University of Cincinnati

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

Fountain Square: Face Lift or Vital Injection?

A thesis submitted to

Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING In the School of Planning of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning

May 2006

Frederik Spittael Master of Architecture, WENK St-Lucas Gent, 2004 Bachelor of Architecture, WENK St-Lucas Gent, 2001

Thesis Committee: Chair: Mahyar Arefi, Ph.D. Member: Menelaos Triantafillou, MLA Reader: Des Bracey, ESQ

Abstract

Planners have not fully recognized the importance of place. Because place is elusive and does not fit into planners’ utilitarian mode of thought, a concern with place is often dismissed as irrelevant. In spite of this, almost everything planners do is related to place. This is especially true for urban designers. The goal of this thesis is to broaden urban designers’ understanding of place in three steps. First, identify and analyze the key aspects of place in an operational framework.

Second, link the framework to urban design. Third, apply the framework to a case study

(Fountain Square Cincinnati, OH). The framework combined with the case study indicates urban designers need to overcome the illusion they can design place and have to start working on design strategies that incorporate the vital components of place. Only then will they be able to give place a vital injection instead of a mere facelift.

Acknowledgements

I would like to truly thank everyone who has made this thesis possible. I would like to thank everybody who has assisted in gathering the necessary information for the case study. The

Cincinnati Historical Society has provided a wealth of valuable information on the history of

Fountain Square. Access to their amazing collection has been crucial to the success of the case study. I also owe thanks to Jim Tarbell (Vice Mayor of Cincinnati), Mary Lynne Boorn (Fountain

Square Project Manager 3CDC), Don Clinton (Partner Cooper Robinson), and Joel Koopman

(City of Cincinnati Public Works Principal Architect) for allowing me to interview them. Their interviews have added an extra dimension to this thesis.

I would like to thank Des Bracey (Project Manager Over-the-Rhine 3CDC) for his time devotion in editing my thesis and critically examining my thoughts from a practitioner’s point of view. I would also like to thank Des for his excellent mentorship throughout my first professional working experience abroad. I thank Prof. Triantafillou (SOP, University of Cincinnati) for helping me clarify my thoughts, for providing thought provoking comments, and for pushing me to the finish line. I would like to express my immense gratitude to Prof. Arefi (SOP, University of

Cincinnati). Prof. Arefi and his academic work have inspired me to write this thesis. He has always been there to answer questions and clarify research issues. His guidance, expertise, and patience have helped me make it through trying times.

Finally, I owe most gratitude to my family. Even though distant, they have morally supported me throughout the project. Without their love and support this thesis would not have been possible. Thank you for encouraging me in pursuing my academic and personal goals.

iii

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables ...... vi

Chapter 1:Introduction...... 1 1.1 A Little Roadmap...... 2 1.2 Place – Site – Space...... 4

Chapter 2: Place, an Overview...... 6 2.1 What Is Place? ...... 6 2.1.2 Three Ground Rules for Place...... 7 2.1.2 Changing Conception of Place...... 9 2.1.3 An Historical Overview of Place...... 10 2.1.4 Place in the 21st Century...... 11 2.1.5 Why Place Still Matters...... 12 2.2 Place as a Planning Concern...... 15 2.2.1 Development Driven Approach...... 16 2.2.2 The Planning Profession...... 17 2.2.3 Consequences for Place as a Subject of Planning ...... 18

Chapter 3: Methodology...... 20 3.1 Understanding the Key Aspects of Place...... 21 3.2 Developing the Framework ...... 21 3.3 Making the Link to Urban Design ...... 22 3.4 Fountain Square Case Study...... 23 3.5 Data Collection ...... 24 3.5.1 Observation ...... 25 3.5.2 Secondary Sources ...... 25 3.5.3 Primary Sources ...... 26 3.6 Methodology Flowchart...... 27

Chapter 4: The framework...... 29 4.1 Five Key Aspects of Place...... 29 4.1.1 Location...... 30 4.1.1.1 Example ...... 31 4.1.2 Material Form...... 32 4.1.2.1 Example ...... 34 4.1.3 Social Aspect...... 34 4.1.3.1 Example ...... 37 4.1.4 Practices and events ...... 37 4.1.4.1 Example ...... 38 4.1.5 Representations ...... 39 4.1.5.1 Example ...... 40 4.1.6 Drawing Together the Five Key Aspects ...... 41 4.2 From Site to Place...... 42

4.2.1 The Sterilizing Tendency of Designing...... 43 4.2.2 Place Narratives...... 44

Chapter 5: Fountain Square Case Study ...... 47 5.1 Fountain Square History ...... 48 5.1.1 The Great Beginning ...... 48 5.1.2 The First Alterations...... 53 5.1.3 The First Move ...... 56 5.1.4 Fountain Square 2006...... 60 5.2 Contested narratives...... 62 5.2.1 The Inauguration of Fountain Square: 1871...... 63 5.2.2 The First Changes to Fountain Square: 1930 ...... 65 5.2.3 Urban Renewal Plan for Fountain Square:1960-1970 ...... 68 5.2.4 Fountain Square Revitalization Plan: 2005-2006...... 72 5.3 Narratives Setting the Stage for Design...... 77 5.3.1 Image and identity...... 79 5.3.2 Attractions and Destinations ...... 80 5.3.3 Amenities...... 81 5.3.4 Flexible Design...... 81 5.3.5 Seasonal Strategy ...... 82 5.3.6 Access...... 83 5.3.7 The Inner and the Outer Square ...... 84 5.3.8 Interconnectedness ...... 85

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations...... 86 6.1 Place Narratives and the Changing Character of Place ...... 86 6.2 Incorporating Place Narratives ...... 92 6.3 Strategic Design...... 93

Bibliography ...... 95

Appendices ...... 101 Appendix A...... 101 Appendix B...... 102 Appendix C...... 103 Appendix D...... 104 Appendix E ...... 105 Appendix F ...... 106 Appendix G...... 107 Appendix H...... 108

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1.1: The Graslei and Korenlei in Ghent, the place to be...... 5

Figure 1.2: Graphic representation of space...... 5

Figure 1.3: Fountain Square under construction, a site...... 5

Figure 2.1: Place has become the word on many people’s lips...... 12

Figure 3.1: Methodology flowchart ...... 28

Figure 4.1: University of Michigan golf course...... 31

Figure 4.2: Tailgate at the golf course...... 34

Figure 4.3: Organization of cars and tents at the tailgate...... 34

Figure 4.4: The tailgate as a family event ...... 37

Figure 4.5: Games, gathering and barbecuing at the tailgate...... 38

Figure 4.6: Bringing together the five key aspects of place...... 41

Figure 5.1: The Fifth Street Market 1860 ...... 48

Figure 5.2: The Fifth Street market demolished ...... 48

Figure 5.3: Fountain Square 1871, south side of Fifth Street looking north...... 50

Figure 5.4: Fountain Square circa 1906 ...... 51

Figure 5.5: Fifth Street, west of Walnut Street, the sixth busiest corner in the U.S.A...... 53

Figure 5.6: The corner of Fifth and Walnut Street...... 53

Figure 5.7: Fountain Square in 1945...... 54

Figure 5.8: One by one she sees them go...... 55

Figure 5.9: The block north of Fifth Street has been demolished...... 56

Figure 5.10: Fountain Square in 1971...... 59

Figure 5.11: Model of the performance pavilion for Fountain Square ...... 59

Figure 5.12: Rendering of 3CDC’s design for Fountain Square...... 60

Figure 5.13: The Fountain as an icon for the image and identity of Fountain Square...... 78

Figure 5.14: Attractions and destinations surrounding Fountain Square...... 79

Figure 5.15: Fountain Square amenities...... 80

Figure 5.16: Flexibility of design...... 81

Figure 5.17: Seasonal strategy ...... 81

Figure 5.18: Access to Fountain Square...... 82

Figure 5.19: The inner and the outer Square...... 83

Figure 5.20: Interconnectedness of Fountain Square...... 84

Tables

Table 3.1:Key authors used for assembling the framework...... 22

Table 3.2: Key informants...... 27

Table 5.1: 1871 Narratives...... 62

Table 5.2: 1930 Narratives...... 64

Table 5.3: 1960-1970 Narratives...... 67

Table 5.4: 2005-2006 Narratives...... 71

Table 6.1: Change of the key components of Fountain Square for its four main eras...... 86

Table 6.2: Summary of narratives for Fountain Square...... 87

Table 6.3: Difference in narratives for the four eras ...... 88

vii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Over the last three years, since my first visit to the USA I have become very interested in the concept of place. My interest led me to do more research on place and examine the vitality of the concept of place in modern urban environments. Throughout my learning process, I became more and more surprised with how planning and urban design in America (and increasingly in

Europe as well) neglect place. Much of the urban planning and urban design scene seems to be dominated by an urge for economic development. Whether to increase competitiveness in the market or just ensure survival, communities all over the nation are striving to attract as much development as they can get.

In this context, land is seen more and more as an economic asset. Does the notion of place fit into this at all? Does place really matter? If it does, how does it relate to urban design? How do we make sense of urban design in a time when cities seem to be no longer built by architects or planners, but rather the disparate decisions of multinational and financial corporations? To further complicate the situation, the increasing degree of mobilization and high speed of change make it even more difficult to understand place and how to make sense of it from an urban design perspective.

Pessimistically, we could even think urban design and place are extinct concepts. I reject this viewpoint. This thesis will make a strong case for place and why it still matters and will specifically discuss its relevance to practical planning and urban design. This thesis will explore what it is about place we need to understand about place from a practical planning perspective

(with a specific focus on urban design). The goal is to do this from a contemporary perspective.

How will urban designers, faced with the challenges of “time-space compression” give places a vital injection through our designs in stead of just a mere face lift?

1.1 A Little Roadmap

Place is hard to grasp, it does not have one single meaning or definition. What it means highly depends on the context of the discussion. In order to clarify what the context of the investigation of thesis is going to be I will be discussing several issues. These issues set the context of the discussions, frame the perspective of the investigation, and provide the background for the analysis and the case study. To provide a little roadmap for navigating through the body of this thesis, in what follows, I will briefly outline the structure and content of the remaining chapters of this thesis.

Chapter two starts with a brief introduction to place. The chapter presents some provisional outlines of what place means and discusses the changing conception of place that has occurred over time. By tracing the history of the meaning of place and analyzing its significance over time, it becomes clear the conception of place has drastically changed. Some think place no longer matters. For a variety of reasons I will argue that it does. Even though place has changed and its significance for our societies has found a new definition this does not suggest place has become less relevant. Unfortunately planners do not seem to have quite understood this. Just as the dynamics of our contemporary society have reshaped our conception of place, they also have affected the way planners think about place. The chapter concludes with discussing two major

“fixes” which have led planners to be less concerned with place. These two fixes have not only had serious impacts on the way we think about place in planning, they have also affected place in significant ways. At this point I will discuss why planners need to be concerned with place and why it is a valid planning concern. The discussion of these two fixes provides the necessary

background for issues raised in chapter five (case study of Fountain Square). The case study of

Fountain Square gives some very practical examples of the consequences both fixes have had on place.

Chapter three consists of the research methodology. The chapter clarifies how the methodology is specifically tailored for addressing three main research questions. Essentially, the methodology consists of three components: a framework for understanding place, a link to urban design in the framework, a case study. Since each component of the methodology requires a different kind of research their respective techniques and approaches are discussed separately.

Chapter four presents an operational framework for dissecting place into its various components. Additionally, the framework addresses how their synergy, makes place. The framework integrates five key visions or schools of thought offered by authorities in the field.

Place has been studied in a specialized manner. Academic literature on place is therefore fragmented and quite esoteric. Authors from an array of different disciplines have (depending on their focus) investigated place from various angles. The framework distills the knowledge these key authors have offered, translate it into a practical understanding of place, and incorporate this into a framework.

Chapter five comprises the practical application of the framework: the case study of

Fountain Square. The chapter consists of three main sections: the history of Fountain Square, the narratives for its changing character, and the analysis of two essential designs for Fountain

Square. The first section explores the history of the Square and examines the forces that have shaped its evolution. The case study focuses on four distinct eras in the life of Fountain Square. the second section investigates what specific constellation of narratives shaped the transformations of the Square. This will clarify what set of narratives was the driving force behind the changing nature of Fountain Square. The chapter also revisits the two fixes discussed

in chapter two and explains how they have affected the planning and design for Fountain Square.

In addition to these two fixes -and largely as a result of them- there has been a tendency in the urban design profession to design for place as if it were a fixed aesthetic object. Given the changing nature of place, this tendency poses some problems. The final section of the chapter talks about how this has affected designing for Fountain Square. This will link the discussion of the narratives from the previous chapter to two specific designs for Fountain Square, and point out how they have affected the designs for Fountain Square.

Finally, chapter six completes my thesis with final conclusions and recommendations.

Based on the application of the framework to Fountain Square, this chapter will show how critical points in the planning and design for Fountain Square have affected its characteristics as a place. Lastly, based on experience gathered from assembling the framework and applying it to a practical case study, I make recommendations for the planning and urban design profession.

1.2 Place – Site – Space

Literature on place usually is very specialized and fraught with jargon. Terms like place, placelessness, non-place, space, and site are widely used to explain the different characteristics of place. At times the language is confusing and not concise for someone who is unfamiliar with academic literature on place. Authors often use the same terms in different contexts which makes it even more difficult to understand the difference between them. In the end, this creates a lot of confusion. To avoid this kind of misunderstanding and for purposes of clarity, I would like to give an operational definition to three terms I will often use throughout this thesis: place, site and space.

Place A place of socially embedded narratives (Beauregard 2005). Place can be defined as a space people ‘charge’ with meanings, memories, character and identity. Place is space filled up with people, practices, objects and representations (Gieryn 2000). A place emanates from human Figure 1.1: The Graslei and Korenlei in Ghent, encounters in dwellings, churches, the place to be Source : Photo by author. plazas, streets, markets and workplaces of the city (Beauregard 2005).

Space A space is merely a location, an abstract Z point in abstract space devoid of meaning and cultural significance (Cresswell 2004). A space is a delineated entity of room between heaven and earth laid out, and defined X Y by a certain physical setting. Space is

like a convention, we can measure it in Figure 1.2: Graphic representation of space three dimensions. Source: Graphic by author.

Site A place cleared and emptied of meaning, it is a social construct, a representation of space. It is understood apart from social relations. Labeling a space as a site connects some form of anticipation to it. This can be the anticipation of the emergence of the redesigned place as a new, strengthened or different place. Figure 1.3: Fountain Square under construction, A site emanates from technocrats and a site Source: Photo by author. professionals (Beauregard 2005).

Chapter 2: Place, an Overview

2.1 What Is Place?

Place is more than just academic jargon. We all daily think and talk about place in various contexts (Cloke et al. 1999, Cresswell 2004). For example, when we say ‘Would you like to come over to my place?’ we express some kind of ownership over a location and appropriate that location as our place (Cresswell 2004). It also suggests some kind of notion of privacy, because my place is not your place, and vice versa (Cresswell 2004). When we say “Ghent is a nice place” we use place to refer to a city in a common sensical way (Cresswell 2004). Place in this context refers to Ghent as a location and the fact that it is nice to be there. For instance “We had a nice diner in Ghent” expresses a connection between experienced moments or memories and a particular place, in this case Ghent. These examples indicate place is an inherent part of our everyday lives and conversations. We all know place and have some degree of affinity with it

(Cresswell 2004). Place is common sense.

Place is a word wrapped in common sense, it is also one of the trickiest words in English language (Cresswell 2004, Hayden 1995). Because place is so commonsensical and is used in so many different contexts, place does not have a singular definition. Place carries the resonance of homestead, of location, of open space in the city as well as sense of place, ownership, political and social hierarchy (Hayden 1995). “Place is a suitcase so overfilled one can never shut the lid”

(Hayden 1995, 15). Place is therefore, not only a subject within the realm of professionals, it is an inherent part of our day to day lives.

We all have a certain understanding of place and we all claim our perception of place as a valid one. However, when we are trying to make sense of place from a practical planning

perspective, we need to surpass an intuitive or merely personal understanding of place. In what follows I will outline three essential components of place. Gieryn defines these three aspects “the three ground rules for place” three necessary and sufficient features of place (Gieryn 2000, 464).

As an introduction, discussing these aspects will shed some light on the complex nature of place.

Discussing them will start to reveal the multifaceted nature of place. In chapter four I will investigate these (and other) aspects in more depth.

2.1.1 Three Ground Rules for Place

The first distinction I would like to make is the difference between place and space. Both terms carry completely different meanings, and should not be used interchangeably. While space is merely an abstract entity of room between heaven and earth devoid of any significance or meaning, place is much more. In addition to having a certain spatial finitude, place is charged with a complex mixture of meaning, cultural significance, symbolism and memory. The following example clearly indicates place is much more than just space:

Cast your mind back to the first time you moved in a particular space – a room in a college housing complex for example. You are confronted with a particular area of floorspace and a certain volume of air. In that room there may be a few rudimentary pieces of furniture such as a bed, a desk, a set of drawers and a cupboard. These are common to all the rooms in the complex. They are not unique and mean nothing to you beyond the provision of certain necessities of student life. Even these bare essentials have a history. A close inspection may reveal that a former owner has inscribed her name on the desk in an idle moment between classes. There in the carpet you notice a stain where someone has spilt some coffee. Some of the paint on the wall is missing. Perhaps someone has used putty to put up a poster. These are hauntings of past inhabitation. This anonymous space has a history, it meant something to other people. Now what do you do? A common strategy is to make the space say something about you. You add your own possessions, rearrange the furniture within the limits of the space, put your own posters on the walls, and arrange a couple of books on the desk. Thus space is turned into place. Your place. (Cresswell 2004, 2)

The example points out what place is not; place is not just space (Gieryn 2000).

Imagine for example the student room Cresswell is talking about is room 505 in Scioto Hall, a residence hall of the University of Cincinnati. To the student room 505, as an abstract indicator, will be nothing more than of the geographic location of his space. Room 505 will be the location where mail arrives, where the student keeps all her/his belongings and where people can come and visit. People may use this indicator to send mail or to find the way to the student’s room.

However it does not tell us anything about the student’s place. Therefore the essence of room 505 as a place cannot be found in its geographic location nor can it be found in its mere spatial finitude.

On a broader scale, 39° 06' 05.21 N 84° 30' 45.26 W will probably not mean a lot to most people (Cresswell 2004). Some people may be able to tell us this is a denotation used to indicate the longitude and latitude of a certain geographic location on the globe. Perhaps they might know it must be a location somewhere in North America. Nevertheless, they will not be able to tell us about the place situated on that exact location. With knowledge only of geographic indicators they cannot talk about meanings or values associated with the particular place. Both examples make it clear the geographic location of a certain place (as indicated by objective markers) does not capture the true sense of a particular place. The geographic location of a place is merely its abstract position in space (Cloke et al. 1999). As such it is only one component of place.

Place is a mixture of objective and subjective facts, including location, but adding other more subtle and less tangible attributes of our environment (Cloke et al. 1999, Cresswell 2004). If we tell people 39° 06' 05.21 N 84° 30' 45.26 W is the exact location of Fountain Square in

Cincinnati, they might be able to start telling us about the place that is located there: Fountain

Square. People knowing Fountain Square will tell us it is located in the heart of downtown

Cincinnati. They can also tell us something about the looks of Fountain Square, the trees on the square, the buildings surrounding it, and the magnificent Genius of Waters. They may also talk about their perception of Fountain Square, memories of events on Fountain Square, the status of the Fountain as an icon for the City of Cincinnati. Essentially people will talk about the meaningfulness of Fountain Square. They will express how they are personally and emotionally attached to Fountain Square. Three essential aspects of Fountain Square become apparent: its location in the heart of downtown, its material constellation, and the emotional attachments people have to Fountain Square.

From this first brief introduction to place, we can conclude there are three necessary and sufficient components to place: geographic location, material form, and investment with meaning and value (Gieryn 2000). These three aspects are the three ground rules mentioned earlier (Gieryn

2000). I only use these three ground rules as a first general introduction to place. They do not suffice when it comes to analyzing the multifaceted character of place. This introduction has only provided some provisional outlines of what place means (Cresswell 2004). If place were that simple I could stop now, but it is not. Place is not only a complex and multifaceted, its meaning is highly depend upon the context in which view it.

Before I turn to a more in depth discussion of place and its key components, it is necessary to gain understanding of this context. In what follows several key issues that clarify the context in which I will be analyzing place. It will also provide the justification for (or the need for) a renewed interest in place.

2.1.2 Changing Conception of Place

Over the last two decades, especially in Western societies, there has been an increasing loss of sense of place. Globalization and the homogenization of our environments have led to a

loss of “rootedness” to established places (Yi-Fu-Tuan 1977, Relph 1976). Our ability to be less dependent on place has had serious impacts on the way we perceive place. One of the crucial impacts is an increasing uncertainty about what we mean by ‘place’ and how we relate to it

(Massey 1993). Place is by nature very elusive and esoteric, the recent increase in uncertainty associated with it has made it even harder grasp. However this does not mean place is no longer a crucial part of our lives. Nor does it mean it is not relevant as a valid planning issue. The changed role place plays in our societies has changed but has not been eliminated. By briefly tracing the historical conception of place it will become clear how place has changed and how the modern world view has affected place.

2.1.3 An Historical Overview of Place

For centuries, place has been at the center of communities. In some cases it has even been at the center of civilizations. Opposite to our modern utilitarian conception of place the conception of the city in, for example, the Roman Empire was a mere signifying one (Barthes

1997). In the Roman Empire, every aspect of urban life had to be in concordance with the genius loci of a place. The lay out of the city, the design of the buildings, the use of the land were all dictated by the genius loci of a certain place. Essentially, the genius loci of a place denoted the place’s true essence, its spirit (Norberg-Schulz 2003). In ancient history caves and groves represented spirit. In later civilizations temples and landmarks marked certain tracts of land as sacred places. Places held something more than just their physical appearance. Whether it were caves, temples, or landmarks; settlements and buildings crystallized a belief, a spirit of place, a sense of community, a set of shared memories, and other representations. Throughout history place has been an important component of societies, places served as the metaphysical underpinning of society.

2.1.4 Place in the 21st Century

Today place has drastically changed. We can no longer think of place as we knew it in the

Roman Empire; place is no longer a sacred concept. Not only has our world view changed drastically, our perception of place has changed as well. The increasing speed of our lives and the high pace of evolution and change have affected the conception of place in significant ways. The more our lives speed up the more we become disconnected from time and place. Therefore the contemporary notion of place has become more volatile and ephemeral.

For instance in the 19th century, the inner city market place was the heart for retail, trade, and social life. At the same time, it was a special place since it crystallized much of the local history and identity. Today, this kind of convergence of place and economic/social relations no longer dominates. The increasing economic globalization has led to a phenomenon commonly referred to as time-space compression (Massey 1993). Put simply, we are less and less dependent on place and even on time to lead our lives (Marx called this the annihilation of space by time).

High tech communication capacities and an ever-increasing degree of mobility have allowed us to be unconstrained by time and place. Whereas in the 19th Century, a purchaser had to be at the local market every week on Thursday at 9.00AM to buy fresh fish, in many ways, this kind of time-space dependence is now very far behind us. Access to the internet or an international airline hub has become more important than a market place to buy groceries and meet people.

Globalization, the vaporization of local and international borders, the emergence of

“transnational” e-cultures and economies, and high tech telecommunications, have all diminished the importance of place supporting our day to day activities (Sassen 2005). For some, this may give the impression place no longer matters. It could even lead some to think place is largely irrelevant to our modern societies. This is not the case. Throughout history place has been an incredibly important factor in the wellbeing of communities, and it still is. Just because place has

become more volatile, this does not mean it is no longer an essential part of our lives and of the community we live in. The next discusses the role place currently plays in our communities, and based on this investigate what potential roles it could be playing.

2.1.5 Why Place Still Matters

It is remarkable how, just as place appears to be more or less irrelevant, it is the word on many people’s lips (Cresswell 2004).

Advertisers sell us places, travel agencies and hotel chains tell us we need to go visit places.

“Politicians and artists lament the loss of places” (Creswell 2004). Development Figure 2.1: Place has become the word on many people's lips corporations and housing agencies are Source: http://www.hilton.com Accessed Feb. 12, 2006. marketing new places to live. Place has become the buzzword for many professions. Somehow, just as we seem to have lost place we are eagerly looking to find it again.

This trend is indicative of the importance of place in our lives and the altered role it has found in our societies. Even though advanced telecommunications allow us to be disconnected from space and time, and even though the insertion of the global engenders a new form of spatiality which crosses borders and time, place precedes these new forms of spatiality (Sassen

2005). People still live in places and not in some or the other form of virtual reality (Sassen

2005). As Sassen has clearly pointed out, the existence of new forms of spatialities still relies on a very material infrastructure (Sassen 2005). Stating that place no longer matters would ignore the connectedness of global economies and internet cultures to the physical infrastructure supporting them (Sassen 2005). On a more socio-cultural note, it is exactly the emergence of new

transnationalities and the vaporization of time and space that increases the need for places

(Madanipour 2001). Because of the highly specialized nature of our daily lives, people feel rootless and not connected to the place where they live. This is especially true in our modern urban environments.

Many authors point out how increasing globalization and mobility have lead to a feeling of disembedding or vulnerability (Perry 1995, Creswell 2004, Sassen 2005, Healey 2001,

Madanipour 2001, Yi-Fu-Tuan 1977). Cresswell described this feeling as a sense of vulnerability toward the global forces which are beyond our control and power (Cresswell 2004). As mentioned earlier, today many social and economic relations no longer depend upon one place bringing them together. Since these relations are no longer referenced to one unique center or locality, they have become fragmented. Fragmentation and despatialization of social activities have had a profound impact on the shape of social relations and their spatial manifestation.

Ultimately, the fragmentation of social activities leads towards a feeling of “disembeddedness”, a feeling of belonging nowhere (Healey et al. 2001, 280). People need a sense of belonging, it is crucial to our wellbeing and that of the community at large. Therefore, the importance of place in a contemporary context arises from the feeling of disembedding from established places we experience in our modern cities. Place can work as a medium of overcoming this feeling of disembeddedness (Healey et al. 2001).

Place plays a crucial role in the social life of a community. How could we even imagine social life without going from one place to another and communicating with each other across space (Madanipour 2001)? Place not only frames social life in a community, it is also an important aspect of local identity. The intense degree of globalization has increased the need for a more profound association with a certain identity (Madanipour 2001). Rootedness in places plays

a considerable role in the sense of wellbeing of people (Yi-Fu-Tuan 1977). Place has an important role in the construction or maintenance of social identity.

Place is essential component to the viability of the communities we live in. “Place is at the bedrock of our society; therefore it cannot have vanished because it is a necessary component of the human condition” (Cresswell 2004, 49). Not only does place frame our social life it is also the quintessential element of the psychological need to belong somewhere (Cresswell 2004). “As such, place is the antidote to the prevailing alienation and anxiety that is produced by the fragmentation of social and economic activities” (Lippard 1997, 5-6). In essence, we need place to feel connected to where we live; places which call us, and in some cases move us to speak for them, place as a continuous anchor for our life (Cousineau 1995, Lynch 2002).

Although place is still a crucial element of our societies, the role of place is no longer to crystallize some form of spirit or genius loci. Even though time-space compression has led to feelings of rootlesness and vulnerability, we should not automatically conclude need to turn back to place as we knew it in the ancient times. “Under the forces of globalization place has changed and these changes produced some anxiety” (Cresswell 2004, 49). This anxiety has led some authors to advocate for a romanticized notion of place. Authors like Heidegger and Harvey argue we need to turn back to place as we knew it before the global forces affected it (Massey 1993,

Cresswell 2004). Harvey emphasizes the permanence of place; place as a form of investment in fixity (Cresswell 2004). Massey argues this is not a viable solution. Romanticizing place ignores the unavoidable dynamic of change and real life (Massey 1993). Heidegger’s and Harvey’s reactionary response to the evaporation of place is not a solution to the problem (Cresswell

2004). We must find a way to make sense of place from a more modern perspective; a perspective which does not have to contest the challenges our urban environments pose.

The question thus becomes what place ought to be in the 21st century? How do we make sense of place in a time when cities are no longer unique points of attraction, when both social and economic activities fit in an international network of linked regions and nations? It is clear that this is not straightforward. The key to the solution is to stop viewing place as a fixed and secured concept. Instead, we need to look at place as a process and give a more operational definition of place (Massey 1994, Pred 1984, Kahn 2005). In other words, instead of equating place with status quo and reaction, we need to equate it with movement and progress (Massey

1993, Pred 1984). As Lippard stated: “Mobility and place can go hand in hand since place is already hybrid anyway” (Cresswell 2004, 49).

2.2 Place as a Planning Concern

Not only have the dynamics of our contemporary society have reshaped our world view and redefined (often diminished) the importance of place, they have also affected the importance of place for planners. Even though many academics have pointed out the various aspects of significance of place and why they are important to strengthen communities, parallel to this, planners have only given marginal attention to place (Barthes 1997). This has happened for two reasons: recent changes in the planning profession and the esoteric character of place. In the next section I will focus on two trends that have affected the way we think about place in planning: the focus on development and the increasing focus on specialization. Both fixes have led planners to believe a concern with place is irrelevant. Discussing these trends will clarify why reinserting the concept of place in the planning profession is crucial. The discussion will validate place as an authentic planning concern. Once we have understood the validity of place for planning, we can investigate how to make sense of this concept of place from a practical planning perspective.

What follows is a brief description of these two major planning fixes and why they have been so

pernicious to place as a subject of the profession. Chapter five will point out how both fixes have caused drastic changes in the planning and design for Fountain Square.

2.2.1 Development Driven Approach

Over the last three decades the focus on development has become more and more prevalent in the planning profession. The metaphor planning practitioners use most to define city planning is development or economic development (Fainstein 1991). “The foremost impetus driving new modes of planning has been the restructuring of the urban economy” (Fainstein

1991, 22). This tendency manifests itself in various planning practices, especially in current land use planning practices. Today, land use planning is often nothing more than a regulatory function,

“it focuses on how land use planning is connected to economic development” (Healey et al. 2001,

266). Land use regulations are targeted toward facilitating the highest and best use. Under such circumstances, land is just seen as an economic asset. It is valued for its current or future economic returns.

In this context, place is often left out of the picture. Because we are so preoccupied with the economic competitiveness of our communities we often forget the impacts our actions have on places in these communities. I am not making a case against economic development.

However, we need to understand that the urge for development should not entail rendering place as irrelevant (Healey et al. 2001). Unfortunately, this is not what is currently happening. Place is often reduced to a sheer economic asset. Place is often used as a tool for economic development.

In this context, the multifaceted nature of place and the various narratives that may be associated with it are not well recognized. As I will discuss later places have multiple narratives, not just a singular (economic) narrative. Place cannot be confined to the narrow realm of development. Nor does it have to be locked up in romanticized ideology. We need to strike a balance between

development and ideology, between economic impacts and impacts on place. Actually, as I will point out in chapter six, place could serve as a linkage between the two.

2.2.2 The Planning Profession

In addition to the emphasis on facilitating development the planning profession is plagued by a limitless number of specializations and sub specializations. Due to the prevalence of the utilitarian school of thought, we have preferred economic efficiency over identity and place

(Perry 1995). To be better meet efficiency needs planners have specialized their actions. In the process of specialization planners have often lost the true goal of planning and urban design out of sight: to build the city as the house of the community. Because planning is more and more professionalized and narrowly focused, it has become disconnected from the people and places it promises to serve (Lucy 1994, Perry 1995). Due to this narrow professional focus, planners do not seem to direct much attention to what makes places important for a community.

The specialization of our actions has tended to leave place out of the picture. The results of locking planning up in the narrow realm of expert knowledge can be seen everywhere in the

United States and more recently more and more in Europe as well. Due to the unintended consequences of planners’ expert actions, cities across the States have become a patchwork of highly specialized fragmented regions. There is no longer an overall sense of place connecting urban spaces. Because the contemporary notion of place just revolves around functions and uses, planners no longer fully recognize the value place has for communities (Barthes 1997).

2.2.3 Consequences for Place as a Subject of Planning

The planning profession today is dominated by the urge for economic development of most cities. In its turn, the development process is driven by a myriad of private land owners and

developers and not by the will to produce places (Healey et al. 2001). Planning is often complementary in this process. Planners are hauled in to indicate the seriousness, the need for, or the inevitability of the project (Healey et al. 2001). Because the current planning practices are usually so specialized they are not able to make the connection between their actions and promoting the qualities of the places they are serving.

It might be impossible for planners to find consensus on an agreeable core of action, much less a collective theory; nevertheless planning is (and has always been) a profession that is profoundly tied to society (Perry 1995). It is specifically this social embeddedness that validates planning as a profession. Consequently, our most ultimate role is to tie planning practice to its actual participation in the construction and operation of society (Perry 1995). One way of doing this is to reinsert the concept of place in the planning profession. Place will not only help us reconnect the wide array of planning specializations it will eventually also help to tie our communities together. Because of its inherent characteristics place can be the concept that glues the splintered and disconnected urban environments. Place can be perceived across borders. Place can include what specialized development driven planning excludes. Place can help to restore a sense of community and belonging in different ways. It will help communities to express their identity and social life. Thinking about place will be one way to reconnect planning to its embedding in the social dynamics of our society. It will help us to focus our efforts on building places in stead of just making plans.

Now that we have discussed the validity of thinking about place in planning, how can we arrive at a practical planning oriented understanding of place? Over the course of the last couple of decades, place is often understood from limited perspectives (Madanipour 1996). Place has been studied by a wide variety of disciplines. Geographers, architects, sociologists, psychologists have written about place. Generally, they have all focused on one (specialized) sub aspect

relevant to their specific field of study. As such the knowledge base about place is very dispersed and at times confusing. There is a growing need for a broader and more dynamic perspective on place (Madanipour 1996). Planners could bring this dynamic/holistic perspective together. We are not psychologists, nor are we sociologists, or financial experts. It is our duty to understand but not limit ourselves to one of these specialized sub professions. The question thus becomes when we, planners/urban designers, are faced with the difficult task of designing for a certain place.

What do we need to understand? Three essential research questions arise.

• How do we unravel the multifaceted character of place and are its main components?

• How do we understand these aspects from a practical planning perspective?

• How does urban design relate to all of this?

The remainder of this thesis will address these three essential research questions. In the next chapter I will present the methodology for research.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Given the complex nature of the subject of this thesis, deciding on a specific methodology is extremely important. Essentially, the methodology has to serve as a guide for answering the three research questions. To reiterate:

• How do we unravel the multifaceted character of place, and what are its main

components?

• How do we understand these aspects from a practical planning perspective?

• How does urban design relate to all of this?

Compiling a suited methodology for researching place is not straightforward. Unlike quantitative research, which generally uses established clear cut methodologies, there is neither a set strategy nor a set methodology for researching place. This is especially true when researching place in the context of an urban design thesis. While a sociologist may have behavioral theories to rely on to research place, urban designers to not have these set theories available. This forced me to compile a new qualitative methodology specifically tailored for investigating place from an urban design perspective. Essentially the methodology consists of three main components.

• Develop a framework which makes the key aspects of place understandable and

researchable.

• Incorporate in the framework a distinct link to urban design.

• Gather the necessary data to apply of the framework to a specific case study (Fountain

Square). Use triangulation of three data types to minimize bias of data collection:

Observation Secondary data collection Primary data collection: Interviews

Each component of the methodology has its own appropriate approach and is characterized by specific set of techniques. The following sections of this chapter discuss the three components in more depth and indicate how they are specifically targeted to the respective research questions.

3.1 Understanding the Key Aspects of Place

The first step in understanding place from a practical planning perspective is to identify and comprehend its key aspects. The complex character of place comprises the layering of a couple of essential components. In the introduction I briefly touched upon three of them, I referred to them as the three ground rules of place (Gieryn 2000). Although they are good to give a broad overview of place, when we really want to analyze place we need to delve deeper. A thorough investigation of the key aspects is needed to understand how their synergy creates place.

From the literature five key aspects to place were identified: location, material form, people, social processes, and representations. The discussion of these five aspects forms the basis for the framework.

3.2 Developing the Framework

It is essential the five key aspects of place are investigated comprehensively. The first step was to identify them. This answered the question “what aspects of place count?” The second, and equally important one, is to bring them together in a framework. As mentioned before, the key aspects I am focusing on have been studied in a reasonably isolated manner. But, for the purposes of this framework, it is essential we combine them in a holistic view on place. The framework will therefore integrate different understandings of place offered by authorities in the field. By doing this, it will not only dissect place into its various components but it will also point

out how their synergy makes place. The following table gives an overview of the key authors I drew on to discuss each aspect. The table is by no means a comprehensive overview of the available literature on place. It merely gives an indication of which authors have been relevant for the purpose of assembling the framework.

Table 3.1: Key authors used for assembling the framework Key aspect Key authors Location Cresswell, Langer, Gieryn geographical aspect Material form Schulz, Barthes, Gieryn, Lynch physical aspect People Lefebvre, Soja, Heidegger, Malpas, Sack, Cresswell social aspect Social processes Lefebvre, Madanipour, Martin, Heidegger, Pred, Hayden productional aspect Meaning and value Harvey, Jensen, Hayden, Lefebvre, Cresswell, Gieryn, representational aspect Leach, Castells, Relph, Yi-Fu-Tuan, Norberg-Schulz Source: Author

3.3 Making the Link to Urban Design

One of the most fundamental and visible changes a place can undergo is a new design.

Consequently, the next step in the methodology (and the second part of the framework) is to link the changing character of place to urban design. To do this I will use Beauregard’s concept of site and place. In his paper from “From Place to Site” Beauregard describes the process by which site can become a place by means of a design, and vice versa (Beauregard 2005). Key to

Beauregard’s paper is his discussion of place narratives. I will rely of Beauregard’s research to make the link between the changing nature of place, the narratives steering this change, and the potential role design can play.

3.4 Fountain Square Case Study

The last component of the three step methodology is the application of the framework to a case study. For various reasons Fountain Square (Cincinnati, Ohio), is an ideal case study to investigate the three research questions. Fountain Square holds a very contentious place in downtown Cincinnati. Fountain Square, has a history that goes back to 1871. Since then,

Fountain Square has faced many challenges, most of which were the expression of changes in socio-economic dynamics. Every time shifts in dynamics occurred, Fountain Square was redesigned, relocated, or reconfigured. Changes in narratives for Fountain Square resulted in new designs. Because Fountain Square underwent many redesigns it is a great case study to investigate the relation between place narratives and narratives for design. Essentially there are four key reasons for picking Fountain Square as the preferred case study:

• Fountain Square is a place; • Fountain Square has experienced a number of transformations which can be chronicled; • Narrative support for the changes made to Fountain Square can be tracked; • Fountain Square is currently (2005-2006) undergoing another redesign which can help frame the discussion of the case study.

To this end, a great deal of information needed to be collected. Although there are many resources available on the history of the Tyler Davidson Fountain (which historically has been the centerpiece of Fountain Square), very little literature is available on the history of the

Fountain Square district. The majority of the available information focuses on the symbology of the Fountain, its several repairs, and so on. However, when investigating the history of Fountain

Square as a place, more specific information is needed on various fronts: its historical account, its surrounding context and land uses, the public sentiment about Fountain Square, the rationale for changes made to the Square, and so on. Generally, broader information is needed on the district

surrounding Fountain Square. Obviously, the history of the Tyler Davidson Fountain is only one part of Fountain Square’s rich history. In what follows I will elaborate on the specific process of data collection for the case study.

3.5 Data Collection

In social sciences, triangulation is often used as a methodology to combine several

(usually three or two) techniques with the goal to triple (or double) checking results. Sometimes the technique is more generally referred to as cross examination. The idea behind triangulation is that one can be more confident with the outcome of an analysis if different methods or techniques lead to the same result. As I have already mentioned place does not have a fixed meaning and is hard to capture. What it means highly depends on the context it is examined in. Under these circumstances, there is a danger that some of the aspects of the research about Fountain Square could become intuitive and opinionated. This would inadvertently create bias in the research.

Therefore, given the nature of the subject and the potential bias associated with it, finding a method to minimize bias became necessary. For this specific case study triangulation has been selected as the preferred method for combining several types of data. Three techniques of data collection have been combined and cross checked:

1. Observation: archival maps, photographs, sketches, plans, models. 2. Secondary sources: newspapers (1860-2006), archival documents, Cincinnati directories, Cincinnati tour guides, Cincinnati history reference books. 3. Primary sources: interviews. Cross checking the results and outcomes of three methods of data collection, ensures a most accurate representation of Fountain Square’s history, and the narratives associated with its evolution, is presented.

3.5.1 Observation

Collecting and observing historic maps, pictures of the Square, and sketches of redesigns from four main time periods (1860-1871, 1904-1930, 1930-1960, 1971-2006) provided the basis for tracing the physical evolution of the Square. The maps come from Sanborn fire insurance atlases, the Robinson atlas, plans for redesign of the Square and maps in miscellaneous documents (Urban Renewal Board Reports, Cincinnati Tour Guides, Urban Design Review

Reports, 3CDC Fountain Square Revitalization Project). Historic pictures of Fountain Square from the Library of Congress, the Cincinnati Historical Society, and the Cincinnati Public Library archival collections gave a better understanding of the surroundings of the Square. Coupling maps and photographs with historical Cincinnati address directories allowed a thorough examination of the changes in the building context surrounding Fountain Square, changes of ownership of buildings, and changes in land use. These three sources of information collectively provide the basis for the discussion of the physical changes of Fountain Square.

3.5.2 Secondary Sources

To tell the story behind all the physical changes Fountain Square underwent, newspaper articles dating back as far as 1860 were collected. Historical Cincinnati Tour Guides and books on Cincinnati’s history completed the story. The newspaper articles (from various local newspapers) allowed me to trace the popular story of Fountain Square over time and distill various narratives throughout the history of the Square. In this regard old tour guides of

Cincinnati turned out to be very helpful as well. To document the first move of the Fountain

(which was a result of the broader urban renewal plan for Cincinnati) I reviewed reports from the urban division department of the City of Cincinnati. Additional information was obtained from the 1925 General Plan for Cincinnati, the 1948 City Plan, and the 1964 Urban Renewal Plan.

Collectively secondary data provides reasons for change to Fountain Square, as well as the perception of the public, city officials, and designers. As such they offer narrative describing the physical transformations of Fountain Square and allow me to back up observations with written archival information. The combination of observation and secondary data analysis enables me to me to craft a comprehensive overview on the history of Fountain Square; one that goes beyond a mere physical descriptive approach.

3.5.3 Primary Sources

The third and final was collecting primary information. This was done by means of interviews with key informants who have intimate knowledge about the current redevelopment of

Fountain Square. The interviews offer a better understanding of the narratives of various actors

(designers, developers, citizens, and city officials) associated with the redevelopment of Fountain

Square. Of all the interview techniques available, I used Kvale’s concept of “interview as conversation” as the preferred technique (Kvale 1996, 19). Kvale argues that the qualitative research interview is a specific form of conversation. Therefore instead of approaching the interview as a series of fixed questions and answers, Kvale suggests we can approach it as conversation (Kvale 1996).

The goal of the interviews was to uncover the narratives for the involvement of various key informants (subjects) in the current Fountain Square revitalization project. Following Kvale’s suggestion the research interview performed in this context is semi-structured and “theme oriented” (Kvale 1996, 29). It is conducted according to an “interview guide” that focuses on certain themes and may include suggested questions (Kvale 1996, 27). Therefore it is neither an open conversation nor a highly structured questionnaire. The performed interviews are qualitative in nature, and aim at obtaining nuanced descriptions of various narratives of various stake holders

associated with the redevelopment of Fountain Square. The end result of the interviews is descriptive and not interpretative. The interviews were transcribed and digitally recorded. Notes combined with the digital recording provides the basis for the quoted narratives in chapter five.

All interviewees were considered key informants; no interviews were conducted with the aim of gathering data from the public. Hence it was not necessary to obtain approval from the University

Institutional Review Board (IRB) in order to conduct the interviews. The following table gives an overview of the interviewed key informants.

Table 3.2: Key Informants Key informants Position association with the project. Developer: Mary Lynne Boorne, project manager for 3CDC’s Fountain Square revitalization project City Councilmember: Jim Tarbell, City of Cincinnati, Vice Mayor City Official/Architect: Joel Koopman, City of Cincinnati, Principal Architect Public Works Division Designer: Don Clinton, Cooper Robinson Partner, principal architect for the current redesign of Fountain Square Source: Author

3.6 Methodology Flowchart

The flowchart on the next page summarizes the main steps and elements of the methodology as outlined in this chapter. It gives an overview of how, starting from academic literature on place, I will arrive at a practical understanding of place and the resulting policy implications for urban design and planning.

Academic knowledge on Policy implications for place. urban design and planning.

Derive 5 key aspects from the literature and combine the aspects in a framework Implications for designers useful for urban design. understanding of place.

• Observations • Secondary data • Primary data – interviews Draw conclusions from the Triangulation Fountain Square case Framework is the tool for study. the case study analysis.

Input

Apply the framework to Fountain Square. CONCLUSIONS AND TOOL KIT ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 3.1: Methodology flowchart Source: Author

Chapter 4: The Framework

Understanding place from a planning perspective begins with identifying and understanding its key components. Place is so multifaceted that it is necessary to have a clear framework for analyzing and researching its aspects relevant to planning. This chapter presents an analytical framework that will help us do this. The framework consists of two components.

The first component brings together five key aspects of place. Analyzing these five key components will clarify place is not a static concept. Place is constantly changing and so are all the elements that make up its character. Consequently, the second component of the framework explores the various forces causing the changes, and investigates the potential role of urban design in all of this. It will make a link between the changing nature of place and design. The framework assists in getting the concept of place out of its metaphorical stage and understanding its different aspects from a practical planning perspective.

4.1 Five Key Aspects of Place

This first component of the framework identifies what aspects of place count. Based on a very extensive literature review on place five key aspects to place were derived: people, practices, objects, representations and location. The framework integrates five key readings of place offered by authorities in the field. The framework indicates how each element is individually connected to place as well as how their synergy makes up the multifaceted character of a place. The discussion of each aspect is concluded with a practical example. This example will make it easier to understand how the synergy of the five key aspects I am discussing. For the

purposes of this chapter I will use an example that allows for an easy dissection of the various narratives: the tailgating before and after a football game at the University of Michigan.

4.1.1 Location

Probably the most tangible aspect of place is its location. Every place has an exact position on the Earth’s surface. All places are located in a certain continent, country, region, neighborhood, and can be positioned on the globe by means of their longitude and latitude. Since every place has these exact coordinates, we are able to locate it and position it in relation to other places. The location of a place allows us to distinguish between here and there, between this place and another (Gieryn 2000).

The exact coordinates of a place are not enough when it comes to defining its location.

The location of a place is also geographically defined by boundaries. Place boundaries manifest themselves on many scales and levels. The boundaries of a place may be dictated by geographical features, but also by socio-economic aspects, cultural aspects, and personal aspects. A place could be your favorite room, a little spot by the lake, a public square, or even a country (Gieryn

2000). Consequently, place boundaries are flexible, not fixed (Gieryn 2000).

Even though a place needs to have an exact location this does not mean its location has to be fixed; places are not always stationary (Cresswell 2005). Just like place has flexible boundaries, the location of place is flexible over time as well. For example, a ship constantly changing its location is nonetheless a self-contained place (Langer 1953, Cresswell 2004). So is a gypsy camp or a circus camp. However many times it changes its location, it is still a place

(Langer 1953, Cresswell 2004). In a deeper sense, place does not need to have a fixed location at all (Cresswell 2004). Therefore, location alone is not sufficient to define place.

4.1.1.1 Example:

Before and after every University of

Michigan football game people gather in the

area surrounding the football stadium to

enjoy food and drinks with other fans.

Everyone claims their own spot in the area

by parking their car and sitting in front of

the back of the car which serves as a mini

Figure 4.1: University of Michigan golf course bar/food buffet. This pre- and post-game Source: Photo by author gathering is commonly referred to as tailgating. The most prominent spot for the fans to tailgate is the University’s golf course. At certain game days throughout the year the golf course is transformed into a tailgating festival where everyone brings their car, food, and games to have a good time. During the tailgating, the golf course and the adjacent parking lots become a special place for many fans. It is a place where people interact, talk about the game, share their anticipations about the game, celebrate victory, or share disappointment after a lost game. This makes the golf course a place fans remember. Geographically, the golf course is located in Ann

Arbor near the University of Michigan’s stadium. The golf course is bound by Stadium

Boulevard, State and Main Streets. Clearly the geographical attributes of the golf course tell us nothing about the golf course as such; they most certainly do not tell us anything about the special place that emerges there during the tailgate. In fact the tailgate could be held anywhere and does not need to have a fixed location at all. Its location does not tell us enough.

4.1.2 Material Form

Place is much more than a geographical location. In addition to being located, place is a compilation of things and objects in a specific location (Gieryn 2000). The specific compilation of objects creates a unique physical setting. Places always have some kind of material form. Even imagined places like the landscapes of Lord of the Rings have a certain spatial finitude and materiality (Cresswell 2005). As Gieryn put it: “place is stuff” (Gieryn 2000, 465). Objects shape our visual environment; they make the spatial finitude of a place visible and understandable. For example, the space of a square is defined by buildings (objects) surrounding it, and the actual physical lay out of the square. While the relation between material form and space can easily be understood; to understand how the physical environment shapes our perception of place we need to delve deeper. More specifically, we need to understand how an intangible concept like place is influenced by its material form.

The material form of a place not only defines its spatial finitude, it also allows for its use and determines the way we perceive it (Gieryn 2000, Habraken 1998). The great boulevards in

Paris would be nothing without the straight vistas, the tree lined landscaping, the uniformity of facades, and the great monuments framing their path. The specific lay out of buildings and streets, the way streets alleys and boulevards feed in to a place, the pleasing configuration of material objects determines how we use place, and we orient ourselves through it. Material form may also prevent our use of a certain place by fencing it off from outsiders. Essentially the material form of a place determines our perception of place. And in turn the perception of a place determines its character (Norberg-Schulz 2003).

The character of a certain place is thus determined by its material and formal constitution

(Norberg-Schulz 2003). Character is what links material form and place. Whereas space denotes the three dimensional organization of the elements which make up a place, character denotes the

general atmosphere of a place (Norberg-Schulz 2003). “The existential function of physical objects is to uncover the meanings present in a certain place” (Norberg-Schulz 2003, 123). Or as

Barthes argues: “Objects are witness to a specific state of distribution of meanings” (Barthes

1997, 169). Objects (tangibles) crystallize intangibles like character, identity, memory, and perception associated with a place. Norberg-Schulz outlines the relation between material form and place in three fundamental ways (Norberg-Schulz 2003, 122-123):

I. Material form makes the structure of place more precise, it visualizes place.

II. Materials form symbolizes and determine the character and identity of the place by

determining its use and orientation.

III. Places gather experienced meaning, and crystallize meaning. The transposition of

meanings to a physical entity ultimately makes this entity the center of all these meanings.

At this point it is important to mention that even though objects are tangible witnesses to experienced meaning they are transient and subject to change (Barthes 1997). Just like a place does not need to have a fixed location, it does not have one single unique material constellation.

However, the meaning of places always remains and does not disappear or suddenly change upon modifications to its material form (Barthes 1997). Places are never emptied from their meanings, even though the physical fabric might no longer really support or effectively crystallize all the meanings, stories and memories attached to that place, they are still there. Therefore, we cannot reduce place to material form alone.

4.1.2.1 Example:

Figure 4.2: Tailgate at the golf course Figure 4.3: Organization of cars and tents at the tailgate Source: Photo by author Source: Photo by author

Without the cars, the tents, the chairs, and the barbecues the golf course in Ann Arbor is obviously just a golf course. For the tailgate, the entire course is laid out in different zones. Cars park next to each other and leave open space in between rows to create little alleys and small courtyards. Inserting objects (or material form) like cars and tents and laying them out in a certain manner makes the golf course useable for the purposes of the tailgate. The lay out combined with the material form visualizes the place, determines the orientation through it, and gives the tailgate its unique character. However, since this is temporary place, the next day all the material form is gone. The fans have gone home, the cars and tents are gone as well, but the memories of the tailgating on the golf course are still there. In a similar vein, but spread out over decades, urban places change as well. Materiality is volatile but signification remains.

4.1.3 The Social Aspect

We cannot define place just by its physical attributes (Arefi and Triantafillou 2005, Pred

1984). Place is much more than material objects in a certain location. The qualities of places are

not solely plastic, not to be apprehended solely through analyzing physical or visual attributes

(Lefebvre 1974, Arefi and Triantafillou 2005). Therefore, the opposition between inside and outside, between the here and there as indicated by boundaries, thresholds, and material objects does not suffice when it comes to defining place (Lefebvre 1974). As well as having a fixed location and materiality, place needs to have a distinct relationship to people and the human capacity to produce and consume meaning (Cresswell 2004). A place does not exist without a human being experiencing it, living in it, looking at it, and eventually calling it a place. “Without naming, identification, representation, by ordinary people a place is not a place” (Gieryn 2000,

465). Places are therefore not only built, or in some other way physically carved out, they are also interpreted, imagined, perceived, felt, and understood” (Gieryn 2000, 465). Only people can do this, people make the link between space (as defined by location and material form) and place.

What is the social aspect of place? What makes place a social phenomenon? According to

Heidegger, place (as a social phenomenon) is inhabited space (Heidegger 1997). Once people start to live in a certain space, when a certain space becomes a lived experience, a space becomes a place. As Heidegger stated: “The dwelling of mankind in space denotes the relationship between man and place” (Heidegger 1997, 107). Once we start to live in a certain space, we start constructing a settlement to support our lives and socio-cultural relations. This can be true on many scales, from decorating and furnishing a house to a community building a church and grocery store. Settlements transform natural environments or spaces into cultural environments or places (Heidegger 1997). By inhabiting space the affective level (the level of the body) of a space is transformed into a property of a place (Lefebvre 1974). Soja calls this social dimension of place ‘thirdspace’ (Soja 1999). “Thirdspace is lived, practiced and inhabited rather than mappable

(firstspace) or conceived (secondspace)” (Creswell 2004, 38).

Social relations are grounded in space and exist within a certain framework of spatialities

(Castells 1997, Soja 1980). Social life is always “emplaced” in a certain locality (Gans 2002,

329). The spatial location of social action is vital for processes of “socio-spatial identification”

(Castells 1997, 45). Place is an important part of the identity of a community, it is the metaphorical and quasi-metaphysical underpinning of a society (Lefebvre 1974). The existence of place is of great importance for our communities. Place offers each member of the community an image of their membership, an image of her or his “social visage” (Lefebvre 1974, 139). As such, place constitutes a collective mirror more faithful than our own personal one (Lefebvre

1974). “Much more than simply a world view, this sense of place is a fundamental component of our relation to the world” (Jensen 2004, 41). Malpas even goes further and states “the social does not exist prior to place, nor is it given expression except in and through place” (Malpas 1999, 36).

“It is only within place the very possibility of the social arises” (Malpas 1999, 36). Place is something we have to construct in order to be human, it is a necessary social construction

(Malpas 1999, Sack 1997, Creswell 2004). Without going into too much detail on the social construction of place, it is important to mention that place should not be reduced to the social, the cultural, or the natural (Sack 1997). “Place is the phenomenon that brings these together, and in part, produced them” (Cresswell 2004, 31). Instead of just looking at place as being produced by social practices we need to understand that these very social practices can only arise in and through place. Place is both produced through social practices as well as it is a producer of social practices. Malpas and Sack argue humans cannot construct anything without first being in place,

“place is primary to the construction of meaning and society” (Malpas and Sack in Creswell

2004, 31). “There was no place before there was humanity, but once we came into existence then place did too” (Creswell 2004, 33).

So far, we have studied the social and physical aspects of place. It can be argued that place is not just a collection of objects nor is it just an ephemeral social phenomenon. Place as social object is recalled at every moment perhaps by the brutality of masses and volumes of a place or maybe even their gentle subtlety (Lefebvre 1974). There is a close connection between social and physical space. Place is where social space and physical space meet. How they meet and interact is discussed in the next section.

4.1.3.1 Example:

People are the quintessential element of

the tailgating, the people who gather there make

it a place. Without them it would just be a golf

course. The people who gather here arrange the

cars and the tents, share experiences, build up the

atmosphere. To describe it in Soja’s terms, the

tailgate is lived and experienced. Just like we Figure 4.4: The tailgate as a family event Source: Photo by author construct a settlement to support our socio-spatial relations in an urban setting the fans of the football game have constructed a temporal setting to host their social event. The social relations take place in and through this temporal settlement.

4.1.4 Practices and Events

The previous section investigated the social aspect of place and described its importance for socio-spatial identification. To reiterate, place is where social and physical space meet, but how do they meet? How do they interact? Although place needs a location to position it, material form to make it useable, and people to call it a place; place is also defined by what may take

place there and what may not take place there (Lefebvre 1974). Buildings and other spatial objects have functions, forms, and structures, but they do not integrate the moments of social practice (Lefebvre 1974). In other words, through everyday practices and events people interact with place. That is, through social practices the social and physical components of place meet.

Every happening or moment is referenced to a certain locality (Norberg-Schulz 2003).

Whenever we remember a moment or experience we always tie it to a certain location. Do we not all remember a great diner or party in that one certain great place? Social practices or events make a certain place a lived experience. Exactly because it is a lived experience the place itself becomes memorable. Social practices link people and objects. In turn these social practices lead to the construction of representations about place. In the next section we will focus more on the representational aspect of place.

4.1.4.1 Example:

Turning back to the Michigan

tailgating, the reason for the people to gather

around the golf course is the football game.

This specific event is the reason for people to

come and organize the tailgate. It is because of

the tailgate they will remember the golf course

as a special place. Without the tailgate they Figure 4.5: Games, gathering and barbecuing at the tailgate Source: Photo by author may not have any specific association with the golf course. Imagine the golf course would be just used as a parking lot. Without people gathering and eating the golf course would be just a different kind of parking lot. Without the tailgate as an event, the golf course would not be memorable. Without the barbecuing, the

playing games, the talking to people about the game, the singing the team’s song; there would be no reason for people to come here.

4.1.5 Representations

Without naming, identification or representation by ordinary people, a place is not a place

(Gieryn 2000). People consume and produce emotional and subjective attachments to their physical surroundings in and through place. By ascribing cultural and symbolic attributes like meaning, memory and feeling to our environments we appropriate them; we make them our places (Harvey in Jensen 2004). As mentioned before, having these attachments to place is critical to the well-being or distress of communities (Hayden 1995).

Essentially place representations come forth from our use of place (Hayden 1995). As mentioned before, we intervene, experience and live in place through social practices. These practices do not only make the link between people and place; they also form the origin of all the intangibles associated with place. Because all social practices are emplaced; memories, meanings and values engendered through them get transposed to place as well. Place representations are intertwined with spatial perception.

The meaning of place or the sense of place is never fixed and ever labile (Gieryn 2000).

Representations of place are not singular; places do not have one single meaning, one single truth. Instead they have a horizon of meaning, “a specific or indefinite multiplicity of meanings”

(Leach 1997, 140). “The construction of place representations uses building materials from the past, from geography, from biology, from collective memory, from personal fantasy, from power apparatus, and religious revelations” (Castells 1997, 45). Since these elements are relative and always changing, representations about place change over time. Just like the location of place, the material form, the use of place, and the socio-economic dynamics of place are not static, place-

representations change as well. While 10 years ago a place may have been derelict and not cared for now it can be the place to be, or vice versa. While for a certain group of people one place may be the quintessential representation of their values and understanding of society, another group of people might have a very different idea about this. Additionally, different groups of people, or different social agents as Jensen calls them, might use the same place for different purposes. This in turn will also generate different place representations. Representations become more prevalent by means of, and for the sake of, one or the other particular action or group (Lefebvre 1974).

Place overcomes all these differences and has the ability to carry all these different representations. It is specifically the persistence of place as a container of various (not just one singular) kinds of experiences, memories and feelings that contributes so powerfully to its intrinsic memorability (Casey 1987). Casey called this memorability place memory (Casey

1987). Not only does this place memory make us remember the place, it also remembers us how we felt about that place, what we did there, what we have seen there, or how we perceived it.

According to Casey an alert and alive memory connects spontaneously with place, “memory is naturally place-oriented or at least place-supported” (Casey 1987, 187).

In the end, it is important to mention that representations of space not only arise from social practices, they also work back as regulations of those forms of practices, and thus creating complex socio-spatial dialectic (Jensen 2004). Place is not just subjectivity but also that on which subjectivity is based (Cresswell 2004).

4.1.5.1 Example:

The tailgate in Michigan makes the parking lots and the golf course a memorable place.

Football fans will have memories about this place. The meaning of place is not singular. For golfers the meaning of the golf course will be different than for the fans who come here during

the tailgate. An outsider might care less about the game and may have no particular association with the tailgating nor the golf course. For some people the tailgating is just a way to make some money by collecting recyclable cans. Their representations or memories about the tailgating will be totally different from the people who come here to celebrate the game.

4.1.6 Drawing together the five key aspects

Its is clear all the aspects I have described are closely related. The following scheme brings them all together. To summarize, objects make the structure of place visible and determine our orientation and perception of it. The objects shaping place and representations about place are both the result of social practices. Social practices make place a lived experience. Place representations make us appropriate place. And all of this takes place in a certain location.

Figure 4.6: Bringing together the five key aspects of place Source: Graphic by author

The key aspects of place are not fixed. To reiterate, place does not need to have a fixed location, it does not necessarily have a fixed material constellation, social practices and place representations are not singular and ever changing as well. Since all the aspects making up the complex nature of place are continuously in a state of change, place can be nothing than continuously evolving as well. As such, place is never a fixed product, it is becoming (Cresswell

2005). Place is made and remade on an every day basis. What steers the remaking of place is a complex mix of narratives associated with that place. These narratives can be of a economic, design, political, cultural nature. In the next section I will discuss the importance of recognizing the different narratives associated with place.

4.2 From Site to Place

The first component of the framework made the key aspects of place identifiable and researchable. This answered the question “what aspects of place count?”. At this point the framework leaves two essential questions unanswered. First, how do the key aspects change, and second does urban design have a role in this change? In other words how is the changing character of place linked to urban design? To establish the link I will use Beauregard’s paper

“From Place to Site: Negotiating Narrative Complexity” (in Kahn et al. 2005). In this paper

Beauregard makes an important contribution to urban designers’ understanding of place by discussing urban design’s impact on place. More specifically he addresses what urban designers need to understand about place to make the impact a positive one.

One of the fundamental and most direct ways we intervene in place is through urban design. Places are always in evolution, they change over time. Often important changes to a certain place go along with new designs. Therefore Knox argues urban designers should be aware of the link between their designs and place: “Key to good urban design is the capacity of the built

environment to foster a sense of place” (Knox 2005, 2). From the first lines on the drawing board urban designers should be thinking about how their design might impact place. Essentially, everything we do in urban design has a close connection to place and placemaking. However designers seldom think of their designs in these terms. Placemaking is rarely the only motive behind a design. Urban design projects are often the expression of the ego of a designer, the agenda of a client, or a desire to maximize economic return on a project. To understand what impact designs might have on place we need to understand a couple of things. First we need to know how design might affect place. Secondly we need to know what the exact difference is between a design approach that is sensitive to place and one that is not. The remainder of this chapter will address these two questions.

4.2.1 The Sterilizing Tendency of Designing

What happens when we design a place? Before places become subject to urban planning and design, “they exist in personal experience, in hearsay, and in collective memories”

(Beauregard 2005). There are various “narratives” associated with place (Beauregard 2005, 39).

These narratives can be social, physical, and economic in nature. Combined they make up the stories about a certain place; the memories people have about a place, its history, the reasons for its evolution. Place narratives are the driving force behind the evolving character of place. When place eventually becomes subject to professional urban design practice, designers take control over it by distilling its narratives (Beauregard 2005). Beauregard argues place becomes professionalized when it is designed (Beauregard 2005). Its complex web of intertwined narratives becomes subject to a professional discourse and its inherent analytical techniques. By including place in this discourse, we reduce its complexity to a few attributes. Henri Lefebvre calls this the sterilizing tendency of designing (Lefebvre 1997). Sterilizing because place is

reduced to blueprints, to mere images, “to that world of the image which is the enemy of imagination” (Lefebvre 1997, 144). “A tendency that makes reductions of this kind is a tendency that degrades place” (Lefebvre 1997, 144). Beauregard defined this reduction as the process of

“discursive replacement,” a process that replaces place narratives with professional narratives. A process by which “place” becomes “site” (Beauregard 2005, 54). In this context there is a clear distinction between site and place. Place is defined as a space people have charged with meanings, memories, character and identity. A site is a place cleared and emptied of meaning. It is a social construct, a representation of space. It is understood apart from social relations.

4.2.2 Place Narratives

Beauregard argues site does not exist prior to the onset of planning and design; it is an integral part of the design process (Beauregard 2005). Site cannot exist without the prior existence of place. To be able to (re)design a place we need to professionalize it, and by doing so we turn place into site. Turning place into site is an inevitable consequence of designing.

Labeling a certain space as a site means there is more to be expected. There is some kind of anticipation associated with the site. This can be the anticipation of a new design, of a new place to happen. The initial place we are redesigning has to pass through the stage of being a site to eventually emerge as a different, a new, or a strengthened place. Site is the connecting element between the original place and the redesigned place; therefore “sites are only way stations between places” (Beauregard 2005, 42).

Site is only a stepping stone to place. How exactly could urban designers facilitate this step? What design approach maximizes opportunities for site to become place, for upgrading site to place? To do this, urban designers cannot just impose their singular vision on place because of the richness and diversity of narratives associated with it (Beauregard 2005). According to

Beauregard it is essential these place narratives are involved in the design process. Urban designers should use them as wellspring of creative possibilities (Beauregard 2005). Reading and incorporating all the narratives makes the difference; it will facilitate making the step from site to place. It will make the difference between site making and place making. Site making occurs when the development of a plan happens without including the prior narratives embedded in that place (Beauregard 2005). Conversely, placemaking happens when place narratives are at the root of the idea for a new place, or for strengthening an existing one (Beauregard 2005). A site becomes a place (by means of the design) when prior narratives not only influence the design but also shape the plan (Beauregard 2005). Placemaking does not treat the narratives in an arbitrary way. “Good planners and designers incorporate the messy and multiple narratives of place and include them in the design process” (Beauregard 2005, 42). They make them part of a consensus that legitimizes and guides the planning effort (Beauregard 2005). Urban designers can transition the step from site to place when “narratives are constructed and deconstructed prior to but in harmony with the physical transformation eventually to be realized” (Beauregard 2005, 55). To reiterate, when we design we make place a site, the key to let a place happen by virtue of the quality of the design is to build further on the existing narratives. To do this we need to acknowledge and read all the narratives associated with a place, put them at the root of the idea for the physical transformation, and incorporate them in the development of the design

(Beauregard 2005).

To sum up, there is a distinct link between design and place. The link is found in the rich array of narratives that revolve around place and the necessity to include them in the development of a design. In the next chapter I will investigate the narratives that have steered the history of

Fountain Square. Applying the framework to Fountain Square will make the concept of place narratives more tangible and easier to understand. The case study will also investigate if place

narratives have been included in the various designs for Fountain Square and how their inclusion or exclusion has affected Fountain Square as a place.

Chapter 5: Fountain Square Case Study

Fountain Square holds a very contentious place in Cincinnati. First presented as a gift to the citizens of Cincinnati, the Fountain and its Square soon became a local and national symbol of civic pride. Throughout its history Fountain Square has faced many challenges which affected both the Square and its surroundings. This chapter discusses how Fountain Square was created; how it has changed over time, and what narratives shaped its evolution. Fountain Square illustrates the place narratives I discussed in the previous chapter. The Fountain Square case study will allow the reader to understand three main aspects:

• The case study will clarify how place changes over time;

• Investigate what role place narratives play in the history/change of place;

• Indicate the importance of place narratives for designers.

To provide a basis for the investigation of these three issues, the first section of this chapter will discuss the history of Fountain Square. The section is subdivided into four sections, the four main eras in the life of Fountain Square.

• 1860-1880: the beginning years, inauguration of the Fountain and its Square.

• 1930: the first redesign of Fountain Square

• 1964-1971: the Urban Renewal Plan for Downtown Cincinnati and urban renewal design

for Fountain Square.

• 2005-2006: 3CDC revitalization plan for Fountain Square.

5.1 Fountain Square History

5.1.1 The Great Beginning

The history of Fountain Square started in 1860 when Tyler Davidson and Henry Probasco, the owners of Cincinnati’s most successful hardware store, first discussed the idea of presenting a public fountain to the citizens of Cincinnati. They envisioned the Fountain as an object of beauty and utility, which would grace the heart of downtown. As they were both very appreciative of the success they had achieved in Cincinnati, they felt a strong desire to give something back to the community, and the people that had supported their business. Before any concrete plans for the

Fountain had been made Tyler Davidson died in 1866. After the death of his partner, Henry

Probasco decided to sell the store and make the building of the Fountain and its square his project for the years to come. Probasco embarked upon a journey to Europe to find the ideal design for the Fountain he and Davidson had envisioned.

Probasco wanted to find a design that was not based on a mythological or classical theme.

It needed to have a common appeal to every citizen of Cincinnati. Since at the time of Probasco’s journey, fountain designs in Europe were largely influenced by mythological themes Probasco’s search for an ideal fountain was not very successful at first. This changed when he met August von Kreling, a very modern designer, who had once made a conceptual design for a fountain which symbolized the many blessings of water. Von Kreling had made this design many years ago for a client who had disapproved of his modern design. For Probasco the Fountain was ideal.

As an icon for Cincinnati, this was what Tyler Davidson and Probasco had dreamt about. Upon his return to America Probasco engaged an architect to look for a public space in the heart of the city which would gracefully host the new Fountain. Architect William Tinsley envisioned a long round edged esplanade for the Fountain in the center of the downtown area. Different locations in downtown Cincinnati were discussed, but pretty soon it became obvious the ideal location was

Fifth Street between Walnut and Vine. In 1869 Probasco presented a model of the Fountain and drawings for Fountain Square to the city. Mayor Wilstach, was thrilled with what he was presented with, he was most excited with the idea of having one of Cincinnati’s main avenues beautified by what he called a fountain of living waters.

The plans for Fountain Square were loaded with symbology and positivism. Citizens, city officials and designers were all very excited about the planned revitalization of Fifth Street.

However, there was also some opposition to the plans. The proposed site for Fountain Square was not vacant. At the time there was a butcher market house on Fifth Street between Walnut and

Vine. The Fifth Street market house had been a center for the sale of meat since 1829.

Surrounding the market house were all kinds of small shops and retailers selling dry goods, fruits, bread, etc… (see map in appendix A). The realization of the Fountain Square project would require demolition of the market house. Even though by 1870, the building was dilapidated and considered a public health nuisance by the Board of Health, the butchers were not planning to move.

Figure 5.1: The Fifth Street market 1860 Figure 5.2: The Fifth Street market demolished Source: Hamilton County, Cincinnati Public Library Source: Cincinnati Museum Center Image Archives

Over time, many people had become offended by the noise, congestion, and smells of the market. But the butchers considered the market theirs by law, right and tradition. After City

Council had approved the demolition of the building, the butchers and other tenants of the market house started legal procedures against the City of Cincinnati to prevent the demolition of the market. This delayed the acquisition of the site for two years.

After a lengthy two year litigation process a final decision was made by the Ohio Supreme

Court in favor of the City. As soon as the decision was made, the construction of Fountain Square begun. On February 4th 1870, the City Council Market Committee instructed the Chief of Police and Superintendent of the Street Cleaning Department to assemble all the men at their disposal to start demolishing the market. A crew of ninety men with axes, crowbars, and picks demolished the market building in one day. Newspapers report on how it was amusing to listen to the remarks from citizens who gathered in an immense crowd around the market place to watch the demolition. There was not one citizen–except for the butchers- who did not seem to approve of the job. “It is fair to presume that there was not a living soul in Cincinnati, who did not feel glad to see the old incubus removed” (1870 Cincinnati Times Star). By the end of the day the market place was nothing but a heap of old wood. Because the city had granted everyone to come and collect the wood for firewood, the enormous heap of construction debris disappeared in one afternoon. The destruction of the Fifth Street market house opened up a gigantic area on Fifth

Street between Main and Vine Streets. This open area would become the heart of downtown, a public gathering place, and thriving center of retail and amusement. Now the market house was gone, the fountain esplanade of 60’ by 400’ soon begun to take shape.

On October 6th 1871, the Fountain was dedicated. A crowd of over 50,000 people assembled to be part of the official Fountain Square inauguration ceremony. The Tyler Davidson

Fountain was warmly welcomed to its new home. At the time it was considered “the first public fountain of merit and artistic impression in the United States” (1871 Cincinnati Enquirer).

Figure 5.3: Fountain Square 1871, south side of Fifth Street looking north Source: Library of Jim Tarbell

The years after the dedication Cincinnati changed spectacularly. At the time Cincinnati was one of the larger cities in the nation and reflected the expansion the entire nation was experiencing. In 1874 work on the US Post Office and Custom House on the corner of Main and

Fifth Street begun. It took about thirteen years to complete the building. The construction of the building would mark the beginning of a course of future downtown developments. Various smaller properties adjacent to Fountain Square were removed and replaced with taller buildings like the Mabley & Co. Clothiers, The Johnson Building, the Gibson House (see map appendix B).

The locally well known ‘Nasty Corner’ (where Carew Tower stands now) was famous for its fried oysters served with ‘aquariums of beer’ was also removed and replaced by the Fountain

Square building (was also demolished later and replaced with Carew Tower). Despite all the construction activity around it, Fountain Square quickly settled into its new home. The Fountain was a magnet for the core of the city, beautiful and welcoming; the esplanade became a gathering place for activities of all sorts. The small stores in an around the Fifth Street Market house had made room for several theatres. In the two blocks North and South of Fountain Square alone there were five theatres. The Lyric Theatre, the Cincinnati Family Vaudeville Theatre, the Strand

Theatre, the Columbia Theatre, the Albee Theatre were all located in the blocks north and south of Fountain Square. Many other businesses like stores (Fountain Clothing, Cincinnati Hosiery store), laundry shops, bakeries, restaurants and bars made Fountain Square an extremely lively place to be (see map in appendix C).

Figure 5.4: Fountain Square circa 1906 Source: Greater Cincinnati Memory Project 2005

In various ways Fountain Square was set off on a good trend to become an important place and icon for Cincinnatians. The decision to put Fountain Square on Fifth Street placed the

Square in the heart of downtown. Around the turn of the century, the eight block area around

Fourth and Fifth Street was the thriving heart of downtown Cincinnati. Placing the Fountain here rightfully claimed Fountain Square as the center for the people of Cincinnati. The symbology of the Fountain and its common appeal only strengthened the Square’s position as the people’s center. The transformation of the Fifth street area from a dark and smelly market area, to an open place filled with light, air, and a Genius of Water was tremendous. It did not only provide the context for the Fountain but also led a myriad of different types of businesses, from entertainment venues to a bakery and jewelry store, to locate there and charge the Square with liveliness. Both the symbolism of the Fountain and the incredible community support for realization of Fountain,

Square set off the right combination of narratives to let Fountain Square and the Genius of

Waters become the place to be, a symbol for the prosperity of Cincinnati.

5.1.2 The First Alterations

In the 1930’s despite the crash of the stock market downtown development continued. In

1930 the Carew Tower at the Southwest Corner of Fifth and Vine was completed. Around 1930, as the automobile became more and more popular, the location of the Fountain on Fifth Street was questioned. Some city officials expressed ideas about moving the Fountain to another location. A wave of public protest soon killed these ideas before any real plans were made. After lengthy discussions and vast public resistance against moving the Fountain, the Fountain was kept at its location and the Square was redesigned. In this way the city and the designers attempted to improve both aesthetic and functional aspects of the Square. The Square was

heightened and repaved, flagpoles were added on the ends of the Square, and walls around the

Square were added to protect the people on the Square from the traffic. This made the Square more useable but also limited the number of access points to the Square. Nevertheless the redesign affirmed the Fountain in its present location and gave it the a new boost. Urban affairs writer Grady Clay praised Fountain Square in the Louisville Courier Journal:

“Here in the middle of Cincinnati’s busy shopping district, with the financial district only a block to the South, is Fountain Square. Fountain Square is little more than a wide place on Fifth Street…including the sidewalks and streets it is less than 100 feet wide and only 410 feet long – about the size of two ranch house lots in the suburbs placed end to end… Clay exclaimed: ‘What activity, what a feeling of excitement there is in Fountain Square! This is indeed an outdoor room crowded with people.’ ” (Louisville Courier Journal 1958)

Figure 5.5: Fifth Street, west of Walnut Street, the sixth Figure 5.6: The corner of Fifth and Walnut Street busiest corner in the U.S. Source: Greater Cincinnati Memory Project 2005 Source: Greater Cincinnati Memory Project 2005

The 1943 Guide to the Queen City describes Fountain Square as the core of Cincinnati’s civic, social and commercial life. “People come to Fountain Square to meet friends, to feed the pigeons, to loll in the sun, and to catch the bus and trolley cars nearby. Holiday events like the summer music festival, and the Christmas trees on the square crowd the esplanade with sightseers and most public appeals for worthy causes begin or end here. There are public displays by artists, florists and boy scouts, and free concerts are given from time to time. And once a year to give

legality to the myth that the square is still a market the mayor ceremonially buys one flower from some or the other civil group on the esplanade” (1943 Guide to the Queen City). The Cincinnati

Enquirer describes similar reasons for people to Fountain Square enjoy the shade and the

Fountain, meet people, or just read a book (Cincinnati Enquirer 06/02/1953)

Figure 5.7: Fountain Square in 1945 Source: Greater Cincinnati Memory Project 2005

By the late 1950s, traffic had become so intense in the entire downtown area that the

Fountain and its esplanade were considered an obstruction to traffic. Some even considered the plaza seemed “old-fashioned” (Cincinnati Enquirer 1958). Commercial and retail activities throughout the Central Business District had declined because suburban shopping centers were drawing customers away from downtown (see map in appendix F). Retail activity as such had grown but most of the growth was in marginal, low rent and low profit enterprises. Fountain

Square was no exception, throughout the Fountain Square district properties had become vacant

and several buildings were demolished. Maps of that time show how various properties in the

North and South block of Fountain Square had become vacant (see map in appendix D). The

Cincinnati Family Vaudeville Theatre, the Strand Theatre, the Lyric Theatre which had contributed so much to the liveliness of the district had turned into parking lots. In 1959

(referring to the decline of the Fountain Square

District) the Cincinnati Times Star titled: “One by

one she sees them go.” The heydays of the

Fountain at its present location seemed over.

However the Fountain still crystallized the

specialness of Fountain Square to Cincinnatians. It

reminded them both of the German heritage and

the stories many people had to tell about the

square. Whereas the first plans for moving the

Fountain in the 1930s were cancelled due to

Figure 5.8: One by one she sees them go tremendous public appeal, this time the pressures of Source: Cincinnati Times Star 10/241959 modern traffic seem to make a move of the

Fountain inevitable.

5.1.3 The First Move

The City Planning Commission responded to the growing traffic concern in the late 1950s by preparing a plan that would rehabilitate, reorganize, and redevelop (assumingly) blighted zones in the downtown area. The area around Fifth Street, and thus also Fountain Square, were part of this large urban renewal project. As a result of the growing pressures of modern day traffic and expansion of the road network in downtown Cincinnati, plans were made to

reconfigure the entire block of Fifth Street between Vine and Walnut in one massive sweep. With this massive urban renewal project the city planners hoped to reverse the decline of downtown and bring back the shoppers it had lost to the suburban malls. The reconfiguration of the Fifth

Street area meant the esplanade and the Fountain had to be removed as well.

Figure 5.9: The block north of Fifth Street has been demolished Source: Cincinnati Enquirer 05/31/1968

The entire project was very controversial and even more so when the rumor spread that the Fountain would be moved to the suburbs. Again there was a tremendous amount of public opposition towards the big changes Fountain Square was about to face. The Fountain had remained an icon and a special place for many Cincinnatians. The history repeated itself. Just like the Fifth Street market had to make place for the Fountain, the Fountain now had to make place for the car. While unsanitary conditions validated the demolition of the market was, this time the increasing pressures of automobile traffic lead to the urban renewal plans for Fountain Square.

However, at the time the Market was torn down every citizen in Cincinnati was happy to see the hideous building go, the removal and move of the fountain could not count on such a unanimous support.

The 1964 Plan for Downtown Cincinnati was the final product of a 7 year long planning process. The Core block A plan called for a complete demolition of the Fifth Street Block, an entire block was swept off the map. Older buildings like the ones on the Fifth Street block would be torn down and replaced with new office blocks. The plan also would also envisioned redesigning Fountain Square, and creating a system of skywalks between the new office buildings, stores, and hotels surrounding Fountain Square. Out of the demolition of the Fifth

Street block and the reconfiguration of the roads a new public place emerged: Fountain Square

Plaza (see map in appendix E). After three years of construction, and almost exactly 100 years after its inauguration, the new Fountain Square Plaza was dedicated on October 17th 1971. The

Fountain was moved about eighty feet to the West of its former home. The Genius of Water was turned to the West facing the new center of downtown. The new home for the Fountain was drastically different than its predecessor on Fifth Street. The Square was now surrounded by one way traffic. It had a different orientation and the size of the Square quadrupled. And because the scale of the building context exploded, the Fountain seemed a bit understated on the new Square.

To compensate this, additional water and light features were added to the Fountain. (For a more detailed investigation on the differences between the 1930 design and the 1970 design see the last section in this chapter).

This did not solve the inherent problem of the new Fountain Square Plaza. It was nothing other than a little bit of plastic surgery. Lighting up the Fountain did not improve the Square’s lack of activities and liveliness. The surrounding buildings were office buildings (like the Fifth

Third Bank), hotels, or shopping malls connected by skywalks. Most of them closed after business hours. As the buildings around Fountain square proved to be uneventful, a next cosmetic procedure was called to the rescue. This time a stage for public performances was added. The

Enquirer of 1985 titled: “New Pavilion Will Set Stage for Life on Fountain Square”. Again this

did not address the essential problem of the design: there was nothing to do on the Square nor in the surrounding district. At its previous location Fountain Square was surrounded by relatively small scale shops, bars, theaters. The Fifth Third Banking Center fails to spur a lot of activity on the Square, except for employees eating their lunch. The Macy’s shopping center and the Westin hotel weren’t much different in this regard; they also were ‘parasiting’ off the square instead of adding anything to it. The entire system of skywalks diminished the activity level of the Square even more. After business hours the Square was dead, only during lunch hours there was some activity. Fountain Square had become a design statement with little or no function. Its design was more an exercise in architectural form than a design promoting the uses and activities that had made Fountain Square a successful place. Fountain Square had become a design statement rather than a place for people, it was over-designed, inflexible, and dominated by disturbing design elements like the stage and the barriers around the Square. Due to the urban renewal design

(which actually intended to make Fountain Square the living room of Cincinnati), Fountain

Square had become void of the vibrancy that once made Fountain Square the people’s place.

Figure 5.10: Fountain Square in 1971 Figure 5.11: Model of the performance pavilion for Source: Cincinnati Gas and Electric News 10/11/1972 Fountain Square Source: Cincinnati Enquirer 05/21/1983

Throughout the 1970s Fountain Square became the stage for various strikers; it was the place where strikers wanted their voices to be heard. Other events and special seasonal activities like the skating ring tried their best to keep the Square alive, but it was clear the Square had lost its grandeur. It is not this kind of sporadic use that had made Fountain Square what it was before it moved. Fountain Square worked before without planning large events and activities. The

Square attracted people just because of the liveliness of the surrounding shops, theaters and stores. Even though it won an urban design award in the 1970s, the modernistic design of

Fountain Square soon proved to be outdated and out of fashion… After a while it became clear that probably the only good thing about Fountain Square was the Fountain. It was the only object reminiscent of Square’s grandeur. Even though the design did not live up to the status the

Fountain had given to the Square, Fountain Square still kept a special place in the heart of citizens. There was still a lot of energy associated with Fountain Square. The public reaction to a proposed second move of the Fountain clearly expressed the pride people still took in the

Fountain.

5.1.4 Fountain Square 2006

In 2004, the Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) stepped up to redevelop Fountain Square. After a lengthy two-year planning process, 3CDC proposed a new plan for Fountain Square. Again there was a great deal of opposition to the plans, especially since the plans called for another move of the Fountain, but also because the financing for the project is based on a myriad of corporate interest. The new design addressed some of the malaises Fountain

Square had. The Square will be made more accessible, less deterministic and more flexible, and most importantly new retailers and restaurants will be attracted to enliven the square.

Figure 5.12: Rendering of 3CDC’s design for Fountain Square Source: Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation, Fountain Square Revitalization Plan 2005

From a place sensitive perspective, the most important aspect of this design is probably the new programming. By adding more activities and destinations like restaurants and shops to the ground level of the Square, 3CDC tries to reposition Fountain Square as a destination. When the Fountain moved to its current site the first time, perhaps too much attention was given to its specific location. The design did not address what would happen on the square. The failure of the design is a very good example of how a great place cannot be reduced to its location or physical attributes. as Suzanne Langer states:

Place in the deeper sense does not need to have a fixed location. Therefore location is not sufficient when it comes to describing place. Consciousness constructs a relationship between the self and the world. Consciousness not just of something but of something in a place. Place frames our experience. The basic meaning of place does therefore not come from locations but from the trivial functions that place serves. (Suzanne Langer quoted in Tim Cresswell 2004, 22).

5.2 Contested Narratives

Not only the physical aspects of Fountain Square changed over time, the narratives associated with these physical changes differed drastically from one era to another. In what follows, I will examine the different actors across the public, private, institutional sectors that have participated and influenced the design and planning of Fountain Square. I will uncover the different narratives behind the various moves and redesigns of the Fountain and it’s Square. To do this I will focus on the four main eras I discussed in the previous section.

• 1871: the inauguration of Fountain Square.

• 1930: the first time a move of the Fountain was proposed, first redesign of Fountain

Square at its original location.

• 1960-1971: the first move of the Fountain and the Urban Renewal Plan for Cincinnati.

• 2005: the second move of the Fountain.

For each era I will examine the narratives behind changes to the Square, parties who initiated redevelopment and redesign, and if/how their narratives for these redesigns converged with the narratives of other stake holders. I will investigate the narratives of four main

‘stakeholders’ in the redevelopment of Fountain Square: the city, the designers, the public and the developers. As discussed in the methodology chapter, to investigate their narratives I will rely on three types of data: observation, secondary sources, and primary sources.

5.2.1 The inauguration of Fountain Square: 1871

Table 5.1: 1871 Narratives. Designers People City Developers

1871 • The Fountain as an • People appropriate • Mayor and council • Cincinnati reflected object of beauty Fountain Square as members were most the growth and which would grace their space even excited with having expansion the entire the heart of before it is built. one of Cincinnati’s nation was downtown. • It is fair to presume main avenues experiencing. • Public space in the there was no living beautified by a • Fountain Square is heart of downtown soul who was not fountain of living the center of new which would become glad to see the waters. development a gathering space for market house gone. • Fountain Square downtown. all Cincinnatians. • 50,000 Cincinnatians would open up dark • The theatres, • A new icon for celebrate their icon and dank spaces of Mabley and Co. Cincinnati and public space. downtown Clothiers, the • Initiated the court Johnson Building, procedure against Wiggins Block are the butchers. all constructed during this time. Source: Author The storyline of Fountain Square starts when Henry Probasco and Tyler Davidson first discussed the idea of Fountain Square. From the very beginning their plan for Fountain Square was loaded with symbolism. These two downtown business men started off Fountain Square and all the narratives that are associated with it. After a perfect design for the Fountain was found and a suitable location for the Fountain was spotted the designers (being Henry Probasco and his architect William Tinsley) presented their plans to city officials and city council. The presentation of the plans was the start of City officials’ narrative on Fountain Square. All city officials were most excited with the plan:

From the ancient days of the children of Israel, as they toiled through the wilderness, and, in their agony of thirst called with success on their great leader for water, fountains have been cherished and valued as the chief of ornaments and blessings in all countries of the world. Kings, nobles and princes have decorated their grounds with it. … Cincinnati shall soon be pioneer in this country of this mode of dispensing to our people the benefits of one of the great blessings of the earth – sparkling, beautiful, ever-flowing water (Poole 1872).

Council member Baker was also very supportive of the plan. According to him the plan for Fountain Square would open up an area that was “pestilent with typhus and reeking with iniquities” (Poole 1872). “The Fountain will let in the sun and air of heaven and let the life-giving water join to make them jubilant” (Poole 1872). Probasco and Tinsley got the city on board; their narrative was one of total support for the Fountain Square project. However, the butchers located in the market house were not so happy with the proposed plans. They considered the market house theirs by law and constitution. Rumors about the plans for Fountain Square quickly spread and engaged the public in the entire controversy. Generally spoken documents from that time indicate the public was very supportive of the plan for Fountain Square. As a local reporter wrote:

The Fifth Street Market was a disgusting object to most of our citizens, for it was suggestive of the cupidity of a class standing in the way of a great public improvement. The sight of it was well calculated to call a blush of shame to the cheek of every Cincinnatian proud of his/her city’s name, for it seemed to say: “Look at me and know that I represent the power of the bully butcher boys in Council and in Courts.” (Cincinnati Times Star 1870)

The butchers started a court procedure which would go all the way up to the Ohio

Supreme Court. By the time the decision was made the project had become a project of the people of Cincinnati versus the 50 butchers. Even before Fountain Square was built, the people of

Cincinnati considered the Fountain and its Square theirs. Davidson and Probasco had given it to them as a new icon and gathering place they wanted to see it being built. At the time the project finally started the narratives of the designers, the city officials and the people of Cincinnati were very similar. Everyone wanted to see the project go forward. Developers would soon come in and start planning projects surrounding the Fountain. As this would become the prime gathering place downtown, this was a great place to invest. Various theatres, shops, and banks were built in the area around Fountain Square. This further supported the position of Fountain Square as the place to be downtown, the heart of the city. It is clear that the narratives of the four main stake holders

were at the basis of the realization of Fountain Square, they not only shaped the plan but also provided the basis for its implementation. This was crucial to the success of Fountain Square’s status as a place for the decades to come.

5.2.2 First Changes to Fountain Square: 1930

Table 5.2: 1930 Narratives

Designers People City Developers

1930 • Beautify the square. • Cincinnatians oppose • Some council • Despite the crash of • New beautiful a proposed move of members raised the the stock market pavement. the Fountain. idea of moving the development • Planters along the • Both utilitarian and Fountain to another interest in Fountain perimeter of the aesthetic values location to Square is square. could be enhanced accommodate maintained. • Improve aesthetic with minor changes. traffic. • In 1929 the Albee and functional • Changing the Square • However even those theatre was opened. aspects of the square would destroy its favoring the move • In 1930 the Carew by means of a new meaning. stated the public Tower was design. • Some voices raised sentiment should be completed. • Maintain the concerns about the considered. Fountain as the neglect of the • Due to public centerpiece of the Fountain. opposition decided Square. to keep the Fountain at its location. Source: Author Around 1930 the traffic pressure increased in the entire downtown area. Fifth Street in particular had become very congested. Traffic studies of major downtown streets published in the

1925 Official City Plan for Cincinnati indicated Fifth Street between Vine and Walnut was the most congested street in downtown Cincinnati. The Plan suggested streets needed to be widened in the Fountain Square district. As a result of the congestion around Fountain Square some council members raised the idea of moving the Fountain to another location to be able to widen

Fifth Street and thus better accommodate traffic. When these ideas reached the public it brought forth a roar of public protest. Many newspaper articles of that time document the tremendous amount of public opposition toward moving the Fountain. A certain Mr. Irwin was quoted in the

Enquirer of April 1930, he explained how reconfiguring or moving the Fountain would kill the

Fountain Square Cincinnatians know and like:

Changing Fountain Square would destroy the whole meaning of Fountain Square for our people, the people of Cincinnati like Fountain Square like they have always had it. (Cincinnati Enquirer 1930)

The plans for moving the Fountain started a whole new discussion about Fountain Square It caused the major stake holders to step up and express their narratives on the proposed move.

While in 1871 the designers started off the discussion on the Fountain Square project, this time the controversial ideas of the city started off a renewed debate on Fountain Square. To the public moving the Fountain or even changing was very controversial. City Officials were not deaf to the opinion of the public. The enormous amounts of protest made them second guess their ideas.

Even council members who favored moving the Fountain acknowledged the public sentiment should be considered (Commercial Tribune 1930). At this point designers were engaged to study alternative solutions for the Fountain. They brought in their narrative and proposed an design which potentially could merge both parties’ conflicting viewpoints.

Given the real traffic pressure in the Fountain Square district and the bad condition of the pavement on Fountain Square (after 30 years disinvestment it needed major repair) something needed to be done, not doing anything was not an option. The 1925 Official City Plan for

Cincinnati recognized this need:

The present development of Fountain Square and the setting of the Memorial Fountain are quite undignified. For traffic purposes each roadway needs to be widened from two to four feet. This widening of each may be the occasion of remodeling the treatment of Fountain Square, with a view to making it a real asset to abutting property. Fortunately, a committee has been working on this problem and designs for the improvement of the square are in preparation. (Official City Plan, Cincinnati Ohio 1925)

As a compromise between city officials and the public, designers came up with a design that could address both parties’ concerns. The design would combine keeping the Fountain at its

original location and accommodating traffic needs. They acknowledged that both the aesthetic and functional aspects of the square could be improved without moving the Fountain. Developers in the surrounding district also supported this idea. They asserted an interest in keeping the

Fountain at its location since it would maintain the districts identity and greatly influence their property value. Therefore, surrounding property owners made significant funds available to support the revitalization of Fountain Square at its present location. In addition to this, even though there was a nation wide crash in the stock market between 1929 and 1930, there was a continued development interest in Fountain Square. Actually some of the major development projects surrounding the Square like the Albee theatre and the Carew Tower were completed during these years.

After the city decided to keep the Fountain at its location, plans were made for a major renovation project of Fountain Square. Even though there was a distinct difference in narratives, especially between the city and the citizens, the narratives of all stake holders eventually converged. The convergence only emerged once the city realized moving the Fountain was not an option; the public realized that something needed to be done and the designers provided a solution that met both parties’ concerns. Just like in 1871 all the shared narratives of all stake holders were at the basis of the redevelopment of Fountain Square. It would be the last time such wide spread convergence of narratives would provide the basis for any redevelopment of

Fountain Square.

5.2.3 Urban Renewal Plan: 1960-1970

Table 5.3: 1960-1970 Narratives Designers People City Developers

1960 • Aesthetical • The project • City planning • Main narrative of principles will be unleashes a huge department notes the the plan is to bring - given primacy over wave of public decline of shoppers back functional ones. opposition. downtown. downtown and to • It is the objective of • There was even more • Civic and business strengthen 1970 the plan to preserve controversy when leaders adopt an downtown private the traditional there was an urban renewal plan development. character of the indication the to attract more • Economic Square. Fountain would be shoppers and development • Focus the design on moved to the development. narrative prevails in the Square in stead suburbs. • Plans for larger this era. of on the • Why can’t one of the urban renewal • The primacy of surroundings. beauty spots in project call for a private development • Design as expression downtown be left as complete demolition continues in the of modernist spirit. it is? of the area years to come: • Accommodate • Don’t we have any surrounding Fountain Square traffic. rights except to pay Fountain Square. block C. taxes? Source: Author The upspring of the suburbs and the shopping malls that accompanied caused downtown

Cincinnati to loose a lot of its residents and businesses (see map in appendix F). In the early postwar years city planners started realizing the downtown had lost a lot of its vibrancy, by the late fifties planners were talking about the incipient decline of the entire downtown area. Not only the city planners were concerned with the decline, city officials had become concerned as well. Their main concern did not have so much to do with the population decline of downtown as it had to do with the exodus of downtown businesses. As more and more stores, theatres, banks, etc. moved out of the downtown area; the economic viability of downtown Cincinnati was severely threatened. On top of this, the pressure of automobile traffic had only increased. The

1930s redesign of Fountain Square had only temporarily solved the traffic problem in the district.

Both planners and city officials expressed the need to widen roads and reroute traffic throughout the entire downtown area. This would not only solve congestion and reduce the number of

accidents but (assumingly) would also make downtown more attractive to drive through.

According to city planners this would make downtown more competitive with the suburban malls which had none of the traffic congestion problems of downtown. The eager for increasing downtown’s competitiveness was the driving force behind the main narrative for the urban renewal plan: economic development. Fountain Square would become the center of the urban renewal plan for Cincinnati. It would also become the most clear (and visible) translation of the development driven narrative behind the large scale redevelopment. The urban renewal plan would have dramatic effects for Fountain Square as a place.

Between 1957 and 1964 various plans for the downtown area were made. These plans were essentially targeted toward re-attracting businesses and shoppers. One of the first plans for

Fifth Street actually rerouted traffic around Fountain Square and kept the Fountain at its original location (see rendering in appendix G). The plan extended the square and transformed it into a open air shopping plaza. However this plan did not make the final cut. As urban renewal was very much in fashion all over the nation, civic and business leaders adopted an urban renewal inspired plan for Cincinnati. The plan called for wide spread demolition of ‘blighted’ buildings and replacing them with new office/retail/commercial buildings.

The open space that emerged out of the demolition of the North block of Fifth Street would become the new Fountain Square. Designers were engaged to propose a state of the art design for the new Fountain Square:

It is the principle of the design to preserve the traditional character of Fountain Square. This principle is accepted because Fountain Square is more than an attractive Fountain in a pleasant square. It is a historic public place. It is a focus of civic pride in Cincinnati. It is a symbol of the city. These are intangible values, but they have been very important values for many generations of Cincinnatians, so that they have become traditions in this City. The Fountain and the plaza around it are both of the Nineteenth Century Renaissance design. The two together, they are compatible in style. They represent a historic link between the past and provide the traditional focus of the Square which should be preserved. (Fountain Square Program 1964)

It is remarkable that this kind of statement is found in a proposal for a modernistic design for the square. This is mainly the result of the ‘givens’ that were part of the request for proposals from the city. These givens or narratives for a new square were not interpreted or altered by the architects. The givens were mainly dictated by the Urban Renewal Plan for downtown Cincinnati and the specifications for Fountain Square Block A in this plan. Even though the architects acknowledged that Fountain Square was special and what made it so special was the synergy between the building context and the Square. The specific setting that had made Fountain Square so special was soon to be wiped off the map as it was not the duty of the architects to second guess the urban renewal plan. Within the context that had been set by the urban renewal plan they came up with a new (modernistic design) for Fountain Square. The designers were given the assignment to design a new living room for Cincinnati that would accommodate office buildings, new retail, a parking garage and plaza for the Fountain. At this point the designers started expressing their ideas, their narrative for a new Fountain Square. From the very earliest proposals on it is very clear their ideas were very much inspired by the modernist way of thinking. The designers indicate in their proposals how -given the nature of Fountain Square as a focal point for the downtown- aesthetical principles will have an equal or even greater force than functional principles.

So far, I have discussed the narratives of city officials and the designers. In the midst of their efforts to come up with a new plan for Fountain Square there was again a wave of public opposition to the plans. Unlike in 1930, when city officials recognized the need to take into account the public sentiment, this time there was no suchlike consideration. The public felt they were left out of the picture. Newspapers of that time wrote about how people questioned whether they had no rights except paying taxes (Cincinnati Enquirer 1964). Others questioned why one of

the beauty spots of downtown cannot be left as it is (Cincinnati Enquirer 1964). The controversy and public opposition to the plan even increased when rumor spread the Fountain would be moved to the suburbs. In general, it can be said there was not a lot of public support for the changes Fountain Square was about to undergo. As council members were delighted with the project and were eager to get the get the development moving, the plans for the project were quickly approved and the public had to wait six yeas for the new Fountain Square Plaza to open.

The primacy of the economic narrative is expressed in every aspect of the plan.

Essentially the whole plan and redesign of Fountain Square was based on the desire to revitalize downtown’s economy. A myriad of private corporate interest was mixed in the realization of the plan. The Fifth Third Bank played a significant role in the financing of the redevelopment of

Fountain Square. Fountain Square would become their front garden and as such they had an important stake in the development of the plan. In the years to follow the inauguration of

Fountain Square development interest would continue. The entire south block of Fountain Square was demolished to make place for a $110 million hotel/bank complex. Since the project required the demolition of the Albee Theater the plan could count on an widespread public opposition. At the time the Albee Theater was one of the most beautiful and architecturally significant theaters in the region. Nevertheless, this did not prevent the project from going forward. As a result of this project the Wiggins restaurant and tavern, the Sheraton Gibson Hotel and the Albee theatre were demolished. Incorporation of the Albee Theatre and the Gibson Hotel into the project was deemed economically infeasible. Keeping both would require a piece-meal approach to the redevelopment of the block. According to city Manager Turner this kind of piece meal approach would be a tragic use of one of the most (economically) valuable blocks in the entire Midwest

(Cincinnati Post 1974). “Because of its value, the only real development that has any economic

potential is one that involves all of the block” (Cincinnati Post 1974). The project went forward and erased the last bit of historic fabric reminiscent of the heydays of Fountain Square.

5.2.4 Fountain Square Revitalization Plan 2005-2006

Table 5.4: 2005-2006 Narratives Designers People City Developers

2005 • Beautification as • Why is the city • Great deal, great • Economic justification for spending so much leverage of public development task - economic money on one funds. force initiated the development project? • Stimulus for new plans for • Increase accessibility • Don’t move the downtown Fountain Square. 2006 of the Square. Fountain! development. • 3CDC is born out of • Make the Fountain • We want to see the • Form tie with this task force and the centerpiece. Fountain from our development takes on Fountain • Flexible design. car! corporation to make Square as one of • Array of areas on the • Don’t remove the public project three projects. square which would skywalks. happen. • Economic appeal to different • Fountain Square is • Give up some development as people. our place. control in return. basis for • What will happen on beautification the new square? project. • Make Fountain Square world class public space. • Strengthen Fountain Square as heart of retail and civic life. Source: Author Thirty five years ago the ‘urban renewal design’ for Fountain Square was considered a model for urban design. Architecture and design critics considered Fountain Square the most successful urban space in the country. Therefore the American Institute of Architects (AIA) presented the designers for Fountain Square with a prestigious national award. Even though the urban renewal design for Fountain Square was ‘en vogue’ back then, it did not stand the test of time very well. Like most modernist designs the design for Fountain Square soon became out of fashion. Beyond mere aesthetic considerations, questions were asked about its usability as well.

Once considered the ‘living room’ of Cincinnati, and sample of modern style, Fountain Square

became a sterile product of one of the most unfortunate eras in architecture and urban design.

Fountain Square was devoid of the level of activity and vibrancy it did have half a century ago. In the end this affected Fountain Square’s economic vitality as well.

In 2003, Cincinnati business leaders and corporations decided to hire a specialist (John

Alschuler) to make recommendations for another round of revitalization for downtown and in particular for Fountain Square. Just like in 1960, the main narrative supporting the revitalization of Fountain Square was the urge for economic development. Tackling the issues Fountain Square had was once again a justification for economic development. But while in 1960 city officials and city planners wrote the economic revival narrative for the redevelopment of Fountain Square, this time it was the business elite of Cincinnati who took over, and initiated the narratives for yet another economic revival. Forty years later roles had switched. From the city seeking support for their plan with business elite; to the business elite trying to get the city on board with their plan.

Similar to the previous redesign, economic development justified the beautification of Fountain

Square. However, even more than last time the development narrative influenced every aspect of the plan.

Out of the economic development task force that had hired John Alschuler, the Cincinnati

Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) was formed. Based on the recommendations of

Alschuler 3CDC took on the challenge of redeveloping Fountain Square into a world class public space. 3CDC’s mission for Fountain Square is to strengthen it as the cultural, retail and economic heart of downtown. Mary Lynne Boorne, Fountain Square project manager described the narratives that kicked off the project as follows:

The Fountain Square project is primarily about economic development. The project is intended to serve as a catalyst for business activity in the Fountain Square district. Fountain Square was never set up to be just a beautification project. It is a project that is set up to spur further investment in the core of downtown Cincinnati. Event though most people will perceive it as a physical improvement to Fountain Square, there is more

to it. In this day and age it would be very difficult to get a major redevelopment of a public space like Fountain Square approved if it were just about changing its aesthetics. We need to be able to point to other benefits as well; chief amongst them is what the project is going to do financially for the investors. In this context, a lot of the design, the language and message about it was driven from what it would do for the developer interested in generating renewed development activity in the district. Under current circumstance we almost have to apologize for physically redeveloping Fountain Square by pointing to all the economic benefits associated with the project. (Personal Interview 2006)

The eagerness for economic development is the quintessential reason for, or narrative behind, the current redevelopment of Fountain Square. As Boorne explained, the beautification of the Square is to some an extent an excuse for the economic revitalization of the district. To come up with a design for the beautification of the Square, 3CDC engaged Cooper Robinson, a NY based architectural firm. Cooper Robinson begun their work on Fountain Square taking a look at the broader context of Fountain Square and basically followed the recommendations of John

Alschuler. According to Don Clinton, a Cooper and Robinson partner and head of the design team for Fountain Square, maintaining retail and commercial activity in Fountain Square is crucial to its success.

Cooper Robertson begun work in Cincinnati by taking a broader look and making up a plan for retail downtown. Fountain Square is a very important place in downtown Cincinnati. To strengthen its status as a special place it is essential to maintain its retail vitality. The existing Fountain Square did not work very well in this regard. The Square was very isolated and even though the North side of the Square provided good opportunities for retail activity, it was underutilized and unattractive. (Personal Interview 2006)

The focus on strengthening retail would become the main narrative behind the architects’ design.

The history seems to repeat itself. Just like the designers were very much influenced by the givens of the urban renewal plan in the sixties, this time the designers were influenced by the givens John Alschuler and the economic development task force had provided them with. Both parties’ narratives for the design were based on the desire to revamp the business and development interest in downtown.

On May 5th 2005, final plans were presented to city council. Mayor Luken called the plan a great deal the city could not afford to miss. An investment of $4 million dollars of public funds would leverage 38 million of private investment for the redevelopment of Fountain Square and adjacent buildings. The 4 million dollars had already been allocated for the maintenance and much needed repairs of the garage regardless. After revisions were made, the City Council approved the plan with an almost unanimous vote. The city’s narrative for approving the plan was that it made perfect economic sense, not only would this plan revitalize downtown it would also be crucial for further development. Fountain Square’s status as a special place played an important role in approving the plans for Fountain Square. Vice mayor Jim Tarbell who has been very supportive of the plan, explained the reason for his supportiveness as follows:

As a councilmember I was only engaged in the project once the designs were nearing completion. At that point it was difficult for me to say this is a good design, I would not have been able to say this design is good and that design is not. However I felt the plan did address some of the crucial problems Fountain Square had, chief amongst which are the skywalks. As far as the financial aspect of the project is concerned, if I would be the one to decide where all the funds that are being pumped into this project would be directed, I’m not sure I would put them all into Fountain Square. But since a majority of the funding sources are coming from private corporations, who are particularly investing in Fountain Square because of its development potential, the funds are Fountain Square specific. That being said, I became very supportive of the Fountain Square project because of my passion for this place. I felt the project would give Fountain Square a new boost and would strengthen it as the main gathering place in Cincinnati. (Personal Interview 2006)

Tarbell’s passion for Fountain Square eventually made him very supportive of the plan. To him, pumping all these funds into Fountain Square was justified by its specialness to the citizens of

Cincinnati. Its status as a place justified the development. To Joel Koopman, Principal Architect of the City of Cincinnati’s Department of Public services, this is nothing new. The way the project came about is not unprecedented; according to him this is the way of redeveloping major urban places these days.

Doing what we are doing now at Fountain Square is nothing new. In 1871 we revamped the Fifth Street Market because it was an eyesore downtown. In 1930 we redesigned Fountain Square because of the increasing traffic pressure. The urban renewal plan of the sixties rethought the entire downtown area. The physical make over of Fountain Square is thus not unprecedented, it was just part of the way cities developed and the change that went along with it. This time (the current redevelopment of Fountain Square) the project has a more economic push at it, and the physical change Fountain Square is currently undergoing is a result of this economic push. The goal of this revitalization project is to make Fountain Square an economic generator. A lot of cities are doing this right now; it’s the way of doing major urban redevelopment projects today. In this regard the way the project came about is not surprising either. Business leaders are hiring an outside specialist to make recommendations for the economic revitalization of downtown and a development corporation is working with those recommendations to make the development happen. This is the way things are done. This is the way of doing business. (Personal Interview 2006)

In the course of the design process, 3CDC sought public input on the design. It is very hard to distill one dominant public narrative from records from these public input sessions.

Obviously people who disagreed with the plans were more likely to attend these meetings than those who agreed. Insofar as it is possible to draw general conclusions it seems like there were three main concerns the public had about the design and the plan. As the Fountain had remained a symbol for many Cincinnatians the plans for moving it brought up a lot of emotions. People also had functional concerns. Over the years they had become used to using the skywalks for going certain places around Fountain Square. In fact, the only way most places were easily accessible was by means of the skywalks. Beyond considerations about the physical aspects of the design, the public raised questions about the nature and origin of this redevelopment effort. Who is

3CDC? Is 3CDC associated with the city? Why are we spending so much money on one project?

Similar concerns were raised once final plans were presented to the city. Like the two other major makeovers of the Square again there was a lot of opposition to the plans. A lot of questions were raised about the corporate and private sector interest in the plans. The history repeated itself. Just like in 1960 when narratives of developers, designers and the city were pushing the redevelopment in 2005 the redesign of Fountain Square was mainly the result of their narratives.

It remains questionable how much of the public’s narratives was really involved. One thing is certain, the kind of convergence of narratives that validated the development in 1870 and 1930 was not repeated.

5.3 Narratives setting the stage for design

The way in which place narratives are translated into a design is crucial. Narratives do not only set the scene for a design they can also severely influence the characteristics of the design.

In this regard the difference between the 1930 and 1970 design for Fountain Square is striking.

As I discussed in the previous section, narrative support for both designs is of a totally different nature. Around 1970 Fountain Square became a tool for economic development, designers had to accommodate a design that would fit the purposes: spur economic development downtown. As I mentioned before, the designers were not to reinterpret the givens of the urban renewal plan for

Cincinnati. The focus on development set the scene for the urban renewal design for Fountain

Square. As such, the development narrative translated into a specific design for Fountain Square.

Especially between 1960 and 1970 urban design was en vogue. Inspired by the popular urban renewal movement, designers wanted to remake Fountain Square into the living room of

Cincinnati. But like most 1960s living rooms and designs it soon became outdated and out of fashion. The “fix” of capturing Fountain Square in an (at that time) aesthetically pleasing designed product had made Fountain Square nothing more than a stage setting. The 1970 design had been more concerned with Fountain Square as large stage setting than with the energetic processes that take place in it and around it (Clay 1973). The designers mistakenly believed place could be captured in one single design. They looked at Fountain Square as if it were a static product, they did not recognize the ever mobile and changing nature of place. The latter “fix” resulted in a design that negatively affected Fountain Square in various ways. In the next section I

will discuss the key components contributing to this negative impact. From this discussion key lessons for the urban design profession can be drawn.

To investigate the effects of the design fix on a place like Fountain Square, I will read

Fountain Square from various angles:

• Image and identity

• Attractions and destinations

• Amenities

• Flexibility

• Seasonal strategy

• Access

• Context

• Interconnectedness

I will make a comparison between the 1870 design and the 1970 design for Fountain

Square. Based on this comparison I will suggest specific design recommendations for each aspect. The current design for Fountain Square was not included in the comparison. Because the project is not completed there is no basis for investigating the impact the new design will have on

Fountain Square. However, the new design does address some of the malaises of the 1970 design. in a way the new design tries to work around the tremendous impact the urban renewal plan had on Fountain Square. It remains to be seen if current design will be able to overcome them.

5.3.1 Image and Identity

Throughout history squares have been at the center of communities (Project for Public

Spaces 2005). They are the place were weekly markets are organized, events happen, people come together Figure 5.13: The Fountain as an icon for the image and identity of Fountain Square to protest or express their ideas. Source: Left, Cincinnati Memory Project 2005; Right, 3CDC Fountain Square Revitalization Plan. Because they are at the center of all these activities they crystallize much of the history of a community, they become a symbol for the community. Fountain Square is a very good example of how a Fountain and its Square have become a symbol for the community. The Genius of

Waters is a symbol for the Queen city. Fountain Square would obviously not be Fountain Square without the Fountain. As such, the Fountain is crucial for the image and identity of Fountain

Square. Even though Fountain Square experienced several physical changes and redesigns, it always remained an important visual icon for the city. But, after the first move of the Fountain

(this is after the urban renewal plan for Cincinnati) the only good thing about Fountain Square was the Fountain. It almost seems like the Fountain was just one of many other features added into the design. Very little, in fact almost nothing, in the new design (except the Fountain) reminds us of the place Fountain Square used to be. The Fountain as an icon was still there, however this was the only ‘reminder’ of the grandeur of Fountain Square as a place. Additions to the Fountain (like the added water jets, the lighting of the Fountain) and the Square (like the stage) were futile attempts to revive the lost vibrancy of the Square. Various characteristics of the

design were at the root of this loss. In the next sections we will look at some of the most striking aspects.

5.3.2 Attractions and Destinations

Any great square has a variety of smaller “places” within it to appeal to various people (PPS

2005). They offer different kinds of small and big scale attractions and destinations. Small nodes of Figure 5.14: Attractions and destinations surrounding Fountain Square. Source: Left, Sanborn Fire Insurance Atlas 1930; right, Fountain Square Block A Plan. attraction can be different kinds of cafes around the square, a little play area for kids, a fountain where people can sit or meet, a shaded area where someone can read the newspaper, a vendor where you can buy ice cream. These attractions don’t need to be big to make the square a success

(PPS 2005). A variety of things to do on the square will attract a variety of different people and make the square lively. Although Fountain Square at its first location did not have a lot of small nodes of activity on the Square as such (the limited space did not allow for this), the surrounding

Fountain Square district did offer a variety of small and big scale attractions and destinations.

While the Lyric Theatre, the Albee Theatre and the Strand Theatre attracted big crowds, small shops and bakeries surrounding the Square added small scale daytime attractions into the mix.

These attractions made the square lively both day and night. Especially after the first move

Fountain Square was missing this kind of variety and liveliness. The Fifth Third Bank buildings on the north and east edge of the Square include only one restaurant, the rest of the spaces are filled in with offices or lobby spaces. The Westin Hotel and Macy’s on the south and west edge of the Square do not offer any of these small destinations either. On the Square there is some

differentiation of areas where people could sit, however they are not a real attraction. Since 18

September 1975 a council decision banned vendors from the Square as well. All this created a

Square without any diversity of smaller destinations.

5.3.3 Amenities

A square should have amenities that make it comfortable to use (PPS 2005). Amenities like benches, lighting, and sitting areas can make a big difference in the user friendliness of a square. The 1970 Figure 5.15: Fountain Square amenities design included many of these Source: Left, Greater Cincinnati Memory Project 2005; Right, Photos by author. amenities, but most of them rather obstructed the use of the Square than enhancing it. In general all amenities are uninviting and over-designed. The stage takes up a large amount of space on the

Square, obstructs the pattern of pedestrian traffic, and visually compromises the Square. The skywalks not only keep people off the Square, they create dark and unappealing areas underneath them. Other amenities like moveable seating are removed after business hours. The walls surrounding the Square limit access to the Square and impromptu seating they provide is unattractive as it is just on the edge of the Square facing traffic.

5.3.4 Flexible Design

The use of a Square changes during the course of the day, the month and the year (PPS

2005). To respond to these changes some flexibility needs to be built in the design (PPS 2005).

This is exactly what the 1970 design for Fountain Square was missing. Various design elements

like the permanent stage, the lack of flexible seating opportunities, and the lay out of the Square did not support this kind of flexibility. For instance, a flexible stage could accommodate small scale and large Figure 5.16: Flexibility of design scale performances, anywhere on the Source: Left, Greater Cincinnati Memory Project 2005; Right, Photo by author.

Square. Building in this flexibility not only allows for the Square to change over time, it also allows for temporal transformations of the Square. The Square as a professional design should have the kind of flexibility that allows people to take over and transform it into a temporal new place.

5.3.5 Seasonal Strategy

Closely tied to the importance of a design flexibility is the seasonal strategy of a square. A successful square cannot flourish with just one design or management strategy (PPS 2005). Squares like Figure 5.17: Seasonal strategy Bryant Park, the plazas of Source: Left, Greater Cincinnati Memory Project 2005; Right, Photo by author

Rockefeller center, the Grand Place in Brussels, the Vrijdagsmarkt in Ghent change with the seasons. Elements like skating rinks, outdoor cafes, horticulture displays, seasonal landscaping help adapt the use of a square from season to season. The management of Fountain Square did attempt to build in this seasonal strategy. However, seasonal additions to the Square (like the

skating rink) were poorly designed and quite uninviting. In addition to this, they obstruct the day to day use of the Square. Because the effective useable space on the Square is limited (caused by the inflexible design elements of the Square) any additions to the Square completely take over the remaining space. It is also important to mention that seasonal events are not enough to keep a

Square alive. Seasonal events seemed to be the only real attractions on the Square. These temporal events do not suffice when it comes to keeping Fountain Square vibrant throughout the year.

5.3.6 Access

A crucial component of a good square is its easy access for pedestrians. The best squares are the ones that are easily accessible by foot

(PPS 2005). Fountain Square performed very poorly in this regard. Figure 5.18: Access to Fountain Square Source: Left, Library of Jim Tarbell; Right, Photos by author Very early on in the history of

Fountain Square several design elements were added to protect the people on the Square from traffic. In 1932 flower planters were added along the perimeter of the Square. The planters reduced the accessibility of the Square. While previously the Square was accessible along its entire perimeter, now its was only accessible from 4 main access points. The design of the 1960s took the concept of adding barriers even further. Along the entire south and west perimeter of the

Square barriers were added. The effect of these barriers even more dramatic since the Square was raised above the sidewalk level. The barriers, the heightened level of the Square and the four lane traffic surrounding the Square severely limited its physical and visual access. The high speed of

traffic, the limited points of access, the poor lay out of crosswalks, and the skywalks did nothing but cut off the Square from pedestrians. They all deprived Fountain Square of its most essential element: people.

5.3.7 Context, the Inner and the Outer Square

Frederick Law Olmsted first pointed out the importance of the relationship between the inner square and the outer square (PPS 2005).

Olmsted argued that a square is not just defined by what happens on the square Figure 5.19: The inner and the outer Square but is also greatly influenced by the Source: Left, Greater Cincinnati Memory Project 2005; Right, Photos by author design and use of the buildings surrounding it (PPS 2005). I already pointed out that the buildings surrounding Fountain Square do not offer a lot of variation in attractions. Since the design for

Fountain Square was so focused on the inner square it did not devote enough attention to the diversification (both in design and in use) of the outer square. Along most of its perimeter uninviting office buildings and hotels face the Square. Due to the blunt design of the outer square, the surroundings do not spur any excitement on the Square. An active and welcoming outer square is essential to the wellbeing of the inner Square. Fountain Square showcases the exact opposite, the outer Square seems to be ‘parasiting’ off the inner Square. As such it negatively affects the quality of the inner square.

5.3.8 Interconnectedness

Just as important as the edge of a square is the way streets, sidewalks and ground floors of adjacent buildings lead into the square. Good squares such as Le

Grand Place in Brussels are Figure 5.20: Interconnectedness of Fountain Square connected to the surrounding area Source: Left, Sanborn Fire Insurance Atlas 1930; Right, Google Earth 2006 Accessed 04/13/2006 like the tentacles of an octopus are connected to its head. A combination of smaller and bigger streets and alleys (the tentacles) lead toward the square (the head of the octopus). At its original location an array of roads, small streets, and alleys surrounded Fountain Square. All the shops, hotels, bakeries on both sides of Fifth Street opened up into the Square. Fountain Square at its current location is nothing like this. In fact main access points to the surrounding stores, banking center are generally on skywalk level. The buildings are fenced off from the Square and in this way isolate it. This, coupled with the traffic racing by on the south and west perimeter, makes the

Square a self contained island without connection to the surrounding urban fabric.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

On the basis of assembling the framework and applying it to Fountain Square, several conclusions can be made concerning the relevance of place for urban design and planning. The chapter integrates academic recommendations for understanding place as well as more practical urban design related considerations. While the framework contributes more to theoretical oriented conclusions and recommendations, the case study allow me to translate them into more practical urban design considerations.

6.1 Place Narratives and the Changing Character of Place

Throughout history, Fountain Square faced many challenges and changes. The fountain was moved, the Square was redesigned, traffic was rerouted, buildings were demolished, and new ones erected. In the process, each of its key components changed. To reiterate: its location changed, its material constellation changed, activities and events on the Square changed, downtown population changed, and finally representations about Fountain Square changed as well. In spite of all this Fountain Square remained a special place in downtown Cincinnati.

However, this does not mean Fountain Square did not change as a place. Every time one of its key components changed, Fountain Square emerged as a slightly different place. Fountain Square is a perfect example of the evolving nature of place. Studying the key aspects of place and composing the framework clarified place is dynamic. The results of the Fountain Square case study affirm this. Fountain Square is not a frozen specimen, it is dynamic. The chart below summarizes the change of Fountain Square’s key components for its four main eras:

Table 6.1: Change of the key components of Fountain Square for its four main eras

1871 1930 1971 2005

Location Sixth Street Sixth Street Sixth Street Sixth Street Vine Street Street Walnut Vine Street Street Walnut Vine Street Street Walnut Vine Street Walnut Street

Fifth Street Fifth Street Fifth Street Fifth Street Material Form

People • Population: 216,239 • Population: 451,160 • Population: 452,524 • Population: 317,361 • Principally immigrants • Cincinnati reaches top • Downtown had • Revitalization of - • Cincinnati is a rich City population. converted into downtown. Community •Rapidly expanding • People start moving to employment center. • People are moving community. first suburbs. • Very little residents. back in downtown Activities • Many leisure activities • More shops and office • Mainly office uses • Reactivate the Square • Mainly bars and uses start to move in. • Office workers eating •Restaurants, bars, theatres •Limited number of lunch on Square shops, shows, event • Lolling on the Square bars • Quite dead after office programming • Vendors and exhibits •Place to meet people hours Representations • New gathering place • Icon for the City • Icon for the City •Icon for the City for people of Cincinnati • The people’s Square • Agent for downtown • Tool for economic • Most prominent urban •Beauty spot of redevelopment and development space downtown revitalization. •Heart of downtown

Source: Author

Not only did Fountain Square change physically, narratives for its changes differed drastically from time period to time period. While in 1870 Fountain Square was a gift to the people of Cincinnati, in 1970 it had become a negotiating piece for economic development. Each era in the life of Fountain Square has been characterized by a specific combination of narratives which set the context for redevelopment. The following table summarizes the narratives associated with each era:

Table 6.2: Summary of narratives for Fountain Square Designers People City Developers 1870 • The fountain as an object of • It was fair to presume there was • Mayor and council members • Cincinnati reflected the growth beauty which would grace the probably no living soul in were most excited with having and expansion the entire nation heart of downtown. Cincinnati who was not glad to one of Cincinnati's main avenues was experiencing. • Public space in the heart of see the market house gone. beautified by a fountain of living • The US Customs and Court downtown that graces the Genius • 50,000 Cincinnatians celebrate waters. House. of Waters. their new icon and public space • Fountain Square would open • The theatres, Mabley & Co. (population 200,000) up the dark and dank spaces of Clothiers, the Johnson Building, downtown. Wiggins block, Gibson House. • Initiated the court procedure. 1930 • Beautify the square. • Cincinnatians oppose the • Some council members and the • The Carew tower, completed in • New beautiful pavement. removal or move of the Fountain. mayor mentioned the idea of 1930, Carew Company. • New artistic stone walls. • Both utilitarian & aesthetic moving the Fountain to • The Albee Theatre 1928. accommodate traffic. • Maintain the fountain in the values could be enhanced with • Despite the crash of the stock center of the square. minor changes, without a move. • However even those opposed market, downtown development • Changing the Fountain would stated the public and public continued. • Essentially beautification sentiment should be considered. project. destroy its meaning. • Some voices raised concerns • Decided to keep the Fountain. about the neglect of the Fountain. 1960 • Aesthetical design principles will • Again the project instigates a • City planning department notes • Main narrative of urban renewal be given primacy over functional wave of public opposition. the decline of downtown. plan: bring shoppers back - ones. • Even more controversy when • Civic and business leaders downtown and strengthen 1970 • It is the objective of the plan to indication fountain would be adopt plan for attracting downtown private development. preserve the traditional character moved to suburbs. shoppers and private • Economic development of Fountain Square; • Why can’t one of the few beauty development. narrative prevailed. • Focus on the design of the spots in downtown be left as it is? • Want to attract more retail • The primacy of private Square in stead of focus on the • Don’t we have any rights except activity downtown. development continues: Fountain surroundings of the Fountain. paying taxes? • Plans for large urban renewal Square South. • Accommodate traffic. project. 2005 • Increase accessibility • Don’t move the fountain. • Great deal, great leverage of • Economic development task • Make Fountain the centerpiece • Don’t remove the skywalks. public funds. force initiated he plans for the • Flexible design • Why is the city spending so • Stimulus for downtown redevelopment. much money on this project. development. • 3CDC born out of this task force. • Economic development as a basis for the beautification project.

Source: Author

The case study clarified place narratives not only steer the changing nature of place, they also play a crucial role in the success of (re)designing a place. Only in 1870 and 1930 when narratives of all stake holders converged, a redesigned Fountain Square emerged as a successful place. In 1870 there was widespread support for the realization of Fountain Square. The narratives of the four groups of stakeholders converged and formed a strong basis of support for the realization of Fountain Square. This set Fountain Square off on a fantastic start. The Square and its Fountain became downtown’s main gathering place of downtown and a new icon for

Cincinnati. In 1930, despite the initial difference in opinions, a similar kind of convergence

occurred. Designers, city officials, developers and citizens were all supportive of redesigning

Fountain Square at its original location. Again the convergence of narratives was crucial to the success of the redevelopment. In the years after 1930, Fountain Square experienced its heydays.

The case study confirms Beauregard’s argument for including place narratives in the design process: “designs and redevelopment plans can only be successful when the places we design for are reinserted into the narratives that make up the local identity, list local entertainment, celebrate gentrification and extol the attractiveness of city living” (Beauregard 2005, 54).

Table 6.3: Difference in narrative for the four eras

1870 Narratives converged and were at the basis of the redevelopment. 1930 Despite difference in narratives, all differences were overcome and narratives converge to justify development. Beginning of the focus on development FIX Design as a statement FIX 1970 Development becomes the leading narrative. • Public wants to keep the Fountain • City wants to attract businesses • Development interest makes plans possible • Designers want to make a statement 2005 Developers start negotiating narratives. • Public wants to keep the Fountain • Developers want to link development to beautification • City makes a good deal • Designers go back to the square as we knew it Source: Author

Unfortunately, this is not always what happens. The 1930 redevelopment of Fountain

Square was the last plan based on unanimous support across the public, private and institutional sectors. Starting in 1970, the urge for economic development became the main narrative for anything and everything happening to Fountain Square. All narratives were either steered toward fitting the development narrative or left out of the picture. Because planners and designers were less familiar with introducing the aspects of place in the development process, and thus did not

know how to amalgamate an interest for place with an interest for development, place did not emerge. After 1970, the default position for redesign and redevelopment of Fountain Square was one of development oriented professional interventions. Fountain Square became, a reason for negotiating development projects, an agent for economic development.

By 2005 the modernist design that had resulted from the 1970 urban renewal plan was ready for another make over. Just like in 1970 the beautification of Fountain Square was considered a justification for economically strengthening the district. The urge for development dominated every aspect of the plan. Even the 1970 and 2005 plan are similar in this regard, there is also a striking difference. While in 1960 the City initiated idea to renew the urban core and redesign Fountain Square, in 2005 a downtown development task force made up of the corporate business elite of Cincinnati initiated the idea to revitalize the Square. The step to place making for economic development was complete.

Fountain Square’s case is not unique. It reflects a nationwide trend toward linking economic development to place. Over the last couple of decades place making efforts have increasingly become a justification for economic revitalization (Hou and Rios 2003). Under the motto of economic revitalization, places are redesigned and redeveloped. Development corporations have stepped up as the key actors in this process (Hou and Rios 2003). Because of their increasing involvement in place making efforts, development corporations have become important players in transforming the physical and social dimensions of place. However for the purposes of development, the role of place is often limited to being a validation for the development that needs to happen. As places are sponsored expensive makeovers narrative development corporations need support for the associated capital expenditures. Often this support is found in the specialness of the places they are planning for. Under such circumstances place is often becomes nothing more than a marketing tool.

The increasing involvement development corporations have in (re)making place signals the need to examine their impact on place (Hou and Rios 2003). Even though it may very difficult to fully comprehend their full impact, the Fountain Square case study indicates the focus on development has caused a significant shift in narratives. While prior to 1970 narratives across the four stake holders converged and formed the basis for changes to Fountain Square, post 1970

(when the development narrative started prevailing) such like convergence of narratives was lost.

As indicated in the previous chapter, this negatively affected Fountain Square. The difference between Fountain Square in the 1930s and in the 1970s proves Fountain Square emerged as a different place once the development narrative started prevailing. In 1870 and 1930, when prior narratives were at the root of the plans for Fountain Square, a (re)designed Fountain Square emerged as a successful place. In 1970 this was no longer the case. Even though there was still a lot of energy revolving around Fountain Square, this energy was not tapped into. Place was just a tool for the development that needed to happen.

I am not making a case against development, but we need to strike a balance between an interest for place and one for development. Place narratives can actually be the element that connects both. As mentioned earlier, any development or investment requires narrative support.

One of the first activities of real estate development usually is the narrative remaking of the site

(Beauregard 2005). Hence the one and a dozen “Renaissance” or “Baroque” developments that pop up everywhere in the country. Due to the development driven approach to planning, the narrative support for development is often narrowed down according to the interests of a private developer or corporation. For that reason narrative support for development is often very arbitrary. The goal is to move beyond this kind of arbitrary interpretation of place narratives.

6.2 Incorporating Place Narratives

Urban designers by virtue facilitate change, they create opportunities for action. Whether it is a city building a new stadium or a private developer planning a new housing development, urban designers are often involved with building or changing places. Urban design has a profound role in the remaking of places and the place marketing that goes along with it. Post

1970 planning for Fountain Square proves this: urban design, place marketing, and economic development went hand in hand to make the development happen. Making the development happen was key. In stead of developing lenses to capture the different narratives associated with

Fountain Square, narratives were isolated and controlled in order to fit the development.

The role of the urban designer should not be to isolate but to integrate the narratives revolving around place. Our role should not just be focused on creating opportunities for development action; it should also be focused on creating opportunities for incorporating place narratives in the design. Place cannot be reduced to one singular (development oriented) narrative, it should be not be merely an excuse for development. Hou and Rios argue we need to

“treat place both as a physical space and the expression of relationships between multiple institutions, individuals and organizations” (Hou and Rios 2003, 19). Doing this is not easy, all stake holders will claim to know the true value of a certain place but somehow all their truths will be different from one another. They all will have their preferred story for their interest in, or involvement with, this particular place. Developers might see a certain place as a great opportunity for investment and economic development. City officials may of place in terms of politics and contestation. At the same time, the public at large may assert and appropriate this place as their place, as an icon for their community and history. Place does not embody one single truth or interest, it covers a horizon of interests of different actors. Because it does place is

meaningful, contentious, and contested. Understanding these different narratives is therefore key to a comprehensive understanding of place.

Urban designers working on place must account for, and negotiate between, the many players who have a stake in the future of a place (Kahn 2005). Narratives will never converge or be the same by default. We, as urban designers, cannot just shy away from these narratives just because they are different and not easy to comprehend. It is crucial that we read and understand all the narratives associated with place and put these narratives at the root of the development of the plan and the concept of the design. the Fountain Square case study clearly proved doing this maximizes opportunities for a design to become (or continue to be) a place.

6.3 Strategic Design

Since places are dynamic rather than static, porous rather than contained, they cannot be captured in one unique design (Kahn 2005). Because of their dynamic nature, places are subject to constant change, change which is beyond the control of urban designers. However designers don’t always seem to remember this. Because urban designers focus so much on the design aspect of place, they tend to forget to pay attention to all other narratives associated with place.

Place is becoming and is not a finished urban design product (Cresswell 2004). What shapes the becoming of place is the synergy of various place narratives. As the Fountain Square case study proved, changes in these narratives lead to changes in the multifaceted character of that particular place. Place as a contemporary concept is able to absorb this change. However urban designers and planners have not understood place in this dynamic way. Our designs still try to make place or give an answer to place by virtue of a fixed design. We try to crystallize and fix its meanings, we try to make place by means of a design. Given the temporal nature of any design

and the changing nature of place, this kind of place is nothing more than a facelift. To be successful urban design must go beyond surface appearance.

Defining place in urban design terms therefore does not come down to establishing some unique image or a unique design; “it involves recognizing the overlay and interplay of multiple realities at the same time on the same place” (Kahn 2005, 286). To do this urban designers need to get over the notion that design is the solution. We need to focus on strengthening a place rather than just focusing on the aesthetics of a design. Our efforts should be focused on place not just on design. Once we understand our designs in this way, they can act as catalysts for place happening. Since places ultimately are made by their users, the community, we as urban designers can only think of our designs as condensers for place happening, it would be pretentious to think urban designers can make place. A place is not made by a design but is essentially made by its users. Their narratives make up the complex multi-faceted nature of place.

In this context we can only offer as many opportunities to let these narratives evolve and make a place happen. In this light the essence of design is strategy not aesthetics. Kahn argues that given the characteristics of our contemporary urban environments, and the constant changes they go through, urban design actions are best considered in strategic terms (Kahn 2005). In terms of letting a place and its narratives evolve by means of a design strategy; not by means of a designed product. Strategic design lets place narratives evolve, it does not fix them. In stead of looking at our designs as fixed objects of beauty and perfect proportions, we need to address how our designs can facilitate the most synergetic orchestration place narratives. To do this we must recognize the vital components of place and incorporate the motor for its changing nature, its place narratives, in the design process. Only then designers will be able to give place a vital injection in stead of a mere facelift.

Bibliography

Arefi, Mahyar and Triantafillou, Menelaos (2005). Reflections on the Pedagogy of Place. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 22:1-14

Barthes, Roland (1997). Semiology and the Urban. In Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. Leach Neil, 165-180. NY, Routledge.

Beauregard, Robert (2005). From Site to Place: Negotiating Narrative Complexity. In Site Matters: Design Concepts, Histories, and Strategies, ed. Burns Carol J., Kahn Andrea, 39-58. NY, Routledge.

Casey, Edwards (1987). Remembering: A Phenomenological Study. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Castells, Manuel (1997). The Information Age: Economy, society and culture, Vol. II: The Power of Identity. Oxford, Blackwell.

Cousineau, Phil (1995). Soul : an archaeology : readings from Socrates to Ray Charles. San Francisco California, Harper San Francisco. PT. 6 The Spirit of Place in the Western World / J. Donald Hughes.

Clay, Grady (1973). Close-Up: How to Read the American City. New York, Praeger Publishers.

Cresswell, Tim and Verstraete, Ginette (2002). Mobilizing place, placing mobility : the politics of representation in a globalized world. Amsterdam, Rodopi.

Cresswell, Tim (2004). Place: a Short Introduction. Malden MA, Blackwell Publishers.

Cresswell Tim (1996). In Place/Out Place: geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.

Cloke, Paul; Crang, Philip and Goodwin, Marc (1999). Introducing human geographies. New York, Arnold.

De Geyter, Xavier (2002). Research for the contemporary city: After Sprawl. Rotterdam, Nai Publishers [de Singel].

Fainstein, Susan (1991). Promoting Economic Development: Urban Planning in the United States and Great Britain. Journal of the American Planning Association. 57:1 22-33.

Gans, Herbert (2002) “The Sociology of Space: A Use Centered View,” City and community, no. 1:4.

Gieryn, Thomas (2000) “A space for space in sociology,” Annu. Rev. Sociology, 26:4 63-96.

Healy, Patsy, Hull, Angela, Ali Madanipour (2001). The Governance of Place: Space and planning processes. Burlington, Ashgate.

Harvey, David (1996). Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford, Blackwell.

Hayden, Dolores (1995). The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

Heidegger, Martin (1997). Building, Dwelling, Thinking. In Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. Leach Neil, 98-124. NY, Routledge.

Healy, Patsy (2001). Towards a More Place-focused Planning System in Britain. In The Governance of Pace: Space and planning processes, ed. Healy, Patsy, Hull, Angela, Ali Madanipour, 265-286. Burlington, Ashgate.

Hou, Jeffrey and Rios, Michael (2003). Community Driven Place Making: The Social Practice of Participatory Design in the Making of Union Point Park. Journal of Architectural Education, 19- 27.

Jensen, Ole and Richardson, Tim (2004). Making European Space: mobility, power and territorial identity. NY, Routledge.

Kahn, Andrea and Burns, Carol (2005). Site Matters: Design Concepts, Histories, and Strategies. NY, Routledge.

Kahn, Andrea (2005). Defining Urban Sites. In Site Matters: Design Concepts, Histories, and Strategies, ed. Burns Carol J., Kahn Andrea, 280-296. NY, Routledge.

Knox, Paul (2005). Creating Ordinary Places: Slow Cities in a Fast World. Journal of Urban Design, 10(1): 1-11.

Koolhaas, Rem and Mau, Bruce (1995). S,M,L,XL. NY, Monacelli Press.

Koolhaas, Rem (1994). Delirious New York : a retroactive manifesto for Manhattan. NY, Monacelli Press.

Koolhaas, Rem (1991). Rem Koolhaas : conversations with students. Houston, Rice University, School of Architecture.

Kvale, Steinar (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi, Sage Publications.

Lefebvre, Henri (1974). The production of space. Oxford, Blackwell.

Leach, Neil (1997). Rethinking Architecture: a reader in cultural theory. New York, Routledge.

Lefebvre, Henri (1997). The Production of Space. In Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, ed. Leach Neil, 138-145. NY, Routledge.

Liggett, Helen and Perry, Davis C. (1995). Spatial Practices. NY, Sage Publications.

Lynch, Kevin (2002). The Image of the City. Cambridge Massachusetts and London, England, The MIT Press.

Madanipour, Ali (1996). Design of Urban Space: An Inquiry into a Socio-spatial Process. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.

Marcuse, Peter (2005). Study Areas, Sites, and the Geographic Approach to Public Action. In Site Matters: Design Concepts, Histories, and Strategies, ed. Burns Carol J., Kahn Andrea, 248-279. NY, Routledge.

Massey, Doreen (1993). A Global Sense of Place in Barnes, T. and Gregory, D. eds. Reading Human Geography Arnold, London.

Menin, Sarah (2003). Constructing Place: Mind and Matter. NY, Routledge.

Norberg-Schulz, Christian (2003). The Phenomenology of Place, in Cuthbert, Alexander R. (Ed.), Critical Readings in Urban Design. Malden, Blackwell Pub.

Norberg-Schulz, Christian. (1971). Existence, Space & Architecture. New York and Washington: Praeger Publishers.

Poole, William (1872). The Tyler Davidson Fountain Given by Mr. Henry Probasco to the City Of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, Robert Clarke & Co.

Project for Public Spaces, Inc. (2000). How to Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for Creating Successful Public Spaces. New York, Project for Public Spaces Inc.

Pred, Allan (1984). Place as Historically Contingent Process: Structuration and the Time- Geography of Becoming Places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74:2 279- 297.

Relph, Edward (1976). Place and Placelesness. Pion, London.

Sassen, Saskia (2005). The denationalizing of time and space.

Schneekloth, Lynda H., Shibley, Robert G (2000). Implacing Architecture into the Practice of Placemaking. Journal of Architectural Education, 130-140.

Searle, John (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. NY, The Free Press.

Soja, Edward (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Blackwell.

Turabian, Kate L. 1996. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press.

Yi-Fu, Tuan (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.

Anonymous newspaper articles (listed by date of publication)

“$100,000 To Beautify Esplanade And Fountain-Estimate Of Expense Received From Horticultur,” Cincinnati Times Star, 01/29/1931.

“To Be Converted Into Flower Markets,” Cincinnati Commercial, 01/29/1885.

“Business Men Suggest Clearing Away Esplanade,” Cincinnati Commercia,l 12/08/1912.

“Merchants Organize For Fight To Locate Main Terminal Loop At Fountain Square,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 03/16/1919.

“Crowd On Fountain Sq Watching Santa Claus Show In Window Of Mabley & Carew Co Store,” Post, 04/05/1922.

“Picture Of How It Will Look After Reconditioned,” Post, 03/16/1932.

“Suggestions To Beautify Square -Plant Plane Trees, Disguise Ventilators,” Post, 04/02/1932.

“Little Market Stand Will Return To Fountain Square-Will Not Add To Beauty Of Square,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 05/20/1932.

“Square Has Birthday-Is 105,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 01/06/1934.

“Fountain Square Is Famous Abroad,” Cincinnati Times Star, 01/17/1934.

“Fountain Square Celebrates 106th Birthday-Market House Stipulation Still Exists,” Cincinnati Times Star, 01/05/1935.

“Bauer Loses Round In Fight For Square,” Post, 10/26/1942.

“Square Frozen For Rest Of War-Only Bond Pier Will Be Added,” Post, 02/19/1943.

“Solicitation Banned On Esplanade-City Manager's Decision Ends Pac Fountain Sq Campaign,” Cincinnati Times Star, 05/02 /1946.

“Fountain Square To Get Face Washed,” Post, 03/11/1948.

“Fountain Square To Take On Dignity,” Post, 06/18/1948.

“Before And After On The Square,” Post, 09/25/1948.

“Face-Lifting Begun For Fountain Square-Chinese Trees, Resistant To Smoke, Dust,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/10/1948.

“Fountain Square Takes On Beauty Cincinnati,” Enquirer, 06/29/1949.

“Fountain Square's New Look Has Been Winning Praise From Onlookers,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 09/04/1949.

“Rebirth Of A Tradition: Flower Market Returns To Square,” Post, 05/16/1955.

“Fountain Square Of Future,” Cincinnati Times Star, 08/01/1956.

“Christmas On Fountain Square,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12/23/1956.

“Fountain Square New Look,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 07/03/1964.

“Fountain Square Will Be Retained,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 07/30/1964.

“Fountain To Be Stored On Government Square,” Cincinnati Post Times Star, 07/08/1965.

“Have No Fear, Folks Fountain Square Stays,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12/08/1965.

“Change Fountain? Never! Never!” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12/09/1965.

‘City Can't Deny Fountain Square Use For Politics, Official Rules,” Cincinnati Post Times Star 12/14/1965.

“For The First Time Since It Was Unveiled In 1871, The Fountain Goes On The Move,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12/26/1965.

“Tyler Davidson Fountain Was Moved From Its Mooring For First Time In 95 Years,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 02/23/1966.

“Glittering Core Area Plan Unveiled-Block A Tower, Fountain Square Plaza,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 07/14/1966.

“New View Of Fountain Square Cincinnati,” Cincinnati Post Times Star, 02/15/1967.

“Tyler Davidson Statue, A Cincinnati Landmark Since 1871, Is Being Moved About 400 Feet,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 06/01/1968.

“New Home-98 Year Old Genius Of Waters, Displaced Two Years Ago Has Been Put Back On Her Pedestal,” Cincinnati Pos Times Start, 02/14/1969.

“A Special Section On The New Fountain Square,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/17/1969.

“Fountain Square's Dedication,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/18/1969.

“The Spirit Of Fountain Square,” Cincinnati Post Times Star, 01/02/1971.

“Proposed Office Tower Would Darken The Square,” Cincinnati. Post Times Star, 03/16/1972.

“Fountain Square Plan To Be Aired-Protecting Our living Room,” Cincinnati Post Times Star 06/22/1972.

“Fountain Square Wins AIA's Top 1973 Honor,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 04/29/1973.

“Council Bans Vendors From Fountain Square,” Post, 09/18/1975.

“View From The Top,” Post, 09/21/1978.

“Improving And Repairing Fountain Square,” Post, 10/15/1980.

“Crowd On Fountain Square Expresses Moods,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12/10/1980.

“Fountain Square Well Despite Vacant Space Cincinnati,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 01/07/1982.

“Fountain Square May Get A Stage,” Post, 09/30/1982.

100

Appendix A

Map of the four block area between Sixth, Fourth, Vine, and Walnut Streets 1863

Source: Hamilton County/Cincinnati Public Library – Map of the business portion of Cincinnati 1863.

101

Appendix B

Map of the four block area between Sixth, Fourth, Vine, and Walnut Streets 1863

Source: Source: Hamilton County/Cincinnati Public Library – Robinson Atlas 1883-1884.

102

Appendix C

Map of the blocks north and south of Fountain Square 1930

Source: Hamilton County/Cincinnati Public Library – Sanborn Fire Insurance Atlas 1930.

103

Appendix D

Map of the blocks north and south of Fountain Square 1960

Source: Hamilton County/Cincinnati Public Library – Sanborn Fire Insurance Atlas 1960.

104

Appendix E

Map of Urban Renewal Design for Fountain Square 1971

Source: Recommendations for decision, block A - Fountain Square, Cincinnati, Ohio, schematic design - plaza and slab, report number one / Rogers, Taliaferro, Kostritsky, Lamb ... [et al.] 1965.

105

Appendix F Map of first Tri-County shopping centers in operation by 1960

Source: Cincinnati Post 12/11/1959

106

Appendix G Shopping mall design for Fountain Square

Source: Cincinnati Enquirer 10/24/1959

107

Appendix H

Graphic representation of changing place narratives for Fountain Square

Source: Graphic by Author (Images courtesy of the Greater Cincinnati Memory Project 2005)

108