Access to
capital is a critical factor in the viability of cities, but it’s not the only
obstacle to a post-bankruptcy rebirth for Detroit, Stockton, and the many cities
for which a bankruptcy may be in the future.
Instead, access to capital is less important than a sound strategy for
new land uses and attitudes that can revitalize a city. Luckily, we have many examples of good
strategies.
Sophie
Quinton of Atlantic Cities writes about a booming urban district in Cleveland. Although the industrial histories are
different, Cleveland shares a Rust Belt heritage with Detroit, so should be a
good role model for a Detroit rebirth.
What has worked in Cleveland may also work in Detroit.
The key
player in for the 4th Street district in Cleveland was a land development firm
with the resources, patience, and good timing to assemble the parcels to
provide necessary for a critical mass.
The strategy was to create an entertainment district that would create a
demand for housing and retail. The
strategy is working as other development firms are jumping into the district
with their own projects.
I was
recently introduced to the term “risk-oblivious”, which provides insight to the
Cleveland effort. The concept is based
on the fact that the early stages of urban revitalization often include pushing
back against a lawlessness that had permeated the district.
Many
demographic segments are unwilling to reside in a district in which illegal
activities recently held sway. However, young
adults are often willing to be risk-oblivious in exchange for lower rents and
the sense of living on the cutting edge.
The process of urban revitalization is the gradual transition from
risk-oblivious residents to risk-averse residents. By the time the risk-averse folks arrive, the
risk-oblivious have begun pioneering another revitalization district.
Using that
terminology, the 4th Street district in Cleveland is well along the process
from risk-oblivious to risk-averse.
Also, a
developer need not be the catalyst of urban revitalization. In both Chatham Square in New Haven and Codman Square near Boston, it was neighborhood
organizations who led the effort.
In Chatham
Square, the key step occurred when multiple citizen initiatives to preserve the
district were coordinated into a coherent strategy. The strategy included neighborhood festivals
and outreach to the real estate community.
The outreach
featured a frank acknowledgment of the challenges still faced by the
neighborhood, but paired those challenges with the strategies being implemented
to overcome the challenges. It was a
successful approach, with new residents buying into a neighborhood with vision.
For Codman
Square, the focus was on new transit stations.
A transit line had been extended through the district, but no stations
had been provided. Extensive lobbying
eventually brought those stations to the district, triggering other
neighborhood improvements
It’s
interesting to note that the Cleveland, New Haven, and Boston stories were are
all headlined by relatively minor players.
In one case, it was a small development firm, with the other two being
neighborhood organizations.
I recently debated
a friend about the need for major capital in urban rebirth. He argued that a large player was required to
secure sufficient land and to provide sufficient capital for urban
revitalization to succeed. I disagreed,
arguing that the better route was through numerous small players working in
parallel. The Cleveland, New Haven, and
Boston examples buttress my argument.
I suggest
that urbanism, in its totality, is a winning gamble, but that individual wagers
can be lost. That fact argues for many
small bets in place of fewer large bets.
I’ll offer
an analogy to support my point. Let’s
say that a gambler has $10,000 that he must turn into $100,000. Furthermore, let’s assume that he has
identified a casino which will return an average of 102 percent of a wager. (As most presumably know, a realistic number
is 98 percent, which is how casinos stay in business.)
To continue
with our analogy, what is the best strategy for the gambler upon entering the
casino? Is it to place the entire
$10,000 on a single bet? Or to place a series
of $10 bets?
Although the
odds favor the gambler, a single large bet would give away that advantage. With a single large bet, especially if
winning bets are doubled, the gambler would likely soon go bust. But with many smaller bets, the gambler would
almost assuredly build his stake to his $100,000 goal.
Urbanism
similarly benefits from many small bets, however frustrating it may be to those
who wish to take a big jump into urbanism.
There is
another way in which small works better for urbanism. Urbanism is an attempt to recreate a historic
way of building cities, but applied to 21st century technology and sensibilities. No one has a perfect vision of what that means. Numerous small projects, acting as crucibles,
provide the best laboratory for that effort.
If a project is struggling to find market acceptance, the developer can
look to another project a few blocks away for different ideas. Large, extended scale projects don’t offer
that opportunity.
I’ll offer
one last thought before closing. The
Cleveland, New Haven, and Boston examples provide models for urban
revitalization where the neighborhood has reached bottom. But the concepts also have application when
the bottom is still in the future. With
many cities looking at the possibility of bankruptcy in the not-too-distant
future, now might be the best time for developers and neighborhoods group, with
support from city hall, to implement these strategies.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
I have to challenge your analogy: If a gambler puts $10,000 on a roulette number, there's a 1 in 35 chance that they'll have $350,000, and 35 in 36 chance (I think) that they'll be broke. If a gambler puts $10 at a time on a roulette number, if they continue to play it's a certainty that they'll be broke.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with you that projects like Stockton's waterfront development were the equivalent of putting the entire stake on one number. Effective urbanism needs to be putting small stakes on small bets to see if the strategy can be effective long-term. And we need to not get distracted by the occasional jackpot if the overall odds of winning still favor the house.
Dan, thanks for the comment. However, you missed a key point in my analogy. I said to assume that the gambler had identified a gamble with an average return of 102% of the wager. (I didn't say it was realistic.) Using roulette as an example, let's say that the gambler found a wheel for which zero comes up 1 in 35 rolls, compared to the expected 1 in 38. The payoff would be 36-to-1. If the gambler put the entire stake on zero, he has a 3% chance of reaching $100,000. But if he plays $10 wagers all day and all night long, he'll win $360 for every $350 he plays, very slowly but securely building his funds.
DeleteI agree with your note about Stockton. The redevelopment plan wasn't the worst concept ever, but it was too much of the stake on a single spin of the wheel. And I agree that we can be distracted, in many walks of life, by the occasional jackpot.