As our cities slowly rise to prominence once again, and as droves of Americans make their way back to their urban centers, the decisions our developers and city governments make about the future of our downtowns are suddenly magnified.
Proposals to create high-priced condos, sports complexes, auditoriums, and even casinos clash with calls for greenspace, affordable housing, walkability, practical and attractive transit, and neighborhood amenities like small grocery stores. Developers throw lavish plans on the table that will surely usher the wallets of the wealthy, while residents new and old call for a more livable downtown for everyone to enjoy. This conflict is currently playing out in countless cities across the nation.
I’m painting with a bit of a broad brush, but essentially, what so many cities are currently experiencing is the dilemma of whether to invest in large urban draws that will bring outside money in, or to invest in a growing and changing downtown residential population. To put it simply, do cities invest in big projects that create an entertaining space that grows tourism, or do they invest in the people that have already taken a risk by moving back into their long-dormant downtowns?
Often, developers and city governments will say they can improve both by investing in large-scale, big ticket projects and complexes. But what if cities took the opposite approach and catered first to the real world needs of their new and existing downtown residents instead of simply counting them at the turnstile and moving on to these other projects?
Herb Kelleher, Southwest Airlines founder and former CEO, is credited with being one of the most forward thinking business minds of our time. His simple yet beautiful philosophy regarding business is exemplified in his quote below.
“Your employees come first. And if you treat your employees right, guess what? Your customers come back, and that makes your shareholders happy. Start with employees and the rest follows from that.”
With this in mind, let’s think of the people moving into all those beautiful new apartments in your downtown as the “employees.” They are the face of your city, the sales force, the best representatives your city has. Next, the visitors that come into the city occasionally for events and attractions; those are your “customers.” They can be suburbanites or even tourists, bringing important money from outside your city and spending it in your local economy.
Finally, the “shareholders” are the movers and shakers, the developers, the investors, even local governments that spend taxpayer money – the people tasked with funding the ever-growing downtown revitalization. These financial and developmental resources are key to building a vibrant city for residents and visitors alike, but in a perfect world their influence should follow the needs of residents and tourists respectively. Unfortunately, this is often not the case as the biggest wallets are typically the ones dictating the direction of our urban rebirth for obvious reasons. I would never imply that these financial sources are “wrong” or paint them in a bad light, rather I believe they serve better (and ultimately are better served) when they respond to the needs of cities rather than direct them.
Too often, our downtown revival follows the incorrect pattern below:
- Small businesses, artists, and investors breathe life into our long vacant urban centers.
- People begin to “make the leap” and move back downtown as developers begin to create more downtown apartments, unique restaurants, coffee shops, cocktail bars, breweries, and occasionally local retail.
- Local pride follows as the pioneers of the new city revitalization begin the movement of urban excitement once again. I call this the “champagne phase.”
- Local government and developers see the writing on the wall and begin to collaborate on ways to continue bringing downtown back to its former prominence.
- Developers put forth large-scale development project proposals with plenty of “oooh and ahhh” effect, promising to feed the needs of downtown. This is where it starts to go wrong…
- As downtowns begin to fill with people again, these pioneer residents begin to ask for the simple additions of “livable amenities” like parks, a grocery store, light retail, affordable housing, walkability, and transit. Instead, these new residents are suddenly ignored, as “sexier” projects geared more toward tourism and bringing outside money in, begin to take shape in the urban landscape.
- Residents grow frustrated as large-scale projects and big money deals begin to eclipse their desire for a livable downtown. Local government promises that these projects will create jobs and make the city more attractive, meanwhile offering outside investors huge tax incentives, thus giving them an unfair advantage over local businesses. A rift begins to form, and residents receive the tap on the shoulder from above, a sort of “thanks for getting us to this point, but we will take it from here.”
- Residents become bitter and will not stay, leaving downtown vacant yet again, causing everyone to look back at the progress we’ve made in our cities simply as a fad that never took hold.
When we think about residents first, we have the opportunity to turn a “fad” into a sustainable and lasting way to invigorate our urban centers once again. Here’s how the model should go:
- Small businesses, artists, and investors breathe life into our long vacant urban centers.
- People begin to “make the leap” and move back downtown as developers begin to create more downtown apartments, unique restaurants, coffee shops, cocktail bars, breweries, and occasionally local retail.
- Local pride follows as the pioneers of the new city revitalization begin the movement of urban excitement once again. I call this the “champagne phase.”
- Local government and developers see the writing on the wall and begin to collaborate on ways to bring downtown back to its former prominence.
- The powers that be begin first by listening to the new and existing downtown residents and what they want, building a development plan around the people that live there. This should be intermixed with a tremendous amount of research into what has worked for other successful urban revivals.
- Local government should facilitate resident-driven projects, giving the tools and incentives to businesses and developers who live in the communities they help develop instead of awarding tax incentives to out-of-town financial interests.
- Residents who feel their voices heard and see that city government and developers share the vision that they pioneered stay downtown instead of moving away. This has the potential to build pride and even create a multi-generational sense of ownership and self-direction.
- Ready for the kicker? By creating a downtown where residents want to live now and continue to live long(er) term, we create a happier, healthier community with a sense of pride and ownership over their urban center. And when you have a place with happy people, they create cool things. And cool things – you guessed it – usher in tourism, as outsiders travel from outlying areas to see the city that “does it the right way.” And when you have a healthy local economy where people live, work, and play, as well as tourism based on happy, healthy communities with a unique local flavor, developers, investors, and local governments will have a multitude of opportunities to see a return. And what does this all-positive end create that is as important as anything? A thriving attractive place with happy, motivated residents where businesses want to expand and relocate, bringing jobs to your area.
I understand the complexities of urban dynamics, politics, and financial pressure, and I know the above examples are not always so cut and dry. I also understand that often residents don’t always fully understand what actually creates a a strong local economy and livable environment. The positive financial and community impact of narrow streets, traffic calming and cycling infrastructure instead of increased parking and highway access is often a foreign concept for the average voter. Sometimes these decisions have to be made in the best interest of the city fabric based on a wealth of data and examples from other cities. But for the most part, people moving downtown know what additives are needed to keep them living there, working there, and playing there. We simply need to listen.
City leaders, this one’s for you. You can either cater to your new residents by going into the downtown apartment buildings and listening to real people, or you can hop on the big ticket project train en route to a revolving door downtown. You can either build for livability or build for fleeting, often overrated promises of tourism revenue. You can facilitate local small business and community development, or you can create a short-lived wow-factor by opening the floodgates to developers and business interests who take money out of our communities. You can empower and invest in your new downtown residents and let them be the ambassadors for our growing urban paradises, or you can ignore them and build casinos and other flashy complexes that cater to the outsider and likely line the pockets of someone beyond the boundaries of the community.
The choice, as always, is yours to make. Choose to invest in your residents and local business owners – the people that invested first. Tourism, development, and financial success will likely follow. Empower your people, honor the risk they took by taking one yourself, and like happy employees of a strong company, they will take care of everything else.
Thank you for the commentary. Would someone (Arian, RivardReport.com staff) please provide at least one link each of the above scenarios, to help us better understand a DeveloperFirst-Downtown and a ResidentFirst-Downtown? Still, I very much appreciate the enumerated lists and the overarching thought that a municipality’s resident is that municipality’s employee.
Thank you for your comment Jonathan! Forgive me for my late response, I actually broke my thumb and my typing skills are somewhat limited haha!
In answer to your question, I find that most cities usually have a blend of Developer First and Resident-First scenarios within it’s limits… very few are simply one or the other. For example, in my home city of Rochester, a small city by your standards with a population of just over 200,000, we have a downtown that is being flooded with big money development projects… high-end apartments, and expensive office space, and very few livable amenities like public and park space is in the works. Plans for a mixed use light commercial and public space was overrun by plans of a massive performing arts center that is we are still $75 million apart on. Meanwhile, a mile or so south of our downtown is the South Wedge neighborhood, a thriving little “Brooklyn” style area where local small businesses mix with a diverse population of residents… there is a strong sense of community pride in this area, because the people the live there and do business there feel they have made the area what it is… and they have! No big money being thrown around, it’s simply the best of what a city has to offer.
I am not anti-development or anti-big business… we need elements of both! But we need to remember that our cities, first and foremost, are human. They should function in a way that brings people together, especially the people that live there.
Far too often I see the Brooklyn scenario… grassroots neighborhood revival will bring an area back… once it’s back and “cool” again, big money starts getting thrown around as investors begin to see huge potential, and the initial idea of organically creating a beautiful, affordable, close-knit neighborhood gets lost in a sea of rising rents, and big box stores. Again, this is PART of the game… we need some of these elements, but we must always be cautious so as not to let this movement overtake those organic urban creations.
As far as the employee reference, I was not referring to people as employees of a city exactly… it’s more of a way of seeing a city that’s different from the norm. Companies are only as good as their employees, so when an employer takes care of the people that make up their business by listening to their needs, you’re gonna have happier workers and thus happier customers. For cities, it’s the same dynamic, though different arrangement… residents of a city are not BOUND to the city like an employee, but they are the face of the city. What people say about where they live makes all the difference in the world when changing the perceptions people might have. Catering to the needs and wants of residents leads to happier residents, which is the best advertisement for any city! Hope I was able to answer your question, feel free to email me if you have any other questions!
Thank you for the response Arian; to me it was quite quick!
I appreciate Brooklyn and Rochester, NY being stood up as examples. I voted for Prop. 6 from the 2017-2022 city bond, thinking this is part of a good way for a conscientious, engaged citizenry from all walks of life smile and step out with a bit of pride.
Thank you RivardReport.com, and Arian I hope your thumb heals soon and well 🙂
I think one of the major challenges for San Antonio is that the majority of it’s “employees” don’t live downtown. When resources are limited and all employees want a piece of the pie….the pie slices get pretty small. The world the writer lives in “NYC” is a little different than our own.
Hi there, thanks for your comment! First off, a commonly held misconception is that we New Yorkers are all from New York City… I am from Rochester, a city much smaller than San Antonio (population 210,000), and we are a good 7 hours away from NYC. Upstate is much more rural in general, lots of farm country (and unfortunately lots of snow, nearly 100 inches a year!)
So being from Rochester, I’m very familiar with the concept of a smaller downtown who’s residents left in droves over the last 50 years or so… I assume the same thing happened where you are? This is nothing new, it happened all over the United States, partially as a result of the growth of highway infrastructure and the GI Bill believe it or not (that’s a long story for another time!). I am willing to bet that San Antonio is starting to see a downtown revival, and I am willing to bet that there are dozens of residential development projects currently in the works downtown. I say this because this is literally happening everywhere, in cities big and small. My own city of Rochester with a fraction of your population has 21 residential development projects currently in process downtown, and we still can’t keep up with the demand.
While not many people live in your downtown now, I am willing to bet that will change DRAMATICALLY over the next 10 years. The important thing for San Antonio, like any other city, is to welcome these residents and let them help dictate the direction the city takes next. Hope this helps! Get ready for a downtown population explosion! Feel free to email me with any questions! 🙂
Yawn. So tired of the topic. Since Cisneros was Mayor, the City looked toward attracting tourists. Heywood Sanders has an encylopedia on incentives the city has given away. Social justice groups have opposed the City tourism agenda. Let’s face it, the people who run this City make their fortunes by tearing down and building anew. Please stop talking about it, they don’t need help to enlarge their empire.
I would say from your description it sounds like this topic needs to be discussed more, not less. As frustrating as it can be, and as often as this topic is addressed, giving in means we lose any chance to make a difference.
I am often frustrated when I see cities go in directions that might be detrimental. A small city near me is having a real nice pro-local, grassroots urban revival… but plans for large scale development, including and always dreaded downtown casino are currently in the works. Many in local government and residents are so starry-eyed by the big money being thrown around that they fail to see the dangerous path it may lead the city down.
At the same time, I know that my writings have helped deter some of these situations, reminds me that, while we might not “win ’em all” we have to keep speaking out for what’s right for our cities. Best of luck to you! 🙂