REMAKING THE CITIES
Proceedings of the 1988 International Conference in Pittsburgh
Synopsis by Joan Veon
Introduction - David Lewis
"The 1988 Remaking Cities Con. in Pitt focused on the problems and opportunities of older industrial cities, particularly in Europe and the US as they face the challenges of accelerating change...And although some nations kept their kings, queens, and emperors, the reins of financial power shifted from the old feudal families into the hands of bankers, industrialists and corporate investors. To remain ahead of the game, they made continuing investments in new technologies and efficiencies of management; they fought often, bitterly, against the rising demands of organized labor for a more equitable distribution of wealth and a share in the decision-making power...
Key
The idea that there should be an international forum in Pittsburgh on the ways older industrial cities can change and fight back grew from a meeting which HRH the Prince of Wales initiated at the American Institute of Architects in Washington, D. C. at which he asked to be briefed in particular on the U.S. experience in generation grass-roots leadership as a vital component of urban regeneration.
A public-private coalition initiated smoke and water pollution controls, a pioneer example of environmental legislation, and the coalition also initiated the nations's first urban renewal legislation to enable it to comprehensively rebuild downtown. ....Pittsburgh is the third largest concentration of Fortune 500 corporations in the U.S....
A Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) was organized by the AIA to report to the conference on the lower Monongahela Valley as a means of opening up the subject of how obsolete 19th C industrial communities may face the challenge of the 21st Century. The teem of 17 planners, economists, historians, engineers, architects, and developers from Britain and the U.S. was the largest in the 20 years of the R/UDAT program. Several of the citizens who participated in the R/UDAT also attended the Conference.
The conference was organized in 3 tiers:
Remaking the Cities is the second in a series of broadening conferences on this topic. The First occurred in London in November, 1986 under the title "Building Communities, where the focus was predominately British. The third will be in Essen, Germany, in the spring, 1990, and will be broadened to focus on Europe; and the fourth will probably occur in Japan in 1991.
Local citizen leadership is perhaps the most important part of the revitalization of older communities. But citizen leadership is powerless unless public and private investment can be harnessed to it. Making these two aspects of urban futures understood lies a the core of the involvement of HRH the Prince of Wales....
Ted Pappas - AIA
"To get to the future from where we are now, we must make from for, and nurture, what I call the "citizen architect." This person is committed to universal unfranchisement, and works to see that everyone in the community is given a meaningful stake in, and a part directing the future. The citizen architect is committed to seeing that, at the drafting table, the public's hand exerts at least as much force as the developers or bankers."
Roderick P. Hackney
President, Royal institute of British Architects
"So a partnership of enterprise is what I'm calling for, a partnership between builders, professionals and politicians--local, state, and national. And most important of all, with ordinary people--the people who count, local people, who at the moment aren't seen as part of any formula for success. But we must make sure they are."
Nick Watts - Great Britain -
Copy his pages.23-4
Chester Hartman - Fellow, institute for Policy Studies, Washington D. C. p. 92
"The buzzword of this conference ins 'liability." Many of the phrases used yesterday, "community-based," "public-regarding," "Citizen-architect," ....they imply that we have to involve ourselves with some of the basic economic and political issues, which connect to that, such as the distribution of wealth, else we are taking a very shallow and deceptive view of the notion of liveability.
A second theme of the conference--and it may be the prime one, although more subtle that overt-- is the notion of "public-private partnerships." I have to confess to being rather cynical about that phrase and what it means. "Private" covers a very wide range of reality from things Nick Wates and John Turner talk about--community-based, neighborhood-based, resident-oriented efforts--all the way to the other end of the spectrum having to do with large corporations, financial institutions and the business community....They are by far the more powerful representatives of the private sector. On occasion they may carry out some public-regarind actions. But that is now what they're about; they're about profit maximization and controlling the economic environment. And in pursuit of those primary objectives they make their location and relocation decisions, carry out their business activities, destroy communities through capital extraction, pay little regard to neighborhoods and people's home. The merger and acquisition mania of the last few years is antithetical to any notion of community preservation, building or remaking, to any tradition of economically productive activity. The large corporations and financial institutions are opposed to workers' rights, and to paying workers the kinds of wages and benefits that would permit people to afford decent home and decent neighborhoods.
The Working Group on Housing of the Institute for Policy Studies has produced a document laying out such principles....(tax breaks...etc.)
1. Take increasing amounts of housing, new and existing stock, out of the profit sector, and put it into the hands of groups like...community-based organizations whose mission is
to provide the best possible housing at the lowest possible cost, not to maximize profits....
Community-based non-profits are a way of reducing the cost of housing, and government subsidies should only go only to such groups....
2. Eliminate the central item in the consumer's housing payments--credit, the cost of borrowing money to build or purchase a house. Repayment of principal plus interest takes roughly two out of every three housing dollars....The program we are proposing substitutes government capital grants for credit, making housing part of the social infrastructure. The capital grants to build or rehab would be raised through the tax system, and would not be part of the cost of occupancy. Occupancy costs would be limited to property taxes, insurance, maintenance and utilities.
Call this guy for an interview
----------------------------------------
John C. Turner - director, Associated Housing advisory Services, London
"Practicing community-builders know, of course, and there are over 5,000 community development corporations in the U.S.A. - East Liberty Development Inc. and the Homewood- Brushton Revitalization and Development Corporation, both of Pittsburgh, among them."
William Traynor - director - Coalition for a Better Acre
508-452-7523
Copy his speech - Put in a phone call to Coalition for a Better Acre and spoke with Lee Winkelman. He said that they are a nonprofit with funding from government programs such as HUD which is administered by cities and states plus private corporations, low income tax credits and grants from foundations, all of which they apply for.
Housing, Types:
They co-own with residents. First purchase by community group was a huge run-down apartment unit which they bought for $1.00, called The North Canal Housing Trust which is the legal entity which owns the property.
Official ownership is The North Canal Housing Trust which is the legal entity. There is representation from the CDC (The Coalition for a Better Acre ) of 3 representatives and then there are two representatives from the tenants who are part of the North Canal Tenant Council. They work by consensus.
Lastly, the building was financed by:
$20 million loan from a consortium of banks plus investors of a Limited Equity Tax Credit partnership.
North Canal housing Trust is a rental unit.
He referred me to two different magazines: Shelter Force, "Journal of Affordable Housing
Strategies" dated Sept/Oct, 1995, 201/678-3110 Special issue on CDC, Community Building and
The Neighborhood Works - current issue - 312/-278-3840 - New issue with Third Force
Harry Cowie - Director, Policy Forecasting Unit, London POWERFUL!!!!
Public-Private Partnerships in U.K.
he good news from Britain is that the last couple of years have witnessed an upsurge of interest in the partnership approach to urban regeneration. It has happened at two levels. First [1], the central government has been converted to the public private partnership approach as a mainstream policy route. It accords well with the government's own philosophy of encouraging the hiving off from traditional agencies to the private sector [privatization]. [ Moreover partnerships permits more to be done with a limited amount of public expenditure. Lastly [3], it allows the bypassing of local government, as Mrs. Thatcher sees public- private partnership principally as a partnership of the central government with the private sector. She has been confirmed in this approach by the success of the London Docklands Development Corporation.
How the Public-Private Partnerships Work
In the last two years (1986_ have also witnessed a surge of interest in local public-private partnerships...There are other locally- based initiatives including P.R.O.B.E., Business in the Community, and several development trusts. Many of these groups have drawn inspiration from the success of inner-city partnerships in the U.S.A. in cities such as Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Minneapolis.
The Phoenix Report (The Phoenix Partnership: Urban Regeneration for the 21st Century," National Council of Building Material Producers, London, 1985) emphasized that throwing public money into inner cities would not by itself halt the decline: "Cities are living organisms. The people living there have to believe in the prospects for jobs and a better life before confidence can be regenerated. Before this change can take place, there has to be a vision of the future in which the local community participates and believe. Government can help the process by providing seed money and their right conditions to bring the public and private enterprise together. But if the cities and the local communities cannot themselves generate an enthusiasm for a better life, they will continue to decline, to the detriment of the nation."
The principal thrust of government policy has been down the road of establishing urban development corporations, following the success of London Docklands. Here again, the inspiration came from the U.S. A. Michael Heseltine, while Secretary of States for the Environment, decided to set up a development corporation for both London and the Mersey Docklands modeled after the successful Baltimore example. It was decided to create a non-profit agency which would be able to cut through the local planning red tape. But whereas in Baltimore a semi-public agency had been set up with the support of the mayor's office....
Mrs. Thatcher has launched a second wave of urban development corporations....there will also be a series of mini-UDC's apply the same formula on a more confined scale....these development corporations will be giving priority to commercial development in an effort to start a cycle of regeneration. The bad news is that once again the local councils have been bypassed, although a greater effort has been made to get their cooperation....The problem remains that by bypassing the local councils, the UDC's are building up opposition that could come to haunt them at a later date.....
For urban regeneration to take off in the major cities, there will have to be a radical recasting of the system. The Royal Institute of British Architects has called for the creation of a National Urban Renewal Agency responsible to the Secretary of State of the environment to which the administration and funding of large-scale public and private investment in the cities would be allocated. In particular the RIBA has called for this new agency to have the ability to raise tax- exempt bonds for the regeneration....In Britain, the central government...have never developed the large secondary market (tax-exempt bonds) that they have in the U.S....
[ With regard to public-private partnerships in Britain} [t] here has been a major shift in corporate thinking about the desirability of companies getting more involved in the community. Business in the Community which began as an umbrella organization to encourage local job creation agencies, with the help of managers seconded from corporations and banks, has recently moved into the area of urban regeneration. However, there remains an absence of an umbrella organization similar to the U.S.'s National Council of Urban Economic Development, which propagates best practice in public-private partnerships.....Could we be moving into an era when people want to have a greater say in their community at a time when it becomes more possible because information technology lends itself to greater decentralization?"
DEBORAH BARTLETT
The Phoenix Initiative, London - Redevelopment of Liverpool's Waterfront
The Phoenix Initiative- a non-profit making agency brought into being in the summer of 1986 by a range of private-sector organizations involved in the construction and insurance industries of the Department of the Environment, one of the major departments of the U.K government....The purpose is the generation, in any given town or city, of a commitment from the public sector and a commitment from the private sector to form real partnerships and to determine the future health, physical and economic, of their locality. The CEO is ...from Shell U.K., Ltd. His deputy is ...from the Department of the Environment.
To be successful, inner-city initiatives must have an economic and social, rather than simply a social base.....The regeneration of an area must be properly managed according to a properly developed, holistic strategy. Only then will private-sector finance be attracted.....The recap: the purpose of The Phoenix Initiative is to promote public and private enterprise and partnership in urban renewal and regeneration, and the main but not the sole focus of activity is at a local level.
*AGENDA FOR PARTNERSHIP
A. Arrange a forum with representatives of the private and public sector.
Establish a neutral forum to consider and review: local economic conditions; whether
public sector and business leaders have the vision and capacity to promote partnership
opportunities; the links between economic development and employment programs.
B. Identify a focus.
Define and determine appropriate issues which are of common interest to both the
public and private sector and can be addressed by partnership action, for example: marketing
the town; attracting new businesses or retaining existing ones; retraining programs; providing
job opportunities for minority residents.
C. Set up a team.
Establish a local team of government, business, and local authority representatives to
work on the issues--in other words, form a partnership organization.
D. Analyze the key elements.
Analyze the local problem or set of objectives and identify opportunities for new public
and private sector initiatives, using outside expertise if necessary.
E. Devise a strategy.
Design a local economic development/employment strategy to address the problems
or objectives identified under B, above.
F. Negotiate agreements.
negotiate formal or informal agreements between the public and private sectors
regarding new public and private policy changes, funding targets, hiring consultants, etc.
G. Implement the strategy.
Implement and follow through on the negotiated agreement....
LAWSON SHADBURN - Program Director, Local Initiatives Support Corporation - LISC IMPORTANT!!!!
LISC was founded in 1980, through the efforts of the Ford Foundation. Its mission was to go out and find the best community development corporations (CDC's) around the country and help them to become businesslike--develop assets and income streams, and build partnerships within their areas. We have used a flexible and practical definition of CDC's without resorting to rigid or ideological formulas (such as neighborhood-elected board). Our source of support is the private sector- corporations and foundations around the country.
LISC helps community development corporations carry out physical revitalization projects. Our strategy is to provide technical assistance, small grants ($25,000 average) and loans ($1,000 to $500,000 and occasionally larger.)
LISC has provided over 1000 grants and loans to projects sponsored by about 500 community development organizations. The total value of the projects produced is approaching $700 million. (1988 - need current figure)
These local partnerships could be described as systems for community-based redevelopment.
We see the institution of community development corporations as the real centerpiece of these local development systems. CDC's by being based in the community, assure that accountability rests with local residents. As the bodies carrying forward the vision, the drive, and the entrepreneurship of the community. CDC's guarantee community support.
A third element of a local community development system is a mechanism for project financing, frequently a partnership created among the local public redevelopment agency, LISC, and a bank. Critical to this system are the individual relationships that CDC's develop with particular banks or syndicator, who are links to private investment.
There are about 10 CDC's in Pittsburgh as well as numerous other community-based organizations which do not have all have staffs but are working on development issues....
Pittsburgh is fortunate to have several key foundations and corporations that have taken leadership roles by providing operating support to CDC's through the Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood Development. The City has both participated in the Pittsburgh Partnership and complemented it with additional program of operating support.
LISC has been her in Pittsburgh since 1981, providing pre-development seed money, technical assistance and loans. The Urban Redevelopment Authority here has been a terrific partner. U.R.A. has used Community Development Block Grant money and other funds to provide critical subsidies. And there also are banks, syndicator, and private developers that have become part of this network.
LISC now has about 500 funders, all from the private sector. Some have given money to us nationally, which we have used to induce local matching grants to our 30 areas programs. We have raised about $100 million in contributions from those sources and borrowed $25 million, primarily from major insurance companies. We're working with this network of funders to establish forums where corporate leaders can develop new approaches to community problems.
STEPHEN PROCTOR - Professor of Architecture, University of Sheffield - Case Study: An Approach to Urban Design - London Docklands
"A public private realm framework exhibits an ideal yet adaptable base. It is strong enough to withstand the inevitable distortions of the implementation process; yet it is variable enough to respond to community, market, and communication requirements.
The creation of a strong public-private realm framework, however, cannot in its totality provide a meaningful urban form. Man's perception of the built environment is enriched by the perpetuation of the "genius loci."
DONALD C. STONE - Distinguished Public Service Professor, Carnegie-Mellon University; Director, Coalition to Improve Management in State and Local Government - Organizational and Administrative Requisite in Urban Regional Development
"In most regions many governments, community service organizations, citizen groups, and business enterprises have vital roles. Municipal authorities, counties, the states, and federal grant agencies must work in partnership. The big obstacle is that many local governments do not possess the scale of turf, executive competence, and professional staff to manage well their local affairs, nor to provide leadership essential for effective co-operation. p.137
Home Rule
The roots of the problem are historic. Local government structures in most states were copied from 18th century rural England. Ironically England, with this unitary government and national concern for the quality of local government has completely revamped its local structures, administration, and finance to cope with changing conditions. No such general reformation has occurred in the U.S. although some states are outdistanced others in providing for the renaissance of cities by granting them home rule authority. Granting home rule authority to counties, particularly urban ones, or providing them by statute with optional forms of government has come more recently.....Most large cities in which the mayor is the executive have also improved their structures, provided the mayor with a professional deputy...and moved from a political to a merit system of appointments. (p.138)
The complexity of local government in the U.S. is evidenced by the staggering # of units. In 1986, the 50 states contained 38,720 general purpose governments, 3,040 counties, 17,996 incorporated municipalities, 17,144 towns and townships, 15,260 school districts and 26,140 special districts and public authorities. (138)
During the last 10-15 years the states have greatly improved their organizations and increased their activist roles. Working co-operatively through the National Governors' Association (NGA), the Council of State Governments (CSG), and the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), they have become the principal setters of the national domestic agenda. Economic development, education, protection of the environment, poverty and urban as well as rural problems are now priority concerns. 138
In addition to effective intergovernmental co-operation, the physical rebuilding and improving of the quality of life in any town, city or region requires joint efforts and partnership with civic organizations, business enterprise, organized labor, the finance establishment, not-for-profit public service organizations, the schools, and universities. Orchestrating these players in any jurisdiction is no job for amateurs. (138)
Many communities are seriously distressed through loss of industry and population and thus are unable to finance even minimal traditional services....In this context, it becomes clear that the primary requisite for the rebuilding of cities and achieving a higher quality of life throughout Allegheny County is a local governmental "renaissance" in which the governor and the legislature of the Commonwealth provide an unprecedented amount of leadership and direction. Revision of the state codes and home rule procedures are essential.'
STEPHEN GOMES - Manager, Technopolis Development Program, Bechtel Civil Inc.
"Global Networks and Smart Infrastructure: Keys to the City of Tomorrow"
"The ciies of tomorrow will be cenerted around universities and airports, not factories and rivers. And for good reason: high technology is bron in laboratories and travels on airplanes.
Technoploies, or smart cities,w ill be linked b y instant communications and a coming generation of low- noise supersonic planes capable of lfying passengers halfway around the world in just a few hours....Smart cities will need smart citizens. Regocnition is gorwing tha the university is the factor of the future.....technolopoises are springing up around the world. Japan is building 19 of a proposed 28 technopolises in its regional hinterlands. France, Italy and India already have their own. Turkey, South Korea and Australia have plans to build them. England and Spain are studying their feasiliblity....Nick Segal, author of "The Cambridge Phenome," and Director of England's Cambridge Science Park, "convert science into marketable products."
The science park or technopolis, has appread in varying guises in many places throughout the world. But although technopoises exist internationally, theya renot yet globally intergrated. They are still akin to traditional trading cities.
Cities co-coperatively linked into technopolis regions coudl b parts of a global network. Antoher is thatcities which seek to attract the industris of the furrue must take certain steps now, such as providing
publicly-sponsored incentive program to aid research and advanced manufacturing; helping startup companies to secure venture capital, and modernizing communications to facilitate the exchange of inforatmion on a global scale. Such cities must endeavor to create a new kind of public-private business alliance within which high-tech spport services, including amrekt researach, technical intelligene, private research labs, a nd management consulting, can operate successfully together with strategically selected public programs.
States and regions have too learned that in order to compete in the post-industrial world, they will have to bring innovation and entrepreneurship together...
The globalization of technology businesses. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, Michael Bluemthal, former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and C.E.O. of Unisys, notes that the "current period of revolutionary change is occuring in a much more interdependent world." Mr. Blumenthal identifies two types ofr changes contributing to the globaliztaion of ubsiness: first, far-reaching technological change in avaiation, speace satellites, biotechnology, and especially new materials such as ceramics and glss fibers; second the impact of these technologies on transportation are communications--enabling us to achieve virtually instanteously electronic links worldwide. "Information," he goes on to sy," hs become the key to modern economic activity--a basic resource as important today as capital, land and labor have been in the past. Information cannot any longer be geographically limited or confined. The new technology moves it instanteously across national boundaries anywhere and at any time." mr. Blumethal concludes...that one-nation or one-region, indward-looking, competitive development policies are no longer sufficient.
Requirements of a global future. The complexity of today's--and tomorrow's technology will require us to devise new structures for dealing with it . If we are to achieve a global network of technopolises, we will have to engender supportive institutional mechanisms, an enabling rather than a controlling regulatory environment; business and societal arrangements that foster autonomy; and freedom of the flow of information.
The future direction of technopolis is global connection and interdependence.