Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-dfw9g Total loading time: 0.573 Render date: 2022-08-08T01:52:10.850Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Five Downtown Strategies: Policy Discourse and Downtown Planning Since 1945

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Carl Abbott
Affiliation:
Portland State University
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1993

References

Notes

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), 118, 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

5. Klove, Robert C., “The Definition of Standard Metropolitan Areas,” Economic Geography 28 (April 1952): 95104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, Kenneth, Metropolitan America: Urban Life and Urban Policy in the United States, 1940–1980 (Jackson, Miss., 1986), 2430.Google Scholar

6. Burgess, E. W., “The Growth of the City,” in Park, Robert E., ed., The City (Chicago, 1925)Google Scholar; Hoyt, Homer, The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities (Washington, D.C., 1939).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): 1636Google 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): 189222CrossRefGoogle 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): 1846CrossRefGoogle 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

9. Breese, Gerald, The Daytime Population of the Central Business District of Chicago (Chicago, 1949)Google Scholar; Foley, Donald L., “The Daily Movement of Population into Central Business Districts,” American Sociological Review 17 (October 1952): 538–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. See the studies inventoried in Weiss, Shirley, The Central Business District in Transition (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1957), 2736.Google Scholar

11. Jonassen, C. T., The Shopping Center Versus Downtown: A Motivation Research on Shopping Habits and Attitudes in Three Cities (Columbus, Oh., 1955), 100Google Scholar; Carroll, J. D., Jr., “The Future of the Central Business District,” Public Management 35 (July 1953): 150–53.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), 99112; 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): 727CrossRefGoogle 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), 191222; 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

17. Silver, Twentieth-Century Richmond, 84; Parks, Robert James, “Grasping on the Coattails of Progress: City Planning in Nashville, Tennessee, 1932–1962” (M.A. thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1971), 125–33Google Scholar; Doyle, Don, Nashville since the 1920s (Knoxville, 1985), 121–29.Google Scholar

18. , Gillette, “National Workshop”; Louis Justement, New Cities for Old (New York, 1946), 95144. 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

20. McKeever, J. Ross, “A View of the Year,” Urban Land 14 (January 1955): 4Google Scholar; Rouse, James W., “Will Downtown Face Up to Its Future?Urban Land 16 (February 1957): 1, 3–5.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

25. Lowe, Jeanne, Cities in a Race with Time: Progress and Poverty in America's Renewing Cities (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Adde, Leo, Nine Cities: The Anatomy of Downtown Renewal (Washington, D.C., 1969); Abbott, New Urban America, 146–69.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): 3542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Jurkat's work is cited in Rannells, John, “Approaches to Analysis,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 27 (February 1961): 23.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): 8891Google 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): 2937Google 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

30. Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York, 1961)Google Scholar; Gans, Herbert, The Urban Villagers (Glencoe, Ill., 1962)Google Scholar; Lynch, Kevin, The Image of the City (Cambridge, Mass., 1960).Google Scholar

31. Gruen, Heart of Our Cities, 321–25.

32. Abrams, Charles, “Downtown Decay and Revival,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 27 (February 1961): 6; Jacobs, Death and Life, 168, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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), 5572.Google Scholar See also Stutz, Frederick P., “Adjustment and Mobility of the Elderly Poor Amid Downtown Renewal,” Geographical Review 66 (October 1976): 391400.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), 75109Google 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

38. Abbott, Carl, Portland: Politics, Planning, and Growth in a Twentieth-Century City (Lincoln, Nebr., 1983), 207–28Google Scholar, and Urban Design in Portland, Oregon, as Policy and Process, 1960–1989,” Planning Perspectives 6 (1991): 118.CrossRefGoogle 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): 1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snedcof, Harold, Cultural Facilities in Mixed-Use Development (Washington, D.C., 1985).Google Scholar

42. Whyte, William H., The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C., 1980)Google Scholar and City: Rediscovering the Center (New York, 1988).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): 5392Google 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), 23. 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).

48. Wrenn, Tony, Urban Waterfront Development (Washington, D.C., 1983)Google Scholar; McNulty, Robert, The Economics of Amenity (Washington, D.C. 1985).Google Scholar

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): 917Google 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), 77124Google 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), 3233.Google Scholar

58. Cohen, Robert, “The Changing Transactional Economy and Its Spatial Implications,” Elcistics 46 (January–February 1979): 714Google 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), 4585.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), 80123.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), 80125Google 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), 1516Google 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), 5269Google 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): 1735CrossRefGoogle 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

You have Access
26
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Five Downtown Strategies: Policy Discourse and Downtown Planning Since 1945
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Five Downtown Strategies: Policy Discourse and Downtown Planning Since 1945
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Five Downtown Strategies: Policy Discourse and Downtown Planning Since 1945
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *