An estimated $250 billion will be spent worldwide in the current decade on creating 'cultural precincts', collections of buildings with some arts-related function. Today, both capital and regional cities are building precincts which make grand claims for artistic collaboration, urban renewal, tourism and 'liveable' residential development while bringing substantial economic benefits. But is any of this true? Are they creative and profitable? Justin Macdonnell surveys the literature to uncover who really benefits. Once precincts grew where the people gathered, now they rise in neglected places, in the hope of attracting growth. There's evidence they sell more tickets, but not that they produce better art. Property values rise, but are artists better rewarded? Does the public have a richer experience or even a more convenient one? Are cultural precincts really just another commodifying of the arts? Is there a better way?