warehouse district. Northeast
is, in a sense, the result of the gentrification that took place in the
Warehouse district. As such, at first the area lacked various amenities (i.e.,
restaurants, theaters, etc.). Gradually, however, such amenities have
appeared, making the area more desirable. Northeast demonstrates the
power that space requirements and financial forces hold over where artists
congregate.
Artist Space Profiles
This report surveys six specific artist space properties in the Twin
Cities, and among those six, identifies four different artist space models. A
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 6
table listing each property, its major attributes and the corresponding artist
space model is included in the appendix.
I.
Artist Space Model One – Simple Workspace Rental
This artist space model is characterized by the following attributes:

Independent ownership/management

Work/commercial units only

Unsubsidized rent

Minimal internal tenant governing body (i.e., no
cooperatives)

No artist requirement for tenants
The Northrup King Building in Northeast Minneapolis and the Dow
Building in St. Anthony Park fall under this category. The
Chittenden and Eastman Building (not profiled in this report) in St.
Anthony Park, which contains approximately 30-40 artist-occupied
units, also falls under this category.
a. Northrup King Building
i. History/development
The Northrup King complex was constructed in 1917 and
originally served as a seed shipping center for the
Northrup King Seed
Company. In 1987,
Shamrock Properties, Inc.
acquired the property.
Little in the way of
renovation was performed
for a decade, during which
tenants were primarily
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 7
involved in light manufacturing and cold storage. Up until
1998, the building was largely without lighting and
heating, and much of it had no access to electricity at all.
Major renovations began in 1998 partially in order to meet
fire codes stating that rental units must have adjacent fire
corridors. This involved the construction of corridors,
which in turn meant the division of large open spaces into
smaller units. Electricity, heating and lighting were added
throughout rental areas. Gradually, renovation has moved
throughout the complex. Some areas have yet to be
renovated and remain unoccupied.
i. Current characteristics of the building
The Northrup King
Building is currently
among the most
significant artist
buildings in Northeast
Minneapolis. It contains
over 200 units, and has
approximately 190 artist
tenants and 30 entrepreneurial and nonprofit organizations.
Painting is by far the most popular medium of artist tenants,
with 88 artists identifying themselves as such. Studio sizes vary
widely, but based on currently available spaces, rent generally
appears to fall between $1.60 and $2.90/square foot. Amenities
are relatively few – there are no official community spaces,
although corridor walls can be used to display work. The
building’s management also provides advertisement for First
Thursdays and other promotional services for a fee.
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 8
b. Dow Building
The Dow Building was built in
1923, and renovations began in
1987. It is now one of the most
significant artist spaces in St.
Anthony Park. The building
currently has 55 units of studio
spaces and minimal amenities.
The original electric/pulley
elevators remain (i.e., there is no
passenger elevator), and studios
typically consist of sheet rock on
the walls and cement floors.
Tenants can install electric
window air conditioning units if
they so choose. The building is
characterized by a relatively low
turnover rate and a wide variety of media among tenants. Lease
agreements are month to month, and rent payments include all
utility costs.
II.
Artist Space Model Two - Artist Cooperative
This artist space model is characterized by the following attributes:

Live/work units

Internal tenants’ governing body
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 9

Requirement that tenants be artists (or somehow affiliated
with the arts)

Subsidized rent

Independent ownership/management group or organization
While artist cooperatives started in SoHo as artist-owned and
governed buildings, the two examples of this artist space model
in Lowertown, the Tilsner Artist Cooperative and the Northern
Warehouse Artist Cooperative, are owned and were developed
by Artspace Projects.
a. Northern Warehouse Artist Cooperative
The Northern
Warehouse Building
was built in 1908,
and became
Artspace, Projects’
first hands-on
development
project in 1990. It
was part of the
main thrust of the
Lowertown
redevelopment
efforts. Renovation
cost $5.6 million at
the time, with
funding flowing
from a wide variety
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 10
of sources, including low income housing tax credits were used
to finance the project, allowing for rents to be subsidized. There
are therefore income limits on prospective tenants.
Currently the building houses 52 live/work units, and commercial
spaces take up the entirety of the first two floors. Because this
was Artspace’s first development project, certain amenities and
practices that have now become standard in its development,
such as the inclusion of community space, were left out of the
Northern Warehouse building’s renovations. Artspace also
experimented with the artist cooperative format, which it
replicated in the Tilsner next door, but opted against in all other
future projects. This cooperative, known as the Northern
Warehouse Artists Cooperative, is a separate legal body that
signs leases with artist tenants through a master lease with
Artspace. This master lease gives the Coop a degree of control
over the internal workings of the building for members of the
tenant community.
b. Tilsner Artists Cooperative
The Tilsner Artists Cooperative in
Lowertown (adjacent to the
Northern Warehouse Coop) is
similar in its design and
management to the Northern
Warehouse Coop. The Tilsner
Building was built in 1895, and
by the time Artspace began
renovating it in the early 1990’s,
the building was in an advanced
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 11
state of decay. The upper two
floors, for example, could no
longer support human weight.
Renovations were extensive,
and totaled $7.1 million dollars.
The Coop opened in 1993, and
now contains 66 live/work
units. The Tilsner contains
several community spaces that
the Northern Warehouse building lacks, including spaces located
on the ground floor and in the basement, and two seven-story
atriums. The project was again financed partially by Low Income
Housing Tax Credits as well as historic tax preservation dollars.
The coop organization functions in a similar fashion to that in the
Northern Warehouse building.
III.
Artist Space Model Three – Shared Ownership
Commercial/Workspace
The Traffic Zone Center for Visual Art in the Warehouse District in
Minneapolis falls under this
artist space model. It was
built in 1886, and originally
used as a farming
equipment warehouse.
From 1888 to 1951, it
served as a bakery, and
from 1951 to 1992 it
served as an appliance
warehouse. In the early
1990’s, a group of artists
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 12
who were being pushed out of
other spaces in the
Warehouse District created a
for-profit corporation to find a
new space. This corporation
sought out Artspace as a
partner and entered into a
joint ownership of the Traffic
Zone Building. The building
contains 23 artist work studios, and the entire fourth and fifth floors
are large commercial spaces. Renovations cost $4.3 million, and as
of 2005, rent averaged $5.23/square foot. The artist corporation’s
shared ownership of the building allows them to keep rent relatively
low. This is at least partially balanced out by the costs of buying a
stake in the ownership of the building, a share of which costs
$5000. The building is aimed at “mid-career” artists who tend to be
older and more financially stable than many other artists; being a
“mid-career” artist is, in fact, a prerequisite to becoming a tenant.
The fees associated with membership include various amenities,
such as access to a lobby gallery, group studio talks and critiques,
storage and parking.
IV.
Artist Space Model Four – Noncoop live/work rental units
The Carleton Lofts Buildings in
St. Anthony Park fall into this
category. They opened in 2006,
before which they served as
miscellaneous storage spaces.
They were designated as artist
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 13
space partially (if not
primarily) because of
subsidies for lowincome, artist-centric
development. For this
reason, depending on
the availability of
similar funding in the
future, replicating such a project could potentially pose funding
challenges. They are owned and managed independently, and
include no internal tenant governing body. All units are technically
live/work, although they are largely unsuitable for art work.
Community spaces throughout the building better serve this
Wet Studio, Carleton Lofts
purpose. These spaces include wet and dry
studios, dance and music
rehearsal spaces, and
public display space in
hallways. The buildings
also contain a fitness
center. Unit types range
from studio to two
bedrooms/two bathrooms,
and square footage generally ranges from approximately 750 to
1500 square ft. Rent is subsidized under Section 42 credits, and
rates for the aforementioned square footages are approximately
$430/month and $1000-1100/month, respectively. Tenants are
officially required to have some affiliation with the arts, and while
they have relatively little input on how the building is manages,
they generally manage usage of communal spaces themselves. In
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 14
spite of the artist requirement, relatively few tenants rely solely on
their art for a living (i.e., the vast majority have supplemental
income). With regards to media distribution, musicians are
estimated to be the largest group, with visual artists following as
the second largest.
Arts in St. Anthony Park
This report employs two primary approaches to create a profile of the
existing artist community in St. Anthony Park. The first relies on the
available results of an ongoing artist census conducted by the St. Anthony
Park Community Council starting in September 2009. The second approach
focuses on the creative economy in St. Anthony Park as approximated by
County Business Patterns Data.
St. Anthony Park Artist Census
Participation in the 2009-2010 St. Anthony Park artist survey was
primarily solicited through flyer drops in artist buildings and gathering
spaces in the neighborhood, and participants added their responses to a
public spreadsheet. Because no formal count of artists in the neighborhood
exists, it is impossible to determine the participation rate. The survey
attracted 173 respondents, and while not exhaustive, there is enough data
to identify some basic patterns.
The survey requested the following information from respondents:

Address

Home, office or studio

Medium

Do you derive income from your art?
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 15
Addresses were reported by every respondent, giving a general
impression of the distribution of artists throughout the neighborhood.
Geocoding these addresses allowed for the creation of a map depicting
this distribution (see Appendix). 106 of the 173 (61%) respondents
provided the address of one of the following three properties, all of which
are located along University Ave.: the Chittenden and Eastman Building,
the Carleton Lofts, and the Dow Building. The majority of the remaining
respondents reported addresses in the residential neighborhood to the
North, indicating that a substantial number of artists work out of their
homes.
While the next indicator (home, office or studio) attempted to more
specifically characterize the spaces given by respondents, this indicator
was not consistently-reported (42 gave a response in this field), and
when it was reported, the responses given were often subject to
1%
Distribution of media, 2010 St. Anthony Park Artist
Census
1%
7%
Unspecified
24%
8%
Architecture
Crafts
Film
1%
7%
24%
Performance (various)
Music
Graphic Design
4%
7%
1%
7%
4%
4%
Literature (various)
Photography
2-D Visual Arts (various)
Figure 1: Media distribution in St. Anthony Park
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 16
interpretation. Ultimately, the responses given seem to suggest that
most of these 42 artists maintain a studio/work space separate from their
home, although more concrete conclusions would require further
investigation.
113 of the
Figure 1: Because many artists listed multiple media, a bar graph is slightly more accurate in
depicting media distribution
173 (65%)
respondents
Distribution of media, 2010 St.
Anthony Park Artist Census
reported a
medium for their
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
art, and 42
artists listed
multiple media.
Respondents
were allowed to
categorize their
media
independently in
the survey, leading to a wide variety of categories being reported. Of the
categories reported, 2-dimensional visual art makes up the biggest
portion by a substantial margin (24% of respondents). Crafts,
performance art and 3-dimensional visual art are also popular (7, 7 and
8% of respondents,
respectively).
These
Do surveyed artists derive income from art?
data attest to the varied
nature of the arts in the
yes
34%
neighborhood.
47%
no
some/little
The final survey
indicator attempted to
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
no response
11%
8%
Page 17
ascertain the degree to which artists derive income from their art. While
the survey did not further qualify this question, responses were largely
unambiguous. 118 of the 173 (68%) respondents gave a response for
this indicator, of which 77 (65%) reported deriving income. 18 (15%) of
those that provided a response for this indicator reported some or little
income from art, and 14 (12%) reported no income. The spatial
distribution of this variable presents potential for further investigation.
Focusing on the three properties with the most artist space, respondents
located at 2402 University Ave. (the C&E Building) consistently reported
deriving income from art, whereas respondents located at 2285
University Ave. (Carleton Lofts) reported deriving little to no income from
art (respondents located in the Dow Building did not report income). If
the C&E Building is indeed one of the major centers for profitable arts
businesses in St. Anthony Park, the loss of that space would have a
substantial impact on the neighborhood’s arts economy.
County Business Patterns Data
Range of Total Employment (55114)
25000
Lower Limit of Employemnt Range (55114)
Upper Limit of Employment Range (55114)
Lower Limit of Creative Employment (55114)
Upper Limit of Creative Employment (55114)
3000
21033
20000
17125
16847
1771
15000
10000
5000
9461
2500
2000
1462
1423
8199
8406
1500
1000
815
647
606
2004
2007
0
500
0
2000
Range of Creative Employment (55114)
Total/Creative Employment Ranges (55114)
Figure 3: Ranges for Total and Creative Employment for 55114 zip code
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 18
They County Business Patterns line of data is collected yearly by the U.S.
Census Bureau, and gives employment, payroll, and firm data at the
state, county, zipcode, and MSA levels of detail. The data are organized
by 6-digit NAICS code, making it possible to select data on individual
industries. In 2007, the New England Foundation for the Arts (NEFA)
published a paper titled “The Creative Economy: A New Definition”, in
which it provides a list of 6-digit NAICS codes that qualify as “creative
industries”. This report used the NEFA list to filter data from the County
Business Patterns database for the 55114 zipcode, which happens to
closely follow the boundaries of South St. Anthony Park. Essentially, this
would make it possible to track the creative economy in St. Anthony Park
over time.
With respect
% Creative Employment Ranges (of Total
Employment, 55114)
to a profile on
Anthony Park,
the idea is that
creative economy
data serve as a
relative
approximation for
the strength of
the artist
community.
Creative Employment as % of Total
Employment (55114)
artists in St.
Upper Limit of % Creative Employment
Lower Limit of % Creative Employment
25
20
18.72
17.83
16.93
3.87
3.78
3.6
2000
2004
2007
15
10
5
0
Figure 4: Both upper and lower limits of creative employment as a percent of total employment
decrease over the time interval
Logically this makes sense, and for the most part, some insight can be
gained into the condition of artists via County Business Standards data.
There are, however, certain areas of the creative economy that these
data cannot adequately address. For example, many self-employed
artists qualify as “nonemployers” – that is, their business has no paid
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 19
employees. The U.S. Census Bureau collects nonemployer data, but it is
not available at the zipcode level, meaning that a potentially significant
portion of the creative economy cannot be ascertained for St. Anthony
Park. Additionally, employment data for the zipcode level is provided in
ranges (i.e., number of firms with 1-4 employees, number of firms with
5-9 employees, etc.), making it impossible to measure employment
exactly over time. Because employment in the creative economy is
perhaps a more meaningful indicator than simply the number of
establishments, the lack of these data is significant. This report attempts
to estimate employment in the creative economy in St. Anthony Park by
calculating the
lower and upper
Total vs. Creative Establishments
(55114)
Total Establishments
limits of the
potential range
Creative Establihsments
585
of employment.
68
As Figure 3
64
582
575
64
570
62
571
59
565
560
66
60
58
562
555
56
550
54
2000
2004
Creative Establishments (55114)
Total Establishments (55114)
66
580
2007
Figure 5: Total establishments increase between 2000 and 2007, but creative establishments decrease
shows, these
ranges are quite
wide, and
ultimately the
County Business
Patterns data
are of little use
in trying to
ascertain
employment levels in the creative sector, at least at the zip code level.
These data do, however, seem to imply a decrease in employment, both
in the creative sector and across the board from 2000 to 2007. In fact,
as Figure 4 shows, this decrease was likely proportionally greater within
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 20
the creative sector than the greater economy, as creative employment as
a percent of total employment seems to have decreased.
These conclusions are supported by the simpler firm count data. Figure 5
shows that within the 55114 zip code, while total number of firms increased
over the time period, number of creative establishments decreased, as did
creative establishments as a percent of total establishments (Figure 6).
Figure 6 also shows this trend to be true for broader areas of study,
although the decrease in number of creative establishments was
proportionally greater in St. Anthony Park.
Figure 6 does, however, indicate that St. Anthony Park does have a
higher concentration of creative firms than the broader areas of study.
Compared to other historically prominent arts areas in the Twin Cities,
however, St. Anthony Park appears to trail behind, as shown by Figure 7.
These data
Figure 6: St. Anthony Park compared to Ramsey County and MSP Metropolitan Area
Creative Establihsments (% of Total)
MSP Metropolitan Area
55114 Zipcode
Ramsey County
12
11.74
11.21
10
8
10.14
8.88
8.63
8.18
7.96
7.75
7.66
6
4
2
0
2000
2004
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
2007
Page 21
were collected from MetroMSP, an online database that allows the user to
manually select study areas and extract 6-digit NAICS code data. This
service was used in place of the County Business Standards database
because none of the other study areas (NE Minneapolis Arts District,
Lowertown Historic District in St. Paul, and Minneapolis’ Warehouse District)
had a clear zip code proxy. The downside of this service is that data is only
available for the most
recent collection year
% Creative Establishments Across Arts
Neighborhoods (of Total Establishments, 2007)
(2007). Additionally,
MetroMSP also lacks
nonemployer data,
St. Anthony Park
10.14%
allowing for possibly
Lowertown
distorted results. Of
15.11%
particular note is the
result implying that the
Warehouse District
26.32%
Warehouse District,
long known for having
lost most of its artists in
NE MPLS
0.0%
the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, has
a proportionally larger creative
21.20%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Figure 7: St. Anthony Park compared to NE Minneapolis,
Warehouse District, Lowertown
economy than the Northeast Arts
District. Nevertheless, the results obtained indicate that St. Anthony Park
has proportionally smaller creative economy than all three other study
areas. In the future, studies that are able to better take into account
individual artists and nonemployers would be beneficial.
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
30.0%
Page 22
Recommendations and Conclusions
If St. Anthony Park is to raise the profile of its creative sector, it will need to
develop a comprehensive set of strategies specifically dedicated to this goal.
To this end, I propose following:

Continue ongoing efforts to advocate on behalf of artists in the
neighborhood – Presently, the St. Anthony Park Community
Council, along with Tom Borrup, from Creative Community
Building Consulting, are in the process of establishing a creative
planning enterprise committee, made up of community members
and stakeholders, in an effort to highlight the creative economy
in the neighborhood. This is exactly the kind of effort that the
neighborhood should be pursuing, as it will establish the
necessary community structures for any future investment
projects.

Conduct a more detailed artist survey, specifically focused on
artist space – Before any investment in artist space can be made
in the neighborhood, it is important to understand more
specifically the type of space that is needed. A survey of artists
regarding their space needs would be the best way to achieve
this. Topics could include:
o Prefer integrated live/work space, or independent studio
space?
o How much would artists be willing to pay/square foot for
rent?
o What types of services or amenities would space need?
i.e.,

Elevators, bathrooms, water connection, a/c,
windows, floor/wall materials, loading docks, unit
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 23
size/shape, communal gallery/display space,
parking, etc.

Conduct market research on comparable space rental rates –
before initiating any investment plans, it is crucial to have a
better understanding of the current market for creative space.
While this report provides a survey of various artist spaces in the
region, a more market-based approach would be helpful.

Investigate potential sites for new artist work space
development - From other neighborhood case studies and artist
space profiles, it is clear that the most basic prerequisite for a
successful arts neighborhood is large, flexible, cheap work space.
More of this type of space will likely be needed in the future to
compensate for the loss of other space. While more live/work
space could potentially be a positive asset for the neighborhood,
making more strictly work space available to artists would likely
be an easier investment, and would be more likely to find an
immediate audience. Investigating potential sites for new
development is the first step in bringing any investment plans to
fruition, and finding new opportunities for artist space
investment would be instrumental in attracting more artists to
the neighborhood.
The issue of artist space in St. Anthony Park is important considering the
various changes coming to the neighborhood in the near future. The loss of
the Chittenden and Eastman building as artist space would necessitate
some sort of substitute if the neighborhood wishes to retain its full artist
population. Additionally, with Raymond Ave. as one of the station areas for
the Central Corridor, the prospect for further loss of artist space (albeit not
necessarily in the immediate future) is not out of the question. At the same
time, light rail presents opportunities for the creative economy in St.
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 24
Anthony Park to grow. While the County Business Patterns data seem to
imply a slight shrinking of the creative economy over the past decade, the
magnitude of the decrease is simply too small to declare St. Anthony Park’s
creative economy to be in peril. By the same token, however, if the
neighborhood desires to maintain its artistic enterprises, it should be
actively seeking out ways to promote the creative economy and draw more
artists to the neighborhood. Maintaining a vibrant artist community in St.
Anthony Park will require a sustained effort, and the aforementioned
recommendations would hopefully begin to tackle these issues.
Appendix
Table 1: Business Patterns Summary
Business Patterns, 2000-2007
55114 2000-2007
2000
Total Establishments
562
Creative Establishments
66
2004
571
64
2007
582
59
MSP 2000-2007
Total Establishments
Creative Establishments
2000
84,532
7296
2004
91,456
7276
2007
93,894
7192
Ramsey County 2000-2007
Total Establishments
Creative Establishments
2000
13,701
1217
2004
14,063
1151
2007
13,892
1076
Table 2: Business Patterns % Change
55114 Zipcode
MSP
Ramsey County
Percent change 2000-2007
Total establishments
3.56%
11.08%
1.39%
Creative establishments
-10.61%
-1.43%
-11.59%
Appendix graph 1:
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 25
Total vs. Creative Establishments (MSP Micropolitan
Area)
96,000
94,000
92,000
90,000
88,000
86,000
84,000
82,000
80,000
78,000
Creative Establishments
7350
93,894
91,456
7296
7300
7250
7276
84,532
7200
7192
7150
7100
2000
2004
2007
Creative Establishments (MSP)
Total Establishments (MSP)
Total Establishments
Appendix graph 2:
Total vs. Creative Establishments (Ramsey County)
14,063
Total Establishments (Ramsey County)
14,100
14,000
Creative Establishments
1250
1200
1217
13,892
13,900
1150
1151
13,800
13,701
1100
13,700
1076
13,600
13,500
1050
Creative Establishments (Ramsey County)
Total Establishments
1000
2000
2004
2007
Table 3: Top NAICS Categories
6-digit NAICS
Code
541110
541330
541611
Top Industry Categories (55114)
Number of
Industry Description
Establishments
Offices of lawyers
24
Engineering services
12
Admin management & general
11
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
% of total
establishments
4.124%
2.062%
1.890%
Page 26
management consul
Temporary help services
Offices of physicians (except mental
health
Labor Unions and Similar Labor
Organizations
561320
621111
813930
6-digit NAICS
Code
541430
511210
512110
541310
541890
8
1.375%
8
1.375%
8
1.375%
Top Creative Industry Categories (55114)
Number of
Industry Description
Establishments
Graphic design services
7
Software publishers
5
Motion picture & video production
4
Architectural services
4
Other services related to advertising
4
% of total
establishments
1.20%
0.86%
0.69%
0.69%
0.69%
Appendix graph 3:
Creative vs. Total Establishments Across Arts
Neighborhoods, 2007
Creative Establishments
Total Establishments
1000
900
722
800
700
600
566
582
500
400
300
311
200
100
0
190
120
NE MPLS
Warehouse District
47
59
Lowertown
St. Anthony Park
Table 4: Art space matrix
Profiles of artist buildings in
the Twin Cities
Number of
units
Total Sq.
Footage
Ownership model
Northrup King
approx. 190
n/a
rental units, private owner
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 27
Tilsner Cooperative
66
Artspace-owned w/ internal
128,223 governing coop
Northern Warehouse
Cooperative
52
Artspace-owned w/ internal
161,280 governing coop
Traffic Zone Center for Visual
Art
24
Shared ownership: artist corporation
100,421 and Artspace
Dow Building
55 n/a
rental units, private owner
Carleton Lofts
n/a
n/a
rental units, private owner
Chittenden and Eastman
Building
Approx. 3040, based
on Artspace
Preliminary
Feasibility
Report
(2009)
142,000
Rental units, private owner
Profiles of
artist
buildings
in the
Twin
Cities
Northrup King
Tilsner
Cooperative
Northern
Warehouse
Cooperative
Traffic Zone
Center for
Visual Art
Amenities
advertising
Atriums,
gallery space
lobby gallery,
studio talks and
critiques,
storage,
parking
Dow Building
n/a
Carleton Lofts
community
work spaces,
recreation
spaces, fitness
center, display
space on walls,
rehearsal space
Unit Type/Size
Artist
Qualification
Rent
Subsidized
studio,
variable size
live/work,
variable size
no
yes - samples for
application
no
Rent Levels
approx.
$1.6-2.9/sq.
ft.
yes
n/a
$7.1 mil.
1993
n/a
live/work,
variable size
yes - samples for
application
yes
n/a
$5.6 mil.
1990
n/a
Work,
commerical
studio,
variable size
(show unit:
14x14?)
"mid-career
artist"
no
$5.23/sq. ft.
(2005)
$4.3 mil.
1993
n/a
n/a
1987
steam heat
2006
heated
floors,
individual
a/c,
live/work,
variable size
no
yes - "one person
w/ ongoing
commitment to
arts"
no
yes section 42
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
show unit:
$450/month
to month
750 sq. feet,
lower level:
$450/mo.;
1500 sq.
feet, 5th
floor:
$1029/mo.
initial,
Develop.
Cost
Renovated
Utilities
n/a
1996present
heat,
electricity
n/a
Page 28
Chittenden
and Eastman
Building
n/a
Work,
commercial
No
No
$1100/mo.
If rented
today
$6-$12/sq.
foot
(Artspace,
2009)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Resources
Artspace Projects. (2009). Preliminary Feasibility Report: Saint Anthony Park Community
Council. Minneapolis: Artspace Projects.
DeNatale, D., & Wassall, G. H. (2007). The Creative Economy: A New Definition. Boston:
New England Foundation for the Arts.
Gadwa, A. (2010). How Artist Space Matters: Impacts and Insights from Three Case
Studies Drawn from Artspace Project's Earliest Developments. Minneapolis: Metris
Arts Consulting.
Lanegran, D. A. (1987). St. Anthony Park: A Portrait of a Community. St. Paul: St.
Anthony Park Community Council.
Melton, H. (1992). Notes on Soho and a Reminiscence. Visible Language , 180-201.
MetroMSP. (2010). MetroMSP Search for Properties. Retrieved August 30, 2010, from
MetroMSP: http://metromsp.zoomprospector.com/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010, August 26). County Business Patterns. Retrieved August 15,
2010, from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/
Acknowledgements
Several individuals were instrumental in my completing this project. This
project depended heavily upon interviews, and I am grateful to all those who
gave some of their time to talk to me. Thank you to Debbie Woodward for
information about and a tour of the Northrup King Building, Mary Altman of
the City of Minneapolis for background on arts communities in the Twin
Cities, Roy Close of Artspace for his information on Artspace and arts
neighborhood development in the Twin Cities, Jack Becker of Forecast Public
Art for his information on the growth of the St. Anthony Park arts
community, Dan Hartnett for information about and a tour of the Dow and
Wright Buildings, and Joanne Makela for information about and a tour of the
Carleton Place Lofts. The St. Anthony Park Creative Enterprise Group
worked closely with me on various aspects of the project, particularly on the
St. Anthony Park Artist Census. I would like to thank the group, including
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 29
Catherine Day, John Schumacher, Amy Sparks of the St. Anthony Park
Community Council and Tom Borrup of Creative Community Builders for
having me at their meetings and including my work in their planning
process. I would especially like to thank Amy Sparks for providing me with
resources on St. Anthony Park and providing support from the project’s
inception. I would also like to thank Tom Borrup for including me in his
research, taking time to stay updated on my progress, and giving me
valuable tips. I would finally like to thank Brian McMahon and Adam
Maleitzke of University United/U-PLAN for giving me the opportunity to do
this project, providing continual support on everything from important
contacts to mapping help to organizational feedback, and offering invaluable
insights throughout.
Profile of a Creative Neighborhood: St. Anthony Park
Page 30