Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 October 2011
Americans have planned for their downtowns within a continually changing framework of images and assumptions about the nature of central business districts. During each decade since World War II, discussion of downtown problems and possibilities has been dominated by a distinct set of assumptions that has conditioned academic research, federal policy, and local planning. From decade to decade, experts on downtowns have chosen different themes as central to the interpretation of downtown growth, change, and policy needs. As the understanding of the situation has changed, so have the preferred planning solutions and public interventions.
1. Stone, Clarence, Economic Growth and Neighborhood Discontent: System Bias in the Urban Renewal Program of Atlanta (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1976)Google Scholar; Hirsch, Arnold, Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940–1960 (New York, 1983)Google Scholar; Hartman, Chester, The Transformation of San Francisco (Totowa, N.J., 1984)Google Scholar; Silver, Christopher, Twentieth-Century Richmond: Planning, Politics, and Race (Knoxville, 1984)Google Scholar; Suttles, Gerald, The Man-Made City (Chicago, 1990)Google Scholar; Krumholz, Norman and Keating, W. Dennis, “Downtown Plans of the 1980s: The Case for More Equity in the 1990s,” Journal of the American Planning Association 57 (Spring 1991): 136–52.Google Scholar
2. McDonald, Terrrence, The Parameters of Urban Fiscal Policy: Socioeconomic Change and Political Culture in San Francisco, 1860–1906 (Berkeley, 1986), 1–18, criticizes the structural-functional approach for leaving out human agency and the political process and for assuming that what did happen was what had to happen.Google Scholar
3. Teaford, Jon C., The Rough Road to Renaissance: Urban Revitalization in America, 1940–1985 (Baltimore, 1990).Google Scholar
4. Frieden, Bernard and Sagalyn, Lynne, Downtown, Inc.: How America Rebuilds Its Cities (Cambridge, Mass., 1989).Google Scholar
7. Hurd, Richard M., Principles of City Land Values (New York, 1924)Google Scholar; Schmid, Calvin F., “Land Values as an Ecological Index,” Research Studies of the State College of Washington 9 (March 1941): 16–36Google Scholar; Rannells, John, The Core of the City: A Pilot Study of Changing Land Uses in Central Business Districts (New York, 1956).Google Scholar
8. Murphy, Raymond and Vance, James E., Jr., “Delimiting the CBD,” Economic Geography 30 (July 1954): 189–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “A Comparative Study of Nine Central Business Districts,” Economic Geography 30 (October 1954): 301–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murphy, Raymond, Vance, James E., Jr., and Epstein, Bart, “Internal Structure of the CBD,” Economic Geography 31 (January 1955): 18–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hartman, George W., “The Central Business District: A Study in Urban Geography,” Economic Geography 26 (October 1950): 237–44. The Census Bureau first reported retail sales data for CBDs in 1954 (including 1948 data in the reporting).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. See the studies inventoried in Weiss, Shirley, The Central Business District in Transition (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1957), 27–36.Google Scholar
12. Burton, Hal, The City Fights Back (New York, 1954), 208,Google Scholar 257–60; Nelson, Richard and Aschman, Frederick, Conservation and Rehabilitation of Major Shopping Districts, Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin No. 22 (Washington, D.C., 1954), 5Google Scholar; “People's Attitudes Toward Downtown Providence,” Urban Land 15 (November 1956): 8.Google Scholar
13. Abbott, Carl, The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1987), 113–22Google Scholar; Nash, Gerald, “Planning for the Postwar City: The Urban West in World War II,” Arizona and the West 27 (Summer 1985), 99–112; Teaford, Rough Rood to Renaissance, 36–42.Google Scholar
14. For example, see Thomas, June Manning, “Attacking Economic Blight in Postwar Detroit,” and Dwight Hoover, “City Planning in Middletown, U.S.A.: Muncie, Indiana, 1920–1990,” in Proceedings of the Third National Conference on City Planning History (Hilliard, Oh., 1990), 165–84 and 198–218.Google Scholar
15. The plans are summarized and analyzed in the following: Gillette, Howard, Jr., “A National Workshop for Urban Policy: The Metropolitanization of Washington, 1946–1968,” The Public Historian 7 (Winter 1985): 7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fairbanks, Robert B., “Metropolitan Planning and Downtown Redevelopment: The Cincinnati and Dallas Experiences,” Planning Perspectives 2 (September 1987): 237–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fairbanks, Robert B. and Miller, Zane, “The Martial Metropolis: Housing, Planning, and Race in Cincinnati, 1940–1955,” in Lotchin, Roger, ed., The Martial Metropolis: U.S. Cities in War and Peace (New York, 1984), 191–222; Silver, Twentieth-Century Richmond. Involved in developing the plans were an overlapping group of consultants and specialists: Harland Bartholomew for Dallas, Richmond, and Washington; Sherwood Reeder for Cincinnati and Richmond; Tracy Augur for Cincinnati and Washington; and Ladislas Segoe for Cincinnati and Richmond.Google Scholar
16. On the Dallas plan, see also Wood, E. A., “A City Looks to the Future: Dallas Believes in City Planning,” Southwest Review 29 (Spring 1944): 310–11.Google Scholar
18. , Gillette, “National Workshop”; Louis Justement, New Cities for Old (New York, 1946), 95–144. Tracy Augur was the chair of the transportation subcommittee.Google Scholar
19. Gruen, Victor, The Heart of Our Cities (New York, 1964), 47Google Scholar, 218–19, 225, 305; Gillette, Howard, Jr, “The Evolution of the Planned Shopping Center in Suburb and City,” Journal of the American Planning Association 51 (Autumn 1985): 454–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Typical Downtown Transformed,” Architectural Forum 103 (May 1956): 146–55.Google Scholar
21. Teaford, Rough Road to Renaissance, 123.
22. Boyce, Ronald R. and Clark, W. A. V., “Selected Spatial Variables and Central Business District Retail Sales,” Papers of the Regional Science Association 11 (1963): 167–94Google Scholar; Sternlieb, George, “The Future of Retailing in the Downtown Core,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 29 (May 1963): 102–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Russwurm, Lome, “The Central Business District Retail Sales Mix, 1948–58,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54 (December 1964): 524–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Teaford, Rough Road to Renaissance, 48–50; Barrows, Robert, “Indianapolis: Silver Buckle on the Rust Belt,” in Bernard, Richard, ed., Snowbelt Cities: Metropolitan Politics in the Northeast and Midwest since World War II (Bloomington, 1990), 144Google Scholar; Browning, Clyde, “Recent Studies of Central Business Districts,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 27 (February 1961): 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Cleveland City Planning Commission, Downtown Cleveland 1975: The Downtown General Plan (Cleveland, 1959):Google Scholar Jayne Merkel, “Mid-Century Planning in Cincinnati: The 1948 Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan and the 1964 Plan for Downtown Cincinnati,” in Proceedings of Third National Conference on City Planning History, 452–78; Fairbanks, “Cincinnati and Dallas.” See also a discussion of the Central Minneapolis Plan (1960) in Altshuler, Alan, The City Planning Process (Ithaca, N.Y. 1965).Google Scholar
26. Horwood, Edgar W. and Boyce, Ronald R., Studies of the Central Business District and Urban Freeway Development (Seattle, 1959)Google Scholar; Browning, “Recent Studies,” 82–83; Smith, Larry, “Space for the CBD's Functions,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 27 (February 1961): 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. City of Oakland, Central District Plan (Oakland, Calif., 1966)Google Scholar; Browning, “Recent Studies,” 85–86; Weiss, Shirley and Thabit, Walter, “The Central Business District Plan for Downtown Baltimore,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 27 (February 1961): 88–91Google Scholar. See also Real Estate Research Corporation, Economic Survey and Market Analysis of Downtown Denver (Chicago, 1962).Google Scholar
29. Anderson, Martin, The Federal Bulldozer (Cambridge, Mass., 1964)Google Scholar; Gans, Herbert, “The Failure of Urban Renewal,” Commentary 40 (April 1965): 29–37Google Scholar; Wilson, James Q., ed., Urban Renewal: The Record and the Controversy (Cambridge, Mass., 1966)Google Scholar; Greer, Scott, Urban Renewal and American Cities: The Dilemma of Democratic Intervention (Indianapolis, 1965).Google Scholar
31. Gruen, Heart of Our Cities, 321–25.
33. Getis, A. and Getis, J. M., “Retail Store Spatial Affinities,” Urban Studies 5 (1960): 317–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hardwick, W. G., Vancouver (Don Mills, Ontario, 1974)Google Scholar; Berry, Brian, The Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967)Google Scholar; Conway, Dennis et al., “The Dallas-Fort Worth Region,” in Adams, John S., ed., Contemporary Metropolitan America (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), 4:17; Peirce Lewis, “New Orleans—The Making of an Urban Landscape,” in Adams, Contemporary Urban America, 2:193.Google Scholar
34. Grey, Arthur L., Bonsteel, David L., Winkel, Gary H., and Parker, Roger A., “People and Downtowns: Use, Attitudes, Settings,” 1970 study excerpted in Downtown Mall Annual and Urban Design Report, vol. 4 (New York, 1978), 55–72.Google Scholar See also Stutz, Frederick P., “Adjustment and Mobility of the Elderly Poor Amid Downtown Renewal,” Geographical Review 66 (October 1976): 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Bowden, Martyn J., “Downtown through Time: Delineation, Expansion, and Internal Growth,” Economic Geography 47 (April 1971): 121–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Growth of Central Districts in Large Cities,” in Schnore, Leo, ed., The New Urban History (Princeton, N.J., 1975), 75–109Google Scholar; Ward, David, “The Industrial Revolution and the Emergence of Boston's Central Business District,” Economic Geography 42 (April 1966): 152–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Central Association of Seattle, “Discussion Guide: Seattle Central Business District Plan” (1963) and “The Emerging Downtown: 1970,” in Downtown Seattle Development Association Papers, Box 8, University of Washington Manuscripts Department.
37. Daly, Janet, “The Changing Image of the City: Planning for Downtown Omaha, 1945–1973” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1987).Google Scholar
39. The neighborhood movement of 1965–80 paralleled this era of downtown analysis with its revaluation of small-scale and everyday environments. Many cities had institutionalized and routinized neighborhood participation by the 1980s.
40. Dallas Department of Planning and Development, Central Business District: Past Planning and Current Issues (Dallas, 1982)Google Scholar; Central Atlanta Progress, Central Area Study II (Atlanta, 1988)Google Scholar; Dayton Department of Planning, Downtown Dayton (Dayton, 1976)Google Scholar; Government of the District of Columbia, A Living Downtown for Washington, D. C.: Planning Concepts (Washington, D.C., 1981)Google Scholar; Mayor's Downtown Plan Committee, Downtown D.C.: Recommendations for the Downtown Plan (Washington, D.C., 1982)Google Scholar; Richmond City Planning Commission, Downtown Plan (Richmond, 1984)Google Scholar; Oakland Central District Development Program: Initial Planning and Management Concepts (Oakland, 1984)Google Scholar; Denver Partnership, Inc., and Denver Planning Office, Downtown Area Plan (Denver, 1986)Google Scholar; City of Seattle, Land Use and Transportation Plan for Downtown Seattle (Seattle, 1985).Google Scholar
41. Zukin, Sharon, Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change (Baltimore, 1982)Google Scholar; Hendon, William and Shaw, Douglas, “The Arts and Urban Development,” in Gappert, Gary, ed., The Future of Winter Cities (Beverly Hills, Calif., 1987), 209–17Google Scholar; Whitt, J. A., “Mozart in the Metropolis: The Arts Coalition and the Urban Growth Machine,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 23 (September 1987): 15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snedcof, Harold, Cultural Facilities in Mixed-Use Development (Washington, D.C., 1985).Google Scholar
43. Venturi, Robert, Brown, Denise Scott, and Izenour, Stephen, Learning from Las Vegas (Cambridge, Mass., 1972).Google Scholar
44. Jameson, Fredric, “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” New Left Review, no. 146 (July–August 1984): 53–92Google Scholar; Jencks, Charles, Post-Modernism: The New Classicism m Art and Architecture (New York, 1987)Google Scholar; Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodemity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (London, 1989).Google Scholar
45. Raban, Jonathan, Soft City (London, 1974); Harvey, Condition of Postmodernity, 3–6.Google Scholar
46. Alexander, Laurence A., “Introduction,” in A New Concept: The Downtown Shopping Center (New York, 1975), 2–3. Frieden and Sagalyn, Downtown, Inc., 365–67, list seventy-five major projects. Eleven opened in 1971–75, twenty-seven opened in 1976–80, and thirty-seven opened in 1981–85.Google Scholar
47. Harvey, Condition of Postmodemity, 91; Frieden and Sagalyn, Downtown, Inc., 191– 97;“Horton Plaza, San Diego, California,” Urban Land Institute Project File 16 (1986).
49. Gale, Dennis, Washington, D.C: Inner-City Revitalization and Minority Suburbanization (Philadelphia, 1987), 41.Google Scholar
50. Falk, Nicholas, “Baltimore and Lowell: Two American Approaches,” Built Environment 12 (1986): 145–52Google Scholar; Hall, Peter, Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century (London, 1988), 347–51Google Scholar. For positive evaluations, see Fondersmith, John, “Downtown 2040,” The Futurist 22 (March–April 1988): 9–17Google Scholar, and Attoe, Wayne and Logan, Donn, American Urban Architecture: Catalysts in the Development of Cities (Berkeley, 1989).Google Scholar
51. Jane S. Brooks and Alma H. Young, “Revitalizing the Central Business District in the Face of Decline: The Case of New Orleans, 1970–1990,” Working Paper No. 5, Division of Urban Research and Policy Studies, University of New Orleans (1991); James C. O'Connell, “The Role of Marketing in Urban Plans: The Case of Springfield, Massachusetts,” paper presented at Fourth National Conference on City Planning History, Richmond, November 1991; Suttles, Man-Mode City, 34–38; Milwaukee Department of City Development, Downtown Goals and Policies, 1985 (Milwaukee, 1985); Richmond, Down-town Plan, 131, 135.Google Scholar
52. Barnett, Jonathan, Urban Design as Public Policy (New York, 1974)Google Scholar and An Introduction to Urban Design (New York, 1982), 77–124Google Scholar; Halpern, Kenneth, Downtown USA: Urban Design in Nine American Cities (New York, 1978)Google Scholar; Ramati, Raquel, How to Save Yourr Own Street (New York, 1981).Google Scholar
53. San Francisco Department of City Planning, Downtown Plan (San Francisco, 1985)Google Scholar; Krumholz and Keating, “Downtown Plans”; Jacobs, Allan, Making City Planning Work (Chicago, 1978); Barnett, Introduction to Urban Design, 125–36. Charles Jencks, Post-Modernism, 247–49, describes San Francisco's plan as “standard Post-Modern theory.”Google Scholar
54. Schmidt, William E., “U. S. Downtowns: No Longer Downtrodden,” New York Times, 11 October 1987, 1, 28:2.Google Scholar
55. Frieden and Sagalyn, Downtown, Inc., 265.
56. Levitt, Rachelle, ed., Cities Reborn (Washington, D.C, 1987), 67; Thomas Campbell, “Cleveland: The Struggle for Stability,” in Bernard, Snowbelt Cities, 131.Google Scholar
57. Jackson, John B., “The Sunbelt City: The Modern City, the Strip, and the Civic Center,” in The Southern Landscape Tradition in Texas (Fort Worth, 1980), 32–33.Google Scholar
58. Cohen, Robert, “The Changing Transactional Economy and Its Spatial Implications,” Elcistics 46 (January–February 1979): 7–14Google Scholar; Friedmann, John and Wolff, Goetz, “World City Formation: An Agenda for Research and Action,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6 (1982): 309–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fainstein, Susan, Fainstein, Norman, and Schwartz, Alex, “Economic Shifts and Land Use in the Global City: New York, 1940–87,” in Beauregard, Robert, ed., Atop the Urban Hierarchy (Totowa, N.J., 1989), 45–85.Google Scholar
59. Schwartz, Gail Garfield, Where's Main Street, U.S.A.? (Westport, Conn., 1984)Google Scholar; Pred, Allen, City-Systems in Advanced Economies (New York, 1977)Google Scholar; Black, J. Thomas, “The Changing Economic Role of Central Cities and Suburbs,” in Solomon, Arthur, ed., The Prospective City (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), 80–123.Google ScholarFriedrichs, Jurgen and Goodman, Allen, The Changing Downtown: A Comparative Study of Baltimore and Hamburg (New York, 1987), emphasize the growth of the tertiary sector and the expansion of downtown office space.Google Scholar
60. Hill, Richard Child, “Crisis in the Motor City,” in Fainstein, Norman and Fainstein, Susan, eds., Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Development (New York, 1983), 80–125Google Scholar; Feagin, Joe R., “The Corporate Center Strategy: The State in Central Cities,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 21 (1986): 617–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simmie, James, “Planning Theory and Practice: An Analysis of the San Francisco Downtown Plan,” Cities 4 (1987): 304–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61. Peterson, Paul, City Limits (Chicago, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lassar, Terry, ed., City Deal Making (Washington, D.C., 1990)Google Scholar; Frieden, Bernarrd J., “Center City Transformed: Planners as Developers,” Journal of the American Planning Association 56 (Autumn 1990): 423–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Squires, Gregory, ed., Unequal Partnerships: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment in Postwar America (New Brunswick, N.J., 1989)Google Scholar; Suttles, Man-Made City; Bennett, Larry, “Beyond Urban Renewal: Chicago's North Loop Redevelopment Project,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 22 (December 1986): 242–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62. Hall, Cities of Tomorrow, 347–51.
63. Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Plan for Center City (Philadelphia, 1988), 15–16Google Scholar; Madeline L. Cohen, “The 1963 and the 1988 Plans for Philadelphia's Center City: A Problem of Differing Planning Philosophies,” Working Paper No. 202, Society for American City and Regional Planning History, 1990; Mandelbaum, Seymour, “Reading Plans,” Journal of the American Planning Association 56 (Summer 1990): 350–56; Krumholz and Keating, “Downtown Plans,” 146–47.Google Scholar
64. Savitch, H. V., Post-Industrial Cities: Politics and Planning in New York, Paris, and London (Princeton, N.J., 1988), 52–69Google Scholar; Fainstein, Susan and Fainstein, Norman, “Economic Restructuring and the Politics of Land Use Planning in New York City,” Journal of the American Planning Association 53 (Spring 1987): 237–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65. O'Connell, “Marketing in Urban Plans”; San Francisco, Downtown Plan; Portland Bureau of Planning, Central City Plan (Portland, 1988); Seattle, Land Use and1 Transportation Plan.Google Scholar
66. This article is not the first to find major turning points in ideas about downtowns. Janet Daly examined the period from 1945 to 1973 and found a basic change of attitudes in the late 1960s. Robert Fairbanks and Zane Miller have put the divide in the late 1950s, fitting the change within a larger argument about a shift of American political culture from the remnants of republicanism to consumer liberalism and the promotion of individual self-fulfillment. See Daly, “Planning for Downtown Omaha”; Miller, Zane, “History and the Politics of Community Change in Cincinnati,” The Public Historian 5 (Fall 1983): 17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zane Miller and Bruce Tucker, “Cincinnati: The New Urban Politics,” in Bernard, Snowbelt Cities, 91; Fairbanks, Robert B., Making Better Citizens: Housing Reform and the Community Development Strategy in Cincinnati (Urbana, Ill., 1989).Google Scholar
67. For example, see the preservation/development tensions described for San Francisco, Seattle, and other cities in Collins, Richard, Waters, Elizabeth, and Dofson, A. Bruce, America's Downtowns: Growth, Politics, and Preservation (Washington, D.C., 1991).Google Scholar