Many research projects in urban planning address status quo conditions in government. Jamaal Green, Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Weitzman School of Design, breathes new life into this format by focusing on the critical questions of who wins, and who loses, when governments choose business-as-usual.
Dr. Green returned to his alma mater of Carolina Planning to deliver a well-attended address, sponsored by CPJ and Angles, DCRP DEI, and DCRP’s Planning in Practice Speaker Series. He engaged the crowd with a tale of two projects he took on while working at the State of Oregon’s Office of Reporting, Research, Analytics and Implementation (ORRAI) in the Department of Human Services (DHS). A vibrant discussion ensued.
DHS’ Family Reunification Decision Support Tool
The first case dealt with a forward-thinking effort to revise DHS’ Family Reunification Decision Support Tool. DHS staff use this tool to make life-altering decisions about whether children enter state-supervised care or return to their families. Dr. Green and his colleagues recognized that the algorithm behind the Decision Support Tool was more likely to misclassify risk for Black and indigenous kids than for their white counterparts.
To address this disparity, ORRAI developed a “fairness correction score” to manage racial bias. This novel approach used a standardized method for error rate balancing. This adjusted the algorithmic result to ensure that misclassification risk was equal across racial groups, thereby eliminating the structural disparity and changing the lives of many children. The adjustment was recently phased out due to concerns over newer, similar adjustments in California and Pennsylvania that received negative attention. However, Dr. Green cites innovation as a serious step toward fairer governance.
Cannabis Dispensaries in Oregon and Washington
In the second case, Dr. Green shared findings on the spatial distribution of legal and gray market cannabis dispensaries in Oregon and Washington. By mapping these dispensaries and testing their prevalence against demographic indicators, Dr. Green showed that higher poverty, higher unemployment, and higher numbers of people of color correlated with cannabis sales locations.
This problem is multi-faceted in ways that suggest to Dr. Green a need to liberalize zoning regulations that pertain to cannabis sales. The confounding variable, he noted, was likely to be zoning. Because wealthier and whiter neighborhoods tend to have less commercial zoning, they end up with fewer dispensaries. This resulted in an unequal distribution of the social costs of cannabis sales.
Dr. Green said that dispensaries should be allowed to locate in more zones and under fewer restrictions to lessen the exposure differential. This would allow dispensaries to locate where their markets are; as there is evidence that marijuana use does not correspond with income or race—unlike the location of dispensaries—liberalizing the regulations should be enough to reduce the disparity. The question is whether the wealthy and the white also bear the social costs of cannabis sales.
The brilliance of Dr. Green’s lecture came in his comparison of the cases. On close examination, these two remedies for racial disparities are structural opposites. In the DHS case, an algorithm functions in a biased manner and must be normalized to reduce this bias. In the cannabis dispensary case, overregulation in the absence of a market failure causes biased outcomes. The remedy in that case was liberalization, not a targeted tightening of rules. In this way, the cases serve as a critical lesson for planners interested in fairness and equity. Similar goals cannot always be achieved with similar tools. Recognizing the details and the mechanisms at hand must precede intervention, lest a misguided move worsens the problem.
As Measured Against…
The professor also pointed to another subtext that spans both cases. In researching these topics, he found what many of us in the planning profession encounter: the use of whiteness as what Dr. Green called the “ur-reference.” That is, studies of this kind tend to measure problems for people of color relative to a normative baseline associated with conditions for white people. This results in the recurrent “non-white” category.
In these cases, Dr. Green urged a different view, in which whiteness is seen as the intervention on the landscape. The DHS algorithm may have been structurally biased to promote the safety of white children when the true norm is miscalculated risk. Dispensary zoning may have been crafted (intentionally or not) to protect white neighborhoods when the true norm is market-driven location choices. While by no means a definitive treatise on racial reference points, Dr. Green left the many students and faculty in attendance with a provocative reframing. This degree of innovative thinking certainly explains his rapid rise to prominence since graduating from DCRP. We are grateful to the professor for sharing his time and expertise.
Lance is a second-generation urban planner with a passion for economic development strategies that center natural resource conservation and community uplift. He served as Managing Editor of the Urban Journal at Brown University, Section Editor at the College Hill Independent, and Senior Planner for the City of Grand Junction. Hailing from sunny Colorado, he earned his BA in Urban Studies at Brown and will earn his Master in City and Regional Planning at UNC-Chapel Hill in 2023. Outside of work, he can be found on his bicycle, in the woods, or on the rugby pitch.
In January 2022 NC Governor Roy Cooper, along with other political notables, announced that Boom Supersonic would be opening its “Overture Superfactory” at Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTI). This facility is intended to test and build supersonic airliners. Boom claims it will employ 1,750 people by 2030 and lead to over $0.5 billion in investment in Guilford County. Officials project that Boom’s presence in the state will expand GDP by $32.3 billion by 2035 [1]. This potential windfall won’t come cheap; to attract Boom NC and Guilford offered $236 million in incentives, including infrastructure improvements at PTI, tax abatements, expansion of aerospace-related community college programs, and the first-ever use of NC’s High-Yield Job Development Investment Grant (HYJDIG) [1]. These incentives were instrumental in outbidding Jacksonville, FL and Spartanburg, SC for the Superfactory [2].
However, the deal has its detractors. Supersonic airliners have never made consistent profits or recouped their development costs, and no established aerospace firms are even attempting to build them [3]. Boom is a six-year-old startup headed by a CEO with no prior aerospace experience, who audaciously claims that the Overture airliner will be quieter, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly than older designs. Its functional scale model is five years late [4], and a similar startup abruptly declared bankruptcy after making an analogous deal in Florida last year [5]. Why and how then, did multiple levels of government make such a large and risky investment?
Comprehensive Rational Model
The first theory to consider in analyzing these decisions is the Comprehensive Rational Model (CRM). In this plan making conception, actors are assumed to use logic and investigation to define a problem, identify all possible solutions, categorize criteria to evaluate the solutions, judge each solution through the criteria, compare these judgments, and pick the solution that best satisfies the most important criteria. With sufficient care, this method guarantees a utility-maximizing conclusion. However, sufficient care is almost impossible to apply when dealing with complex problems. Analysis takes time and resources — the more factors to consider, the more likely an actor is to cut corners and end up with an inadequate result.
In this case, the decision making process is obscured by the length of time involved, the number of actors, and a lack of insider sources. From the Governor’s perspective, the problem would likely have been defined as “how can NC be made more prosperous?” All potential answers would then have been considered and judged on various standards, like the potential for growth, cost, and cultural impact. It’s conceivable that all actors involved (who reportedly include every level of government, local universities, business organizations, and Duke Power [6]) collectively went through this convoluted process. But it’s unlikely that such an open-ended query would be answered with such a risky solution, particularly with so many different interest groups.
Organizational Behavior Model
A more illuminating theory is the Organizational Behavior Model. In this view, organizations’ actions are largely determined by their standard operating procedures (SOPs). Organizations are made up of many people who will make many different and conflicting decisions. To function as a collective their individual decision making is sublimated into rules and culture, establishing consistency at the expense of flexibility and creativity. “Outputs,” actions and their results, are considered appropriate when they mirror those made in the past rather than based on merit.
The pursuit of Boom can be partially explained by the SOPs of NC’s government. The Department of Commerce, Economic Development Partnership, and significant portions of the state’s political class have long aimed to build up the aerospace industry. Many investments have been made over the years, including similar incentive packages to attract HondaJet and Spirit Aerosystems. When presented with the goal of “make NC more prosperous,” one of the SOPs is “recruit an aerospace company.” Additionally, there are specific advantages to locating in NC that these organizations promote; low taxes, low wages, quality logistics infrastructure, and a well-developed higher education system [7]. These appeal to particular kinds of companies, which further narrows the potential outcomes. By adhering to their SOPs, stakeholders in NC’s economic development sphere bounded the possible results of their efforts, leading to the recruitment of Boom.
Stream of Opportunities Model
There is a third theory of plan making that also explains the choice to incentivize Boom to locate in Guilford; the Stream of Opportunities Model (SOM). In this paradigm, decisions are made through a confluence of four factors – issues, solutions, decision makers, and choice opportunities. Issues are the problems that planning attempts to address. Solutions are the tools that exist to address problems. Decisionmakers are people with the authority to deploy resources and connect solutions to problems. Choice opportunities are situations that allow decision makers to act. All of these factors exist independently, floating in the metaphorical “stream of opportunities.” When plans are made and actualized factors combine without much discernment; what’s available gets used, regardless of its efficacy [8].
Viewed through the SOM lens the recruitment of Boom makes considerably more sense. The issue of economic development is a core concern of state government – it will always seek to address it. Over the decades a consistent set of solutions has developed; infrastructure investments, tax abatements, and grants are always ready to be applied. PTI was recently expanded and upgraded at great expense through an initiative from the General Assembly, colorfully named “Project Thunderbird [2].” Consequentially the choice opportunity of making planes at PTI was highly attractive since this investment demanded justification. Solutions also aligned for the deal; the HYJDIG offered to Boom was designed by the legislature in 2016 but never used, becoming a hammer in search of nails [9]. And one of the most significant decisionmakers involved in the recruitment process is both a former Commerce Secretary and a consultant at a Raleigh-based firm hired by Boom [10]. The combination of these preexisting factors made the decision to court Boom far more likely, and diminished the possibility of any serious attempt at using CRM.
The Die is Cast
Time will tell if NC’s high-risk, high-reward bet on Boom’s prospects will pay off – this summer has seen positive and negative news for the company, including preorders from American Airlines [11] and a falling out with contracted engine designer Rolls Royce [12]. But if NC and its boosters’ move to back the startup does prove successful it will not be the result of calculations and analysis. Rather, it will be due to a combination of inertia, social relationships, and luck. Organizational Behavior filled the Stream of Opportunities, and the serendipity of the stream led to the decision that was made.
Henry Read is a Master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, with a focus on land use policy. He is fascinated with the minutia of development regulation and doesn’t understand why so many people think zoning is boring. He hopes to work in the public sector after graduation and would like to be remembered as the guy who got your town to stop requiring bars to have customer parking and start planting native fruit trees in parks.
The City of Durham is growing. Over the last decade, Durham’s population grew by 22%.[1] With the continued migration of technology firms, biotech startups, and other businesses to the Triangle, Durham is poised to continue its rapid growth for the foreseeable future. As cities like Durham continue growing, governments and citizens will have to contend with changes to the built environment. An analysis of Durham’s historic urban form can help us understand why Durham looks the way it does today and what lessons we should take about the creation, destruction, and revitalization of our cities as we move forward.
Measuring Urban Form
For my senior honors thesis, I sought to measure Durham’s urban form from the beginning of the 20th century to the present. I used four metrics of urban form for this analysis: direct building frontage, block area, block frontage, and off-street parking. Direct building frontage is the percentage of a block’s perimeter that has buildings abutting the property line. More direct building frontage is desirable because it creates a stronger relationship between buildings and people walking on sidewalks compared to buildings set back from the sidewalk.
Figure 1: Direct building frontage measurement. Source: Rahi Patel
Smaller block sizes and greater amounts of street frontage are desirable because they increase the permeability of the urban fabric, making it easier for people outside vehicles to access destinations throughout downtown.
A limited amount of off-street parking is desirable because off-street parking tends to degrade the experience of street life, creating lots and parking structures that do not encourage people to linger. The space required by off-street parking also pushes homes, businesses, parks, and other destinations further away from each other, eliminating the churn of people that makes urban street life engaging.
To analyze the historic urban fabric, I used historic maps and satellite images imported into AutoCAD to recreate and measure the buildings, blocks, and streets of Durham throughout the 20th century.
How Durham’s Urban Fabric Changed
The results of the urban form analysis revealed a loss of cohesive, dense, permeable urban fabric from the beginning of the 20th century to the present. Most of the change occurred from the 1950s through the 1970s. Average block size increased by 45% between 1950 and 1972. Total street frontage decreased by 10%.
Figures 3 and 4: Building footprints and streets of downtown Durham, 1950 vs. 1972. Source: Rahi Patel
The total amount of land area used for off-street parking increased from just 5 acres in 1950 to 111 acres in 1972. Direct building frontage only decreased slightly, though maps of downtown Durham reveal swaths of building demolition in some areas of downtown.
Figure 5: Change in land area used for off-street parking in downtown Durham, 1914-2020. Source: Rahi Patel
Planning documents published between 1950 and 1972 point us to the causes of these large-scale changes in downtown Durham. The federal government funneled money to American cities to acquire, demolish, and redevelop areas considered to be “blighted” under a program known as urban renewal. In reality, urban renewal programs across the U.S. targeted communities of color for demolition and displacement. Black communities situated close to central business districts were specifically targeted because of their valuable proximity to downtown. Durham was no exception. The Durham Redevelopment Commission displaced 4,057 homes and 502 businesses in the predominantly Black neighborhood of Hayti during the period of urban renewal (not included in the study area but located just southeast of downtown Durham). Plans drawn up by graduate students from UNC’s Department of City and Regional Planning in 1957 reveal the policy and design decisions that planners believed would help revitalize “blighted” areas. These included disconnected and hierarchical roads, separated land uses, building setbacks, and vast open spaces. In Hayti, little redevelopment followed the large-scale demolition of homes and businesses. Downtown also experienced demolition from urban renewal, and much of the destruction was not replaced with new development by 1972.
Figure 6: Existing and proposed land use maps for Hayti, 1957. Source: Durham City Planning Department
In addition to urban renewal, federal homeownership policies pushed planners to substantially restructure the form of downtown Durham’s streets and public spaces. Federal mortgage subsidies allowed white city dwellers to purchase homes in the suburbs. The spread of indoor shopping malls further enticed white suburbanites to avoid downtown businesses. This development pattern impacted Durham’s finances, because significant levels of tax revenue was generated by commercial buildings in downtown. City planners responded to the pressures of suburbanization by attempting to lure suburban shoppers back to downtown businesses. Planners proposed street widenings and the creation of a loop road through downtown to increase ease of access for suburban shoppers. Planners were also concerned with providing large amounts of clearly visible parking throughout downtown to assure suburban shoppers that they would have a place to park. However, it is not clear that any amount of road widening, parking construction, or urban renewal demolition could have competed with the larger political and economic forces that threatened downtown Durham’s future.
Tomorrow’s Bull City
Looking ahead, we have much to learn from the restructuring of Durham’s downtown. The decisions made by a complex web of planners, public officials, and private interests still shape the downtown we know today. 88 acres of downtown Durham’s land area is still devoted to off-street parking (decreased from 111 acres in 1972). A study conducted in 2018 found an excess parking capacity of over 5,000 parking spaces throughout downtown. The Downtown Loop cuts through Durham, creating a hazardous and uninviting environment for people outside vehicles. The Durham Freeway funnels pollution and noise through downtown and Hayti.
Figure 7: A pedestrian crosses Roxbury St. in downtown Durham, 2020. Source: Rahi Patel
Figure 8: Five lanes of one-way traffic converge on Roxbury St. in downtown Durham, 2020. Source: Rahi Patel
As the Bull City’s growth continues to provide new opportunities for redevelopment, Durham residents, city officials, and other stakeholders must decide how, where, when, and for whom that redevelopment will occur. The questions of urban form ultimately influence the daily lives of all a city’s residents: where we live, work, shop, play, relax, and celebrate. Hopefully, an understanding of how we got here will give us the tools to continue moving forward.
Rahi Patel graduated from UNC in May 2021 with majors in Urban Planning (through the Interdisciplinary Studies Program) and Economics. He has interests in sustainable transportation, urban design, and architecture. He is currently a planner in the Transportation Planning Division at the U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
Edited by Eve Lettau
Featured image: Ground Diagram of Downtown Durham, 1950. Courtesy of Rahi Patel.
When I tell people that the High Line is my least favorite park in New York City, their jaws instantly drop. I am aware that some view my opinion as blasphemous, but when we critically assess the High Line’s impact, it’s clear it wasn’t designed to benefit all New Yorkers.
Please, don’t get me wrong, it has some very good qualities. It has reinvented adaptive reuse as glamorous and inspired countless cities to revive their abandoned spaces. And yes, for those who only care about looks, the High Line is breathtaking. However, my disdain for the High Line is because City Hall has used parks and open space as a tool to rebrand neighborhoods as luxury. This only attracts more wealthy newcomers and displaces and excludes native New Yorkers.
The creation of the High Line began in 2004 when then-Mayor Bloomberg supported the creation of the West Chelsea Special District.[i] This zoning change cemented the High Line into the city’s zoning map and allowed for it to begin developing as a park. Coincidentally, it was during this time that Bloomberg and the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYEDC), the city’s economic development arm, also began a covert operation to rebrand New York as a city of opulence.[ii]
The goal of the rebranding was to attract key investors and residents to the city. Bloomberg’s development strategy viewed New York City as a product with a distinct brand. Bloomberg and NYEDC decided — without input from New Yorkers — upon a brand of luxury.
As Julien Brash writes in Bloomberg’s New York: Class and Governance in the Luxury City, “If New York City is a business, it isn’t Wal-Mart…It’s a high-end product even a luxury product.” Knowing that rebranding was the principal economic development strategy during Bloomberg’s tenure, it isn’t hard to see that the unprecedented public spaces that have been created since are a direct manifestation of that policy.
Some may protest, “But public spaces and parks are good! We should be building more!” And they are completely right. However, the city should build parks in neighborhoods like Mott Haven and Bushwick, which the non-profit New Yorkers For Parks has found to be vastly underserved by open space.[iii] Instead, the city develops extravagant parks in places like Chelsea and Brooklyn Heights, which aid in rebranding entire neighborhoods and ultimately displaces families.
Governments should create parks to provide necessary open space to existing residents, not to catalyze real estate investment and attract a wealthier class. Since the High Line opened in 2009, the median household income of the surrounding area has increased from $80,747 to $141,672.[iv] This is an increase of about 23%, while the overall household income of New York City has only increased by 7%.
Anyone who visits the High Line (including the 7,000,000 annual visitors) can see this.[v] When walking along the path, one would expect to see beautiful views of the Hudson. In reality, it’s hard to see anything other than the backside of countless million-dollar apartments, which have sprouted up mere inches from the rail. This is not to mention the fact that the park has now finished its final stretch, which circumvents Hudson Yards, the largest real estate development in the history of the United States.
I’m sure the designers and community activists who fight tirelessly for these parks are well-intentioned. Unfortunately, what the High Line and many of New York’s other luxury open spaces say, is that only individuals in the highest income bracket are entitled to well-designed, highly programmed open spaces. What makes this statement even more gut-wrenching, is that it’s not just real estate developers and billionaires saying this, the city is too.
In 1961, Jane Jacobs wrote, “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.”[vi]
This directly translates to how the city should use parks and open spaces. The High Line and others like it, were developed because a small group of people decided what the city should be and who it should serve. However, public space is meant to be shared by the public—everyone.
To achieve this, parks and open space planning should be more participatory, focusing on the needs of every person in that community. Secondly, open space interventions should also be developed in areas that truly need them, not high-income neighborhoods in Manhattan. Lastly, both administrative and community-led tools like downzoning, rent controls, and 197A plans should be implemented to make sure that amenities like parks don’t displace existing communities.
Now, the next time the city promises a new park, regardless of where it may be, I hope you pay attention. Because at the end of the day, it is up to us, New Yorkers, to reclaim our public spaces.
[vi] Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Eve Lettau is a second-year Master’s student in City and Regional planning, studying equitable economic development. She’s passionate about how good jobs create access to good housing opportunities and vice versa. Originally from the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, she received undergraduate degrees in Economics and Public and Urban Affairs from Virginia Tech. In her free time she spends time hiking with her 2 year old puppy or taking care of her much-too-large plant collection.
With the introduction of new technologies and the pandemic forcing many people to work from home, the media has increasingly used the term “smart cities.” There will be more smart cities worldwide in the coming years, from Toyota’s Woven City to Copenhagen Connecting. However, some have also been scrapped, like Google’s Sidewalk Toronto project, due to the economic uncertainty caused by COVID-19.[i] So what are smart cities? The term is a buzzword, but most people are not sure what it means. Does it simply mean that smart cities are more intelligent than previous cities? What does it mean to be smart? Is Chapel Hill a smart city?
Smart City Example: Toyota’s Woven City
Many institutions have come up with different definitions. Urban planning news site Planetizen states, “A smart city uses information and communications technology (ICT) to enhance its livability, workability, and sustainability.”[ii]Moreover, smart cities bring technology, economy, mobility, environment, people, and government together.[iii] This technology includes apps for real time data, such as leaf collection or free public Wi-Fi. The concept of smart cities encompasses the use of technologies in cities to increase connectivity in various sectors.
Cities have been eager to implement new technologies due to the benefits of efficiently connecting different city sectors,[iv] reducing environmental footprints,[v] improving public transportation,[vi] and increasing economic development,[vii] digital equity,[viii] and more. However, there are also concerns related to smart cities. Some significant issues are surveillance,[ix] security,[x] data bias,[xi] and the digital divide impacting smart city residents.[xii] Cities also have difficulty creating and connecting infrastructures, consistently updating new technologies, and collaborating with the private sector.[xiii], [xiv]
The Town of Chapel Hill is also envisioning itself as a smart town, and has embedded parts of the smart cities initiatives into projects such as the technology solution business plan and the West Rosemary Street Development.[xv] The Town has also participated in AT&T’s Spotlight City project to develop a smart cities framework, and encouraged North Carolina Science Festival participants to use the iNaturalist app to identify plants and animals in Pritchard Park and share knowledge on insects in Chapel Hill. Additionally, Chapel Hill uses sensors to offer real-time, mobile-friendly data on adverse weather activity, leaf collection, and street maintenance. The Town continues to further smart city initiatives by providing internet access for residents and businesses, adding electric vehicle charging stations, implementing parking deck sensors, increasing cyber asset security, and more.
Chapel Hill’s Mobile-Friendly Street Maintenance
As cities and towns become “smart,” resident participation is vital in order for any plans to incorporate their concerns and ensure an equitable approach. Several cities are committed to developing smart city plans with equity goals, such as Portland’s Smart City PDX.[xvi] As the future of Chapel Hill moves towards a smart city model, it will be necessary to start talking about digital equity in order for Chapel Hill to become the next smart equitable town.
If you would like to know more about smart cities and Chapel Hill’s smart cities initiatives, or want to offer input, please visit Smart Town.
[ix] Zoonen, Liesbet van. 2016. “Privacy Concerns in Smart Cities.” Government Information Quarterly, Open and Smart Governments: Strategies, Tools, and Experiences, 33 (3): 472–80.
Jo (Joungwon) Kwon is a Ph.D. student in the Department of City and Regional Planning. She hopes to interweave various data sets and narratives of housing and communities together with new digital technologies. With a background in Statistics and English Literature, she received her M.A. in Computational Media at Duke University. In her free time, she enjoys watching indie movies, going to live performances, and drinking good coffee.
Sometimes an old bridge is just that. An old bridge. Nothing much to talk about, often beneath our feet and our wheels, but rarely the object of direct attention, let alone debate. Tucked away in the Delaware Valley, nestled between two sides of the Delaware River, the Milanville Bridge has connected New York and Pennsylvania since its original construction date in 1902. As people take up aging infrastructure as a national conversation with increasing urgency, the conversation gains a great amount of relevance in local contexts. Examples of aging infrastructure, no matter how seemingly small, demonstrate the impact infrastructure decisions have on communities and how a small-town bridge can become symbolic in ways far superseding simply getting from point A to point B.
Milanville, Pennsylvania, part of Damascus Township, is a small village with about 600 residents. There is one general store with an attached post office and narrow, winding roads that cut into the hills and along the river, twisting along the embankments and through the countryside as if they were streams themselves carrying us back and forth from our destinations. The Milanville Bridge, also known as the Skinner’s Falls Bridge, is one of several bridges spaced out along the river, serving the local population and the considerable number of tourists that flock to the area every year to escape New York City, enjoy the countryside, and use the river recreationally. One of the most popular swimming spots, known as Skinner’s Falls, lies just downstream from the Skinner’s Falls bridge. This destination becomes relevant to the conversation in two ways: what happens upstream affects what happens downstream, and as with all bridges, we want to know where they lead to.
Photo Credit: Veronica Daub, The River Reporter, 2021
The Milanville Bridge, beyond its own historical significance, connects people to the economic vitality of Milanville. The Upper Delaware River corridor once built its economy on the extraction and transportation of coal and timber and felt a brief kiss of death with propositions for natural gas drilling in the area. Times have changed: the river itself is now the economic resource. The area increasingly caters to the tourist economy, with renewed interest from New Yorkers leaving the city at the advent of COVID-19. The river, and subsequently Skinner’s Falls, is a recreational money-making powerhouse, attracting many people to the natural scenic beauty and the glories of a well preserved, “clean” river (we won’t talk about the recent micro-plastic studies here).
The bridge, though intact, remains closed to traffic. Over the past ten years, the bridge has undergone some emergency repairs, reopened for periods of time, but would quickly close again with “in critical condition” branded onto it without remission. Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) began a Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, which is “used to identify transportation issues and environmental concerns, which can then be applied to make planning decisions,”[1] also known as a survey and a comment period. Used as a tool to address processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Linkages Study intends to look at how the bridge is used and what the needs of the local community are before fully developing a process and plan of action for the bridge.
The Environmental Linkages study commenced with a rather, shall we say, passionate town meeting. PennDOT hired AECOM, a private consulting firm, to conduct the studies and planning necessary for the Skinner’s Falls Bridge Project, which they have been dutiful to attempt. The town meeting revealed three choices: decommission the bridge; restore the bridge to its historical integrity as a one lane, Baltimore through Truss style by repairing the super and substructure; or replace the bridge with a brand-new two-lane bridge, graded for 40 tons, accommodating the weight of vehicles such as full-size fire trucks, tracker trailers, construction vehicles, and dump trucks.
Approaching this community with AECOM’s version of “a collaborative and integrated planning approach” quickly became tinder for activism around saving the bridge.[2] It is easy and at times justified to feel that the community engagement techniques used for projects like this drip of tokenism (in reference to Arnstein’s ladder for planning folks).[3] AECOM’s invitation to become an “advisor” to the planning committee appeared to fall short of desiring real input from community members. The survey and the comment period were good starting points, but many people felt the comment period was too short and the survey was lacking.
Concerning the options presented by PennDOT, decommission the bridge you say? How hopeless! Expand the bridge to a two-lane bridge weighted for commercial traffic? There is a joke in Pennsylvania, taken very much at PennDOT’s expense: If you are driving straight on a PA road, you are definitely drunk. The roads on either side of this bridge run through Historic Districts, are winding with sharp turns and patches sloping down towards the creek embankments. The roads simply are not graded for increased traffic across a two-lane bridge. The tourist destination downstream of the bridge hosts a patch of rapids that could very easily be disturbed by increased construction and displacement of water and materials upstream.
Beyond the practical considerations of engineering and feasibility, what do we want the bridge to symbolize? What do we want the bridge to do? The community is known for its activism and eventual victory over the proposal of natural gas drilling in the area.[4] People are extremely protective of the Delaware River, which is not only significant economically, but ecologically and as the watershed for New York City’s drinking water.[5] AECOM walked into the front door of a quiet town in the sticks with a survey in hand, perhaps thinking it would appease the requirements for community engagement without too much of an issue, yet they found internationally acclaimed environmental activists sitting at the table demanding a deeper and more critical conversation about the impact these decisions can have on community vitality and morale.
The comment period that was originally scheduled to end in May was extended to June at the urgent request of many community members. Local newspapers published articles, a local organization known for its role in the Anti-Fracking movement came forward and created new community engagement opportunities, providing people with updated information and ways to get involved.[6] The community conversation seemed to come back to the idea that we are talking about more than just a piece of infrastructure. We are discussing the present and future of how we create vibrant rural and regional areas. The Northeastern corner of Pennsylvania and sections of New York across the river have always served as important natural corridors and respite from the city. In planning, we often discuss the metastasizing of cities, the urban sprawl which has crawled into our laps as one of planning’s most pressing issues. The Milanville Bridge, with its unassuming stature, has renewed the dialogue about preservation for many people in the area. What is worth preserving and what will we choose to alter in pursuit of growth, or opportunity, or economic development? Who gets to make that decision, and how do you ensure the inclusion of local voices, especially in areas that are often spoken about as if “no-one lives here”?
Survey results are in from AECOM. 286 people responded to the survey with additional numbers of comments sent separately to AECOM via email. AECOM’s report implies that many people who left comments via the survey noted rehabilitation of the bridge as a theme, as well as the importance of the bridge as a nationally registered historic place.[7] The future of the bridge relies heavily on funding and what meets the bottom line of infrastructure needs. However, as the national conversation around aging infrastructure continues to unfold, deciding the future of the Milanville Bridge is a touchstone issue to examine.
Ruby is a rising second year master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning. Ruby specializes in land use and environmental planning, with a sustained interest in food systems, climate change, and equitable access to resources. Ruby received a dual bachelor’s degree from Guilford College in Biology and Religious Studies. She loves playing music, exploring North Carolina, and owning a lot of books that she never reads.
Edited by: Elijah Gullett
Featured Image courtesy of: Owen Walsh, The River Reporter, 2020
In light of Apple’s announcement that they will be placing one of their headquarters in Wake County, many fear skyrocketing housing costs in response. Apple touts that this new 3,000 new jobs to the area, potentially encouraging mass migration to the Raleigh-Durham area. Google has also recently announced their plans to build a hub in Durham and claims that they will eventually create 1,000 jobs in the area. These announcements are being made during a time of large inbound migration to North Carolina, with North Carolina now considered the 5th most popular state to move to.
All these changes beg the question of how increased housing demand from high-income tech sector employees will affect housing affordability in North Carolina. This is of special concern to the currently booming metropolitan areas of NC: Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte. Who will be displaced by this mass migration? How big of a threat is gentrification? How can we ensure sustained affordable housing for North Carolinians?
North Carolinians’ fears about what happens if Raleigh-Durham becomes the “new Bay Area” are not unfounded. It’s easy to look at the Bay Area, California as a blueprint for the impact of expansive tech sector development on housing affordability. San Francisco is currently the most expensive housing market in the US, with other Bay Area cities such as San Jose and Oakland following closely behind. However, this future is not set in stone for North Carolina. State and local policymakers can begin to reform our current housing system to accommodate newcomers in a way that balances the needs of long-term residents with the goals of economic development.
SB349, the NC Senate’s “Increase Housing Opportunities” bill, is a good start. The bill legalizes “missing middle” housing in residential area (townhouses, duplexes, quadplexes), blocking local attempts at single family zoning that restrict more affordable housing options. It also legalizes additional dwelling units, or ADUs, without any parking minimums or conditional use permits, further increasing housing stock. It also blocks local downzoning attempts without substantial evidence indicating public health or safety risk. Compared to other state bills, NC’s bill goes further than most, preventing local governments from banning land uses that are not a demonstratable threat to health or safety.
In short, SB349 will make housing construction easier and avert local attempts to block new housing development. This bill is the floor that North Carolina needs to preserve existing housing affordability. By permitting housing construction, NC housing markets can meet growing demand from incoming tech workers. This isn’t purely theoretical either – research indicates that housing supply restrictions raise housing costs.
For those concerned about the displacement effects of new economic development, bills like SB349, and other laws permitting housing construction, are still the best bet. Some may argue that the construction of new, market-rate units creates an induced demand effect. Under this logic, new construction encourages wealthier people to move in, landlords appease these newcomers by evicting low-income tenants and raising rents, and low-income residents are then displaced.
However, evidence suggests just the opposite. Market-rate housing construction does not increase rents in nearby units. In fact, new construction lowers rents in nearby housing. A recent working paper by Xiaodi Li found that for every 10% increase in housing stock, local rents decrease by 1%. The construction of new, market-rate housing offsets potential displacement caused by migration. Artificial housing scarcity creates a system where low-income residents are competing against (and often losing to) higher-income, newcomers for the same units. By creating new housing units, however, newcomers with money can buy or rent the newer units, while low-income residents can keep their homes.
If NC policymakers want to create economic dynamism and growth while ensuring an affordable housing market, they should embrace SB349. It is a bold state bill that will protect the rights of individuals to build on their own property and increase housing stock. Beyond SB349, NC state and local authorities can do more even to encourage an affordable housing market. Many localities in NC have laws restricting the construction of manufactured housing and specific restrictions targeted at trailer parks. These should be repealed, as manufactured housing is an important element of NC’s affordable housing stock. The creation of community land trusts (CLTs) and affordable housing trust funds (such as those in Asheville) can also provide opportunities to support permanently affordable housing for low-income residents.
Without preemptive action, North Carolina risks creating the same problems that plague Silicon Valley and the greater Bay Area. That future, however, is not inevitable. Policies that promote housing development and affordable housing can create an inclusive, prosperous NC for everyone.
Elijah Gullett is a rising fourth-year undergraduate student majoring in Public Policy with minors in Urban Studies and Environmental Justice. His academic interests include fair and affordable housing, sustainable development, and LGBTQ+ urban life.
The Delaware River has played a vital role in Philadelphia’s economic development since the City’s inception as goods were transported via the River’s piers, wharfs, and canals to faraway places (Philadelphia2035 2011, 4). Access to the River provided an avenue to establish trade routes and enable the manufacturing economies that propelled Philadelphia into manufacturing prominence. However, Philadelphia neighborhoods that once prospered alongside their booming industries, and the Delaware River, declined as manufacturing slowed following WWII (Adams 1991, 14). As a result, many working-class neighborhoods in North Philadelphia, including Olde Richmond, experienced disinvestment, abandonment, and increased crime rates.
Construction of the Vine Street Expressway in the late 1950s greatly disrupted connectivity between Center City and North Philadelphia (Philadelphia2035 2011). Additionally, as seen in Figure 1 below, construction of the Delaware Expressway (I-95) bisected Olde Richmond and directly contributed to disconnectivity within the neighborhood itself. Despite Olde Richmond’s location adjacent to the Delaware River, its waterfront remains largely undeveloped. At present, the area consists of mostly vacant land dotted with scant commercial buildings and privately held areas such as Graffiti Pier. In contrast to the existing land use, we propose a conceptual redesign for Olde Richmond, in an area we termed Olde Richmond Waterfront District (ORWD), that offers a connected city-dwelling experience.
Figure 1: Olde Richmond Neighborhood, Philadelphia, PA Photo Credit: Google Maps
Challenges & Opportunities
The Delaware Expressway (I-95) exists as a present challenge for development in Olde Richmond. The heavily traveled highway impedes pedestrian mobility within the neighborhood and poses significant threats to pedestrian safety. In addition, the existence and positioning of I-95 has limited redevelopment projects in Olde Richmond beyond the multi-lane roadway. This is due, at least in part, to the disruption it causes to the urban fabric and classic grid street pattern (Condon 2010, 28).
In recent years, Philadelphia has redeveloped several of its public and open spaces near Center City including Love Park, Dilworth Plaza, and Franklin Square. The City has also focused efforts on revitalizing its waterfronts into viable pedestrian uses. Although North Philadelphia contains ample available riverfront along the Delaware River, there are few designated waterfront amenities available to residents in this area of the City. However, in recognition of this disparity, within its Philadelphia2035 CityWide Vision Plan, Philadelphia outlined the need to increase equitable access to open-space resources and complete, expand, and connect watershed parks and trails along the Delaware River (Philadelphia2035 2011, 136-137). Philadelphia2035 specifically outlines Olde Richmond’s waterfront as a target area for redevelopment and completion of a “Delaware Waterfront Trail” as part of a citywide network of trails (Philadelphia2035 2011, 136-140).
In addition to Philadelphia2035’s vision to expand access to waterfronts and neighborhood parks and recreation, and in order to achieve the plan’s goal to elevate public demand for good design in the public realm, our chosen site rectifies its largely abandoned and disconnected state by improving its connectivity and implementing an interconnected street system similar to that of greater Philadelphia (Condon 2010, 39). In addition to the area’s tendency toward a linked system of natural areas and parks, because the selected site is largely vacant, there is vast opportunity to implement Condon’s rules for sustainable design including mixed use development, diversifying housing types, co-location of jobs and homes, and green infrastructure (Condon 2010, 14-15).
Proposed Solution
Figure 2: Proposed Design Solution for Olde Richmond Waterfront District
Connectivity & Complete Streets
To address the disconnectivity and lack of infrastructure that presently plague the area proposed for the ORWD, we emphasized human-scaled development within our design. Our conceptual design is predicated on “burying” the Delaware Expressway (I-95) and establishing an interconnected grid pattern, with a heavy emphasis on small blocks, for the ORWD. As Leon Krier states, “[t]he building block is either the instrument to form streets and squares, or it results from a pattern of streets and squares” (Krier 1984, 44). Careful consideration of the building blocks, and their orientation served as the foundation of our design. As seen in Figure 2 above, the overall, streets, squares, buildings, and public spaces were situated according to our proposed urban grid arrangement.
Drawing inspiration from the urban fabric of other areas of Philadelphia, the block dimensions on the west side of the design are similar in size and pattern to the Washington Square West neighborhood. The block dimensions on the east side of the proposed ORWD are reminiscent of the northwest portion of Olde Richmond that borders I-95 and the adjacent Fishtown neighborhood. The building sizes are varied with a mixture of housing types including Philadelphia’s notable row houses and sizable high-density apartment developments. The proposed ORWD boasts 45 ft complete streets which include a one-way car lane, a parking lane, sidewalks, and a bike lane. The car and parking lanes are each 8-foot, bike lanes are 5-foot, and sidewalks are a minimum of 12-foot in width throughout the entire district.
Mixed-Use Neighborhood
There are three primary types of housing stock in Olde Richmond Waterfront District: mixed-use buildings with residential areas from second to the fifth floor, row houses, and large high-density apartment buildings. Although the entire district is intended for mixed-use, the west side of the district consists of slightly larger blocks apt for business and commercial spaces. The east side of ORWD offers smaller lots with traditional residential row houses. The west side includes urban blocks with buildings similar to those in Center City with first floor commercial spaces, like restaurants and retail shops, and residential uses claiming the second to fifth floors. In addition, the high-density apartment buildings are designed to help alleviate Philadelphia’s shortage of affordable housing. We strongly suggest at least 50% of the units within these buildings are designated as affordable. The emphasis on mixed-use buildings and varying housing types throughout the district propels social and cultural complexity within ORWD.
Parks and ORWD Perimeter Trail
Figure 3: Aerial View of Graffiti Pier and Surrounding Public & Greenspaces
As seen in Figure 3 above, the Olde Richmond Waterfront District has various parks, including large squares, pocket parks incorporated into many blocks, and parks near the greenway. The large parks include fountains and recreational space in alignment with Philadelphia’s original Franklin, Logan, Penn, Washington, and Rittenhouse squares. The pocket parks in the blocks are situated throughout the district serve as “the web of green spaces and green links (Bacon 1976, 1733)” to create a pattern of connectivity with larger parks and the district’s perimeter trail. The ORWD Perimeter Trail is a key component in the ORWD, as it encompasses the entirety of the proposed district’s area. This 20-foot wide multi-use trail is made of sustainable and environmentally friendly material and serves as one of the main recreational amenities the ORWD. This trail is designed to meet the goals of developing a system of trails connecting across Philadelphia while providing interconnectivity to outdoor recreational spaces (Philadelphia2035 2011, 136-140). Various public and greenspaces, including ballparks, dog parks, apple tree parks, etc. are situated along the trail. The trail is elevated on the northern perimeter to provide for pedestrian safety and traffic flow of the underlying streets.
Natural Preservation & Stormwater Management
Consideration of the natural environment is necessary when redeveloping an area near a resource such as the Delaware River. The southwest portion of the ORWD, denoted in a brownish-green hue, along the Delaware River, maintains the natural area for ecological purposes and wildlife preservation. Creating a space to support biodiversity connects the urbanized area to the natural environment. Aside from transforming the southeast portion into ballparks and sport courts, which are specifically designed to capture and hold rainwater and serve as stormwater management within the ORWD, the rest of this portion of the proposed development is designated for natural preservation. The green buffer exists adjacent to the river to prevent flooding and for sustainable management of regional water resources (Farr 2008, 175). The inclusion of these natural preservation areas and unique BMPs help manage runoff from impermeable surfaces within the district and limit pollutants entering the waterways to the river.
Public Spaces
Thoughtful provision of public spaces is an integral component of the placemaking within the Olde Richmond Waterfront District. As seen in Figure 4 below, specific attention to Carmona’s objectives for public space, including character, ease of movement, and adaptability, influenced the public spaces within the district (Carmona et al. 2003, 9). The public spaces within the ORWD contain unique and colorful mural-type graffiti designs as a homage to the history and cultural significance of Graffiti Pier to Philadelphia and the people of the surrounding neighborhoods. Not only does this provide aesthetic appeal and linkages throughout, but it also contributes to the district’s past and present identity. In addition, public spaces are creatively integrated into the interconnected street network of the district. The ORWD perimeter trail is also designed to be accessible from virtually any point in the district. Lastly, areas across the district denoted in pink designate areas intended for pop-up shops, snack stands, bars, and other semi-permanent establishments. This type of planning and design allows for such spaces to change seasonally with ease. This also provides flexibility as retail and commercial landscape changes across the United States.
Figure 4: A Snapshot of Public Spaces within ORWD
To facilitate human interaction and experiences within the district, we integrated Graffiti Pier, the Balboa Building, and ORWD Amphitheater into ORWD’s design. Graffiti Pier incorporates several attractions that contribute to the quality of the public realm within the Olde Richmond Waterfront District (Carmona et al. 2003, 9). Such attractions include another Robert Indiana “LOVE” statue to add to Philadelphia’s collection. This statue is similar in size and scale to the existing statue in Center City’s Love Park. Graffiti Pier also boasts one of the large fountains within the district as well as unique hard and soft scaping. Drawing inspiration from Philadelphia’s Race Street Pier, Graffiti Pier provides ample space for public gatherings such as outdoor yoga or summer movie programs, all interconnected with 20-foot walking paths. The pinnacle of Graffiti Pier, however, is a 70-foot solar-powered Ferris wheel ideal for taking in views of the Delaware River, Ben Franklin Bridge, the Philadelphia Skyline, and Olde Richmond.
Figure 5: Detailed Illustration of Graffiti Pier
The Balboa Building is an ode to the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Rocky Steps. The building serves as administrative offices for the district as well as an event venue for weddings and galas. Inclusion of this building, and its familiar elements, provide interesting imagery within the district as well as multi-level spaces for visitors to enjoy and interact with. The building contributes to the diversity of the overall district as it offers pedestrians and visitors with variety and choice. The ORWD Amphitheater not only provides a public gathering area for concerts and other entertainment, but it also doubles as a public amenity when events are not scheduled. The amphitheater includes several softscape areas and designated hard-scape areas for pop-up commercial shops and offerings.
Conclusion
Olde Richmond Waterfront District offers Philadelphians a space to live, work, and enjoy leisure time. Our proposed design offers an equilibrium of work and living and aligns with several of Philadelphia2035’s goals (Krier 1984). This is made possible by continuing Philadelphia’s classic grid pattern into the ORWD area, encouraging mixed-use development, prioritizing natural resource preservation and stormwater management, and thoughtful provision of public spaces. Mixed-use neighborhoods help address housing issues within the City and create an environment for thriving commerce while newly re-imagined green and public spaces promote viable, healthy neighborhoods for the City’s long-term.
About the Authors:
Jo Kwon is a second-year Ph.D. student in the Department of City and Regional Planning. She hopes to interweave various data sets and narratives of housing and communities with new digital technologies. With a background in Statistics and English Literature, she received her M.A. in Computational Media at Duke University. In her free time, she enjoys watching indie movies, and going to live performances.
Mariah Wozniak is a second-year master’s candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning, specializing in land use and environmental planning. Her research interests include historic preservation, urban design, and the intersection of planning and public education provision. She received her undergraduate degree in Political Science and Public & Urban Affairs from Virginia Tech. She enjoys spending time at the beach, cooking, and admiring residential architecture.
Adams, C.1991. Philadelphia: Neighborhoods, Division, and Conflict in a Postindustrial City. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
Carmona, Matthew et al. 2003. Public Places – Urban Spaces Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Condon, Patrick M. 2010. Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities. Washington: Island Press.
Melanie Simmons, Kathy Baughmann McLeod, and Jason Hight, “Healthy Neighborhoods;” Jim Patchett and Tom Price “Stormwater Systems” in Douglas Farr, Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature (Wiley & Sons, 2008): 148-150, 175-181.
No place in America has deeper ties to the automotive industry than Detroit, Michigan. A close second could be the town of Smyrna, Tennessee. While much less known, Smyrna became a significant player in the automotive industry when Nissan opened a massive plant in this Nashville suburb in 1982. Its quick success and ascension to the most productive automotive factory in the U.S. convinced other foreign brands that manufacturing in the U.S., while retaining their company’s unique core values and principles, was possible.
The stories of why both Detroit and Smyrna became the specific locations at specific times for large-scale auto manufacturing in the U.S. are rich and complex histories. However, analyzing these histories through the lenses of transport and geography sheds light on the most fundamental factors that firms consider when deciding the location of their economic activities.
All Roads Lead to Detroit
Detroit’s centralized location in the Midwest Heartland, access to ports and straits serving the Great Lakes Region, and proximity to related manufacturing materials created a specialized web of resources and services that catalyzed the explosive development of America’s automotive industry in the first half of the twentieth century. During this time, the “Big Three” American automotive firms of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler all clustered in the Detroit area, transforming the region’s landscape into the preeminent hub for the booming automotive industry. Primarily, Detroit was geographically situated in clusters related to auto manufacturing. Henry Ford himself realized the strategic importance connectivity to rail had on his business. In 1920, the Ford Motor Company invested in the Detroit, Toledo, and Ironton line and in improvements to modernize the line (DT&I 2003).
Old DT&I Map. Source: r2parks.net.
All of the raw materials needed for automobile production were easily accessible by the Great Lakes and by rail. In nearby Pennsylvania and West Virginia, coal was extracted from the mountains and transported via rail in a day’s time. Northern Michigan and Minnesota contained iron and copper ore deposits transported via ship, while the steel towns of Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Chicago, and Cleveland were only a few hundred miles from the city (Sugrue 2004). Furthermore, Detroit straddled the lucrative consumer markets in the Midwest and Northeast. However, the economic advantages derived from the location and transport factors Detroit offered diminished during the second half of the twentieth century.
Similar to how textile manufacturers in the Northeast relocated to low-wage markets in the Southeast, the loss of auto manufacturing jobs in the Detroit area has been accompanied by the gradual development of an automotive cluster in the Southeast since the 1980s, breaking ground in Smyrna.
Sun Belt Ascendancy
An inability to effectively adapt to rising oil prices and changing consumer preferences in the 1970s created an opening for more fuel-efficient foreign brands to gain a substantial foothold in the American automotive market. Union contracts were inflexible to changes in consumer demand and created inefficiencies and waste for American firms. Bit by bit, these American firms which once exemplified speed and efficiency, grew bloated, out-of-touch, and vulnerable. The crown of centrality which once belonged to Michigan began to recalibrate towards Sun Belt states that were, geographically speaking, more central to the fully developed continental United States.
Sun Belt states, comparatively, are blessed with better weather, meaning less road maintenance and flight delays, as well as proximity to ports on the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. These are all features which, in an era of globalization, work in the favor of firms operating on a large scale. Meanwhile, the agrarian South, a region mocked for its lack of industry, was silently developing a slight edge in its geography and transport systems which would end up reaping great reward.
Mayor Sam Ridley of Smyrna lobbied early in his days as mayor for the development of a large interchange off the newly constructed Interstate 24. The interchange would be a cloverleaf design with wide, gradual turns to facilitate the movement of tractor trailers and high volume traffic. At the time, Smyrna did not produce nearly enough traffic or activity to warrant an interchange of its size, but Mayor Ridley foresaw the strategic advantages the increased mobility could generate. Garnering state and federal funding for the project, Smyrna’s cloverleaf access to the Interstate and proximity to the L&N line and Nashville International Airport would draw attention from Nissan (Boyer 2009).
Nissan Production at Smyrna, Tennessee. Source: The Wheel Network
Planning Theory at Play
Economic geography theory presented by Rodrigue, et al. (2017) classifies manufacturing as a “secondary economic activity” where location is a cost factor that firms try to minimize (Rodrigue 2017). Location costs can be minimized by efficiently situating in places where labor, energy, and land costs are low. Furthermore, it is in the firm’s interest to be in close proximity to ports and airports, as well as highways and railroads.
Where Detroit lost, the Southeast won. And such a shift can be explained through economic geography theory, in which geographical relationships and transport networks are regarded as heavy influencers on economic structures. It is understood in economic geography that firms in a market economy are interested in finding a location that will maximize their economic returns. According to Rodrigue, et al. (2017), the location of economic activities in a market economy is dependent on the nature of the activity itself and on several “location factors”. Primarily, these factors operate at each local, regional, and national level and influence the location of economic activities.
Several site-specific characteristics available in the Southeast present an advantage compared to those in the Detroit area. Costs of land are lower and firms would see more economic benefits building a plant from the ground-up with specific modifications rather than reconfiguring an older one. This desire of auto manufacturers to contract new and specialized plants rather than reconfiguring existing plants has been exhibited by both domestic and foreign auto manufacturers (Canaga Retna, 2007). The level of access to local transportation is a crucial edge the Southeast has gained in the wake of globalization. The nearby ports provide access to international markets. Labor costs are lower in the Southeast, where right-to-work laws are the norm while unionized labor dominated auto manufacturing plants in Michigan. The Southeast is also benefiting from high rates of domestic in-migration and growing consumer markets. The availability of capital at a national level is consistent for the two geographies, but taxes and regulations are lower in the Southeast.
The investments in transport systems made in Smyrna demonstrate through economic geography models how effective such investments can prove to be in a globally connected economy. Furthermore, the distinctions between the regional factors such as labor costs and unionization policies demonstrate how auto manufacturing in the U.S. must remain competitive on a global scale. Above all, the geographic positioning of economic activity, no matter how ingrained with a region’s history, is subject to rapid and upending changes. Through the provision of well-connected, freight-friendly infrastructure, planners and public officials can play a pivotal role in the economic development of their cities.
Featured Image: Inside Nissan’s Smyrna Vehicle Assembly Plant. Source: Clayco.
About the Author: Brandon Tubby is a senior undergraduate at UNC-Chapel Hill majoring in public policy with a minor in urban studies and planning. He competes for the Tar Heels as a distance runner on the varsity cross country and track teams. Brandon’s running recently landed him in Flagstaff, Arizona, where he spent the summer training at 7000 feet elevation and interning with the city’s comprehensive planning department.
Bibliography
Boyer, P. J. (2009). The Road Ahead. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/04/27/the-road-ahead
Canaga Retna, S. (2007, September 13). The Council of State Governments. Retrieved from The Drive to Move South: The Role of the Automobile Industry in the South.
DT&I – The Railroad That Went No Place—Part I. (2003a, December 19). https://web.archive.org/web/20031219203716/http://www.michiganrailroads.com/RRHX/Stories/DT%26I-TheRailroadThatWentNoPlacePart2.htm
Sugrue, Thomas. From Motor City to Motor Metropolis: How the Automobile Industry Reshaped Urban America by Thomas J. Sugrue. (2004). http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Race/R_Overview/R_Overview.htm
The Drive to Move South: The Growing Role of the Automobile Industry in the South. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2020, from https://knowledgecenter.csg.org/content/drive-move-south-growing-role-automobile-industry-south?nopaging=1Rodrigue, J.-P., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2017). The Geography of Transport Systems. New York: Routledge.
This week, we’re sharing an article that originally appeared in Volume 41 of the Carolina Planning Journal back in 2016. The theme of that edition was Just Creativity. To kick it off, DCRP Professor Andrew Whittemore reviewed the literature on placemaking and explored where the arts and creativity intersect with planning.
The purpose of this article is to contextualize the contributions within this issue of the Carolina Planning Journal within a review of recent literature on the subject of creative placemaking. Creative placemaking refers to efforts to use the arts for means exceeding their intrinsic value as beautiful, innovative, critical, and inspiring; in particular it refers to private, public and non-profit sector initiatives seeking to harness the arts for economic and community development purposes.
Creative placemaking is a new term for an old concept. In the City Beautiful era, local elites funded the construction of museums and architecturally elaborate civic spaces with the goal of effecting social change and boosting the image of cities nationally and internationally. In the 1950s and 1960s urban renewal efforts continued the trend, with the most well-known examples being New York’s Lincoln Center and Los Angeles’ Music Center (Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris 2007). In the last quarter of the twentieth century, after the termination of urban renewal, cities turned to public-private redevelopment projects with clearer relationships to business and consumerism. These almost always targeted downtown areas, and included festival marketplaces such as Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and Boston’s Faneuil Hall Marketplace, as well as far more ubiquitous convention centers and sports stadiums. However, since the 1990s, cities, regions, and even small towns have returned to using the arts to promote economic and community development. Artists have often taken the initiative, given the crisis in public arts funding at the end of the 20th century (Markusen 2014, 568). These initiatives have become central to economic and community development efforts since the millennium, and consequently offer “yeasty new areas for research” for academics (Markusen 2014, 568).
In their 2010 White Paper, Markusen and Gadwa outlined the multiple benefits of creative placemaking strategies. While creative placemaking can revolve around large flagship institutions, it is most effective when decentralized, involving multiple entrepreneur-artists, participants, artistic media, and venues. This creates the potential for the revitalization of entire neighborhoods, small towns, and cities around arts-based identities. Not only is the arts a diverse, innovative, and export-generating economic sector (Markusen and Gadwa, 8), but a thriving arts scene, unlike stadiums or convention centers, fosters a unique identity and workforce retention (Markusen and Gadwa 2010, 19-20). Successful strategies, Markusen and Gadwa show, are place-based, creating opportunities for clusters of artistic activity and in turn the beneficial economic and social impacts that such clusters can have. Successful projects range from inner-city neighborhood re-branding, to rural revitalization strategies centered on regional culture, to artist relocation, to youth arts education.
Three significant areas of critique have emerged in the creative placemaking literature in recent years. One area of critique discusses creative placemaking’s frequent basis in economic development imperatives despite the many possible contributions of artists to cities, not to mention the intrinsic value of their art itself. Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris (2007) surveyed economic development offices in major US cities to ascertain the goals of local arts-promotion strategies. They wished to understand how often these strategies were (1) entrepreneurial in character, (2) revolved around “creative class” strategies, or (3) were community-oriented in nature. Entrepreneurial efforts are those explicitly aimed at promoting consumerism and tax revenue, often through the establishment of large flagship venues in downtown areas. Creative class strategies promote economic development by rebranding urban neighborhoods as arts-oriented districts and neighborhoods, thus attracting and retaining young, creative professionals. Community-oriented strategies serve the needs of lower-income communities, providing venues for education, arts incubation, and community participation and activism. Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris found that by far, entrepreneurial strategies dominate when it comes to promoting the arts in US cities, despite the potential diverse contributions of creative placemaking strategies.
A second significant area of critique focuses on the potential of creative placemaking strategies to create gentrification and displacement. The narrative of artist-led neighborhood rebranding and subsequent investment and population turnover has been present within academic discussions for at least thirty years (Zukin 1982). Indeed many planners explicitly view the purpose of creative placemaking to be gentrification: the replacement of a working class population with a wealthier cadre of urbanites (Markusen 2014). Grodach, Foster and Murdoch (2014) recently investigated the relationship of two different kinds of arts activities – the fine arts and commercial arts – with indicators of gentrification (entailing neighborhood turnover) and revitalization (entailing more shared improvements). The authors found that fine arts activities, including museums, galleries, and theaters, correlate negatively with gentrification factors but positively with neighborhood revitalization factors such as rising income levels. On the other hand, commercial arts have significant association with gentrification factors of neighborhood upscaling and neighborhood build-out. These findings suggest that arts-driven gentrification is at least in part a myth, and remind planners of the varied potential of creative placemaking.
A third area of critique focuses on the ramifications of smaller venues for lower income neighborhoods, venues that have historically been “marginalized” by creative placemaking’s dominant entrepreneurial mode (Markusen 2014, 572). Markusen (2014) has recently pointed out that arts-based organizations embedded within local communities can foster activism on diverse neighborhood issues, including health, crime and immigration. Grodach (2009) conducted a survey of Dallas area artist cooperatives, arts incubators offering technical help to artists, art centers specific to ethnic minorities, and art centers intended for community use. Grodach found a story of diverse successes and limitations: some artists avoid engaging with community- oriented venues due to the perceived lower quality of their activities. But Grodach found an array of tools for planners interested in promoting revitalization through creative placemaking, and beckoned planners to move beyond their focus on consumer-oriented strategies.
This issue of the Carolina Planning Journal should be read with this literature and its critiques in mind. There are a number of contributions in this issue focusing on creative placemaking in rural settings and small towns, while others focus on new developments in diverse, big city settings. Other contributions consider the role of art in public space and creative storytelling about public space as means of taking on issues of identity and division in the urban setting. Altogether, the various contributions highlight creative placemaking as an area of planning practice consisting of far more than the conventional consumer-oriented approaches. The contributions tell a hopeful story of a variety of ways in which creative placemaking is revitalizing a great diversity of communities.
References
Grodach, C. (2009). Art Spaces in Community and Economic Development: Connections to Neighborhoods, Artists, and the Cultural Economy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(1).
Grodach, C., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2007). Cultural Development Strategies and Urban Revitalization: a Survey of US Cities” International Journal of Cultural Policy 13, 4:. 13(4), 349-370.
Grodach, C., Foster, N., & Murdoch, J. (2014). “Gentrification and the artistic dividend: the role of the arts in neighborhood change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(1), 21-35.
Markusen, A. (2014). Creative Cities: a 10-Year Research Agenda. Journal of Urban Affairs , 36(2), 567-589.
Markusen, A., & Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative Placemaking. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.Zukin, S. (1982). Loft Living . New York: Johns Hopkins University.
About the Author: Andrew Whittemore is an Assistant Professor at the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He researches planning history and theory, urban form and design of cities, and land use planning in the United States.
Featured Image: This image, taken by Arkansas-based architectural photographer Timothy Hursley, was the cover of the 41st print edition of the Carolina Planning Journal. It features the Newbern Library, a 2013 project of the Rural Studio.
