Urban Renewal: Shadows of the Past, Research Paper Example

Overview Regional Land Use and Planning

Urban renewal projects are designed to take an area that is not fulfilling its economic, cultural or aesthetic potential. There are two basic tenants or philosophies behind urban land renewal. The first is the focus on eliminating a problem that is plaguing the citizens in a certain area. The problems that could be mitigated by a solution implemented through restructured or reorganized land use are overcrowding, lack of resources for the population or unsustainable actions occurring to the environment. In the 19^th century the industrial revolution brought on a new problem touching each one of the issues mention previously. Too many people, with limited infrastructure and sub-par logistics for food, water and waste removal occurred in large metropolitan areas such as London, Paris and New York (Cord 1974). City planning was utilized aspects of architecture and art to develop and plan their cities but did not take into account the influx of families into the areas so temporary measures were implemented for long term solutions. The second purpose for urban land renewal is based on efficiency and aesthetics. Throughout history, humans have the tendency to upgrade and renovate their home dwellings and this type of urban renewal is like a home renovation expanded exponentially across the board. The ease of living and removal of substandard housing increases the quality of life for the residents while also removing the seedier side of urban living and replacing it with potential and ease. Cities are built in a point in time and are not fully adjustable to the ever changing environment in which they house. New York City’s renovation was led by Robert Moses who took on the large objective of re-planning the bridges, roadways and public parks to improve the overall aesthetic value of the area as well as increase the ability to move and spread out through New York while still retaining the ability to quickly return.

Land is a limited resource and the redevelopment of misused or misappropriated land helps extend the benefits of the land in a more impactful way. There are many concerns about urban renewal projects especially when revitalization of certain areas of the towns, cities or other metropolitan areas receive focus because revitalization projects are used as tools to garner support for elected positions in local, state and federal government. While the overall strategic vision of the renewal projects show benefit there are also areas that concern the people in those areas such as removal of certain jobs that support the community, segregation and separation of population to fit into the planning objectives and even the scope of the project could be far too grand to successfully implement.

The issues around urban renewal are multi-faceted. The projects can be successful in terms of short term goals and objectives being met and in the same instance the project can have long term negative ramifications that negate any positive aspects that were realized in the early stages of the project. Urban renewal projects lean toward the side of long term project plans spanning multiple years and sometimes multiple decades depending on the scope and iterative nature of the projects. The investment for change is a large burden on the community and those who have a stakeholder’s ownership in the process and outcome. The core purpose or motivation behind driving an urban revitalization project often establishes how firm the basis for the project is established and ultimately how successful the project is in terms of meeting the projects goals and objectives as well as how the actual impact to the metropolitan area is received. The core structure of the urban renewal project must be based in realizable objectives and achievable goals (Fasenfest 1984). If the scope of the project is over-reaching and the strategic viewpoint is foggy the project may at best end up off course.

An example of a large scale urban development plan that although was intended to restructure an entire community while driving business toward the epicenter through new venues and attractions was that of the renewal project around Wichita, Kansas in the 1980’s. The community of Wichita, Kansas was looking to become a tourist stop along the way of travelers from the East to the West and even more so not only just a stop on the route but a tourist destination. In order for the city to raise its level of attractiveness, a developer named Jack DeBoer proposed a plan to build the attractions and infrastructure that was utilized in other parts of the country to facilitate the transformation of a mid-sized Kansas town to a revenue generating tourist stop. The “DeBoer” plan established a multi-dimensional restructuring project that would provide the tools necessary for the town to build their worth (Weeks 2007).

The plan first focused on converting the downtown area into an entertainment district with infrastructure for hotels and pedestrian movement. The idea was to bring the people to the attractions and keep them within walking distance to promote business in local downtown shops. While the plan did include building new buildings using appropriated land from the pubic it also focused on revamping and renovating the existing buildings to create a more aesthetic and pleasing experience to the visitors. In conjunction to the new buildings and revitalized shops there were plans for a new sports arena, children’s museum and an ice arena. At the epicenter of the plan was a proposed statue that would become known as well as Seattle’s Space Needle. The centerpiece was to be a five hundred foot statue called “Keeper of the Plains”. The project was going to be implemented in project stages and with each stage there would be iterative checks to ensure funding was spent accordingly, the project was on schedule, and the trajectory of the project was still on course for the agreed upon end-state agreed by all the stakeholders.

The overall project was not successful in the eyes of the city due to the end state of being a tourist destination not being met. To further complicate the issues on whether or not the revitalization was a benefit to the community there would have to be measurable performance metrics for each parameter of the plan. The first area that caused distress was the statue in the center of the city. The “Keeper of the Plains’ raised a fury when the family in which the statue was based did not want it to depict their ancestry in such a subpar fashion. The city’s crown jewel did not achieve its goal of raising five hundred feet in the air but the pedestal was raised so that the community and tourist could have a better view of the artwork. Although this seems like a minor inconvenience but it is just a view into the lack of planning and accountability within all stages of the urban renewal project.

While the renovations were being performed on the downtown businesses there was not a plan to mitigate the losses incurred by the local businesses due to construction or traffic detours that would significantly decrease the businesses opportunity to earn revenue. While some businesses tried to weather through the construction and remodeling of the downtown infrastructure, landscape and buildings other businesses had to leave the area to keep their heads above water and remain viable to their respective shareholders and business owners (Weeks 2007). The plan was to increase the amount of business in the center of town but due to poor planning and a lack of risk mitigation businesses were driven out due to the necessity of staying afloat in trying economic times. The plan went overschedule and over-budget while not fully communicating the full picture and timeframe to the downtown businesses regarding total impact. After the first wave of businesses leaving the downtown areas there were some others that left due to the fact they could not stand to fight another day in the war of attrition with the renewal project.

This was spun by the leaders of the urban renewal project as an opportunity for growth and a reintroduction of new vitality and life into the stagnant and sluggish economy which Wichita was accustomed to. New restaurants and clubs purchased and leased property in the downtown area and the area had a glimmer of hope and possible sustainment. Then as the economic obligations of the businesses were not being met the individual leadership teams for the businesses created a series of management turnovers to bring in new leadership to lead the restaurants and night clubs. When this failed support was requested from the local government to subsidize the businesses and to address other issues such as parking and infrastructure that was supposedly remedied by the revitalization plan. Although the funding of parking lots and other areas needed by the local businesses is important the high turnover for the businesses sparked an even greater concern that related to perceived performance of the businesses in the downtown area. The premium investment needed to stake a claim in the downtown area did not warrant the high risk and little return on investment.

The lessons learned from the Wichita urban renewal program is that there needs to be definitive and measurable objectives throughout the project to ensure the right course of action is followed. Also, the decisions made by the planning and zoning leadership need to be based in facts and not on the opinions or predictions of the venture contractors bidding on the job. On paper the plan for Wichita was solid. The belief that building new facilities, roads to travel and hotels to stay in would drive people to utilize and enjoy the offerings of the city could be realized. Poor planning and even fuzzier execution of the plans lead to the negation of any positive results that could have come out of the renewal project. The already established businesses were ousted from their downtown locations and new, unreliable and mismanaged business took their place. Supplemental resources were needed from taxpayers to keep the businesses running while prior to that the businesses that were there provided positive results to the community through revenue generation.

With all projects there needs to be an established guide to lead the way. Urban renewal projects are large undertakings with exponential risks and potentially even greater rewards. With that said each area needs to be addressed prior to undertaking the project.

• Project Scope
• Risk Mitigation Plan
• Transition Plan
• Benefits/Schedule/Cost Analysis
• Project Acceptance Criteria
• Strategic intent
• Resource Needs regarding effort, capital and operating funding
• Commitment needed from the planners, community and leadership

Urban renewal projects require the artful and scientific project management skills to fully manage all aspects of the project. With multiple moving parts and an ever evolving work environment strong leadership and support increase the opportunities for success. Lack of guidance, clear and achievable goals or properly adjusted expectation will lead to a project that not only does not increase the value and opportunities for the urban area but will create a future burden on the community as a whole. When the project was initiated the end state was not clearly defined. The goals and objectives needed to be clearly stated in a concise and measurable manner. Wichita, Kansas could have averted some of the calamities endured by setting expectations with the local businesses, placing accountability and ownership onto the proper entities as well as controlled the spending of the tax payers’ funds to ensure the greatest return on investment was achieved. Urban renewal programs have yet to be perfected but with proper project management efforts and the stakeholders’ accountability properly assigned correlated with measureable and attainable metrics there is the potential for greatly successful programs to turn decaying and underutilized urban environments into productive and rich environments.

References

Cord, S., (1974). “Urban renewal: boon or boondoggle?” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Volume 33, No. 2 pg 184-186.

Fasenfest, D., (1984). “A reassessment of urban renewal: policy failure or market success?” Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. No. 323.

Weeks, B., (2007). “Urban renewal: a flawed idea that failed 50 years ago”. Retrieved from http://wichitaliberty.org/free-markets/urban-renewal-a-flawed-idea-that-failed-50-years-ago/

Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Project Management Inst.