Chapter VII
PRESERVATION PLANNINGPRESERVATION PLANNING
AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION
It often seems that city planners and preservationists are at odds. Planners look for ways to encourage growth, while preservationists are out in front of bulldozers trying to stop new development. Or so it seems....
Not surprisingly, it is sometimes difficult for city officials to resolve this dilemma. Growth leads to a larger tax base, which is always seen as a top priority. The preservation of existing historic structures may be considered important, but only as only a secondary goal. And yet growth can be seen in different lights. As E.F SchumacherSchumacher, E.F. wrote in his book Small Is Beautiful, Economics As If People Mattered:
In a sense, everyone believes in growth, and rightly so, because growth is an essential feature of life. The whole point, however, is to give to the idea of growth a qualitative determination; for there are many things that ought to be growing and many things that ought to be diminishing.
If cities are to rely on growth as a yardstick of
health, growth must be seen in terms of the quality of life, rather
than simply physical and economic growth.
Where should growth in our cities be encouraged-in the center city or on the urban fringe? In the past decades we as a society have oriented our attention to the suburbs and away from our traditional urban core. It has now reached a point where many of our older downtowns have become largely forgotten. In a 1984 editorial, Russell Baker expressed a common viewpoint with respect to the continuing deterioration of many of our downtowns.
Main Street is dead. Dead as the Bijou Theater with double-feature programs that changed three times a week. Dead as the dry-goods store that used to sit at the intersection of Washington Avenue. Dead as the trolley car that used to clang down the middle from the First National Bank all the way out to the Bosky Dale Amusement Park. Dead as Sinclair Lewis. Dead, dead, dead.
I must have been aware of its death for years, but I had never acknowledged it, had never said right our loud: "Main Street is dead. It died years ago. Main Street has been dead for years, and it's never coming back."
The issue of downtown revitalization is an area of special interest to this author, and probably began as a result of spending many Saturdays as a kid in downtown Benton Harbor, Michigan. I remember downtown being much more a focus of community life than it is now. It was the place where teenagers and pre-teens first experienced a society beyond their own neighborhood. My trips included stopping at the local newspaper office to turn in my paper route collection money, then dividing the profits, taking some to the bank and the rest to the five-and-dime store. The movie theater, the library, and the drug store were all part of Saturday's ritualistic itinerary, and each was located either in or on the route to downtown.
The late '50s and '60s saw the rise of suburban living, however, and more importantly suburban shopping. Our distinctively automobile-centered culture was proud to support the new malls-meccas for a wheeled society-with their large parking areas and controlled interior environments. Downtowns began to take on an air of obsolescence. The question downtown merchants and business people faced was what to do about this new type of competition. Previously, downtowns had relied on a captive local market; now local shoppers had an alternative, which they seemed to prefer.
Downtown merchants had a choice to make. Should they join the bandwagon and relocate their business in one of the new malls? Many did, and downtowns saw storefronts formerly housing stable businesses now either vacant or the site of transient shops. Once vibrant downtown department stores were replaced with second-hand furniture stores, clothing stores with hair salons. Some merchants stayed, but only because they owned the building, and overhead was lower. Their building had long since been paid for, and taxes were low; storeowners recognized that in a mall their business would be subject to the high cost of leasing space, as well as tighter controls on inventory, promotions and displays. Some businesses remained downtown due to inertia more than to a conscientious business strategy. Others watched the vitality ebb from downtown life, but elected simply not to face it; they gradually went out of business.
Much of the vitality of downtowns has been slowly bled out by planning policies that are misdirected. There should be a vitality to the urban core that transcends individual retail businesses. William Whyte has pointed out that congestion and busyness in city centers should be encourgaged, rather than discouraged through planning policies that try to control too much.
In his latest book, City, Whyte continues to challenge orthodox urban planning. For one thing, he likes free-floating city congestion... He advocates narrower streets for cars and wider sidewalks for people... Cram as many stores as possible along the streets to bring them alive. Do away with skywalks, abolish sunken plazas and tear down walls in front of parks and playgrounds, because they all increase isolation from the city experience.
Whyte puts his faith in something he calls 'the impulse of the center,' which animates his vision of the teeming urban core. 'You see it at cocktail parties,' he says, 'the phenomenon where people move toward the center. It is an instinct to be in a position of maximum choice.'
...To Whyte, volume is life. That is why he is convinced that
the street corner remains the best meeting place in the world:
"...What you want to do is maximize street activity,"
he continues. "Your life is on the street. A lively street
has many entrances and exits. It's like a stage set. This is
one of the reasons why there shouldn't be blank walls. Stores
need all the competition they can get."
Preservationists must consider what should be done with older downtowns. Should, in fact, downtowns be saved? Maybe they have served their purpose and are no longer needed. Why try to prolong the life of what are essentially dinosaurs? It was, and is, a valid question.
Preservationists have in the past dealt primarily with saving historic buildings. Yet a program oriented to saving only the buildings in downtown is not enough, for the issue is not just the deterioration of the physical environment of the downtown, but also the decline of the economic and social environment.
My memories of downtown life in a small city, and my special interest in the contemporary role for downtowns, led me to spend a number of years considering this issue. As described in a 1987 paper, my study looked at downtown health and attempted to determine what factors have most impacted on the health of downtowns.
The study found that the preservation of the physical elements of a downtown, including the preservation of older buildings, historic facades, and a traditional "streetscape," was important, but only when combined with the preservation and encouragement of critical functional aspects of the downtown environment. In other words, the preservation of an old downtown drug store building should be combined with an attempt to preserve the drug store business itself, or a similar customer-oriented business. The functions (Verbs and nounsthe "verbs") are what defined downtown as a focus of community life, not simply the physical groupings of buildings (the "nouns"). Therefore, downtown preservation should have a larger goal-not just the physical preservation of buildings. Revitalization efforts should encourage existing businesses to remain, for many residents associate specific businesses with downtown's viability as a commercial district. Yet many are "mom-and-pop" businesses that haven't changed in years; ways must be found to update their operations to make them vital and competitive in a changing market, without losing "historic integrity."
A later article written about this study of downtown health outlined how revitalization strategies should include a careful analysis of the mix of downtown businesses.
A primary strategy should include encouraging the right mix of businesses. Local policy makers should promote browsing shopping retail stores and other functions which encourage the leisurely use of the downtown, reestablishing it as a focus of community life.
...leisurely shopping could be enhanced through streetscape improvements. Improvements such as benches, mini parks and walkways, if properly located, could coerce shoppers to walk by a greater number of storefronts. Downtown should be seen as a pleasant place to spend time, rather than simply a place to quickly pick up convenience goods.
The study also showed that the existence of identifiable downtown landmarks, such as a courthouse or a grouping of historic buildings, helped establish the image of downtown as a district rather than simply individual structures without strong relationships to each other. This sense of downtown as a district gives a cohesive image, and helps identify the downtown not as a place to come for a single purpose, but rather a place to come for a variety of reasons.
Downtown promoters should also recognize the need to bring new businesses to older downtowns. Downtowns should not be seen as museums, where time stands still, but as organisms that continually evolve into new forms and which, because they are made up of commercial establishments, rely on change much more than other districts.
This is represented by a common conflict encountered by preservationists when they encourage the restoration of downtown facades and storefronts. They may fail to recognize that a retail establishment needs to periodically update its image and present a fresh face. Whether located in a downtown or a mall, any retail store should have a new image, and a new storefront, at least every five to ten years. At one point in time restoration of a storefront obviously can provide a new and positive image. It has been shown that a historic image is very marketable and well accepted by the public. Thus a good restoration or rehabilitation of a storefront can by itself draw customers. The problem arises when, in five or ten years, that business is ready for another new image. What does the preservationist suggest then?
The preservation of downtowns is a relatively recent movement,
and the problem of updating the post-preservation look has not
yet been squarely confronted in most communities. This issue
is unique to downtown preservation efforts. Therefore, flexibility
must be the key word. Whereas the goal in residential and institutional
restorations is to retain and restore as much of the original
as possible, the goal of many commercial projects is to retain
the basic historical integrity of the structure while allowing
the freedom to change, to provide for the image needs of the current
business.
In 1980 the National Trust for Historic Preservation
established the Main Street Program.
The purpose of the program was to show that the rehabilitation
of older commercial buildings could be an important part of a
downtown revitalization effort in small cities. The original
concept for the Main Street Program was based on three pilot projects,
in Galesburg, Illinois, where involvement began in 1977; Hot Springs,
South Dakota; and Madison, Indiana.
Encouraged by the results of the pilot projects the Main Street Program established an "Approach" to downtown revitalization based on four key ingredients:
1. Organization-Perhaps the most difficult aspect of any revitalization effort is to create the organizational framework that brings together various interest groups and individuals. Each group comes to the table with its own agenda and sphere of interest. The merchants association may be interested in the promotion of retail sales, the Chamber of Commerce in job creation, and city government in providing municipal services. Without coordination, these efforts may not be supportive of each other, and in some cases may be at odds. The Main Street Program's project manager usually attempts to bring these groups together and reorganize them under an umbrella organization that deals directly and exclusively with the concerns of downtown.
2. Promotion-In many communities, the downtown has been largely overlooked by its citizens, who have shifted their consumer shopping patterns. To counter this, the Main Street Program has shown that downtowns need to compete by promoting themselves, and presenting an attractive new image. Promotions are considered critical to attracting people downtown. By first targeting groups that the downtown should try to attract (e.g., families with children, young professionals, or tourists), the creation of sales and special events establishes downtown as a place of activity, where there is always something new and interesting happening.
3. Design-Although physical improvements are not enough by themselves to revitalize an area, such activities, especially storefront rehabilitation and "streetscape" improvements, can provide visual proof that there is something happening in a downtown. Thus, the design aspect of the Main Street Program is important because it provides evidence of revitalization activity, as well as creating a more desireable environment.
4. Economic Restructuring -Providing financial support for a revitalization program is the last critical component in the Main Street Program's four-point approach. This effort attempts to find financial resources for revitalization work. A typical strategy may enlist local banks to provide funding for a revolving loan program for rehabilitation work. By convincing banks to give their support jointly, none feels as exposed to risk. In the past, downtowns have largely been ignored by local lending institutions, who saw little business potential there. The Main Street Program has demonstrated that property values can be substantially increased with a coordinated revitalization program.
Through the National Main Street Center,
the National Trust has provided and paid project managers for
many communities. These Main Street managers are professionals
with some background in downtown revitalization work. Typically,
the manager's initial involvement is for three years, with the
Trust paying the manager's full salary the first year, two-thirds
of it the second year, and one-third the third year. As the city
picks up support for the manager and the program, by the third
year the program is intended to be self-supportive, at which point
staffing is paid through local program funds.
The Main Street Program has been very successful in its efforts since 1980, and has been shown to be one of the best approaches for revitalizing aging downtowns. To date, hundreds of communities have entered the Main Street Program, and many others have adopted some of its strategies without receiving full support from the National Main Street Center.
The program has established some guidelines that are helpful in understanding the nature of downtown rehabilitation projects. They are:
1. The revitalization process is incremental; change cannot all happen all at once. (Such a one-shot approach was the essential failing of earlier urban renewal programs.)
2. Revitalization must be a self-help program, supported and implemented by members of the downtown community themselves.
3. Accomplishments should be emphasized, rather than problems.
4. As a corollary to the above, focus should be placed on the assets of a downtown, rather than on its weaknesses.
5. In the first year of a program, the biggest accomplishment may be a change in attitude, from negative to positive.
6. Quality should be the byword in all physical improvements.
7. The rehabilitation process should be continuous and ongoing. A good program will always have short-term goals with projects that can easily be seen and appreciated, along with long term efforts which, though not always on the front burner, may be more critical in the long term.
When the Main Street Program has failed in a community it has usually been for one of the following reasons:
1. The project manager was not working full-time, and could not follow through properly on initiatives.
2. Some downtown groups were unhappy with a "new show in town," and sabotaged efforts of the Main Street project office.
3. The Board of Directors tried to accommodate too many groups, and became large and unwieldy.
Perhaps one of the most important criticisms of the Main Street Program is that is doesn't stress the historical aspect of historic preservation enough. The program encourages reuse of older buildings, and also stresses economic and retailing revitalization, but says little about dealing with local history. Dan Morrill observed, after having attended a Main Street conference in Washington, D.C., that,
Increasingly, preservationists are forgetting, ignoring, or overlooking the essential purpose which should underlie their activities-the preservation of history.
I appreciate and applaud the aspirations and accomplishments of the National Main Street Center... Not once during my three-day sojourn in Washington, however, did I hear a speaker mention the necessity or even the desirability of performing historical research. I spent a lot of time touring the bars with two fellows from Mississippi (we Southerners stick together) and they told me that they thought history was boring. They didn't come to the Main Street Center to learn about the past. Jefferson Davis who? They owned a couple of bedraggled buildings on some bayou or other and were looking for those wonderful... investment tax credits.
My Mississippi cohorts asked me what I did for a living. I told
them I was an historian. 'A what?' they drawled. A look of dismay
and disbelief crept across their faces. I could almost hear the
query which began to percolate in the marrow of their bones: 'What's
an historian doing at the Main Street Center of the National Trust
for Historic Preservation.
The Main Street program has more recently expanded its role beyond
small cities. It has begun to support programs in larger cities
through its Urban Main Street Program. It has also conducted
many training courses for downtown revitalization efforts, and
the use of its training manual has become widespread. It has
also sponsored a number of national video conferences on Main
Street revitalization.
Can older downtowns be revitalized through the use of conventional land use regulations and zoning? Some planners feel an innovative approach to zoning may be sufficient to encourage renewal activities. As described in an editorial from Small Town magazine,
This country desperately needs an enlightened public policy concerning downtowns and their relationship to overall land use. Zoning must reflect the downtown's role as the community social center. Therefore, zoning codes need to begin the process of pulling multiple uses back downtown. For example, the code should say that government must stay downtown and that shipping must stay downtown. Also, downtown is where the movie theater and other entertainment businesses must locate. It is also the place for offices and for service businesses. Zoning should exclude these uses from other areas and it should do away with such designations as commercial highway strip, planned shopping center, etc.
In our rush to modernize, we've forgotten the fundamental
truth that people need a central meeting place. The old downtown
served that function once. Nothing has ever replaced that crucial
foundation for community in those places that destroyed their
downtowns. The most important agenda item for all concerned citizens
and public officials is not the sewer or water system, or the
roads or the police. It is how to forge and maintain a special
sense of community. The solution starts downtown.
A preservationist has a special interest in his or her community. That interest is in protecting the historic elements of the community as a way of defining its heritage. However, the population in general has many interests, and preservation is but one of them. A preservationist must recognize and understand the many other people and their roles that affect a city's changing physical environment, and use that knowledge to better understand the protection of important historic structures that is integral with a community's natural and inevitable course of change and development.
Many individuals, including professionals and elected officials,
can affect the course of change in a community. Sometimes their
goals seem counter to preservation goals, but with understanding
and an innovative approach these goals don't have to be in conflict.
An understanding ofthe goals, or "agenda," of the other
players will help preservationists deal with concerns as they
arise.
City Council is made up of elected representatives responsible to their constituents in the community. Because of this its actions may not be based so much on consistent policy as on political expediency. Whereas other city agencies follow policy, the City Council makes policy.
Most actions of a local historic commission are subject in some form or other to review by Council. Commission members are typically appointed either by the mayor or Council. Historic ordinances are subject to review and approval by Council, as are the local designation of new districts or individual historic structures.
Council support for the work of a historic commission cannot be
taken for granted. A given set of Council members might see the
Commission's role as vital. New Council members, however, may
not share that awareness, and may view the commission's work as
largely extraneous and unnecessary, or even as an impediment to
the community's ability to grow and prosper. Since Council "giveth,"
Council can also "taketh away," and it is therefore
incumbent on preservation activists and commission members to
stay alert to the need to regularly educate and inform Council
members on preservation issues. This is important not only when
a big vote is upcoming, but a regular awareness program should
be established that includes an annual preservation awards program,
the provision of printed updates on current preservation issues,
and the release of news features on historically significant structures.
Although lumped together here, a city's planning department and its planning commission are entirely different bodies. Each fulfills a function of planning for community growth, but from differing perspectives. The planning commission is made up of appointees from the community at large, serving the city on an unpaid basis as volunteers. The commission represents the interests of the community at large, and includes on its meeting agenda time for residents to voice their opinions on any proposal. The planning department, on the other hand, consists not of resident volunteers but of paid staff. Professional planners, not necessarily from the community, make up the staff and are responsible for providing the technical and professional backup essential for planning commissioners and city council members to make their determinations.
The underlying purpose of both the planning commission and planning
department staff is to review development proposals to see if
such developments are in the best interests of the community,
to approve or reject such proposals, and then advise city councilcity council
of its determinations. As such, they provide an important overview
function, and can recognize how each proposed project fits in
with the longer-range goals of the community. If preservation
and downtown revitalization have been defined as important goals,
then these planners can do much to encourage compatible development
and discourage inapproptiate proposals.
Downtown Development Authorities were developed in the 1970s as a way to deal with the special needs of older downtowns. State enabling legislation was created to allow for the establishment of DDAs, with the goals to prevent downtown deterioration and promote economic growth and revitalization. DDAs are essentially revenue allocation authorities which provide the legal authority and organizational structure for public financial participation necessary to encourage public and private development activities in downtowns.
A common financial basis for DDAs is tax increment financing. TIF districts work in the following way. The city determines the initial assessed value of property within the downtown district. This base amount goes into general fund revenues. However, in each year thereafter the municipal treasurer transmits to the DDA all monies which exceed this base amount. This so-called Captured Assessed Value makes up the "tax increment" revenue. With Tax Increment Financing (TIF) any increase in this base amount created by new development within the DDA downtown district will be allocated exclusively to the Downtown Development Authority for use on designated projects within the DDA boundaries. Such financing capitalizes on and makes use of the increased tax base created by economic development. DDAs may also create a second source of revenue from the sale of municipal bonds based on the new increment financing.
DDAs have been closely tied with downtown preservation efforts in many communities. In some, the DDA office serves also as the Main Street program office, and there is little to distinguish them, with overlapping activities and personnel. As a result, Main Street Program costs are largely funded through tax increment funds captured within the DDA boundaries.
DDAs are limited in the ways they can use their revenues. Projects are intended to encourage private investment, and are financed as public improvements, but must not directly benefit private individuals. For instance, street and sidewalk improvements within the downtown are an appropriate use of DDA funds, but improvements to individual structures generally are not. Likewise, a DDA may support the development of a preservation master plan for the downtown, including design guidelines for storefront facades, but they should not support, either through grants or loans, revenues for improvements to individual structures, even if equally available to all store owners. Often DDAs have worked in conjunction with local banks, the DDA paying for public improvements and banks establishing a loan fund pool for individual property owners.
One of the problems faced by new DDAs is that, in a slow growth downtown, some initial new development will be required to "prime the pump." Without new initial development, there will be no revenues for the Authority to use to attract more new development, which in turn will bring in more revenues and more development. The creation of a new DDA should therefore be tied in with some kind of new development within the district.
On the reverse side of the coin, some Downtown Development Authorities have been so successful in creating new development that the revenues generated greatly exceed their needs. Once established, it is difficult for a DDA to give up its economic power base; within the boundaries of its domain it can rival the city itself. This in turn creates concern and jealousy from other city agencies, since revenues that formerly would have gone into the city's general fund are now diverted into this special downtown agency. Public schoolsPublic schools have generally suffered the most from this diversion of resources, and school boards have often been the biggest critics of the DDA concept.
For this reason, an increasingly important provision in DDA ordinances
is its termination clause. Typically such causes stipulate that
an Authority will be dissolved by city council upon completion
of its purposes. If these purposes are clearly stated and the
scope well defined, Council can act appropriately. However, if
the Authority's purposes are loosely defined and open to interpretation,
the city may find it difficult to regain control.
Developers are in the business of looking for good economic opportunities. Whether representing themselves or the interests of others, the developer's primary goal is to maximize return on investment dollars.
Often this pits developers against the advocates of preservation. The best investment opportunities are typically found in "hot" locations, and these locations today are often the same locations that were hot in previous generations. Such locations include the main "four corners" of downtowns or areas adjacent to established institutions or businesses. Older buildings in these prime locations may be underutilized, and not considered the "highest and best use" for that property by ambitious developers. According to this perspective, historic structures stand in the way of progress.
Preservationists can best work with developers by defining what
they consider to be the "rules of the game." It is
important that a public list be established of structures and/or
historic districts determined to be in need of protection, along
with a well thought out ordinance that clearly defines what will
and will not be permitted in the way of development. Developers
will tend to steer away from areas of conflict and look for opportunities
in which cooperation from the city and its agencies will be assured,
and where there will be minimal opposition from special interest
groups and residents. Only when developers have already invested
a considerable amount of money in a project, and then see opposition
from preservationists developing as a belated response, will they
generally dig in for battle to protect their initial investment.
An architect generally takes a broader view of development than a developer. When working on a proposal for a new project in a historic area, an architect will consider the larger community interest, as well as the existing physical context in which a new structure is being placed. There are two reasons architects are generally more sympathetic to historic interests. First, they have been taught that good design should include provision for considering larger community interests. Second, since architects include study of historic buildings and styles in their training, they have a greater appreciation for historic context.
Nevertheless, architectsarchitects
are paid by their clients, and they are agents for their client's
interests. They have both a financial and an emotional investment
in their proposals, and if changes are necessary because of local
opposition they will need to absorb redesign costs and will also
suffer some loss of professional prestige. It is important for
preservation interests to review project proposals early in the
design process. If a historic commission review is one of the
last steps in the development process it may be too late to insist
on substantive changes. Review and comment at an early stage
is an excellent way to minimize conflict. Printed guidelines
that describe appropriate design in a historic context are also
helpful. These may suggest how to preserve significant historic
elements when adding to or adapting an older building; they should
also give examples of how new designs can be compatible to old
through the use of proper scale, proportion, setback, materials,
etc.