Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Manville on Downtown Revitalization: What, How and Why?


Guest post by Michael Manville, UCLA (recently published in JAPA, Urban Studies, the Journal of Urban Planning & Development, and the Journal of Planning Literature)

I’ve been thinking a bit recently about downtown Los Angeles, which led in turn to my thinking about downtowns in general. Downtown revitalization is one of the oldest policy projects in urban planning and calls to rescue the downtown, or assertions that a city is nothing without a 24-hour downtown, are common in conversations about cities. So too is the idea that downtown is having a comeback. The American downtown, at long last, seems to be growing again. Fueled by loft conversions, the Los Angeles downtown is growing as well (which has led to a curious boom in stores devoted to dog-pampering).

Aside from dogs and their needs, what should planning researchers ask about when they ask about downtown? I can think of three broad questions.

The What
First, if we are going to call this a comeback (or a “rebound”), what exactly are we coming back from? The decline of American downtowns is often framed as deviation from some longstanding norm, but the heyday of the American downtown was quite short (roughly 1880-1920) and the apex of the Los Angeles downtown was even shorter. A growing downtown is not, in other words, the historic norm, and there seems little reason to frame the decline of downtown as some sort of failure, rather than the next step in urban evolution.

This would be a semantic point, except that governments in almost every city intervene in their downtowns, and this intervention does imply that some sort of failure is occurring. It implies that the downtown should be growing, and that growth downtown is more important than growth in other stagnant areas that do not receive as much government money (anyone looking at the redevelopment expenditures of the City of Los Angeles would have to conclude that rebuilding downtown is more important than rebuilding Watts).

The How
Which brings up the second question. How much of the recent growth that we see in downtowns is actually the result of downtown-oriented public policy? Actually, maybe that one question should be five questions:

  1. What do we mean when we say “downtown”?
  2. Is the downtown growing, in population or jobs or both?
  3. If the downtown is growing, can any of this growth be attributed to public intervention?
  4. If yes, is the amount of growth attributable to public intervention sufficient to justify the public expenditures?
  5. What factors other than government intervention contributed to the growth?
  6. Is the portion of growth generated by public intervention beneficial to the city at large, and more beneficial than if the money had been invested elsewhere?

These are all fairly standard questions for evaluating an economic development policy, but in my reading of the downtown revitalization literature, they don’t show up a lot. In an illuminating panel on downtown housing convened by Fannie Mae, some of the discussants suggested that today’s downtown housing growth is the long-sought payoff to 50 or even 70 years of policy interventions. Unfortunately, perhaps because of the discussion format, there wasn’t much evidence to support that claim.

Assuming the claim is true, however, the next question is whether a policy that requires 50 years to bear fruit is really an efficient use of public resources. That’s where evaluation would be helpful. But many studies of downtown interventions are descriptive and prescriptive: they tell us what planners are doing and what planners should be doing. Policy recommendations and case studies abound, but there isn’t a lot of cost-benefit analysis.

(With some exceptions, of course. Economists, in particular, have helped out by demolishing the idea that sports stadiums and convention centers are engines of downtown redevelopment. Which hasn’t stopped cities from building them.)

In part the lack of evaluation may stem from the practical difficulty of deciphering the costs and benefits of some downtown programs. Many of the public-private partnerships that drive downtown renewal are quite complicated, and it is hard enough to figure out what’s going on—who’s getting what subsidy—let alone decide whether any of it is actually working. But not being able to answer a question isn’t an excuse for not asking it. And with that in mind, I’ll ask my third question.

The Why
Why are large cities in the business of revitalizing their downtowns at all?

If that sounds adversarial, it isn’t meant to: I happen to like downtowns (including LA’s) quite a bit. But assuming that our goal in economic development is to help people rather than places, downtowns seem a strange candidate for public resources, because they often don’t have many people.

The revitalization of Downtown Los Angeles has been ongoing since 1949, and literally billions of dollars have been spent on it. Yet in 2000 downtown LA, with some 30,000 residents, was home to just under 1 percent of LA’s population, and just under 0.5 percent of the LA MSA’s population. Is there anything about these people that warrants public intervention? Some of downtown LA’s residents are quite wealthy. Of those who are low-income, a disturbing number are homeless and in desperate need of help. A fair number are in jail. Many are students. This seems an instance where we would want to target certain populations for assistance, rather than an entire area.

And if for some reason we like the idea of helping places (or if funding formulas dictate place-based assistance), then South Los Angeles, which has well over 100,000 residents and grinding poverty, would seem a more justifiable target for concentrated economic development. The South LA neighborhood of Watts has slightly fewer people than downtown LA (although if you subtract away downtown’s students and prisoners the populations might be almost the same) but a poverty rate that approaches 50 percent.

Another way of saying this is that we should ask what the goal of downtown revitalization is. Revitalizing the downtown is not necessarily the same as revitalizing the center city, nor is it necessarily progressive. A revitalized downtown might help revitalize a center city, but the causality could just as easily run the other way. And a revitalized downtown might help the poor more than the affluent, but the goal of many revitalization efforts seems to be luring affluent people into empty commercial buildings and/or new residential buildings. The equity effects of such a policy seem ambiguous, especially in regions that aren’t growing and don’t have tight housing markets.


So what is the purpose behind downtown revitalization? Why are so many resources devoted to places that seem, on balance, to have so few people? I can think of three possible explanations offhand:

  1. The fiscal base explanation. The downtown has traditionally been the most valuable land in the city, and as it atrophies the city’s ability to collect tax revenues falls, and therefore so does its ability to provide services. In the past cities could annex outlying areas to compensate for the falling desirability of land in their borders, but today this is less of an option. Thus the city needs to invest in its downtown in the hope that the private sector will follow its lead. Arguably the public money will end a prisoner’s dilemma among private developers, none of whom want to “go first.”

  2. The public psyche explanation. The downtown’s importance is larger than its contribution to employment or population. The vibrant downtown is a source of pride for residents and a source of allure to people and firms outside the region. It is the face of the region. It conveys vitality and energy, and suggests that the city is “world class” and cutting-edge. The traditional bustling downtown is associated with successful cities, even if its presence or absence means little to a city’s actual economic health, so cities that wish to compete should have a dynamic 24-hour core with tall buildings and bright lights. People may value the idea of a downtown even if they do not live in or travel to it. (A related, although somewhat different explanation, is the possibility that the public values a government that will subsidize downtown more than it values downtown itself. Citizens may not live in or travel to downtown, but they may nevertheless want a government that subsidizes the downtown, because they consider such subsidies to be evidence of commitment to an ennobling purpose. For subsidies like this efficiency is less important than visibility, because the subsidy satisfies a preference about government, not about downtown.)

  3. The public choice explanation. In this interpretation downtowns are obsolete regimes lacking in market power but strong in political power. Members of these regimes fight their own decline through rent-seeking: tax-increment finances, stadium and convention center subsidies, lavish government buildings and cultural monuments; and subsidies to downtown-centered public transportation. These projects are backed by coalitions that reap concentrated benefits from them, while the costs are spread over the city, county and even federal taxpayers. In Los Angeles, examples of rent-seeking redevelopment could include the Staples Center, the CalTrans building, the new MTA headquarters, the Disney Hall, the Grand Avenue Project, the convention center, the LA Live project, the region’s four rail lines, and the Bunker Hill redevelopment. The political power enjoyed by downtown boosters can explain why money is channeled into downtown rather than into areas that have more need but less political influence.

Of course there are other explanations, some of which are variations on the three above, many of which are not. Downtown revitalization occupies a strange spot in urban economic development. It is resolutely place-oriented rather than people-oriented — the goal is to help the downtown, rather than a population within it (such as the homeless). The place-orientation lends itself to a strong capital bias: when the goal is to develop a place the solution is often to build things in that place. Capital bias, unfortunately, often lends itself to waste.

The downtown revival is continuing to garner media attention, and we should start asking in more depth how much of what we are seeing is policy-driven, and how of what is policy-driven is actually worthwhile.

Gratuitous postscript: One of my advisors would probably not be happy if I discussed downtown Los Angeles for as long as I have without adding that it devotes entirely too much space to parking.

8 comments:

Will said...

Very good article, thank you.

jesse said...

Very interesting. If you're interested, I wrote some of my reactions to your post on my site.

As always on UPR, very thoughtful analysis. Thank you.

ElphinKnight said...

The fiscal purpose seems to me the primary consideration in downtown revitalization. Secondarily the psychological explanation likely holds, but I focus my comment on the former. As the United States economy continues to be more service-based, there is no reason a downtown filled with office buildings could not be a center of employment for a city. With tens- or hundreds-of-thousands of people entering downtown on a daily basis, the population necessary for thriving retail exist. Of course, that retail will draw even more people to the downtown area both for jobs requiring less education and for shopping. All of this benefits people, not just place. Many people will want to live downtown, which provides housing. If the draw is primarily those who are wealthy, so be it. Drawing higher income people into the city core can only help tax revenue necessary for city services. So I believe that there are genuine economic reasons beneficial to the greater populace, not just limited to the population living in the downtown. Given the will and the effort, I feel this can happen much more quickly than the 50-year time frame suggested.

Anonymous said...

Good analysis. Your point 3 (public choice) is right on target. Affluent and politically connected suburbanites have co-opted the "downtown crowd" of which they are often members, to create office buildings for their companies on the cheap in downtown areas (often usiung redevelopment tax-free bonds), while they live in the suburbs and wouldn't be caught dead living in the city, especially in light of the assorted urban pathologies, the catstrophic decline in urban schools, etc. At the end of the day those downtown buildings and the streets surrounding them are abandoned, while their daytime occupants head home to the subuirbs.
Add to that the various policies and subsidies that favor suburban living and disfavor urban living, as well as the fact that suburban home ownership has been a bonanza to large numbers of people, and the story is complete. Only very few people (yuppies, DINKS and empty nesters) find city living agreeable. Others (the vast majority) head out to suburbia and of late to exurbia because that, in Willie Sutton's immortal words, is where the money is. To say nothing of a more agreeable lifestyle for them and their children.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ElphinKnight said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
randall crane said...

I deleted these 2 comments because of an html error in one. Please resubmit those comments.

Anonymous said...

There are a number of points in the comment above, which suggest a number of possible research issues. Let me try to separate a few of them out.

One point that I agree with is that city living for the nonpoor is a niche market, and probably will remain so until problems like urban schooling are resolved. This needn’t mean that downtown revitalization is impossible, however. Many downtowns are relatively small compared to their metropolitan areas, so in theory only a small proportion of the MSA needs to develop a taste for city living in order to bring a downtown back. But this is not to say, I should emphasize, that those with a taste for urbanity are deserving of a subsidy, or that “bringing back” the downtown will do ameliorate some of the center city’s most difficult problems. These issues should not be lumped together. The question of whether the downtown can be brought back is separate from the question of what impacts this comeback would have, which is in turn separate from the question of whether any of these impacts warrant taxpayer support.

The more interesting question raised by the commenter is why suburbanites support downtown revitalization efforts. The commenter suggests that the explanation is pure self-interest: politically connected suburbanites who own land or businesses in the downtown want government money to shore up their investments. I buy this to an extent, but many suburbanites don’t own land or assets in the downtown. In fact many suburbanites have almost no connection to the center city at all. We should expect them therefore to be at best neutral and more likely opposed to urban redevelopment projects.

But the evidence suggests this is not the case. The General Social Survey regularly asks Americans if they support aid to big cities, and since 1990 a majority of suburbanites have said they do. This might be a sign that the suburbs and central cities truly are interdependent, as some New Regionalists have posited. Or it may be a classic case of expressive voting; suburbanites might feel so disconnected from cities and urban policy that they cast the vote (or express the opinion) that makes them feel good. The danger of expressive voting—which has been well-documented in the case of foreign aid—is that expressive voters simply want to know that “something is being done.” They don’t necessarily care if it works. So to the extent that central city assistance is designed to appeal to suburbanites, it may be biased toward large visible projects that suburbanites will see and possibly use. And few urban programs are more visible than downtown revitalization, with its stadiums, skyscrapers and rail lines.

So that’s one explanation. A colleague of mine suggested a second one, which is that suburbanites believe they do have a stake in urban growth, and that their support for downtown revitalization comes from perceived self-interest. If over the last decade many suburbanites have absorbed the arguments of Smart Growth, then they might support downtown revitalization because they want to channel growth away from themselves. Suburbanites who believe that denser, transit-oriented downtown living will forestall development and ease congestion in the suburbs might see direct subsidies to downtown as indirect subsidies to their own way of life.

Of course, that argument depends on downtown living being a substitute, rather than a complement, to suburban living. The evidence here seems to be mixed. Arthur Nelson and his coauthors have argued that anti-sprawl policies can help revitalize central cities. But Anthony Downs has argued that ameliorating central city decay will probably do little to contain sprawl and vice-versa.

-Mike Manville

 

My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://www.planning-research.com
and update your bookmarks.