More Time Is Better, But Budget Is King“We Make Do ” More Time Is Better, ... New York City has...

“We Make Do”

More Time Is Better, But Budget Is King

A Report Assessing Dance Rehearsal Space Needs and Availability, Focused on Mid-Career, Single-Choreographer-led Companies

For The Andrew W. Mellon FoundationNovember 1, 2010

Table of ContentsExecutive SummaryIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Choreographer Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Facility Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Barriers and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Next Steps and Areas for Further Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Introduction—Charge & MethodologyCharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter I. Results of Surveys to ChoreographersA.ProfileoftheDanceCommunityasaWhole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11B.ProfileoftheCoreGroupofChoreographers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14C . Core Group Rehearsal Space Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Chapter II. Results of Surveys for FacilitiesA . Basic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18B . Real Estate and Related Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20C . Rehearsal Space Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21D.AnalysisofOtherFacilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Chapter III. Barriers and OpportunitiesA . A New Facility versus Other Infrastructure Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24B . Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24C . Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter IV. Next Steps and Areas for Further ExplorationA . Invest in Existing Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31B.ImmediateNextSteps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31C.GoingDeeper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31D.AreasforFurtherInvestigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

AppendixProjectTeam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37RespondentDanceFacilitiesbyZIPCode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38RehearsalSpaceSearchesbySizeandHourlyRate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Research Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

We Make DoMore Time Is Better, But Budget Is King

3|WeMakeDo|ExecutiveSummary

Executive SummaryIntroductionNYCPerformingArtsSpaces(NYCPASpaces),aProgramofFracturedAtlas*,wasawardedagrantfromtheAndrewW.MellonFoundationtoassessrehearsalspacedemandsforNewYork’sdancecommunity,withaspecificfocusonmid-career,single-choreographer-ledcompa-nieswithouttheirownspace.Foundationfundssupportedanassessmentoftheexistingsupplyofdancerehearsalfacilities,barrierstoaccessbyprofessionalartists,andpossiblesolutions,including new dedicated facilities .

NewYorkCityhaslongbeencentralinthehistoryanddevelopmentofcontemporarydance.Ifwevaluedanceasanartform,wemustcommittosupportingthedevelopmentofdanceartistsandtheirwork,particularlywithregardtoworkspaceneedsforcreativegrowth,researchanddevelopment.

ThisassessmentconsistedoffocusgroupswithselectFacilitiesandChoreographers,surveystoFacilitiesandChoreographers,andresearchoneffortstoaddresstheseinfrastructureissues.

Choreographer SurveysThesurveystochoreographersexaminedWorkPatternsandFinancesandformedaprofileofthiscommunityinNewYorkCity.AsetofcriteriawasappliedtothesurveystoidentifyaCoreGroupofmid-career,single-choreographer-ledcompanieswithouttheirownworkspacesandwithatleastthebeginningsofasignificantprofessionalprofile.Mostofthese25choreog-rapherscreatetwotofourpiecesayear,withgenerallyoneevening-lengthandonecommis-sioned,althoughthetotalnumberfellfrom2007to2009.Almosthalfdonothaveconsistentworkspace,and“sometimes”theyhaveaccesstothetypesofspacetheyneed.70%wereaidedbyfreeresidencies.

Forallrespondents,totalincomefellby15%from2007–2009,witha37%dropincontrib-utedincome.49%expectadeficitthisyear.Onereasonmaybeincreasesinaveragehourlyrehearsalspaceratesreportedby36choreographers,from$15.72in2007to$16.05in2009.Datashowedtheneedforsuitable,affordable,availableworkspaceforlongerperiods.76%usesubsidizedrehearsalspace,butcurrentsubsidiesareinsufficientinamountandfrequentlyunavailable.Whencompaniesmustrehearseindifferentfacilities,theylosecontinuityandincreasecosts:transportingprops,performersandequipmenthasincreasedby13%overthreeyears.Further,78%ofthesechoreographershandleadministrativedutiesintheirsmallunder-resourcedcompanieswhentheycouldbemakingdance.41%donotpaythemselvesandmanysubsidizetheirwork.

Facility SurveysThetwofacilitysurveysexaminedSpaceDetailsandFinances.64%ofrespondentsareinManhattan,27%inBrooklyn.Altogether,theyhouse121dancestudios,with62%ofspacesdesignatedas“large,”over1,200squarefeet.Theirtotalincomeroseby20%from2007to2008andfellby15%in2009;expenseskeptpace.Morethanhalfreceive30–50%oftheir

*SeeAppendix,page36.


contributedincomefromfoundations,lessthan25%fromgovernment.Facilitiesreceivedtheirmajorearnedincomefromrentals,secondlyfromclassesandworkshops,anincreasing,morestable,source.Importantly,for100%offacilityrespondents,manyofwhicharealsodancepre-senters,providingspaceresourcesforchoreographersiscentraltotheirmissions.Halfprovidefreetimeandspacetochoreographers.Butincreasesinexpenses,includingrealestatecosts,andphysicalfacilityimpediments,limittheiravailability.For77%ofrespondents,studiooc-cupancywasfocusedon12noonto6p.m.,thepreferreddancecommunitytimes,withoutsiderentalslessthan75%ofcapacity.64%haveanon-sitecontactperson.

Barriers and OpportunitiesToassesstheneedforanewdedicateddancefacility,weexaminedprojectsthatwerenotbuilt,danceorganizationswithrelativelynewspacesthataresurviving,anddanceorganizationswhosespaceexpansionsarepotentiallythreateningtheirsurvival.Welookedatsuccessfulshared-spacemodelsoutsidethedancedisciplineandidentifiedthenecessaryelements:com-mittedboardsandstaffleadership,Citypartnershipsandtheroleofneutral,discipline-specificartsserviceorganizations.WeexploredpossiblepartnershipswiththeNewYorkCityDepart-mentofEducationandinpublicandprivateuniversitiestousetheirseasonallyemptyspaces.

Welookedattheamountofavailabletimeinrespondentfacilities:Of34,7werebooked75–100%and12booked50–75%ofavailabletime.Theydonotcurrentlyofferdiscountsbasedontimeofday,dayofweek,orseason.

Core Group choreographersandthefieldasawholeneedawidevarietyofspacesfortheirworkatdifferenttimesinthecreativeprocess.Modelsexist:WelookedatresidencyprogramswithinNewYorkCity,andsomeoutside,suchastheMaggieAlleseeNationalCenterforChore-ography(MANCC)inTallahassee,Florida.Indance,spacelimitationsdictatethework.

For strapped facilitiesfocusedonsupportingdanceartistry,classes,commercialrentalsand“bulk”spacerentalstolocaluniversitiesenablethemtostayabovewaterbutoftendonotfor-wardthemission.Lackoffundingforadequateon-sitestaffinglessensthepotentialforrentalsthatcouldprovideincomeinoff-peaktimes.

Weconcludethatampleunderusedspacesexist;anewfacilityisunwarrantedandwoulddivertcapitalandongoingsupportneededbyexistingfacilities.Infact,infrastructuresupport—tocoverbasicphysicalfacilityneeds,equipmentandstaffing—hasbeentoolongneglectedforboththedancecommunityandthefacilities.

Rehearsalspacesubsidies,chieflysupportedbytheNewYorkStateCouncilontheArts (NYSCA),helpthedancecommunitytoaccesssuitablerelativelyaffordablespace,buttheavailablehoursaretoolimited.Whilethesubsidieshelpfacilitiesserveartists,theyhavenotkeptpacewithcosts.WithStatefinancesandtheongoingeconomicclimate,thismostimpor-tantsupportforthefield—thosewhocreateandthefacilitiesthatenablecreativity—willmostlikelybefurtherreduced.

Onepositiveopportunityrespondstoanissuerequestedbybothfocusgroupsofchoreogra-phersandfacilities:anonlineschedulingsystemtomatchsupplywithdemandandenablestreamlinedbookinginadvanceforbusychoreographers.ThissystemisbeingcreatedbyFractured Atlas .


Next Steps and Areas for Further Exploration“‘We’re more interested in helping shore up what organizations have already built,’ said Alice L. Carle, program director of the Kresge Foundation.” NewYorkTimes,Dec. 12, 2009

TheissuehereinNewYorkCityisaccessandaffordabilityatexistingfacilities.Choreographersneedcontinuous,affordableaccesstoexistingspace,andthefacilitiesthathousedancewantand need to provide that support .

Investing in Infrastructure

TheNextStepsbelowaredirectedtotheentirefundingcommunity,bothpublicandprivatesectors,andnottoanysinglesource.Ifgroupsoffunderspoolresourcesandintelligence,notonlywoulditcreateamorerobustenginetocatalyzethissupport,italsohasthepotentialtoofferlong-termsolutionstothesesystemicproblems.

Takentogether,theseinfrastructuresupportscanhelpexistingfacilitiesincreaseoccupancytostabilizetheirownandtheneedsofthebroaderdancecommunity.Thesestepsrequirecoordi-nated,focused,relativelymodestexpendituresonthepartofthefundingcommunity.

Immediate Next Steps: Rehearsal Space Subsidies

A new coordinated public/private sector rehearsal space subsidy fundshouldbeestablishedtoretain,andimportantly,doubleNYSCAFY10fundinglevelsofapproximately$249,000,andprovideforadditionalstaffing.Afurthersubsidyfundshouldbecreated,modeledonDanceTheaterWorkshop’sformerOuter/Spaceprogram,andadministeredbyaneutraldanceartsserviceorganization.

Going Deeper

Thesestepsrequireadeeperinvestmentofdevelopmenttimeandresourcesfromthefundingcommunityincollaborationwiththedancecommunity.

Residency Network

WeproposeanetworkofmultipleexistingresidencycentersinNewYorkCitytoservethekeyjuncturesinthecreativeprocess:timeforresearchandreflection,initialexplorationswithdancers,choreographyandrehearsals,andextendingtoamoretechnically-outfitted,pre- production/designdevelopmentperiod.Thespectrumoffacilitiesintheresidencynetworkwouldvaryinsizes,budgetsandtechnicalresources.Thesecenterswouldcomplementandcross-fertilizeresidenciesoutsideNewYorkCity,suchasMANCC.

Buildingsuchanetworkwillrequirecoordinatinghostfacilities,agroupofmid-careersingle-choreographer-leddancecompanies,andsupportivefunderstodevelopastrategyandthentodetermineparticipantsandbudgets.Fundingwouldunderwritefeesforfacilityresourcesandfortheartists,plusdedicatedadditionalstaffingforadministrationforeach,andprogramevaluation .

Thisresidencynetworkcouldalsobeextendedtosupportemergingand,insomecases,estab-lishedchoreographerswithouttheirownspace;itwouldbejustasrelevanttotheirneeds.


Administrative Infrastructure Support

“Never mind the naming rights; there’s nothing sexy about paying for utility bills.” New York Times, April 3, 2009

We propose a multi-year funding commitment to support the basic operations of both dance facilities and choreographers with their own companies.Withadditionalstaffsupport,facili-tieswouldbeabletomaximizeavailablerentaltimeandresidencyactivity.Similarly,chore-ographerscouldbepaidfortheiradministrativetimeorhirestaffandfocusmoreondance-making.

Apreliminaryassessmentfocusedinitiallyonsurveyrespondentswhocommentedonneedwouldshowthevariabilityandkindsofsupportneededandwouldleadtocostestimates.

Technical Assistance and Capital Improvement

All facility respondents in rental spaces expecttostaythere—fromthoseservinghundredsinthedancecommunitytoothersservingfew,butinothercruciallyimportantways.Mostwouldbenefitfromsmallcapitalimprovementstoincreasefacilities’bookingcapacityanddesirabil-ityforrenters.Consultantscouldsupplystrategicadviceonhowtobetterusetheirspaceandtodevelopbusinessplansandpracticalaid,fromminorimprovements,likemirrorstomoremajor,suchasnewheating,ventilatingandairconditioning.Aninitialevaluationcouldthenbefollowedbyanimplementationphase.

Capital Funding

Publicandprivatesectortechnicalassistanceandcapitalimprovementfundingexistsbutonanindividualbasis.NYSCAhasofferedmatchingfundingforarchitect’sfeesandcapitalfundsforequipmentpurchaseorothercapitalimprovementprojects.TheCity’sDepartmentofCulturalAffairs(DCA)offerscapitalfundingtocurrentgranteesforfurnitureand/orequip-mentforinitialoutfittingofafacilityandconstructionorrenovationwithaminimumcostof$500,000.

We propose that a coordinated effort of funders and consultants develop a strategy to build a new pool of money with no minimum cost or matching funds and expedited actions, followed by implementation and evaluation.

Areas for Further Investigation

Analysis of the Subsidy Program

Together,facilitiesandfunderscouldexaminesubsidyguidelinestoenablebookingsfartherinadvance,forlongerperiodsoftimeandthatwouldideallycoverallassociatedcostsforfacili-tiesandfordancecompanies.

Potential Additional Residency Opportunities

1 . Residency Network.ExpandingtheresidencynetworktoincludeNewYorkCity-basededu-cationalinstitutionscouldalsoexpandtheexposurebothofdancecompaniesandstudents.Initialdiscussionswithtwolevels—theCity’sDepartmentofEducationandlocaluniversi-ties—couldbepursued.


2 . Extending the Residency Network Beyond New York City. The geographic scope of this reportwasrestrictedtothefiveboroughsofNewYorkCity.Discussionscouldbeinitiatedwithuniversities,facilitiesorpotentialresidencypartnersbeyondthecity.Residenciesout-sidethecitycouldpossiblyworkinpartnershipwithalocalresidencynetwork(asdescribedabove)and/ortosupplementNYSCA’sLong-TermResidencyProgramforDance.

Conclusion

Thedancecommunityinvolvesfoursetsofstakeholders—thosewhocreateandproducedance,thosewhohouseandnurtureit,thosewhocometoseeit,andthosewhofunditbothindividu-allyandthroughgrantingvehicles.WhatisneededtoensuretheviabilityoftheNewYorkCitydancecommunityand/orspecificallytosupportthegrowthofmid-career,single-choreogra-pher-ledcompaniesandtheirworkisanewconcertedeffortonthepartofagroupofdedicatedfunders .

8|WeMakeDo|Introduction:Charge&Methodology

Introduction

Charge and MethodologyChargeNYCPerformingArtsSpaces(NYCPASpaces)wasawardedagrantfromtheAndrewW.Mel-lonFoundation,toexaminethefollowing:

• “TheneedanddemandforrehearsalspaceforprofessionaldancecompaniesinNewYorkCity,withaspecificfocusoncompaniesledbysinglemid-careerchoreographersthatdonothavetheirownrehearsalfacilities;

• “Thesupplyofexistingworkspacesavailablefordancerehearsalandthosebeingbuilt,bothnonprofitandfor-profit,assessingcapacityandoccupancy,andforecastingpotentialappropriatefacilities;

• “Thebarrierstotheeffectiveuseofexistingspacesandwhetherenhancementsorchangesinpolicycouldresultinincreasedsupplyoruse;

• “Ifstudyresultswarrant,whetheroneormorededicatedspacesshouldbeconvertedorbuiltnewtoservetheexistingandprojectedneedsofthedancecommunity.”

GoalTheassessmentseekstohelpsolveaproblemexperiencedparticularlybyanumberofmid-careersinglechoreographer-leddancecompaniesastheyprepareforNewYorkCityortouringseasons.Thesecompanies,describedaslightlyinstitutional,donothavetheirownrehearsalspaceorpriorityuseofaspace.Anecdotally,theyhaveexpressedtheconcernthattheirworkisnotofthecalibertheyaspireto,largelybecauserentalrehearsalspaceisnotavailableandnotaffordablefortheextentoftimeneeded.Thereisaperception—fairorotherwise—thatNewYorkCitynolongersupportsormaintainsitsworld-classdancecompanies,andthattheartis-ticedgehasbeencededtootherdancecentersinEurope.(New York Times,“HowNewYorkLostItsModernDanceReign,”Sept.6,2005)

Optimally,thesecompanieswantconsistent,affordable,well-locatedrehearsalspacebutarenotinanorganizationalorfinancialpositiontoaffordormaintaintheirownspace.Havingaccesstosuchworkspaceinmulti-studiofacilitieswouldalsoprovideopportunitiesfordancecommunityinteractionandartisticcross-pollination.

Definitions

Itshouldbeunderstoodattheoutsetthatalldefinitionsinthisstudyareimperfectandfluid.

Manyresearchers,policymakersandartiststhinksuchterminologyas“emerging,”“mid-ca-reer,”and“established”isunhelpfulandmisleading.Forcontemporarydance,most,ifnotall,researchdefinitionscomewithcaveats.Theartiststhemselvesarehighlyresistanttolabels,forthemselvesandtheirwork.


Forourpurposes,thefollowingdefinitionof“mid-career”or“CoreGroup”choreographersinNewYorkCitywasestablished,withinputfromprogramstaffattheAndrewW.MellonFoundation:

• Theyhavebeenmakingworkforatleast10years.

• Theyarebeingpresentedbynationallysignificantvenues.

• Theyaresupportedbynationallysignificantresidencyspaces.

• Theyhaveatleastthebeginningsofatouringprofile,andarereviewedinmajorpublica-tions .

• Theyemployagroupofdancers(sameorpick-up)inthedevelopmentoftheirwork.

Theprecedingdefinitionsareage-basedonlyinthatchoreographersmusthaveatleast10yearsofexperienceinthefield.Choreographersexit“mid-career”andbecome“established,”notataparticularage,butwhentheyhaveachievednationalandinternationalprominenceandhavesubstantialandreliablefunding,spaceandinfrastructuretodevelopanddelivertheirwork . Only a handful of choreographers ever achieve this level .

Anotherproblematicdefinitionis“dancecompany.”Manyofthechoreographerswhopartici-patedinfocusgroupswereresistanttothisterm,withitsintimationsofamoretraditionalmodel,alevelofinstitutionalization,orasetpatternofactivitiesandwaysofworkingthatdonotreflecttheiractualcircumstancesorpractice.Fertile,boundary-crossingartformssuchascontemporarydanceinNewYorkCityarenotoriouslydifficulttoquantify.

Forthisstudy,wewilluse“dancecompany”forthepracticalpurposeofhavingasimpletermtoreferencechoreographersandthecorecollaboratorstheyworkwithinthedevelopmentanddeliveryoftheirwork.Itshouldbeunderstoodthattheterminnowayattemptstodescribeordelineatealevelofinstitutionalization,awayofworkingoratypeofoutput.

Forthisstudy,wealsouse“infrastructure”torefertotheunderlyingfoundationofphysicalfacilities,equipmentandpersonnel.

MethodologyTheprimaryvehiclesofthisstudywerefocus groups,surveys and research .

Focus Groups

AseriesoffourfocusgroupswasheldinOctober2009:twoforchoreographersandtwoforfacilities.Thetwochoreographers’focusgroupsweredividedintoWorkPatternsandFinances.ThetwofacilitiesfocusgroupsweredividedintoSpaceDetailsandFinances.Focusgrouppar-ticipantswereinvitedbasedonsuggestionsfromtheAndrewW.MellonFoundationandDavidSheingold,theproject’sDanceCommunityConsultant.Theywerechosenwithaneyetowardsdiversity across a range of criteria .

ThesefocusgroupswereheldinOctober2009atDanceTheaterWorkshop.LedbyShein-gold,theytouchedonabroadarrayoftopics,includinglevelsofsupportforchoreographers,programmaticgoals,financialroadblocks,andgapsinaccesstospace.Focusgrouppartici-pantswerealsoaskedtocommentonsurveydrafts.FocusgroupparticipantsarelistedintheAppendix .


Surveys

Theprojectteamformulatedandtestedfoursurveys:SpaceDetailsandFinancesforFacilities,andWorkPatternsandFinancesforChoreographers.

SurveysweredistributedDecember14,2009,andkeyrespondentsweretargetedforfollowups.Surveyrespondentswereidentifiedbyemailand/ororganizationname,butallresponseswereanonymouswithdatabeingdisseminatedorpublishedonlyintheaggregate.Foraddi-tionalinformationonmethodology,seetheAppendix.

Research

Ourresearchtookseveralforms:

1. Weexaminedthesustainability of facilities,bothrecentlybuiltandthoseproposedbutneverbuilt.Welookedatkeycomponentsinsuccessfulmodels,andwarningsignsofdis-tressinothers.Weresearchedshared-spaceartsfacilities,searchingforappropriatemodelsacrossdisciplines.Welookedatthehistoryofspacesfordancerehearsaloverthelasttwodecades in New York City .

2.Weparticipatedinthesummer2009conferenceaboutresearch and development in dance attheMaggieAlleseeNationalCenterforChoreography,theMANCCFORUM,andexam-inedthefacilityasapotentialprototypeforlong-termresidenciesinandoutsideofNewYorkCity.WevisitedsitesforpotentialdanceresidencycentersinNewYorkCity,andexam-ined the pros and cons of new facilities .

3.Webeganadiscussiononactivatingalternative residency and rehearsal spaces for chore-ographerswiththeNYCDepartmentofEducationandwithseveraluniversities.

4. Weanalyzedfunders of New York City-based dance.Welookedatpatterns.Theareasofcapital funding for facilities, ongoing organizational infrastructure support and rehearsal space subsidy were of particular interest .

11|WeMakeDo|ChapterI:ResultsofSurveystoChoreographers

Chapter I

Results of Surveys to ChoreographersA. Profile of the Dance Community as a Whole

All Survey Respondents

Note:TheAppendixdescribesthemethodologyofthesesurveystoatargetedpopulation.156respondentsbeganthesurveyofWorkPatterns,and117completedit.81beganthesurveyofFinances,and43completedit.Thedatabelowofferacredibleprofileofthesechoreographer-ledcompanies.Aseparatesetofdatabeginningonpage14examinesresponsesfromtheCoreGroup of choreographers .

Basic Information/Demographics

ThesechoreographersareprimarilylocatedinManhattanandBrooklyn.Twothirdsarewomen.Mostrespondents—32%—areinthe30–39agebracket,25%are40–49,22%are50–59.80%haveacollegeorgraduatedegree.Theyhavebeenchoreographingforanaverage17yearsbeyondformaleducation;29%forlessthan10years,and33%for10–20years.Theirethnicitybreaksdownasfollows:70%white/Caucasian:12%black/AfricanAmerican,8%His-panic/Latino,4%AsianAmerican,and3%AmericanIndian/NativeAmerican.

Finances

65%areincorporated,and90%ofthoseincorporatedare501c3,with10ofthemhavingbeenincorporatedforover25years.Ofthe35%thatarenotincorporated,42%usefiscalsponsors.Nonearefor-profit.

Asforincome:

• In2007and2009,tworespondentsreportednoincome;in2008onereportednoincome;

• In2007,tworeportedincomethattotaled$6.3million;in2008,onehad$2.97millionandin2009onehad$2.7million.

As for expenses:

• In2007and2009,tworeportednoexpenses;

• In2007and2008threehadexpensestotaling$6.6million;in2009fourhadexpensestotaling$7.7million.

Thechartbelowdeductsthoseextremesandshowsresultingtotalsandmean/averageincomeand expenses .

FIGURE 1-1: Choreographers’ Income and Expenses (bynumberofrespondents)

Year TotalIncome Avg.Income TotalExpenses Avg.Expenses

2007 $6,333,501(n=36) $175,931 $5,453,743(n=35) $155,821

2008 6,211,871(n=39) 163,470 4,518,784(n=37) 122,129

2009 6,340,380(n=38) 176,122 3,317,071(n=34) 97,561


Overthethreeyears,feesweretheprimarysourceofearned income,increasingfrom2007to2009.Teachingwassecond,withatleasthalfofchoreographersreportingupto25%fromthatsource.Ticketsalesandcommissionsincreasedslightly.Outsidenon-dance-relatedwork—probablybythechoreographer—wasanincreasingsource,withfourreportingitprovided80–100%oftheirearnedincome.

For contributed income,foundationsandindividualsweretheprimarysources;eachyearonechoreographerreported100%fromfoundations,andeachyearatleastthreereported100%offundingfromindividuals.Corporatecontributions,nevermorethan20%ofunearnedincome,decreasedsignificantly,withonly28choreographersresponding:16receivedlessthan20%in2007;14receivedlessthan20%in2008,and10receivedlessthan10%in2009.Theothersreceived none .

Askedabouttheirfinancialconditionforthecomingyear,27%expectasurplus,49%adeficit,and24%expecttobreakeven.Halftherespondentscommentedabouthowtheysubsidizetheirwork—their“dayjobs,”giftsandloansfromfamiliesorboardmembers,creditcarddebtandlinesofcredit.Whenpossible,theybuildcashreserves.Severalremarkedthatthelinebetweendeficitandbreak-even/surplusisoftenduetogovernmentandothergrantscommit-tedbutnotyetreceived.

Creative Development and Output

As for productivity,basedon124respondentsin2007,125in2008and127in2009,theaver-agecompanycreated2.4newpiecesayear,increasingfrom299newworksin2007to322in2009 .

• 80%ofthechoreographerspresent their own works exclusively .• 50%createdevening-length works,generallyoneperyear.• 50%createdworks for students,averagingoneperyear.• 50%producedanaverageofone commissioned workin2007,droppingto44%in2008andrisingto55%in2009.

82%reportpayingorotherwisecompensatingtheirdancers,withmanyvariations:

• 56%paydancersperperformance• 47%paythemperproject• 40%paybythehour• 33%payperrehearsal• 27%payweeklyorcombinationsofrehearsalandperformance• 14%payapart-timesalary• 9%barterforteachingclassesorfreespace• 2%payanannualsalary

21%ofrespondentshavedancersundercontract,withtwothirdsofthemfewerthan10andonethirdfrom10to18.


Administrative Expenses

Thefollowingsurveydataillustrateimpediments:

Choreographers

1. 78%ofchoreographersalsohandleadministrativedutiesfortheircompanies;13%saytheydo“sometimes,”and9%saynotatall.Thesechoreographers/administratorsestimatethattheyspend47%oftheirtimedoingadministrativeduties,insteadofchoreographing.

2.Onaverage,32%reportedpayingthemselvesforadministrativeandartisticwork,21%solelyforartisticwork,2%foradministrativeworkonly.Theremaining41%eitherdonotpaythemselvesforchoreographingoradministrationorplowbacktheirsalariestohelpdefrayexpenses .

Dance Companies

1. Ofthe41respondents,52%paidadministrativestaff(otherthanthemselves)in2007,andthatpercentageincreasedin2008and2009to59%.Thoseaveraged3.3full-timestaffand4.5part-timepaidstaffmembersacrossthethreeyears.Note:onerespondenthadconsis-tent25full-andpart-timestaff.

2.However,thetotaladministrativepaydecreasedfromanaverage$40,769in2007to$29,263in2008andto$28,217in2009.

3. 29%providedhealthinsurance,while64%didnot.

Askedwhatpercentageofadministrativestaff’stimehasgonetowardsuchworkspace tasks asfindingspace,booking,contracting,andnegotiating,includingperformance,in2007the30respondentswereevenlydistributedamongthefouransweroptions:under10%,10–24%,25–49%,and50%orover.In2008,of36respondents,15spent10–24%,7from25–49%,and8over50%,including1at70%and2at85%.2009mirrored2008,andeachyearthenumberunder10%diminished.

As for administrative workspace,of50respondents,27usehomeoffices,somemakingdowithlaptopsintheirlivingquarters.16rentofficespace,aboutonethirdpayingmarketratesandonefifthinsubsidizedspaces;10sharespace.

Rehearsal Space

Overthepastthreeyears,thetotalnumberofrehearsalhoursreportedby36respondentsin-creased10%from9,762in2007to10,872in2008,andthendroppeddownby12%to9,651in2009.Basedonwhatrespondentspaid,averagerehearsalrentalratesincreased,from$15.72perhourin2007,to$16.05in2009.Fortyrespondentsreportedontheirannualrentalcosts.Afterremovingtheextremes,averagerentalcostswere$7,697in2007,$7,214in2008anddownfurtherto$6,319in2009.

76%ofrespondentsusedNYSCA,Harkness,orDanceTheaterWorkshop’sOuter/SpacePro-gram(whichnolongerexists)orothersubsidizedspace.Amongtheotherspacestheylisted,byalphabet,are:AlvinAiley,AmericanDanceCenter,BalletHispanico,BaryshnikovArtsCenter,BatteryDance,BRICArts,BronxAcademyofArtsandDance(BAAD),BrooklynArtsExchange(BAX),CenterforPerformanceResearch(CPR),ChenDanceCenter,ChezBushwick,CityCen-


ter,DanceNewAmsterdam,DanceTheaterWorkshop(DTW),Duke42ndStreet,GinaGibney,HundredGrandDanceStudio,JoyceDANY,JoyceSoHo,MarkMorrisDanceCenter,PanettaMovementCenter,PMTDanceStudio,SoundanceattheStable,SpoketheHub,TopazArts,TrishaBrownStudios(nolongeravailable),UnionStreetDance,and92ndSt.Y.

Aseriesofquestionsaskediftheytriedtogetlowerrehearsalrates:

• Adjust rehearsal time for discounted rates?16saidyes,12sometimes,and17no.Onerespondent noted: “Less money for space means more money for dancers!”

• Negotiate?5choreographerssaidyes,8saidsometimes,and31(or71%)saidno.Severalcommentedthattheyhadtriedunsuccessfully.

• Barter?39saidtheydonot,6saidsometimes,and1yes.Thosewhodo,barterteachingforspace .

Althoughmostchoreographersspentlessthan25%oftheirannualbudgetsforworkspace-relatedcosts(otherthanactualspacerentalcosts),cumulativelytheseexpensesareclearlyincreasing:

• Transportation of props, performers and equipment:Thenumberreportingincreasedfrom17to25overtheperiod.Climbingfrommaximum20%in2007to30%in2008and25%in2009,withoneeachat40%in2008and2009.

• Secure storage (on- or off-site):Thenumberreportingaveraged14,withcleareffortstokeepthecostsunder20%fortheperiod.

• Rehearsal props and costumes:Thiscategoryshowedthelargestincrease,inbothnumberofrespondents(from21to27)topercentageofbudgets.In2007and2008,18respon-dentsreported25%orless,andin200923reported20%orless;ineachyearatleastthreerespondentsspentinexcessof30%,reachingfrom35to85%.

B. Profile of the Core Group of Choreographers

Demographics

25respondentsinthechoreographers’surveysmetthedefinitionofCoreGroupor“mid-career”onpage9.Morethanhalf(56%)liveinManhattan,predominantlyontheLowerEastSideandtheWestVillage.36%liveinBrooklyn,inzipcodes11215and11231,whichcorrespondroughlytoParkSlope/GowanusandRedHook/CarrollGardens.TheothersaredividedbetweenBronxand Staten Island . None live in Queens .

Intermsofage,44%were50–59,28%were40–49,20%30–39,4%20–29and4%60–69.Theyhaveworkedanaverageof21yearsbeyondformaleducation,excludingtworeporting40yearsbeyond.


Finances

FewerintheCoreGrouprespondedtofinancialquestionsforyears2007,2008,and2009,andnotallprovidedanswersaboutfinances.

FIGURE 1-2: Average Income and Expense Data (for11respondents)

Year Avg.Income Avg.Earned Avg.Contributed Avg.Expenses

2007 $286,113 $145,511 $146,724 $293,839

2008 268,763 104,288 171,280 264,240

2009 275,545 127,002 145,076 283,542

Contributedincomecamefromthesesources:

• Foundationsconsistentlyprovidedover50%.

• Individualsconsistentlysuppliedover30%,withfund-raisersaddingtothattotal.

• Governmentsupportalmostdoubledfrom2007to2008andthendroppedslightlyin2009 .

• Corporationsneverevenreached10%ofcontributedincomeanddroppedto5%in2008and 2009 .

Earnedincomecamefromthesesources:

• Non-dance work wastheprimarysource,withchoreographerssubsidizingtheirownwork.Itrepresented43%in2007,roseto48%in2008,perhapstosupplementlossinperform-ingactivityandticketsalesthatyear,anddroppedto42%in2009,averaging45%(butwithonerespondentearning80–95%overthreeyears).

• Performance feesaveraged36%,withasmalldipin2008.

• Ticket salesdroppedsignificantlyfrom26%incalendaryear2007to11%in2008andthenrecoveredto24%in2009.Alikelycausewasrecessionaryimpact—audiencescuttingdiscretionaryspending,perhapscompaniescancelingperformances.

• Teachingaveraged20%.

• Commissionsgrewfrom19%in2007to27%in2008,withaslightdipto25%in2009.Thesewerealsocalendaryears.ItisunclearwhycommissionsfortheCoreGroupseemedrelativelyhealthyatthistime,butapossibleexplanationisthattheyweresecuredbeforethemarketdownturn.

Creative Development and Output

Forthe25CoreGroupchoreographers,overallproductivityvariedlittlefrom2007through2009:9of24respondentscreated1workeachyear;themaximumnumbercreatedwas6,by2choreographers,in2007.Theremaindercreatedbetween2and5works.Notethatformany,eveninglengthandcommissionedworksareprobablythesame.

From2007to2009,thenumberofchoreographerscreatingevening-lengthpiecesincreasedfrom14to16to19outof21respondents.Mostcreatedonepiece,andin2009onecreatedthemaximumfortheperiod–5pieces.


Almosttwothirdsofthe25CoreGroupreportedworkingonacommissionedpiece.Thetotalnumberoftheseworkswas29in2007,roseto31in2008,anddroppedto26in2009.Halfofthemhadone;themaximum,in2007,wasonewithfivepieces.

NineoftheCoreGroupcompanieshaveaconsistentcoreofdancersundercontract,withfourhavingninetoten,onewithsix,andtwowithtwotofour.

C. Core Group Rehearsal Space UsageFor23CoreGrouprespondents,choreographic/rehearsalspacetimeusageaveraged390hoursin2007,grewto448hoursin2008anddroppedslightlyto444in2009.(Note:Notincludedwereonerespondentwithaconsistent1,000hoursayearandthefewwithlessthan100hoursayear.)76%saidtheyusedNYSCA,DTW’sOuter/Space,LowerManhattanCulturalCouncil(LMCC),Harknessorothersubsidizedspaces.

Access to Types of Space Needed

Asked if they have consistent workspace,24choreographersresponded.7saidyes,11saidno,and6checked“sometimes.”Onerespondenthadexclusive accesstoaspace,and4othersshared space .

Asked whether they had access to the types of spaces they needed,23responded.7saidyeswhile3saidno,and13said“sometimes.”Almostallwrotecomments.Threadedthroughwastheneedformultimediacapability,forpre-productionspaceswheretheycouldtryoutsetsandwheretheycouldleaveequipmentorsets.

“We spend a lot of resources on carting equipment around due to lack of storage.” Survey Respondent, Choreographer

“Some spaces are too small, affordable studio space is a huge challenge, also could have used more time in the theater.” Survey Respondent, Choreographer

Askedwhetherspacessuitedtheircurrentneeds,onesummedupacommonthreadinthecomments:

“I adapt to whatever space I can afford and maintain. Less than ideal but it is the reality.” Survey Respondent, Core Group Choreographer

20 Core Group choreographers responded:

FIGURE 1-3: Rental Spaces Meeting Needs (by20respondents)

Yes No N/A

TimeAvailable 50% 50% 0%

Cost 85% 10% 5%

Size 60% 40% 0%

Storage 20% 70% 10%


Probingfurther,thoseintheCoreGroupwereaskedwhattypes of space would have helped them with their work:

“Theatre/space . . . ,” “time for technical experimentation,” “storage for props”

“Studio in a residency situation. Long term, several weeks or months.”

“Residency where you don’t have to pack the set and all the equipment daily.”

Lookingatworkspacefromadifferentperspective,theCoreGrouprespondentswereaskedwhether they had residencies that were free or that paid an artist’s fee.Ofthe22respondents,anaverageof15receivedthisworkspacesupport.HostingorganizationscitedincludeLaGuar-diaHighSchoolofthePerformingArts,MountHolyokeCollege,LowerManhattanCulturalCouncil,DanceTheaterWorkshop,BrooklynArtsExchange,JoyceSoHo,Jacob’sPillow,Dans-paceProjectandDanceNewAmsterdam.

18|WeMakeDo|ChapterII:ResultsofSurveysforFacilities

Chapter II

Results of Surveys for FacilitiesA. Basic CharacteristicsNote:TheAppendixdescribesthemethodologyofthesesurveystoatargetedpopulation.Altogether,37respondentsbeganthesurveyofSpaceDetails,and36completedit.19ofthembeganand12completedthesurveyofFinances.Thedatabelowprovideacredibleprofileofdedicated and other cultural facilities that house dance rehearsals .

Finances

14arenonprofit;100%reportthatdanceiscentraltotheirmissions.OnerespondentisaLLC.

13facilitiesprovideddataontheirincomeandexpensesfortheyears2007–2009.Therewereextremes:

• Onefacilityreportedincomeof$6.5millionin2007,ariseto$7.7millionin2008,andabigdropto$6.1millionin2009.Expensesalmostequaledincomein2008butweremuchlower in 2007 and 2009 .

• Anotherfacilityreportedincomeof$77,600in2007,$52,400in2008and$67,000in2009.Expensesexceededincomeslightlyin2008butwerebelowincometheotheryears.

Oftheremaining11facilities:

• Incomeforeachyearforfourfacilitieswasunder$1millionandforonewasabove$5million;in2007and2008,fivewerebetween$1and$5million,andin2009,fourhadbetween$1and$5million

• Expenseswerebelowincomeforsevenfacilitiesin2007,fivein2008,andthreein2009.Expensesexceededincomeforthreein2007,fivein2008,andfourin2009.Expensesandincomebalancedforonein2007and2008andfourin2009.

Commentshadnotbeensolicited.

FIGURE 2-1: Average Income and Expense (for11facilities)

2008 20092007

Millions

Avg. ExpensesAvg. Income

$1.8

$1.9

$2.0

$2.1

$2.2


Morespecifically,the13respondentsreportedthefollowingincomesourcesandchangesoverthe2007–2009period.Theywereaskedtocheckearnedandcontributedbycategories10–25%,30–50%,and55–75%.

Contributed Income

• FoundationsMorethanhalftherespondentfacilitiesreceived30–50%oftheircontributedincomefromfoundationsin2007and2008;in2009,thatpercentagejumpedto55–75%ofincomeforthreefacilities.Theincreaseappearstobeinfacilitiesalreadyreceivingcon-siderablefoundationsupport.Withfoundationsoperatingonbalancingthree-yearfinan-cialcycles,thisincreaseshowsawillingnesstohelpfacilitiesweathertherecession.

• IndividualsThisnexthighestsourceprovided30–50%forfourfacilitiesin2007,droppingto three facilities in 2008 and 2009 .

• Fundraisers/benefitsMostfacilitiesreceived10–25%oftheirfundingfromfundraisersorbenefits,andonereceivedupto50%throughallthreeyears.

• GovernmentMostrespondentsreceivedlessthan25%oftheirfundingfromgovernment,withtwomovingintothe30–50%categoryin2008and2009.Althoughonefacilityre-ceived55–75%in2007and2008,nonedidin2009.

• Corporate fundingThisminorsourceofsupporthasneverbeenmorethan25%,withthenumberofrecipientfacilities,evenatthoselevels,droppingfromfivein2007tofourin2008 and two in 2009 .

Earned Income

Sourcesvariedlittleoverthethree-yearperiod.

• Rentals:Forthe13facilities,rentingoutspacewasthesinglelargestsource,eventhoughgenerallyunder25%;3reportedfrom30–50%and1aconsistent80–85%.

• Box Office/Ticket Sales: Themajorityearnedlessthan25%,andonereportedaconsistent90%.

• Classes/Workshops:Astheyearspassed,thelargerpercentagedecreased—fromtwoat75–80%in2007and2008,totwoat60–70%in2009.Facilitiesaresometimesabletochargeahigherhourlyrateforclasses,asopposedtorehearsaluse.

• Educational Programs: Thenumberrosefromfivein2007tosixin2008,thendroppedtofourin2009butwasnevermorethan25%.

Expenses

Morespecifically,inthelast12months,thefacilityrespondentsreported:

• Increases:58%citedrent/mortgage,electrical/utility,insurance,staffing

• Stayed the same:33%saidtelephone,marketing,cleaning,routinemaintenance,equip-mentupdates,officeexpenses

• Decreased:8%


The Bottom Line

Asforsurplusesanddeficitsoverthepastthreeyears,tenfacilitiesreported:

• Sixhadsurpluses:threeputthefundsintocashreserve,oneputittowardamajorcapitalproject,andtwopaiddowndebt.

• Fourhaddeficits:twohadborrowedforbuildingnewspaces,oneappealedtolandlordandlenders,anothertofoundertocovercosts.

Forthecomingyear,13facilitiesprovidedforecasts:6expectasurplus,4expecttobreakeven,and3expectdeficits,1becauseofexpansion.

B. Real Estate and Related FactorsThesefacilitiesareprimarilylocatedinManhattanandBrooklyn.Allfacilitiesexceptoneareinprivatelyownedbuildings.58%ofrespondentsrenttheirspaces,and33%own.Theremainderownoneandrentanother.Allownersexpecttobeinthosefacilitiesfiveyearsfromnow.Rent-ersarelesscertain:30%plantorenew,and50%replied“maybe.”

Rental Arrangements: Space Details

The36respondentfacilitieshave121dancestudios.(Note:TheJoyceTheater’snewDANYStu-dioswerenotincludedinthisfigure.ThefacilitysurveywasreleasedDec.14,2009,andDANYbeganoperationsapproximatelythesameweek.Theyhave11studiosavailableforrental.)

• Thenumberofrehearsalspacesinthe36facilitiesrangesfrom11facilitieswith1space,18with2–5spaces,4with6–9spaces,and3withmorethan10spaces.

• Asforsize,12studiosweresmall(lessthan600sq.ft.),20weremedium(600–1,200sq.ft.),and30werelarge(1,200sq.ft.orgreater,with12intheAlvinAileyDanceCenter).Askedaboutsizeofspacemostindemand,70%offacilityrespondentsreportedrequestsfor large spaces .

• Notably,64%offacilitiesareaccessiblefromthestreetwithoutstairs,and77%areADAcompliant.

100%usethespacesfortheirownin-houserehearsalsand/orprogramminginadditiontorentals.97%renttooutsideusers,and83%ofthemrenttonon-danceartists.Thechartbelowshows all uses:

FIGURE 2-2: Uses of Dance Facilities (by36respondents)

Rehearsal Class/Instruction Photo/Film/Videoshoot Auditions Showing/Showcase Performance Specialevents/Parties Other

29 28 28

26 25

36

7

34


Thefollowingchartshowsdifferencesinrentalratesbyuse.Incomefromoutsiderentalsreportedby11facilitiesaveraged$212,687,rangingfrom$20,000to$882,478,with64%fromnon-profitusers.

FIGURE 2-3: Rental Rates by Use

SpaceUsage RangeofRatesfrom11respondents

rehearsal $5–$75hourly

performance $27–$96hourly;$150–$300nightly;$600–$23,000weekly

class/instruction $13–$75hourly

audition $13–$75hourly

showing/showcase $25–$100hourly;$25–$300nightly/pershowing

photo/film/videoshoot $25–$450hourly;$1,500daily

specialevents/parties $27–$5,000hourly

commercialrentals $27–$300hourly;$1,000daily;$15,000weekly

Severalothervariablesareatplay:

• location(Manhattanfacilitiesgenerallyhavehigherratesthantheotherboroughs)

• thesizeofthespace(largerspaceshavehigherrates)

• commercialrenters(events,filmshoots,etc.)arechargedhigherfeesthannonprofitordance-focusedrentals

• 33%barterinexchangeforstudiotime

C. Rehearsal Space Usage

Rehearsal and Other Rentals

Spaceusageisconcentratedonweekdaysfrom12noonto6:00p.m.Thelowestoccupancyisweekendsandweekdaysfrom6:00p.m.to12noon.Figure3-1onpage27showsrehearsalspacedemand.

Lookingatthepast12monthsintermsofoutsiderentals,34facilitiesreportedtheybookedthefollowingpercentagesofavailablespace:

• 12facilitiesbooked50–75%ofthetime• Sevenbooked25–50%• Sevenbooked0–25%• Sevenbooked75–100%.• Onebooked100%withawaitinglist

Inacomment,onefacilitynoted:“We have to turn people away a lot, although occasionally there are empty slots here and there.”

Comparedtobookingsthepreviousyear,52%increased,16%decreasedand32%remainedthesame.


Forthenextyear,44%expectanincreaseinbookings,38%expectthesame,6%expectadecreaseand12%arenotsure.Ofthosepredictinganincrease,fourfacilitiesareexpandingthenumberofstudios.Twofacilities(5.9%)expectadecrease,duetoexpandingtheirownprogramming.

Morespecifically,respondentsnotedthefollowingfactorsthatlimittheirfacility’savailabilityforrental,almostallequallyimpacting:

• Buildingrestrictionsonhours,access,andnoise• Security• Costsforstaffinglimitopenhoursandresultinlostrentals• Competitionwithcoreprograms,classesandtherentalincometheyprovide.

Operationally,64%haveanon-site contact person;6%havesomeoneoff-site,22%havesome-onebothon-andoff-site,and8%havesomeone“sometimes.”Forthosewithoutfull-timeon-sitesupport,thereasonisfinancial.57%ofrespondentshaveon-site technical support staff;14%dosometimes,and29%donot.32%useanonline rental calendar;68%donot.

Residency Activities

Halfofthefacilitiesprovidefreetimeandspaceprogramsthatenablechoreographerstoresearchanddeveloptheirwork.75%providethisaspartofacommissioning/presentationpackage.Someareinformal;othersaremoreformalizedandongoing.Severalrelyonsubsidiestosupporttheprogram.Sampletimeallocationsforresidenciesrangedfrom

• 35hoursatnocostplus35hoursathalfprice• multipleweeks,atleasttwo;onemulti-week24/7• 110hourseachfor8artists,59hoursfor6artists

Mostsupplementedwithstipendsforthechoreographers,rangingfrom$500to$10,000,withfacilitiesnotingthattheamountdependedonfundingreceived.Alternatively,theyprovidedsomeoralloftheboxoffice.

D. Analysis of Other Facilities

Dance Facilities That Were Not to Be

Weinterviewedkeyplayerswhowereindiscussionsonplansforseveralproposed“sharedspace”dancefacilities,plansthatwereeventuallyabandoned.Whiletherewasobviouslydis-agreementastoreasonsforfailure,wefoundseveralpointsrecurred:

• Sponsoringartsserviceorganizationsor“lead”organizationswerenotinafinancialposi-tionorwithsufficientboardleadershiptodevelopprojectsthatrelyheavilyoncommittedcapitalandoperatingexpenses.Thedrop-outof“leaders”or“leadgroups”oftencausedadominoeffectontheentireproject.

• Dancecompaniesinshared-spaceprojectswereunabletocommittoevennominalpartici-pation funds .

• Thedance-specificneedfor“column-free”spaceseverelyreducedavailableoptions.

• Revenueestimateswerebasedonuntested“time-share”commitmentsfromparticipatingcompanies.


Otherissueshavebecomeproblematicfordancefacilitiesbuiltinthelastdecade.Cityfundingcangoonlyforcapitalorprogram,notoperationalsupport.Privatesectorfundersarereluctanttosupportfacilities,ratherthanprogramming/presenting.Andtheimpactoftheeconomicrecessiononfoundationgivingandindividualdonorscannotbeunderestimated.

Distressed Models, Current Facilities

“The big nut to crack is the monthly mortgage,” Michelle N. Burkhart, Director, Dance/NYC

Muchcanhappentoderailthebest-laidcapitalfundingplans.Akeydonorpassesaway,theeconomyslipsintorecessionorthecompanydirectormovesontoanotherposition.Inrecentcapitalprojectsfordance,themonthlymortgagecalculationsweremoreorlessaccurate,butbuildingmaintenanceestimates,includingsecurity,werenot.Debtcanbecomeunsustainablewithinmonths.Largecapitalfundingplanshave,ontheonehand,acertainamountofguess-work,and,ontheother,noroomforerror.

Prescriptions

Tworecentexpansionshaveachievedadegreeoffinancialstability,withsupportiveboards,strongstaffleadershipand,a“star”artisticdirector.Smallerorganizationshavemanagedtosurviveaswell,capitalizingonless-competitivefundingfieldsfor“outer-borough”dancecom-panies,and—anecdotally—strongbackingfromthelocalcommunitywhichfeelsithasastakeintheorganization’ssurvival.

24|WeMakeDo|ChapterIII:BarriersandOpportunities

Chapter III

Barriers and OpportunitiesA. A New Facility versus Other Infrastructure SupportThe New York Times,Dec.12,2009,articleentitled“BiggerBuildingsMayNotBeBetter,”in-terviewedD.CarrollJoynes,aSeniorFellowattheUniversityofChicagoCulturalPolicyCenter,whoiscollaboratingonastudyof50culturalbuildingprojectscompletedfrom1994to2008andtheirplanningprocesses.“InMr.Joynes’sview, ‘The recession is exposing the weakness of a lot of institutions that were seriously overstretched”beforeitbegan.“It’s exposing poor management and poor planning,”situations,headded,inwhich“nobody actually asked: ‘Is there a need here? If they build it, will they come?’”

AsnotedintheIntroduction,wewereaskedtoanalyzetheneedforanewdedicateddancefa-cilityoramajorrenovation.Weexaminedproposedandbuiltfacilitiesaspotentialmodels.Weconsultedwithrealestateprofessionals,andwevisitedexistingfacilities,includingrawspaces.Whiletempting,theywouldbeexpensivetooutfit,andimpracticaltomaintain.

ThedatafromthesurveysinChaptersIandIIarealsoconclusive:Whileanewormajorreno-vatedfacilitywouldbeglamorous,itwoulddrawattentionandfundingfromthelargerneedsoftheCoreGroup,thedancecommunityandexistingdance-focusedfacilities.

“‘We have become increasingly concerned about the sustainability of organizations as a result of these building projects,’ said Alice L. Carle, program director of the Kresge Foundation, which supports nonprofit organizations nationwide.” NewYorkTimes, Dec. 12, 2009

Insum,theresultsofthisstudydonotsupportconstructingorrenovatinganewdedicateddancefacility.Norisitfinanciallyfeasibleinthecurrenteconomy.Indeed,itcouldworsenthealreadyprecarioussituationofmanyexistingfacilitiesandcompanies.

B. Barriers

Special Issues and Needs of the Core Group

Workspace

Basedonsurveyresponses,weformedapictureoftheoverallcommunityofchoreographersinNewYorkCity.Wewerealsoaskedtofocusonasubsetofchoreographers,whichwerefertoastheCoreGroup.These25“mid-career”choreographershaveproducedworkofarecogniz-ablecaliberoveratleastadecade.Theyareineligibleforthegrantsandresidenciesthatgoto“emerging”choreographersandlacktheresourcesof“established”choreographers.Theyneedsupporttoenablethemtomovetothenextlevel.

“Big dance companies have flexibility because they can pay for what they need. Middle size companies have less flexibility than the large or very small ones, and they somehow are un-der the radar.” Diane Vivona, Arts Consultant


Again,thepicturethatemergesisremarkablyconsistentinitsbleakness:Lackofaffordable,availableworkspace,ofon-sitestorageandoffundingtodevelopnewworkmeansdanceart-istshavetousemultiplerehearsalspaces.Inturn,thisleadstoincreasedtransportationandstorage costs .

“There are expenses on the staff side in terms of time and management of moving equipment to and from a rental rehearsal space. This expenditure can be costly for a mid-sized dance company.” Survey Respondent, Choreographer

“Honestly, at this point in my career I feel the lack of a dedicated space that I can call my own . . . has adversely affected my ability to make dances happen. Also the lack of funds . . . makes it very difficult for me to rehearse consistently. I manage by mustering as much free space as I can usually attached to a commission and by limiting the scope of my activity to making smaller works, shorter, with less performers and in less time.” Survey Respondent, Choreographer

“Space is our Achilles heel. We have been finding that creating work outside of NYC through partners . . . is a creative solution, though very inconvenient for our dancers and production staff and we then bear the burden of per diems and travel costs. We have been trying to find a home . . . for many years.” Survey Respondent, Choreographer

Choreographers,particularlyinthefocusgroups,stressedtheneedfordifferentspacesfordifferentphasesoftheirworkandthedesiretobeindifferenttypesofsettings.Earlystagesmayconsistsimplyofreadingandresearch.Later,beyondchoreographingandrehearsing,pre-productionanddesigndevelopmentstagesrequiretechnicalresources,collaboratorsormulti-mediasupport.Thesecompanieshavelittleagencytostrategicallyalignthesespacestomeetvaryingspaceneedsattheappropriatetimesinthecreativeprocess.

Administration

Choreographersneedadministrativesupportinordertofreethemtocreate.Formany,theonlysteadygeneraloperatingsupportisNYSCAfunding,oftenasmallproportionoftheiran-nualbudgets.

Morethanthreequartersofchoreographershandleadministrativedutiesfortheircompanies,onaveragespendingalmosthalftheirtime,timenotbeingspentonchoreographingorre-hearsingorperforming.Notonlydo21%notpaythemselvesforadministrativework,41%donotpaythemselvesanything—forchoreographingoradministration.Almostasmanyhadnopaidstaffin2009.Infact,mostchoreographersself-subsidizetheirwork.

Goals and Obstacles of Dance-Focused Facilities/Presenters

“Facilities are frustrated by rising operating costs. Yet to serve the artistic community and keep studios occupied rental rates are often kept low, despite rising expenses.” Survey Re-spondent, Facility Manager

Focusgroupparticipantsandfacilityrespondentsemphasizedthattheyviewchoreographicresearchanddevelopmentsupportascentral, not peripheral, to their mission.Thosecommit-tedtoservingthedancecommunitywanttomakethebestuseoftheirstudiosfortheirownandothers’uses.62%offacilityrespondentsprovidesomeformofresearchanddevelopmentsupportforchoreographers.Thissupportcanbesubsidizedrentalsforrehearsal,residencies,


anddevelopmentalworkshops/publicshowingsandaveraged28%ofavailabletime.Inaddi-tion,facilitiesoffercashsupport,whichmayincludecommissioningfees,productionfundsandsomeoralloftheboxoffice.

Butfacilitiesarerealisticandfrustrated.Currentsubsidiesarenotenoughtounderwritedancecompanies’researchanddevelopmentandfacilities’generaloperatingsupporttokeepthedoorsopen,paystaff,andservicedebt.Allofthisdrainstheiradministrativebudgetsandsiphonsresourcesawayfromthemissionofnurturingandpromotingdance.

Infocusgroups,facilitiesandpresenterswereencouragedtoenvisiontheir“dream”scenariosfor choreographers . They spoke of their wishes to partner with other venues in and out of New YorkCity,inordertoprovidemoredevelopmenttimetotheartiststheysupport.Overandover,theyspokeoftheirdesireto“maximizethetimetheartistscanhavethespace.”

“Our rent has become very expensive and the administrative costs to run so many studios have had to increase so we can keep up with the workload. . . . Our staff of two make small salaries and work 50+ hour work weeks. We keep our rates low because we believe in sup-porting artists and would like to do so as long as possible. However, it is quite likely our rates must increase soon, to keep us afloat.” Survey Respondent, Facility Manager

Infocusgroupswithfacilities,participantspointedoutthatfundersemphasizetheimportanceofgrantees’collaborationsandpartnerships.Butqualitycollaborationsandpartnershipsrequiretimeandstaffing,tworesourcesincriticallyshortsupplyformanyoftheorganizationssurveyed and interviewed .

Rehearsal Space Supply and Demand

The Inventory

AsofJune1,2010,therewere680spacesin306facilitieslistedasappropriateforDanceandavailableforrehearsalontheNYCPerformingArtsSpaceswebsites.Theseincludededicateddancerehearsalfacilities,community/culturalcenters,danceschools,religiousinstitutionsandgyms.Manyofthesespaceswouldnodoubtbeinappropriateforthecompaniessurveyed.Butmanycouldwork.

Drillingdeeper,indataqueriedearlierin2010fromNYCPerformingArtsSpaces,wecompiledinformationonspaces.Altogether,233spacesinNewYorkCity,outofapproximately640spaceslistedontheDancewebsiteatthattime,metthefollowingcriteria:

• Facilitiesaredesignatedas“DedicatedPerformance/RehearsalSpace,”ratherthanachurch,aschool,agym,etc.

• Spacehasaprimaryusageofrehearsal,i.e.,isnotprimarilya“performancespace”whichmayrentoutforrehearsalsaswell

• SpaceislistedonNYCDanceSpaces,whichincludesdedicateddancespacesaswellasmulti-disciplinaryspaces.

Rehearsal Space Capacity Exists

Infocusgroups,facilitiesspokeofbeingnearlyfull,butstillhavinggapsintheirschedules.Someofthefacilitiesconsideredthemostsoughtafterbysurveyrespondentsreportedbookingratesof65–75%;healthy,butnotcapacity.Asked“Inthepasttwelvemonths,whatpercentage


ofthetimewereyouravailablerentalspacesbookedbyusersoutsideyourorganization?,”onlyonefacilityrespondedwith“100%.”35%ofsurveyrespondentsputthisbookingpercentageat50–75%.

AsshowninFigure3-1,occupancyatthetimestheCoreGroupchoreographersandothersprefertorehearseisconcentratedinanarrowsix-hourweekdaytimeperiod,weekdaysfrom12noonto6:00p.m.

FIGURE 3-1: Days/Times When Choreographers Generally Rehearse

Percentage of 115 responses

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

6–9am 12–3pm 3–6pm 6–9pm 9pm–12am 12–6am9am–12pm

M T W T F S S

Factorsthatlimitavailability,suchasbuildingrestrictionsandlackofmoneytostaffmorerentalhours,mustbedealtwith.Intheircomments,facilitiesspokeoftheirdesiretomaximizespaceusage,butnotedtheyarerestrictedbybuildingcodes,unionregulations,orsecurityissuesoverwhichtheyhavelittlecontrol.Theyspecifiedtheneedforadditionalfundingforstaffing,ADAcompliancy,orsecurity.

“Although we have an on-site staff member, they have multiple responsibilities and are not always immediately available to assist with studio issues.”

“The lack of staff . . . is frustrating. Many times renters are using the space on their own with-out any supervision and that is a lot of responsibility on them.”

Space Drains

Facilitiesneedtocontinuouslymaximizerentals.97%ofrespondentsrenttousersoutsidetheirorganization;84%renttonon-danceperformingartists.

Amajoruseofrehearsalspaceisdance classes.Formanyfacilities,usingspacefordanceclassesyieldsstable,long-termrevenue.75%ofrespondentsofferdanceclassesaspartoftheircoreprograms.Ofthistotal,50%reportedusingtheirspacefortheirclassesasmuchashalf


availabletime.Rentalstooutsidersforclassesaccountforaboutaquarterofavailabletime,and75%ofrentersofferyogaandexercise.Onaverage,facilitieshosttheirownclasses30%ofthetimeandrenttooutsiderstoteachclass16%ofthetime.

“We have an acting school rental during morning and afternoon hours, three to four days a week, nine months of the year. They average 16–22 hours a week and pay premium rates . . . This is the largest outside renter and provides $2–3,000 per month. We turned away another similar Sat. rental to expand our own programming, but have not been able to make up for the loss of income with newer smaller renters.” Survey Respondent, Facility Manager

Otherissueslimitspaceavailabilityforchoreographers.Whilewedonothavecomparabledatafromyearspast,anecdotallyfacilitiesarefrequentlyforcedtomaximizerentalincomewithlong-termrenters,particularlyprivate universitiesthatneedmorespaceduringtheacademicyear.InNewYorkCity,theyhave“deeppockets”relativetothedancefieldandcanaggres-sivelypursueavailablespaceforclassesandstudents’rehearsals.Facilitiesaretorn:eagertoenterintotheselong-termagreementswithrenterswhopurchasespacein“bulk”andpayinadvance,yettheyanddancecommunityusershaveexpresseddismayatthis“draining-away”ofthecity’sculturalspacefromprofessionalartists.

Rehearsal Space Subsidies

Usage

Bothdancecompaniesandfacilitiesdependonrehearsalspacerentalsubsidiestokeeprentalrateslow.Itisthemostconsistent,crucialsupportforthefield.NYSCAprogramguidelinesstate:“Applicantsmustofferaminimumof1,000hoursofrehearsaltimeeachyearfortheperiodproposedandagreetochargenomorethan$10persubsidizedrehearsalhour.”

76%ofrespondentchoreographersusesubsidizedspacewhenavailable.InFY10,NYSCA’sDanceProgramsupported29facilitieswithrehearsalspacesubsidygrantstotalingapproxi-mately$249,000.ForFY11,thebudgetwascutapproximately16%andisreflectedinthegrantdeterminations.

“While we like NYSCA rates, . . . scarcity of space make it difficult.” Survey Respondent, Choreographer

“We . . . need to be able to rent “NYSCA” space . . . farther in advance. We can’t wait for two weeks or a month before we need the space to be able to book it, because we need to have our schedules in place earlier, so that we can hire dancers without time conflicts.” Survey Respon-dent, Choreographer

“The NYSCA space grants, although limited in number of hours, are a tremendous help!!! If only even more studios would offer them . . .” Survey Respondent, Choreographer

Economics

Facilitiesalsolamentedthefinancialconstraints:Evennowitdoesnotprovideenoughfinan-cialsupportforthem.Onerecipientprovidedspecifics:

“We have not found the basic subsidy and capped fee structure . . . to be realistic or feasible for a midtown studio having only two spaces, one disproportionately larger than the other. At a rental fee cap of $10/hr. plus a grant subsidy of $10/hr. our space would be losing money to


deliver these development hours. Payroll cost for a staff person is $9.60/hr, and we estimate our space overhead to be $9,000/mo. or $300/day. Based on being open 12 hr./day, that overhead is $25/hr.”

“Our rent has become very expensive and the administrative costs . . . have had to increase . . . We keep our rates low because we believe in supporting artists and would like to do so as long as possible. However, it is quite likely our rates must increase soon, to keep us afloat.” Respondent, Brooklyn Facility Manager

Compoundingtheproblem,DanceTheaterWorkshop’sOuter/SpaceStudioSubsidyprogramhasnowclosed.Thisfundingalsoincludedcreativeresidencygrantsfordanceartists.From2007untilrecently,DTWre-granted$255,700tofacilitiesandartistsoperatinginthefourboroughsoutsideManhattan.

“The reality is, a decent sized space, at an affordable price is difficult to come by in this city, specially for independent choreographers.” Survey Respondent, Choreographer

C. Opportunities

Online Scheduling System

Choreographersinthefocusgroupsandintheirsurveyresponsestoldoftheirneedtobookspacewellinadvance,givendancers’“dayjobs,”childcareissuesandthelogisticsthatgointoschedulinganygroupofbusypeople.InfocusgroupsheldinOctober2009,bothfacilitiesandchoreographers agreed on the need for a centralized online scheduling system, where choreog-raphers could book and pay for space securely well in advance are looking for solutions .

“(I) want to spend time making work, not scheduling.” Survey Respondent, Choreographer

“I get physically sick if I see gaps in my rehearsal rental schedule.” Focus Group Participant, Facility Manager

FracturedAtlasisdevelopingsuchanonlinesystem,expectedtobeavailableinNewYorkin2011.Thisisoneofthesimplestandmosteffectivetoolsthatcouldmatchsupplywithdemandandsavestafftimeforeach.Itwouldbenefitallinthefield:emergingandmid-careerchore-ographers,facilitiesofallsizes.Itcouldalsocapturespaceutilizationdata,andhelpfundersbetterunderstandmarketdemandsforartists’workspace.

Needed: Infrastructure Support

“Everybody wants infrastructure. Everybody uses it when it’s there. If it’s not there, you miss it. But no one wants to pay for it.” Jonathan Denham, Principal, Denham Wolf

Thedancecommunity—fromthecorechoreographer-ledcompaniestoemergingartistsandontoestablishedcompanies—isdependentonphysicalfacilitiesthathousethecreationandproductionprocess.Ifthedancecommunityisnotjusttosurvive,notjustto“makedo,”buttobehealthyandproductive,newtoolsmustbedevelopedandimplementedtoensurestabilityand growth .


Access and Continuity

What is needed are measures to increase access for the artists for longer periods and to make that access financially feasible for the facilities.

Accesshere,forthe Core Group and other dance companies,meansunderwritten,longerterm,suitablerehearsalspaceattimestheycanuse.Thespacesexist.Yetthereisamajordiscon-nectbetweenwhenfacilitieshaveunderusedtimes,andthetimesdancecompaniesprefertorehearse.Inaddition,almosthalfthefacilitiesnotedthatwithnominalcapitalexpenditurestheirspacescouldbemademoreproductive.

Fundingeffortsmustalsoincludepayingdanceartiststodeveloptheirwork.Thecreativepro-cessandnotjustthefinalproductmustbesupported.

Specificallyforthefacilities,crucial financial support is needed to provide the underlying foundation—theinfrastructure—forpersonnel,physicalfacilitiesandequipment.Withafo-cused,relativelymodestexpenditureoffunds,funderscollectivelycanhelpexistingfacilitieswithunderusedcapacitytostabilizetheneedsofthebroaderdancecommunity.

A New Approach to Funding

PublicandprivatesectorfundershavelongsupporteddanceinNewYork,generallyonanin-dividualbasis,oftentoothroughthird-partyre-granting.Whatisneededtoensuretheviabilityofthedancecommunityisaneweffortonthepartofadedicatedgroupoffunders,a dance funding community.

InChapterIV,weproposeseveralshort-andlonger-termnextstepsthatarecontingentonfunders’ concerted efforts . They would realistically address new directions for three groups ofstakeholders:choreographersandtheircompanies,facilitiesandfunders.Butthesestepsarecontingentonfundersbeingwillingtoworktogether,tofundtogether.Ifonefunderfallsoutofthemixatsomepoint,theentireprogramdoesnotfallapart.And,atthesametime,nosinglefunderhastobeartheburdenoffundingtheentireprogram,exceptbychoice.

Ifacohortoffunderswereabletoworktogethertomaximizetheirresourcesandintelligence,notonlywoulditcreateamorerobustenginetocatalyzethissupport,italsohasthepotentialtoofferalastingsolutiontotheseendemicproblems.IfdanceartistsinNewYorkCityaretorealizetheirpotential,long-termfundingstrategiesmustbedevelopedandimplementedforthosewhocreateandperformandthosethatprovidetheworkspace.

31|WeMakeDo|ChapterIV:NextStepsandAreasforFurtherExploration

Chapter IV

Next Steps and Areas for Further ExplorationA. Invest in Existing InfrastructureThehealthofthedancecommunity—fromthecorechoreographer-ledcompaniestoemergingartistsandcompaniesandthedancefacilities—dependsoninfrastructure support.Itis,liter-ally,thefoundationforpersonnel,physicalfacilitiesandequipment.

“‘We’re more interested in helping shore up what organizations have already built,’ said Alice L. Carle, program director of the Kresge Foundation.” NewYorkTimes, Dec. 12, 2009

TheNextStepsbelowaredirectedtotheentirefundingcommunity,bothpublicandprivatesectors,andnottoanysinglesource.

B. Immediate Next Steps

Rehearsal Space Subsidies

SubsidizingrehearsalspacebenefitsthoseintheNYCdancecommunityandthefacilitiesthathousetheirwork.NYSCA’sdancerehearsalspacesubsidieshavebeencrucialtofosteringadegreeofstabilityinthefield.ButwithNYSCA’scurrent16%budgetcut,programscannotbemaintainedatcurrentfundinglevels.We propose that a coordinated public/private sector subsidy fundbeputintoplaceimmediately,requiringarelativelystraightforwardinvestmentof funds .

Thenewfundwouldmaintainandatleastdoubleto$25perhourthecurrentFY10NYSCAsubsidyamountinNewYorkCityof$249,000tokeeptherentalcoststodancecompanieslowandprovideadditionaloperatingsupportforthefacilities.WehavediscussedthisproposalwiththeDanceProgramatNYSCA.

We propose an additional subsidy fund,administeredbyaneutraldance-specificartsserviceorganization,modeledonDanceTheaterWorkshop’sOuter/Spaceprogram.Initialfundingforthisprogramwouldbesetataminimumof$40,000ayear,basedonFY10costsfromOuter/Space .

Bothsubsidieswouldcontinuetogotothefacilitiestomatchhoursthatservethedancecom-munity’srehearsalspaceneeds.

C. Going DeeperThefollowingstepsrequireadeeperinvestmentofdevelopmenttimeandresourcesfromthefundingcommunityincollaborationwiththedancecommunity.

Residency Network

WeproposeanetworkofmultipleexistingresidencycentersinNewYorkCitytoservethekeyjuncturesinthecreativeprocess.Residenciescouldprovidetheartistsacontinuum:timefor


researchandreflection,initialexplorationswithdancers,choreographyandrehearsals,andextendingtoamoretechnically-outfitted,pre-production/designdevelopmentperiod.Thespectrumoffacilitiesintheresidencynetworkwouldvaryinsizes,budgetsandtechnicalresources.Thesecenterswouldcomplementandcross-fertilizeresidenciesoutsideNewYorkCity,suchasMANCC.

Buildingsuchanetworkwilltaketimetodevelopandcoordinateamonghostfacilities,agroupofmid-careersingle-choreographer-leddancecompanies,andsupportivefunders.Thesepart-nerswouldcometogethertodetermineparticipantsandbudgets.Fundingwouldunderwrite:

• Feesforfacilityresources• Feesfortheartists• Dedicatedadditionalstaffingforadministrationandevaluation

Thisresidencynetworkcouldalsobeextendedtosupportemergingand,insomecases,estab-lishedchoreographerswithouttheirownspace;itwouldbejustasrelevanttotheirneeds.

Administrative Infrastructure Support

“Never mind the naming rights; there’s nothing sexy about paying for utility bills.” New York Times, April 3, 2009

“A vicious cycle is leaving nonprofits so hungry for decent infrastructure that they can barely function as organizations—let alone serve their beneficiaries. The cycle starts with funders’ unrealistic expectations about how much running a nonprofit costs, and results in nonprofits’ misrepresenting their costs while skimping on vital systems—acts that feed funders’ skewed beliefs. To break the nonprofit starvation cycle, funders must take the lead.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2009, “The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle”

We recommend a multi-year funding commitment to support the basic operations of both dance facilities and choreographers with their own companies.Facilitiescouldmaximizeavailablerentaltimeandresidencyactivitywithadditionalstaffsupport.Choreographerscouldbepaidfortheiradministrativetimeorhirestaff;choreographerscouldfocusmoreondance-making.

Giventhecomplexityofthisrecommendation,wesuggestapreliminaryassessment,focusedinitiallyonsurveyrespondentswhocommentedonneed.Theresultingcumulativeviewwillshowthevariabilityandkindsofsupportneededandleadtocostestimates.

Technical Assistance toward Capital Improvement

Allfacilityrespondentsinrentalspacesexpecttostaythere.Somefacilitiesservehundredsofmembersofthedancecommunity;othersmayservefew,butincruciallyimportantwaysbeyondnumbers.Mostprovidedcommentsaboutlimitationsontheirfunctioningandneedforspecificupgrades.Smallcapitalimprovementsmayalsoincreasefacilities’bookingcapacityanddesirabilityforrenters.


Strategically,theywantedadvice:

• Physically,when,howandbywhomspacecouldbebetterutilized,includingcombiningorexpanding studios

• Financially,developingnewbusinessplansthatmaximizerevenueanduseandservethemissionofthedancecompanies.

Practically,theywanted:

• Newheating,ventilatingandairconditioning,

• Upgradestooutmoded/unreliablehotwaterheatersandplumbing

• Storagespace

• Portableflooring

• Improvedlightingandsoundequipment

• Amenitiesandminorimprovements,suchasmirrors,wi-fi,paint,andEnergyStarcompli-antequipment.

Anevaluation,initiallyfocusedonsurveyfacilityrespondents,wouldbealogicalfirststep.

Capital Funding

Publicandprivatesectortechnicalassistanceandcapitalimprovementfundingexistsbutonanindividualbasis.Forinstance,NYSCAhasoffered:(1)Architect’sfeesofupto$35,000areawardedforculturalgroupsdoingmasterplanningorotherfacilitydesignprojectsthroughtheArchitecture,PlanningandDesignProgram.(2)TheCouncil’scapitalfundscanbeusedforequipmentpurchaseorothercapitalimprovementprojects,withamaximumgrantlevelof$50,000.Inbothcases,theCouncil’sfundshavetobematched.However,NYSCAisoperatingunderbudgetconstraintsandfutureallocationswillalmostcertainlybeless.

TheCity’sDepartmentofCulturalAffairs(DCA)offerscapitalfundingtoitscurrentgranteesintwoareas:Furnitureand/orequipmentforinitialoutfittingofafacility,withaminimumcostof$35,000,andconstructionorrenovationwithaminimumcostof$500,000.Formanyofthesefacilities,aminimumof$35,000isprohibitive,whenmanyoftheircapitalneedscostless .

Weproposeacoordinatedeffortoffundersandconsultantstobuildanewpoolofmoneythatdoesnotdictateaminimumcostorrequirematchingfundsandthatcanbedeliveredquicklyandefficientlyfortechnicalassistanceservices,implementationgrants,andevaluations.

D. Areas for Further Investigation

Analysis of Subsidy Program Economics

Therehearsalspacesubsidyprogramiscriticallyimportant.Facilitiesandfundersshouldbeencouragedtorethinksubsidizedspaceguidelinestoenablebookingsfartherinadvance,forlongerperiodsoftime.Facilities’anddancecompanies’rehearsalexpenseswouldneedtobeanalyzed.Theresultswouldshowthefeasibilityofunderwritingmore—ideallyall—space,per-sonnel and overhead costs .


Potential Additional Residency Opportunities

WehavelookedattwolevelsofNewYorkCity’seducationalinstitutionsandbelievetherecouldbeopportunitiesforcollaborations.

New York City Department of Education

“Students broaden their perspective by working with professional artists and arts organiza-tions representing diverse cultural and personal approaches to dance, and by seeing perfor-mances of widely varied dance styles and genres.” Blueprint for the Arts: Dance, “Working with Community and Cultural Resources”

DiscussionswereheldwiththeheadofDanceattheCity’sDepartmentofEducation(DOE)andwithtwoschoolsaboutthepotentialforachoreographer-leddancecompanyinaresidencyforasemester,ayearorlonger.Pursuitofthispartnershipwouldrequiresignificantplan-ningtofigureouthowtomeettheneedsoftheartists,theDOEandtheparticipatingschools.Withthatsaid,thereisinterestfromallpartiesandsignificant,largelyuntapped,spaceandavailability.

Local Universities

Universitiesoftenhaveunderutilizedspaceinthesummerandduringwinterbreaksthatcanbeactivatedforchoreographicresidencies,includingtheresearchanddevelopmentphase.Thispartnershipwouldbeadvantageousforall:Intermsofprofessionaldevelopment,facultymembersfrequentlyhavetiestothedancecommunitythatcanbenurturedbyintroducingtheirstudentstotheseprofessionalrelationships.CUNYfacultyviewsitaspartoftheirmissionto serve artists and their city .

Extending the Residency Network Beyond New York City

ThegeographicscopeofthisreportwasrestrictedtothefiveboroughsofNewYorkCity.Dis-cussionscouldbeinitiatedwithuniversities,facilitiesorpotentialresidencypartnersbeyondthecity.Outofcityresidenciescouldpossiblyworkinpartnershipwithalocalresidencynetwork(asdescribedabove)and/ortosupplementtheNewYorkStateCouncilontheArts(NYSCA)Long-TermResidencyProgramforDance.


Concluding CommentsNYCPerformingArtsSpaceswasawardedsupporttoexamineworkspaceissuesfortheNewYorkCitydancecommunity,withaspecialemphasisontheneedsofmid-careersingle-chore-ographer-ledcompanies.Ourstudyrevealedmanypressingissuesinthecommunityrelatingbroadlytoinfrastructuresupport.Someoftheprecedingrecommendationsandobservationsaregearedtowardselectmid-careersingle-choreographer-ledcompanies.Otherswouldbenefittheentirefield,includingfacilities.Webelievethatallareequallynecessarytoensurethefu-tureviabilityofNewYork’sdancecommunity.

Inthisreport,wehavesoughttoaddressissuesinthisartforminwaysthatwillalteritssup-portsystems.Webelieveanadjustmentinstrategyandapproach,particularlyforfunders,isessential.Weencouragecoordinatedeffortsamongstakeholders—thosewhocreatedance,thefacilitiesthatenabletheirwork,andthefunders—toexamineallrelevantissues,includingspace,andtoviewdanceandcommunityasawholeandconsolidatedentity.

November1,2010

36|WeMakeDo|Appendix

BeverlyD’Anne,Director,DanceProgram DeborahLim,Associate,DanceProgram New York State Council on the Arts

JonathanDenham,Principal PaulWolf,Principal SarahM.Eisinger,SeniorProjectManager Denham Wolf Real Estate Services, Inc.

MauraNguyenDonohue,AssistantProfessorofDance Hunter College

JoanFinkelstein,DirectorofDancePrograms,OfficeofArts and Special Projects WilliamJoyce,DeputyCounsel,CommercialUnit PaulKing,ExecutiveDirector,DirectorofTheater Programs New York City Department of Education

GinaGibney,ArtisticDirector Gina Gibney Dance

AndrewA.Lance,Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Real Estate Practice Group

MarkRossier,DirectorofDevelopment New York Foundation for the Arts

LindaShelton,ExecutiveDirector CraigSabbatino,StudioOperationsManager/JoyceDANY The Joyce Theater Foundation

AndreaSholler,ExecutiveDirector Dance Theater Workshop

GuyYarden,DirectorofFinance Alliance of Resident Theatres / New York

Focus Group Participants

Brian Brooks Williamsburg Arts Nexus

Michelle Burkhart Dance/NYC

BobBursey,BillWagner/BillT.Jones Arnie Zane Dance Company

Project TeamDavidJohnston Project Director

Eugenie C . Cowan Project Advisor

DavidSheingold Dance Community Consultant

JonnaMcElrath Administrative Assistant/Statistician

BrianWu,InsideOutDesign Graphic Design Consultant

Acknowledgments

AlexanderAngueira,Principal Albert Shanker School for Visual and Performing Arts, IS 126

JamieBennett(formerNYCDCAChiefofStaff) Director,PublicAffairs,NationalEndowmentfortheArts SusanChin,FAIA,AssistantCommissioner,Capital Projects KathleenHughes,AssistantCommissioner,Program Services New York City Department of Cultural Affairs

JonahBokaer,Choreographer&MediaArtist,Co-Founderof CPR Center for Performance Research

MichelleBurkhart,Director Dance/NYC

VickiCappiello,DanceFaculty BabetteConnor,DanceFaculty Talent Unlimited High School

MaryCochran,Chair&ArtisticDirector Barnard College Department of Dance

JenniferWrightCook,ExecutiveDirector The Field/Performance Zone, Inc.

AppendixNYCPerformingArtsSpaceswasestablishedin2006asaDBAfornonprofitExploringtheMetropolis,Inc.Inthefallof2008,NYCPerformingArtsSpacesbecameaProgramofFracturedAtlas,anonprofitorgani-zationservingthebasicresourceneedsofanationalcommunityofperformingandvisualartistsandartsorganizations.

NYCPerformingArtsSpaces,aProgramofFracturedAtlas,conductedthisstudyoftherehearsalspaceneedsofthedancecommunityfortheinternaluseoftheAndrewW.MellonFoundation.ThispublicversionwaspreparedbytheprojectteamfortheMellonFoundationundertheauspicesofExploringtheMetropolis.

WearegratefultotheAndrewW.MellonFoundationfortheirsupport.

WealsowishtoacknowledgetheinvaluablecontributionsofourcolleaguesatFracturedAtlas.


Survey Methodology

Target Populations

Thesurveyswererestrictedtoandsoughtoutresponsesfromtwotargetpopulations:

1.NYC-basedchoreographer-leddancecompanies 2.NYCfacilitiesthatprimarilyprovidespacefordancerehearsals

Databases of potential survey respondentswerebuiltfromseveralsources:

1. Listsfromthesegovernmentagencies,localartscouncils,localserviceorganizations: Bronx Council on the Arts Brooklyn Arts Council CouncilontheArts&HumanitiesforStatenIsland Dance/NYC DanceTheaterWorkshop Fractured Atlas LowerManhattanCulturalCouncil MaggieAlleseeNationalCenterforChoreography(MANCC) NYCDepartmentofCulturalAffairs New York State Council on the Arts Queens Council on the Arts

2.NYCPerformingArtsSpaces’owndatabasesofdanceartistsanddancefacilitiesandallfacilitiesontheNYCPerformingArtsSpaceswebsiteiffacilitymanagershadlistedthemassuitableforDanceandavail-ableforrehearsal.Theseincludedmulti-disciplinaryfacilities,for-profitfacilitiesandfacilitieswhoseprimarypurposeisotherthancultural:schools,religiousinstitutionsandcommunitycenters.

3.MembersofFracturedAtlaswholiveinNewYorkCityandwhoself-identifiedaschoreographerswereadded .

Ben Pryor Center for Performance Research

CharlesRice-Gonzalez Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance

Michael Sheriff Chez Bushwick

DavidThomson

LindaShelton,CraigSabbatino,MargaretHollenbeck The Joyce Theater Foundation

RebeccaWender,BarbaraBryan Movement Research

ReggieWilson

University Participants

MauraNguyenDonohue Hunter College

Mary Cochran Barnard College

Focus Group Participants continued . . .

KeelyGarfield

MiguelGutierrez

AlaricEinarHahn,MelaniePerson,JimPaulson The Ailey Studios and Citigroup Theater

JoanFinkelstein NYC Department of Education

JudyHussie-Taylor Danspace Project

StanfordMakishi,HuongHoang Baryshnikov Arts Center

Catherine Peila Dance New Amsterdam

Tricia Pearson Trisha Brown Dance Company

CarlaPeterson,AndreaSholler,GretchenWeber,VelkyMarte-Valentin Dance Theater Workshop


Instructions and Response Rates

Thesurveyswereonlyavailableonlineandforaperiodoftwomonths(Dec.19,2009toFeb.17,2010).In-structionstochoreographerspromisedanonymityinrespondingtosurveysonWorkPatternsandFinancesandtodancefacilitiesinrespondingtosurveysonSpaceDetailsandFinances.Theinstructionsnotedthateachsurvey,whichlookedbackoverthreeyearsandforecastforthisyear,shouldtakeabout20minutestocomplete.NYCPASpacesstafffolloweduponlineandbyphonetoencourageparticipation,butbothpoten-tialrespondents’timeandaccesstoinformationbecameadisincentive.Asaresult,noteveryrespondentwhobeganthesurveycompletedeveryquestion.Forthefinancessurveys,askingdetailedquestionsonincomeandexpenses,choreographers’responseratewas5%,with3%completingentirely;facilitieswas9%and3%entirely.Fortheeasiersurveys—Work Patterns for choreographers and Space Detailsforfacilities—theratewashigher,at9%.

Analysis of the Responses

Ininterpretingthedata,weusedaverage/mean.Whenapplicable,responseextremesweredeductedfromthetotalsandtheremainingresponseswereaveraged.

Basedonourknowledgeofthefieldand,specifically,thetwotargetpopulations,webelievetheresponsesconstituteacrediblesample.

Respondent Dance Facilities by ZIP Code

Manhattan

1 10027 UpperWestSide,Harlem

1 10024 UpperWestSide

1 10023 UpperWestSide,LincolnCenterarea

2 10019 MidtownWest,TheatreDistrict,Hell’sKitchen

2 10018 MidtownWest,TheatreDistrict,Hell’sKitchen

1 10016 Midtown East

3 10011 WestVillage,Chelsea

2 10001 WestVillage,Chelsea

1 10012 WestVillage,Chelsea,LowerManhattan,partsofSoho

4 10003 EastVillage,Gramercy,Tribeca

2 10013 LowerManhattan,Chinatown,Soho,Tribeca

1 10007 LowerManhattan,Tribeca

Brooklyn

3 11211 Greenpoint,Williamsburg

1 11206 Greenpoint,Williamsburg,Bedford-Stuyvesant,CrownHeights,Bushwick

1 11215 DowntownBrooklyn

4 11217 DowntownBrooklyn,BAMDistrict


Rehearsal Space Searches by Size and Hourly Rate

Database searches on the NYC Dance Spaces website (November,2009)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

≤$15

Num

berofSearches

$16–20 $21–25 $26–30 $31–35 $36–40 $41–50 $51–60

Small(<600s.f.)

Medium(600–1200s.f.)

Large(>1200s.f.)

Research CitationsBuilding: From the Inside Out, A Nonprofit Finance Fund Report on the Philadelphia Dance Community’s Infrastructure Needs,writtenbyAEAConsultingandfundedbythePewCharitableTrustsandtheWilliamPennFoundation,May2003

“Charities Loosening Strings on Arts Grants,” NewYorkTimes,June4,2009

Demographic Study of Off-Off-Broadway Practitioners,NewYorkInnovativeTheaterFoundation,2010

Foster,Kenneth.“Thriving in an Uncertain World: Arts Presenting Change and the New Realities,” commis-sionedbytheAssociationofPerformingArtsPresenters,2009

“Home is Where You Hang Your Debt,”NewYorkTimes,April3,2009

“How New York Lost Its Modern Dance Reign,” NewYorkTimes,Sept.6,2005

“In the Arts, Bigger Buildings May Not Be Better,” NewYorkTimes,December12,2009

Moloney,Kathleen.Spacesat520:A Shared Office Project of the Alliance of Resident Theatres/New York, 2004

“New York State Budget Would Cut Arts Funds,” NewYorkTimes,Jan.21,2010

Nonprofit Finance Fund Cultural Facilities Study Summary,monograph,1992

NYC Dance Center Survey Results,Dance/NYC,April2009

Roan,NeillArcher.“BeyondImportance,”Working Smart blog,January22,2010

Study of Off-Off-Broadway Performance Venues,NewYorkInnovativeTheaterFoundation,2009

Weisman,SariE.New York Dance Collective: A Feasibility Study for a Shared Facility

Date post:	27-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

More Time Is Better, But Budget Is King“We Make Do ” More Time Is Better, ... New York City has...

Documents