WHO PUT THE PUBLIC IN THE BOSTON PUBLIC MARKET?

A thesis submitted by

BARBARA KIM

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in

Urban Environmental Policy and Planning

Tufts University

August 2017

Advisor: Julian Agyeman

Reader: Penn Loh

Abstract

Interest in locally grown food has grown across the country, which can be seen in the growth of farmers markets and building or revitalization of public markets. These spaces are complex with multiple public interests, a redefining public space, and the ideas around civic agriculture. This thesis, with the Boston Public Market as a case study, analyzes the market using content and discourse analysis to see how the market confront the inherent tensions of being a space with multiple public uses and interests. The building of the BPM was never a foregone conclusion and requires leadership, collaboration, and clarity in its purpose as a market selling 100% locally sourced and produces products. Collaboration between public, private and nonprofit sectors are necessary to build spaces like the BPM. But most importantly interventions are needed if these, spaces are going to be accessible to all income levels.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Otto Gallotto, Kira Lafosse-Baker, Liz Morningstar, Dr. Miriam E. Nelson, Al

Rose, Mackenzie Sehlke, Heidi Stucker, Greg Watson, and David Webber for sharing their knowledge and expertise about the Boston Public Market. I truly appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedules for an interview. This thesis would not have been possible without the support of my thesis advisor Dr. Julian Agyeman and thesis reader Penn Loh.

Thank you for your patience and seeing me through this project.

ii Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... ii Acronym Guide ...... iv List of Figures ...... iv Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Public Markets ...... 1 Outline ...... 3 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 4 What is a public market? ...... 4 Public Interest ...... 7 Defining Public Space ...... 10 The BPM within Civic Agriculture ...... 13 Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods ...... 16 Case Study Technique ...... 16 Data Collection ...... 18 Data Analysis ...... 20 Limitations ...... 21 Chapter 4: A Case Study of the Boston Public Market ...... 23 BPM’s Location ...... 24 BPM and Government Agencies ...... 26 BPM’s Vendors ...... 29 BPM’s Customers ...... 31 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion ...... 33 Context Analysis ...... 33 The Public Dimensions of the Market ...... 35 Operation ...... 40 Market Customers ...... 41 The Kitchen ...... 42 Chapter 6: Recommendations for Policy and Planning ...... 44 Consider context, location, and mission ...... 44 Collaboration and aligning interests ...... 44 Proactively addressing the access gap ...... 45 Bibliography ...... 47

iii Acronym Guide

AAFM – Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets BPM – Boston Public Market BPMA – Boston Public Market Association MassDOT – Massachusetts Department of Transportation MDAR – Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources NEPC – New England Produce Center SNAP – Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program WIC – Woman, Infants, and Children

List of Figures

Figure 1: Axes of Public Space ...... 12 Figure 2: Social Performance Criteria, Mitigation Factors, and Operating Standards from BPMA Lease...... 29 Figure 3: Top 25 Words ...... 33

iv Chapter 1: Introduction Public Markets

Every world-class city has a public market. I heard that phrase often as I researched the new

Boston Public Market (BPM), which opened its doors in July of 2015. From Pike Place

Market in Seattle to West Side Market in Cleveland, many public markets are a destination for visitors to get a feel of the local and a glimpse into a city’s history. Marketplaces have always been a focal point of the community. It is a place everyone must go to get necessities, but it also becomes a place where people gather and connect with their neighbors. The market’s legacy comes from a time before refrigeration when people needed to buy food more often. The resurgence of public markets and the rise of buy local, make it a good time to examine what role do public markets play in our lives. Why are they important as we examine our food system, especially in the fight for environmental justice.

Over the last decade there has been a resurgence of interest around food. Whether it is locally grown food found at the farmers markets, new restaurants serving unique dishes or the growth of urban agriculture, people are looking to experience food and find their own meaning from the experience. Some people buy locally grown food because they want to support the local farmer or because it causes less environmental damage. Others visit new restaurants to try new dishes and create lasting memories with friends and families. Finally, organizations are interested in urban agriculture as an opportunity to put vacant land to productive use and to create jobs.

One aspect of this heightened awareness around food is the reemergence of public markets in the United States. Up until the end of World War II, the United States had a strong public market system with over 200 markets in operation. With the rise of

1 supermarket chains, public markets moved from the forefront of food distribution in the country. However, public markets still play an important role in the urban setting, especially as a space where people gather.

The idea of a public market resonates with people, but what actually is a public market and why is it important? In 2015, after more than a decade of commitment by ordinary citizens, nonprofits, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the Boston Public

Market (BPM) opened. The BPM is a permanent-year round indoor market that sources fresh, locally grown produce, locally caught seafood and locally produced food. The mission of the market is to provide fresh, healthy food to consumers of all income levels, nourish our community, and educate the public about food sources, nutrition, and preparation.

Produce and seafood must be grown or caught in New England and specialty food items must be produced in New England. With the educational Kitchen, the BPM provides community demonstrations and programming. The location of the market, wedged between

Government Center, Faneuil Hall, and the Greenway, provides high visibility and generates substantial foot traffic. The customer base is a mix of residents, professionals and tourists.

The market is a public-private partnership and the market is operated by the non-profit,

Boston Public Market Association (BPMA). The market’s goal is to be self-sustaining after the initial build out phase. The non-profit model assumes a break even operating margin, existing solely to create, run, and promote the marketplace and provide for the education of the community.

Using the recently opened BPM as a case study, the key research question of this thesis is in what ways is the BPM public? Who benefits from the market and how do they benefit? Overlaying these questions will be an examination of the intent of the BPM versus the outcome, and if there is a gap, examining the potential reasons for the gap.

2 Outline

In the second chapter the literature review explores and defines four key terms and concepts that frame the idea of a public market. The third chapter explores the case study methodology and methods. Reviewing documents and eight semi-structured interviews, materials were analyzed for content and discourse. The fourth chapter lays out the case study and discusses the key findings from the analysis. The fifth chapter looks ahead and provides recommendations for other entities considering a public market.

3 Chapter 2: Literature Review

To provide context to the case study this chapter divides into four sections. Each section explores and defines a key term or concept that frames the idea of a public market.

The first section defines what a public market is. The second section examines how public policy works in areas in which multiple publics create a challenge in defining the public interest and the benefits of a policy. The third section reviews the changing definition of public space, especially with the rise of privately owned public spaces. The fourth section discusses civic agriculture as it relates to the BPM.

What is a public market?

In this thesis a public market will be defined as a permanent year-round market, which primarily sells food and whose vendors are mostly involved in direct retail, straight from producer to consumer. Products in the market do not have to be exclusively local, but many markets do have some local farmers and vendors. Due to the nature of direct retail, consumers build relationships with vendors that are not possible in the supermarket or grocery store setting. Although many of the benefits of a public market are the same as farmers markets and open-air markets, this definition purposely excludes them, due to their limited hours of operation. Under this definition, BPM is a public market; however the

BPM’s mission requires vendors to sell only locally sourced or produced products. All fruits, vegetables, and meat must be grown in New England and products such as bread, chocolate, and nuts must be produced in New England and source materials must be local whenever possible. BPM is the first public market in the United States to have an all-local mission.

First and foremost a public market is place for consumers to purchase food and other goods. However, it is more than just a sterile shopping environment based on

4 transaction. It serves as a place for people to gather and highlights to outsiders what is important to the city. Other entities such as grocery stores and farmers market also sell food, and when defining a public market, it is most often defined by comparing it to these other entities. But before comparing these entities it important to take a look back at the history of public markets.

In the United States, the earliest public markets were public in the sense that they were owned and operated by government entities and were the key form of urban food distribution (Baics 2015; Morales and Kettles 2009; Shakow 1981; and Yong, Lee, Freishtat,

Bleich, and Gittelsohn 2013). This is similar to many other countries including Lithuania,

Mexico, and Spain (Blumberg 2015; Fava, Guardia, and Oyon 2015; and Harner 2007). In addition, public support via taxes was used to build market structures and public entities were responsible for quality control (Baics 2015 and Harner 2007). In the United States, the public markets were initially formed as the only place where butchered meat could be certified and sold. Other vendors such as produce vendors put up stalls nearby, knowing shoppers would need to come to the area to buy meat. Since the government, as part of their public works oversaw these markets, some authors have argued that the markets were public because they increased food security by providing access to healthy and affordable food. The thinking was that the government set rents that allowed the market to be sustainable, but would be lower than most profit seeking ventures. Then, the savings from lower rent would be passed on to consumers in lower cost products (Fava et. al. 2015; Morales and Kettles

2009; Shakow 1981; and Yong et. al. 2013).

Although public markets continue to be a player in food distribution, the government or customers do not always view them favorably. One of the main reasons for their decline in the United States is that local governments believed there were other more

5 valuable uses for urban space (Shakow 1981). Both Blumberg (2015) and Chen (2012) note that government officials and customers often view public markets with suspicion. However, there is a strong cultural heritage attached to these markets and governments have been unable to close these markets. It is important to note however, that both Blumberg (2015) and Chen (2012) include open-air markets in their definition of public markets. Because open-air markets do not rely on permanent infrastructure, they are harder for the government to close. Many governments view public markets as chaotic and dirty, but also recognize they have a large draw of tourists that come to their cities because of the market

(Chen 2013). In Lithuania, the government has attempted to cultivate the meaning and definition of the culture by connecting the markets with local production and processing, while at the same time highlighting the adherence to modern norms of food safety

(Blumberg 2015).

Despite many countries having public markets, research emphasizes that the rise of public market were due to very specific local events (Blumberg 2015 and Fava et al 2015).

For example in Lithuania, the rise of public markets was due to the fall of the Soviet Union.

The power vacuum created high levels of unemployment, so people sold and traded goods they could make, which included growing vegetables in their backyards (Blumberg 2015). In

Spain, the rise of the markets happened when Spain was largely closed off from the world from 1939-1959 and thus was reliant on local production for food (Fava et al 2015). The rise of popularity of public markets in the United States recently is also a locally created phenomenon.

For public markets in the United States, “public” is decoupled from government support and administration and more closely related to open accessible community space and community revitalization (Fava et al 2015; Kurland and Aleci 2015; and Spitzer and

6 Baum 1995). The idea of community space receives quite a bit of attention from the literature and is one of the key elements that builds the social and spatial embeddedness of the market. Part of that community space is felt by the permanence of a public market, especially in comparison to farmers markets (Blumberg 2015; Donofrio 2009; Gentry 2013,

Kurland and Aleci 2015).

By comparing what a public market offers in comparison with farmers markets and supermarkets, much of a public market’s definition ends up being relational to the other mechanism of food distribution. With the public market’s permanency, in some cases spanning decades, vendors and customers build relationships and trust, unlike the sterile monetary transactions that occur in supermarkets (Blumberg 2015; Kurland and Aleci 2015).

However, it is still unclear exactly what the intention and unintentional public benefits most markets bring to a community. Kurland and Aleci (2015) argue that since no metrics are being measured to calculate the public benefits, then a public market is simply a “symbolic expression of public benefit” (p. 515).

Public Interest

In policy and planning the idea of public interest is a key tenet, yet elusive to define.

In 1994, Elizabeth Howe conducted ninety-six interviews with public agency planners, and most used the concept of public interest to describe their work (1994). However, when describing what about their work was in the public interest there was no consistency in how they defined it (Howe 1994). This difficulty in defining public interest receives a lot of interest from researchers, and the literature on attempting to define public interest is vast. To create a more manageable scale for a brief review, this paper examines the work of two authors that provide foundational thinking about policy and planning theory, Deborah Stone

7 (Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making 2012) and Michael Brooks (Planning

Theory for Practitioners 2002).

Both Stone (2012) and Brooks (2002) use neo-classical economic terms and models to help define and frame the public interest. Brooks squarely places the idea in an economic model by using the economic definitions for public good, market externality, and the Pareto principle. According to the Pareto principle, the optimal use of resources is when improvement occurs for producers or consumers, but that no one is harmed by that improvement. Pareto’s efficiency doesn’t consider whether the benefits are equitable, but is concerned whether movement from the current equilibrium would cause harm. Under this scenario Brooks (2002) states, “A policy that will result in considerable profits for some individuals while imposing absolutely no perceived costs on anyone else, then this policy is

“in the public interest” by Pareto’s standard” (p. 54-55). By using these definitions, he implicitly validates the underlying assumptions of neoclassical economic theory, that actors act in their self-interest, are rational, have perfect information, and subscribe to the tenet more is better. However, Brooks does recognize that moving from theory to the real world poses challenges that make the public interest difficult to operationalize. He recognizes that any policy initiative will affect multiple publics, and thus an initiative may benefit most publics, but some publics may be harmed. At that point Brooks notes, “Which citizens, then, make-up the public interests we want to serve?” (2002, p.59). Because in his opinion the public interest is subjective, Brooks argues that it would better to explain decisions based on values (2002). For the purpose of this thesis, using Brooks as an example demonstrates that defining the public interests is incredibly difficult and subjective. Even while using neoclassical economic theory to frame his idea of publics he runs into an issue that public, the unit of analysis, goes beyond individuals. In this thesis, I will not be able to examine all

8 the publics that were interested in building the market nor all the publics that use the market.

However, based on my research and analysis I will examine the publics that come to the forefront of my research.

Stone on the other hand uses the market model as a foil to the model of the polis, a model of political society. She argues that some of the underlying assumptions of the economic model do not explain how people interact and behave. Through a polis model, she more closely explains how people work together in a community. She defines public interest as “individual interests held in common” and “communities trying to achieve something as a community” (2012, p.24 and p.21). Like Brooks she recognizes that not everyone will agree, but she also notes that people are often internally conflicted. People recognize that sometimes what is for the good of the community, may not be the best thing for them as an individual. Separate self-interests cannot explain how communities choose to work together and provide mutual aid. Instead of individuals working only in their self-interest, there is a balance between self-interest and altruism. She notes, “In the polis, people have both self- interested and altruistic motivations, and policy analysis must account for both of them”

(2012, p. 23).

Like Brooks, Stone recognizes that public interest as a concept may not be able to be defined, but she argues that the key feature of the public interest is not its definition, but how much energy people put towards the idea. She even goes so far as to say, “Let it be an empty box, but not matter; in the polis, people expend a lot of energy trying to fill up that box. The concept of public interest is to the polis what self-interest is to the market. They are both abstractions whose specific contents we do not need to know in order to use them to explain and predict people’s behavior” (2012, p. 24). By equating public interest in the polis to self-interest in the market, she makes public interest a key factor to explain and

9 predict how people behave. By using Stone’s analogy the areas of public interest this thesis will examine are those that spent a lot of energy to move this market from an idea to a reality. In all of the interviews, the idea of public good and public interest was part of the reason for building the public market and was a guiding principle behind their desire to help build the market.

One other key area that Stone defines in the market versus the polis is how resources are used. In economic theory, most resources are defined as finite, scarce, and diminish with use, but Stone argues that there are certain resources that behave more like emotions than physical matter and expand through exercise, use, practice, and expression. Public interest is one of these phenomena and therefore follows the “laws of passion” (2012, p.32). The three laws of passion are:

1) Passion feeds on itself 2) The wholes is greater than the sum of its parts 3) Things can mean and therefore be more than one thing at once

For the BPM, the most important law of passion will be the third law: things can mean and therefore be more than one thing at once. It is the power of an idea. There are certain parts of an idea that are known, but individuals fill out the rest of the meaning from their own experience and understanding. It can be vexing, because it can be difficult to define, but empowering, because it brings different groups together.

Defining Public Space

At first glance defining space as public or private seems simple. Most often the definition is based on ownership. If the government owns the space, then it is a public space and if anyone else owns the space it is a private space. This definition makes the idea of public space dichotomous, but there is also the idea of space in a social sense, where people gather and discussion occurs as being a public space. To help take that idea of a public space

10 into account, Marcuse (2005) categorizes a space by its ownership, function, and use and explains the categories in six examples (p.778).

- Public ownership, public function, public use (streets) - Public ownership, public function, administrative use (city hall) - Public ownership, private function, private use (space leased to commercial establishments) - Private ownership, public function, public use (airports, gated communities, zoning bonus private plazas, community benefit facilities) - Private ownership, private function, public use (cafés, places of public accommodations) - Private ownership, private function, private use (homes)By distinguishing between function and use of a space, Marcuse recognizes that the purpose of a space and who uses the space are different. He goes on to define eight uses of a space that are public functions: organized democratic activity, political communication, symbolism, sociability/diversity, recreation, environmental protection, promotion of efficient urban uses, and efficient economic uses (Marcuse 2005, p.778).

These definitions begin to lay the framework of a space, but are still limited. Neméth and

Schmidt (2011) collapse the category of function and use and place the dimensions of publicness on three axes, ownership, management, and use/users. In addition, each of these axes is a spectrum. (See Figure 1 below). Neméth and Schmidt distinguish between ownership, operation, and management (2011). The ownership and operation pieces are important as more publicly-owned places are being privately-operated (Katz, 2006).

However, the literature does not distinguish between publicly-owned/privately-operated spaces like Sony Plaza in New York City and publicly-owned/nonprofit-operated spaces like

Central Park. As more public spaces are run by nonprofit entities more research needs to be done as to how these distinctions matter for public space. Because nonprofit entities don’t seek to maximize profits, but rather promote certain social goals, ceding operational authority to nonprofit entities will be different than ceding it to for profit enterprises.

Neméth and Schmidt’s third axis is management, which focuses on how the space is controlled and maintained and specifically how owners indicate “acceptable uses, users, and

11 Figure 1: Axes of Public Space (Neméth and Schmidt 2011)

behaviors” (2011, p. 11). These include placement of security cameras, the amount of seating, and bathroom codes. These types of amenities can encourage or discourage use of a space. In addition, these types of practices can affect how comfortable people feel in a space and the unwritten social expectations can affect how inclusive a space feels and the diversity of people who choose to visit the space (Neméth and Schmidt 2011 and Sandercock, 1998).

The tension around management is how to make a place safe and secure, but also welcoming for users. These practices also shape perceptions of a space and whether or not people perceive the space as inclusive or exclusive. By looking beyond ownership and looking at operation, function, use, and management a more rounded picture of a public space emerges.

Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) leases BPM’s space to the nonprofit Boston Public Market Association (BMPA) to run the BPM. This makes the BPM a publicly-owned/nonprofit-operated space that has goals beyond maximizing profits. The

Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) also has a stake in what

12 public interests are served by the BPM, as MDAR gave money to the BPMA to build the market. The location of the BPM in downtown Boston also requires a balance of creating a public space and creating a safe space for people who visit the market.

The BPM within Civic Agriculture

The BPM has many different public interests to take into account and serves a public function in a variety of ways. One of those areas is how the BPM fits into what Lyson 2007 contends is the paradigm of civic agriculture, which is to reconnect to local place and civic life, and to rebuild food systems locally. Stone’s law of passion comes to the forefront when it comes to the meaning and definition of the BPM, with individuals filling out the meaning from their own experience and understanding (2012). In civic agriculture, words like local and organic gain this patina of being inherently good, but Born and Purcell caution us against making these assumptions (2006). Foods marketed as local, are not inherently produced in a sustainable manner. For example an apple can be grown conventionally in

Washington for sale in New York, but that same apple can be sold as a “local” product in a

Washington market place. This tension is what Press and Arnould refer to this as a myth of

“American pastoralist ideology.” They argue that American pastoralism relies on five key consumer assumptions: 1) local food is healthier; 2) systems of local food production and distribution help people to feel part of the community; 3) local systems combine natural enchantment with the benefit of consumer society; 4) local food is safer since consumers can control local producers more directly; and 5) local food systems are associated with moral superiority (2011).

Public markets are part of civic agriculture and vehicle for the alternative food movement to increase local production and combat global, industrialized food system

(Goodman 2010; Harner 2007; Kurland and Aleci 2015; Zade 2009). The food production

13 system in the United States has developed to produce the largest quantities of food at minimal cost and most agricultural subsidies reward this system. The underlying thought is that more is better and by having low production costs, food will be affordable for all.

However, this system contains a lot of costs that are not internalized, like the use of fertilizers on the soil, the treatment of farmworkers, and thee tremendous subsidies from the government.

The alternative food movement works to create a sustainable and environmentally friendly food system. However, despite the best of intentions the alternative food movement is still caught in the most fundamental piece of the neoliberal framework, the necessity of profit, to continue its work. Decreasing the use of fertilizers requires a more labor-intensive type of farming and these extra costs are passed on to the consumer. Supporters of local agriculture argue that there is value in how much better its methods are for the environment and for the people who work on the farm, however, it makes food less affordable. For example, in the alternative food movement, public markets are seen as a venue for affordable and healthy food for all, but if locally grown food costs more than food at the grocery store, then people with less means may not be able to afford to shop at public markets. This then excludes the alternative food movement’s intended beneficiaries of the market (Allen 2007 and Shakow 1981).

Most farmers are first and foremost businessmen and there is the expectation that farmers markets, CSAs, and other direct retail outlets are economically sustainable. Local food production does create jobs; however because of current market conditions the cost of growing local food, only those able to pay can participate (Allen 2007). By itself local production and direct retailing does not make a more equitable system (Allen 2007 and Born and Purcell 2006). Local production is a means, but not an end to creating a more equitable

14 food system. Just producing local food does not create a just food system. Within the current framework other interventions, focused on the producer or consumer, are needed if local food will truly be accessible for all. Equity and access for all are important for this thesis because the BPM’s mission is to develop and operate a permanent year-round market that provides fresh, healthy food to consumers of all income levels, nourishes our community, and educates the public about food sources, nutrition, and preparation

(emphasis added). By making it part of its mission statement this is clearly a key tenet for the

Boston Public Market. I will examine how BPM tries to implement this piece of its mission later in the thesis.

15 Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods

Analyzing the public dimensions of the Boston Public Market lends itself to the case study approach because it focuses on a contemporary phenomenon in a real-life context.

Using mostly qualitative data, the research will describe and examine the Boston Public

Market. Data was collected from two main sources: documents obtained online and eight semi-structured interviews conducted with professionals involved directly with the market or with food planning in Boston. The research followed Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol and received an exemption status from the Tufts University IRB before interviews were conducted. Recommendations are drawn from the examination for practitioners interested in the intersection of local food and public markets. The key research questions examined are as follows:

- In what ways is the Boston Public Market Public?

! Who benefits from the Boston Public Market and how do they benefit?

! Is the Boston Pubic Market perceived as a public space?

! What can other public markets, planners, and policy makers learn about local

food in public markets?

Case Study Technique

The case study, as a qualitative research approach, emerged out of the sociological and anthropological traditions of ethnography and observation, particularly the multi-modal method that arose out of the Chicago School. The research approach involves the use of meticulous observations, corresponding interviews, as well as the analysis of documents to capture a social phenomenon or experience (Hamel, Dufour, and Fortin 1993). By selecting the case study as the desired research method, the researcher has the opportunity to

16 “investigate a real life phenomenon within its real-life context when boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin 1984, p.23). According to Yin, a case study “allows an investigation to retain holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events – such as individual life cycles, organizational and managerial processes, neighborhood change, international relations and the maturation of industries” (1984, p.14).

By choosing to examine the BPM through the lens of a case study, the research sought to capture what Yin refers to as the “how” and “why” questions of the public dimensions of the BPM (1984, p.18). In order to capture these “how” and “why” questions, the case study employs the use of a variety of materials (Hamel et al. 1993). Further parameters of a case study generally include direct observation as well as corresponding discourse and content analysis.

The Boston Public Market operates on many different levels from a place to purchase food to a center for education. In addition, there are many varied and sometimes conflicting expectations for what the market will achieve. The case study technique lends itself to the examination of qualitative data to build a full understanding of the Boston Public

Market using a “full variety of evidence” (Yin 1994, p.8). A case study examines a snapshot in a confined time period, but allows for a broad context to be built around the case. The

Boston Public Market is an entity in and of itself, but it is shaped and influenced by its context.

Finally, it is important to note that while case studies may consist partly or entirely of qualitative information they are comprised of a single set of conditions. As such, case studies may be used to support and expand theoretical propositions, but are not considered representative samples. According to Yin, case studies may be used to “expand and

17 generalize theories (analytic generalization) and not enumerate frequencies (statistical generalization” (1994, p.21).

Data Collection

The case study relied on data collection from text sources and semi-structured interviews. The text sources came from online sources in four categories and in all categories the exact phrase “Boston Public Market” was used as the search term. The texts’ dates ranged from 1990 – February 2016. The first category is documents from the BPM, including Boston Public Market Association’s (BPMA) original proposal to build the BPM.

The second is government sources. These were found using an advanced Google search limiting the search to websites with a .gov domain. The results included sources from the

Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR), the city of Boston, and documents from Vermont’s agricultural export program. The third category of documents is printed media sources. Using the new aggregating database Factiva, over 200 articles were collected. Factiva was used because its database includes articles from The Boston Globe.

Sources ranged from other local media outlets such as The Bangor Daily News to international news outlets such as India Retail Times. The final category is online news media. Using Google’s news filter, over 90 news sources were collected from websites like

Boston.com. There was some overlap between Factiva and the Google news search as many sources are printed and posted online. Sources that appeared in both searches were categorized as printed media sources. In addition, some articles were excluded from the collection if they spoke only about the BPMA but did not speak about the BPM. For many years the BPMA operated two seasonal farmers markets that demonstrated the demand for local products, but most of these articles did not talk about BPM specifically. These articles were not analyzed.

18 Originally, the online social media sources were going to be a blog category, however there is currently no blog aggregator comparable to a news aggregator like LexisNexis or

Factiva. Google does have a blog sub-filter under its news filter, but when using the term

“Boston Public Market” less than 10 results appear. The Google news filter did capture less mainstream news sources such as treehugger.com, but also included news sources such as the Detroit Free Press.

These four categories were chosen to capture a large portion of the text-based sources while keeping to a manageable and replicable scope. The BPM documents allow for content analysis of how the BPM represents itself. The government sources demonstrate how different government entities view the BPM and the print and online sources represent what journalists/media companies and other individuals believe is newsworthy about the

BPM. Over 350 documents were collected for content analysis.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted as the second method of data collection.

Interviews were used to gain a deeper understanding of the discourse surrounding the BPM.

Ideas and concepts are not as easily identified in a content analysis and the interviews were used to pull out a few underlying assumptions and themes. Eight interviews were conducted and interviewees were chosen based on their professional relationship with the BPM or role with food planning in the region. Although they were interviewed in their professional capacity, the interviews reflected on their personal experiences and perceptions of the market. The interview focused on the public nature of the BPM, examining the term public from different angles. The interviews were recorded and lasted from twenty to sixty minutes and were conducted in person, over the phone, or via Skype. The following individuals were interviewed:

• Otto Gallotto - President, Haymarket Pushcart Association

19 • Kira Lafosse-Baker - Engagement Site Manager, The Kitchen at the Boston Public Market • Liz Morningstar - Former CEO, Boston Public Market • Miriam E. Nelson, PhD - Former Board Member, Boston Public Market and Former Associate Dean, Tufts University Tisch M. College of Civic Life • Al Rose – Owner, Red Apple Farm • Mackenzie Sehlke - Director, Programming & Community Engagement, Boston Public Market • Heidi Stucker, Regional Planner I, Metropolitan Area Planning Council • Greg Watson, Former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources and Director of Policy and Systems Design, Schumacher Center for a New Economics • David Webber - Farmers' Market Program Coordinator, Division of Agricultural Markets, Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. An interview protocol was used to guide the interview. The semi-structured nature created the opportunity for the interviewees to speak about their experiences and perceptions about the market without being confined by the question and allowed the interviewer to follow up on topics the interviewee brought up when answering the questions.

The interview content varied based on the context and relationship the interviewee has with the market. The interview was divided into two parts. The first part was an introduction and interviewees spoke about how they had heard about the market and their relationship with the BPM. The second part focused on the various public dimensions of the market.

Data Analysis

Content analysis for this research was an iterative process. First, I read the articles to ensure the content was appropriate for analysis. I attempted to do a context analysis by importing the articled into the software Nvivo. The four categories of documents described earlier were added to the software and analyzed using a word frequency search. The data was cleaned and only the portions of the documents related to BPM were analyzed. A frequency word search, based on the number of times a word appeared in the search. I excluded words

20 that were two letters or less and other common three letter words like “the”. The frequency word search was conducted by category and then overall with all the documents. The word search was an exact word search. Although the software allowed for word searches based on a scale from exact to similar, even the first step beyond exact match only, “including stemmed words”, created groupings that did not work for this analysis. For example, in a stemmed word search the words ‘organic’ and ‘organization’ were grouped together and it is clear in this context that these words do not belong in the same grouping. This type of analysis, using a strict word search query, the content analysis assumed a constant and stable meaning of words. This assumption creates a condition easy for analysis, but has flaws. For example in this research the word produce has two important yet very different meanings; produce as in fruits and vegetables and produce as in to make or manufacture a product. The content analysis helps ascertain what is receiving the most press by word frequency and the secondary level of content and discourse analysis balances some of the rigidity of the first method.

The second set of content analysis was a combined content and discourse analysis based on researcher’s observations from the documents. Themes emerged around the public nature of the BPM based on the literature review, document analysis, and interview analysis.

This analysis is discussed in the discussion section.

Limitations

A large amount of data was collected and analyzed for this research, yet the literature on the BPM is still being written. News sources were collected through February 2016 and most of the news stories were written in 2015, surrounding the opening of the market. The

BPM was an idea in the making for nearly two decades and has been in operation for less than a year. The public dimensions of the BPM are not static and will change overtime.

21 This case study examines a unique example of a public market in the United States based on its mandate to sell only locally grown, caught, or produced food. In addition, its location and juxtaposition with Haymarket make its experience context-oriented. As stated earlier, the purpose of a case study is not to make universal statements about all public markets. However, the case studies are used to “expand and generalize theories” (Yin 1994 p.21). The experiences, challenges, and successes should be examined by policy makers and planners when developing or adapting public markets or local food retail outlets. Some of these experiences may pertain and relate to their work and others will not.

22 Chapter 4: A Case Study of the Boston Public Market

The BPM is a complex entity and has many dimensions that are public. The following paragraph introduces the market and the subsequent paragraphs outline and discuss four public dimensions of the market. The first section discusses the location of the market and its context within Boston’s Market District. The second section explains the market with various government entities and the Commonwealth’s expectations of the market. The third section focuses on BPM’s promotion of local farmers, fishermen, and local food producers. The fourth section discusses the opportunities the market provides for consumers, including the educational Kitchen and the market’s participation in food public assistance programs and additional incentive programs. Although these paragraphs are presented in a discrete linear fashion, as necessitated by writing, these four sections overlap and certain characteristics and benefits of the market described in one section also influence the characteristics and benefits described in other sections. For example, The Kitchen is an educational space, which offers classes and workshops for customers to learn more about local food, but is also can be viewed a marketing tool to encourage people to come shop at the market. In a third view, The Kitchen helps the market fulfill its lease contract with the

Commonwealth.

The BPM opened in July 2015 and is a permanent-year round indoor market that sources fresh, locally grown produce, locally caught seafood and locally produced food. The mission of the market is to provide fresh, healthy food to consumers of all income levels, nourish our community, and educate the public about food sources, nutrition, and preparation. Produce and seafood must be grown or caught in New England and specialty food items must be produced in New England. With the educational Kitchen, the BPM provides community demonstrations and programming. The location of the market, it is

23 wedged between Government Center, Faneuil Hall, and the Greenway, provides high visibility and generates substantial foot traffic. The customer base is a mix of residents, professionals and tourists. The market is a public-private partnership and the market is operated by the non-profit, Boston Public Market Association (BPMA). The market’s goal is to be self-sustaining after the initial build out phase. The non-profit model assumes a break even operating margin, existing solely to create, run, and promote the marketplace and provide for the education of the community.

BPM’s Location

The market is located in downtown Boston above the Haymarket subway station and adjacent to the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway and between Government Center and

Fanieul Hall. This area of the city is having a renaissance due the completion of the Central

Artery/Tunnel Project in 2006. The project put interstate 93 underground and the Rose

Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, filled with public spaces and parks, replaced a stretch of the interstate. The opening of this area reconnected it to the North End and the area is experiencing major development, especially along the Greenway corridor.

The city of Boston has branded this area as the Market District. In addition to BPM, this district includes two other iconic markets, Faneuil Hall Marketplace and Haymarket. 17 million tourists visit the marketplace annually and the square bustles with street performers and kiosks selling everything from jewelry to lobster t-shirts. Quincy Market, one of the buildings in the marketplace was Boston’s center for wholesale food distribution until 1968 when the New England Produce Center (NEPC) was constructed in Chelsea. Currently the only food being sold at the Quincy Market is prepared food that is geared towards tourists and workers looking for a quick bite to eat. Although most food vendors are not national food chains, the market does have a Starbucks, Wagamama, and McCormick and Schmicks.

24 Much of the retail focuses on tourist items. Some major apparel companies have stores in the marketplace, like Urban Outfitters, American Eagle Outfitters, and Ann Taylor.

Haymarket is an open-air market on Fridays and Saturdays that sets up on

Blackstone Street, Hanover Street, and Cross Street, adjacent to the BPM. It has been in continuous operation since 1830. Pushcart vendors sell fruits, vegetables, and seafood. The vendors originally purchased produce from the Quincy Market, but currently purchase most of their items from the NEPC. The market is a cash only market that focuses on the volume of sales. The produce comes from all over the country and world and most of the products are conventionally grown, although organic produce from California is occasionally for sale.

The vendors sell produce at a reduced price for three reasons. First, vendors purchase reduced price surplus produce from NEPC. Second, because there is low overhead cost for the vendors, unlike supermarkets, vendors pass some of that savings on to consumers.

Third, the produce is typically at peak ripeness and should be eaten within a few days of purchase. Since it has a shorter shelf life than produce at the supermarket, vendors price accordingly. Haymarket vendors and customers come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and the produce at the market reflects this diversity. In addition, Haymarket attracts customers from all income levels. Although Haymarket does not accept SNAP and WIC benefits, people with less means are able to purchase more fruits and vegetables due to the reduced prices. Many Haymarket customers travel more than fifteen minutes to purchase food and according to Project for Public Spaces 2009 report Haymarket plays a “vital role in the Boston food distribution system” (p.21).

Both Faneuil Hall Marketplace and Haymarket anchor Boston’s Market District. Due to their presence already, some people questioned the need for a new public market. Boston, however, was one of the few world-class cities that did not have an operating public market

25 like Pike Place Market in Seattle, West Side Market in Cleveland, and Eastern Market in

Washington, D.C. A public market provides the opportunity for the city to demonstrate its cultural and agricultural heritage. Although the district has markets, none of them were by definition public markets. Public markets, by definition, sell primarily grocery food items.

Although Haymarket meets this qualification, it is only in operation two days a week and doesn’t have the permanence of a public market. BPM is able to fill in the gap as a public market that operates 7 days a week. In addition, by focusing on locally sourced food it does not compete directly with the other markets already in the district.

BPM and Government Agencies

The BPM is a public-private partnership. The market was developed and is operated by the non-profit BPMA. BPMA is a partnership of the city of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, individual and corporate investors, and foundations. The BPMA incorporated in 2001 to promote building a locally sourced year-round market. In 2004, there was discussion of locating the Boston Public Market near South Station, but nothing came to fruition (Palmer 2004). Since 2006, the BPMA association has operated two seasonal Farmers Markets to demonstrate the demand for locally sourced food in Boston. In

2011, a request for proposals went out to build a public market in the vacant first-floor of the MassDOT building. BPMA’s proposal was the only proposal submitted and BPMA was awarded the project in 2012. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts provided $6.5 million for the development of the project, but required $4 million in matching private contributions before the money was released. As Dr. Nelson said

This is a classic good example of a public private partnership, because this market would not have happened if the mayor, the governor, the secretary of transportation, everybody had not come together… it was vacant and a community group had a vision for that

26 [building] to help improve Boston as a world-class city. Neither could have done it without the other (personal communication).

In 2013, the BPMA hired Liz Morningstar to be the founding CEO of the Market.

Under her guidance the BPMA wrote a business plan, raised over $6.7 million dollars in private contributions to complete the build out, oversaw the design, permitting and construction, recruited vendors, and opened the Boston Public Market in 2015. The total development cost for the project was $13.2 million. Getting all this to come together took enormous amount of collaboration between government entities, investors, nonprofit organizations, and the community. It took tremendous vision and leadership from Liz

Morningstar and everyone involved to move this project to from idea to opening day of the market. Just reviewing the government agencies involved gives a glimpse of how much effort it took to make this project happen.

The BPMA has an 85-year lease for the BPM from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). The building, which is known as Parcel 7, is a legacy of the

Big Dig. Real estate opened by that project is required to be developed for the public benefit. Former Governor Deval Patrick set up the Boston Public Market Commission to oversee all aspects of the Boston Public Market. The Commission was set up by Executive

Order 535 and its role is to:

Define the mission and vision of a public market in downtown Boston; Confer with participants and parties from the public and private sector involved with the planning, financing, design, and construction of said public market; Work with relevant public and private sector parties to write guidelines for an eventual market operator; Work with the appropriate state agencies to advertise for, and select, a market operator; Define the terms of a lease between the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the operator, subject to approval of MassDOT; and Receive and review quarterly updates from the operator on the financial health of the market, its adherence to the mission and other issues as necessary (EEA 2016).

27 Members of the Commission are the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of

Agricultural Resources, Secretary of the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, a designee of the Secretary, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, a designee of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, a State Senator, a State

Representative, a City of Boston Appointee, a designee of the Executive Director, Boston

Redevelopment Authority, and Executive Director, Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy.

The key aspect of the Commission for this thesis is that it defines the mission of the market and determines the operator’s (BPMA’s) adherence to that mission. The easiest place to see what is important to the Commission is in the lease agreement with the BPMA. The

Commission wants the BPM to be a financial success, but beyond that they wrote social goals into the lease. Figure 2 (below) highlights key areas of the social mission, as written in the lease, of the Boston Public Market. The figure shows the performance criteria, mitigation factors, and operating standards that focus on the social mission of the BPM. Measuring many of these criteria will be difficult and to measure. BPMA and the Commission agreed to use the first year of operation to create a benchmark for expected outcomes. Both entities realized that since this was uncharted territory, creating metrics without information would set the BPM up for failure. Also, it gives them more time to figure what can be measured, why something should be measured, and what that metric would means in terms of BPM meeting its obligations to the public. During the analysis section of this thesis, I will look closely at two key elements of the lease; Accessibility of The Market to an economically diverse population (the methodology to be determined) and The Market will operate a robust educational program aimed at customers, visitors, school children and residents about the importance and preparation of fresh, local and sustainable food especially as it relates to public health and the Massachusetts economy.

28 Figure 2: Social Performance Criteria, Mitigation Factors, and Operating Standards from BPMA Lease. Performance Criteria F. Compliance by vendors with and the enforcement by the Tenant of lease restrictions on sourcing of Market food products. Repeated violations will constitute grounds for termination of an individual vendor sublease or, if on a prolonged systemic level, the BPMA lease; and G. Accessibility of the Market to an economically diverse population (the methodology to be determined)

Mitigation Factors C. Positive tourism impact within Boston (measurement process to be determined); D.Increased visitation to the Greenway, Haymarket and Market District (measurement process to be determined); G. Increased number of people attending health, education & wellness programs reflecting a broad range of citizens

Operating Standards 8. The Market will operate a robust marketing campaign (especially in the early years) for the benefit of its vendors and other vendors in the Market District. The campaign will target those seeking locally grown products, underserved communities and will include implementation of SNAP and EBT programs; and 9. The Market will operate a robust educational program aimed at customers, visitors, school children and residents about the importance and preparation of fresh, local and sustainable food especially as it relates to public health and the Massachusetts economy

Source: https://bostonpublicmarket.org/ MDOTLeaseMain.pdf

BPM’s Vendors

Vendors farm, catch, and produce a mix of fruits, vegetables, meat, poultry, eggs, dairy, fish, seafood, specialty foods and beverages. Creating an economically sustainable mix of vendors, while providing as much floor space to Massachusetts farms is a key component of the market. The vendors are categorized into three business concepts based on the items they sell. Whole foods vendors sell grocery items such as produce, meat, eggs, and dairy.

Prepared food vendors sell items such as soup, sandwiches, and smoothies. The third type of vendor sells a mix of both whole foods and prepared foods. Currently, the vendors are split evenly with about a third of vendors in each of the three categories. For example, there are

29 currently thirteen farms stalls at the market. The market manager pays close attention to this market mix and recognizes that vendors selling whole foods have lower profit margins than prepared food vendors. Although all leases are negotiated individually, vendors selling whole foods pay less per square foot than vendors selling prepared foods. With a non-profit market manager, priorities such as preferred market-mix can be pursued, as their sole focus is not on profit maximization.

The market is a direct retail outlet for local small farmers, fishermen and small business owners. Vendor applicants go through an in-depth screening process, which not only examines their financial feasibility, but also carefully document businesses practices and confirms the local eligibility requirements are met and maintained. In addition, if the vendor plans to sell items from other suppliers, those suppliers are also carefully checked. Although the goal is to promote as much direct retail as possible, it is understood that vendors may not currently have the capacity to meet demand. To meet demand vendors may sell items from other suppliers that have been approved. Although there are only 13 farms stalls, 80 farms have been approved and their products are being sold at the market.

One goal of the market is to increase local agricultural production. The location of the market links rural supply with urban demand and increased production means more employees in the farm operation, increasing job opportunities in rural areas. With access to the urban market year-round, vendors will be able to increase production and hire more employees. Al Rose, owner of Red Apple Farm reflected on the benefits of BPM by saying:

Now thanks to the BPM, we are benefitting from sales here, but we are also benefiting from having to produce more there and hire more people there. It’s not even a trickle effect. It’s a direct effect to the rural side of Massachusetts. I think that is one of the best things of buying local, that the biggest percentage of that dollar is staying local. We hire all local employees. We have over 100 in the fall. It’s all being supported through this (personal communication).

30 BPM benefits the small business owners and as their businesses grow, people in rural area will have increased job opportunities. This then benefits the Commonwealth, as the state will receive more money in pay roll and income taxes.

BPM’s Customers

BPM’s customers are residents, professionals, and tourists and different parts of the market attract these groups. Although some customers may shop at the market for convenience, most choose to shop there because they believe in the social importance of purchasing food locally (, personal communication). The increase in sales in the farmers markets in Massachusetts demonstrates an increased demand for local produce. From 2000 to 2015 the number of farmers markets in Massachusetts has grown from 100 to nearly 250

(MDAR 2015). In addition, the number of winter farmers markets is on the rise. BPM as a year-round market supplies locally grown and produced all year long. The market provides a point of access to locally grown and produced food. With a clear demonstration of demand, through the success of BPMA’s two seasonal markets and the nearly 30 seasonal farmers markets in Boston alone, the market is clearly something customers want (City of Boston

2016). However, it is still considered too much of a risk for a private developer, which was made clear when only BPMA put in a bid to build the BPM.

One area of the market that has clear benefits to the consumer is the educational

Kitchen. The Kitchen provides workshops, classes, and discussions on various topics around food. The Trustees of Reservations, a Massachusetts nonprofit focused on conservation coordinates the programming of The Kitchen. Some of its programs are free from its Fresh,

Fast and Delicious for Less by Project Bread to REI sponsored yoga. Other programs range in cost from $5-$200, depending on the subject of the class. For example a Master

Butchering Class is more expensive than regular cooking class. The Kitchen works to keep

31 the programs varied and with a variety of costs to encourage diverse participation. Programs are places for discussion. Each week the nonprofit hosts a brownbag discussion on food related topics. The Kitchen will be a key place to evaluate the BPM as a civic institution.

32 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion Context Analysis Although the context analysis using Nvivo was an interesting exercise, it did not shed light on the narrative of the BPM. The articles mostly covered the opening of the market and the vendors that were going to occupy stalls in the market. The context analysis is one dimensional and is unable to pick up on the nuances of language or dive into a deeper meaning. As mentioned in the limitations section, even a key word like produce has two meanings that cannot be distinguished in this type of analysis. The greatest value of the context analysis is where it overlaps with the discourse analysis of the articles and the interviews.

Figure 3: Top 25 Words

33 Vendors at the market: “almost exclusively” grown or produced in Massachusetts

Local farmers are a key public that benefit from the BPM. The public funding for the

BPM came from MDAR and the Commissioner of MDAR chairs the Boston Public Market

Commission. Agricultural is an important piece of the Commonwealth’s economy, generating over $490 million in agricultural products and employing over 28,000 people each year. (MDAR 2015). MDAR has worked diligently to prevent agricultural land from being developed and cultivating direct marketing opportunities for famers (Watson, personal communication, MDAR 2015).

The BPM is an opportunity for public education about the importance of the agricultural economy in the Commonwealth and to create more direct marketing opportunities. The RFP for an operator for the BPM specifically states that products and produce would “almost exclusively” be grown or produced in Massachusetts (Watson 2016, personal communication; MassDOT 2014 p.112). However, Massachusetts was not the only state interested in the BPM for its direct marketing opportunities. For states like Vermont and Rhode Island, Boston is the closest large metropolitan area. The farmers from those states, see Boston as local and see value in being a vendor at BPM. With help from their states’ government, farmers from other states pushed for an opportunity to be part of the market (Watson, personal communication). The State of Vermont’s Agency of Agriculture,

Food & Markets (AAFM) and Agency of Commerce and Community Development worked with Harlow Farm to secure a stall at the market. Harlow Farm is responsible for the retail space. The stall sells organic produce from Harlow Farm and from 35 Vermont farms and food producers. For pioneering this effort Harlow Farm received marketing support and a

$25,000 grant for start­up costs from the State of Vermont (AAFM 2015). Defining what

34 local meant was a key process for development of the BPM. Although “almost exclusively” was never concretely defined, at the opening of the market in 2015 92% of the vendors were based in Massachusetts. The rest were split between Vermont and Rhode Island (Kayata

2015). The market provides a direct-retail opportunity and connects rural New England to urban New England.

Another key public that benefits from the market are prepared food vendors. For many vendors this is their first full-time retail operation. By adding this category of retail items, Boston Public Market is able to offer a variety of products and it is vital to its success

(Watson, personal communication). Due to New England Winters, locally grown food is limited to produce that can handle cold storage, like root vegetables and apples, and produce grown in greenhouses. This leads to a limited variety of products. Vendors of prepared food items are encouraged to source locally and initial vendor applicants that sourced locally were given priority. As the market becomes more established, firmer requirements will be put in place (Sehlke, personal communication). In addition to selling items, the vendors educate consumers about locally sourced food products (MassDOT 2014).

The Public Dimensions of the Market

When asked if the BPM was a public space, most interviewees first responded that yes it was a public space based on the fact that the Commonwealth owned the building.

There was some hesitation by a couple of the interviewees to name the space based on the expected commerce that occurs in the space, but as their answers evolved the focus of public switched to function and the use of the space.

Of Marcuse’s eight public functions of the space, symbolism, sociability/diversity, recreation, and environmental protection were discussed in the interviews at varying levels.

The function that was discussed the most in interviews and documents was the symbolism

35 function. The market is a symbol in two ways. First, the market represents the culture and agriculture heritage of Boston and New England. It was seen as a black mark by some that a city as renowned as Boston did not have a public market. Al Rose, owner of Red Apple

Farm, talked about the market as symbol.

Major cities should have something like this that gives a sense of place, a sense of identity to the city and to the area. I think we’re trying to be New England not just Boston (personal communication).

By creating this space the goal was to highlight the best New England had to offer in terms of produce, seafood, and specialty food items. By anchoring the BPM in the Market District, the city has branded the BPM a place people visit as part of a Boston experience.

The second symbol that the BPM represents is as a place for discourse, a place that tough and difficult conversations can take place and are encouraged. Mackenzie Sehlke spoke about her experience working in the market and overhearing various conversations during the day. By only selling only locally grown and caught produce and fish the market daily confronts the reality about the cost of local food. A deeper discussion about costs will be discussed later, but setting up the market with a local focus brings the conversation to the forefront. David Webber explains:

…it also creates a civic space in Boston where it’s not only about the sales and the vendors, but it is also about education around food and healthy eating, and local food and farming and fisheries. It can help stimulate those conversations (personal communication).

These conversations occur between vendors and customers and in the programming offered by the market and The Kitchen.

The sociability/diversity function was the next function that surfaced in interviews and in articles. This function was much more prevalent during the interviews as is touched on the largest tension of the market, who can afford the market. The goal of market staff

36 and vendors is to make the market feel welcome to everyone. As Kira LaFosse-Baker said in her interview:

We don’t want people to be intimidated by this space. A key to this space is that if you come in once, it will be very intimidating. There is a lot going on out there. Everything looks somehow nicer than Whole Foods. But if you come here once a week to get whatever, I get my milk once a week or get my eggs once a week. You start to get to know the people who are working here and it is a big family. These people are all so friendly. They want to tell you about what they are doing. This is local. You don’t get this… at Star Market you can’t go up to a clerk and ask about how were these chickens raised or how’s the winter going on your farm (personal communication)?

People are encouraged to ask questions, tables are arranged in a way that promotes interactions amongst strangers, and programming ranges in topics from yoga to how to prepare a quick meal on a small budget (Lafosse-Baker, Morningstar, and Sehlke, personal communication). The BPM has an information booth that invites people to come ask questions and some of the vendors have signs out that encourage questions (Lafosse-Baker,

Morningster, and Sehlke, personal communication). Some programs and workshops are free and others cost money. By offering a variety the market fosters a space for people to meet and mingle. In addition The Kitchen and the BPM have worked hard to create a mix of programming and to try to make classes not cost prohibitive (Lafosse-Baker, personal communication).

The sociability/diversity function of the market brings to the forefront part of the mission of the BPM, to provide fresh, healthy food to consumers of all income levels. All interviewees mentioned that is was important that everyone felt welcome at BPM, but recognized that it may be difficult for some people to afford the prices. The price point was put in stark relief due to BPMs location next to Haymarket. During its feasibility, The

Project for Public Spaces compared food prices at Haymarket, Johnny’s Food Master, and

The City Hall Farmers Market. Haymarket had the cheapest items on the 9 items compared, often with prices at less than half of the farmers market (2009).

37 All the interviewees recognized that it was essential for BPM to be accessible for all income levels in order for it to be successful. The BPM does require all eligible vendors to accept EBT and SNAP benefits (Morningstar and Sehlke, personal communication). As

Sehlke stated “having SNAP accepted at the individual stalls was something we thought was important from a customer perspective and from a small farm and small business capacity building perspective (personal communication).” By accepting SNAP benefits, eligible vendors increase their potential customer base, while consumers have more options in where to buy their produce. In addition, BPM participates in the Boston Bounty Bucks program, which provides a dollar for dollar match for SNAP customers to spend at the market.

Despite these incentives, vendors said that they did not have many customers using these benefits (Rose and Sehlke, personal communication). However, in March of 2016, BPM was launching a marketing campaign to build awareness about the market with SNAP participants (Sehlke, personal communications). Even with the Bounty Bucks incentive prices for produce at BPM are still more expensive than at Haymarket (Project for Public

Spaces 2009). However, Al Rose put it aptly when he said:

A small operation such as ours will never to be able to provide food at a minimum cost. I think if that was the model and goal of this place you would want to have farms that have hundreds of acres of production and that was their business to produce food at minimum cost. People understand that when you are coming here you are buying directly from producers who do not benefit from economies of scale, whose cost of production is going to be a little higher (personal communication).

He is completely in support of people spending their SNAP dollars and Bounty Bucks at the market, but recognizes that price can be a barrier for some consumers. Other interviewees spoke about the true cost of producing food and the necessity of other government interventions to help guarantee individuals at all income levels have options about the produce they purchase (Rose, Sehlke, Stucker, and Watson, personal communication). In the current food system and allocation of subsidies, local farmers will not be able to compete on

38 price with produce at minimum cost (Watson, personal communication). Despite this conundrum a majority of the interviewees spoke about how the BPM provided an opportunity to have a conversation on the true cost of food and that it was part of the vendors responsibility to help educate the customers (Lafosse-Baker, Morningstar, Rose, and

Sehlke, personal communication).

Another function of the market is the recreation function. Visiting the market is an experience in and of itself. During the feasibility study, the Project for Public Spaces emphasized the market as being an anchor and a destination for residents, office workers, and tourists (2009). For tourists the BPM is meant to highlight New England agricultural heritage (MassDOT 2014). Its location on the Freedom Trail and near the Garden sports arena makes the market a potential destination for over 4,500 people each day (Project for

Public Spaces 2009).

Over 100,000 office workers work within a half-mile of the market, making the market a destination to meet friend for lunch. In addition, over 45,000 daily use public transit near the BPM to commute to and from Boston and potentially, could pick up groceries on their way home from work (Project for Public Spaces 2009). During the time of the interviews BPM was conducting initial customer intercept surveys to learn more about their demographics. BPM recognized that intercept surveys may not be representative of the total customer base, but felt that some data was better than no data. (Sehlke, personal communication). A few of the interviewees spoke about how the market is a great place to people watch (Morningstar, Watson, and Webber, personal communication). Because the market attracts a mix of customers and social interaction is encouraged, every visit to the market yields something new.

39 An underlying function of the market that is important, but has received less attention is how the market promotes environmental protection. The Commonwealth through MDAR has purchased development rights for 800 farms to preserve 68,000 acres of farmland, but it isn’t enough to preserve the land (MDAR 2016, Watson, personal communication). Projects like the BPM create markets for farmers. Greg Watson put it succinctly when he said, “It’s important to have farmers and it is important to preserve farmland, because both are irreplaceable resources (personal communication).”

Two major private sources of money for the market gave based on the environmental function. The Trustees of the Reservation donated to the capital campaign, runs programming, and has a stall at the market. The second source, the Conservation Fund, provided a $3 million line of credit to the market, which was critical to cash flow of the operation during the build out and during the market’s first year of operation. The

Conservation Fund’s forges partnerships to conserve America’s legacy of land and water resources and the line of credit was offered based on environmental benefits the market provided.

Operation

The market operator is the non-profit Boston Public Market Association. As a non- profit, the BPMA is able to run the market differently than a for profit organization. A for profit operator’s primary focus would be on profit maximization. For the BPMA and the

Boston Market Commission there are social aspects of the mission that also determine the success of the market (MassDOT 2014). The mission of the market is to provide fresh, healthy food to consumers of all income levels, nourish our community, and educate the public about food sources, nutrition, and preparation. Although BPMA would be able to

40 charge higher rents if all the vendors were prepared food vendors, that is not the purpose of the market.

In addition, the BPMA purposely left room for growth. When opening the market a few stalls were purposely unfilled (Morningstar and Sehlke, personal communication). In the short term those stalls allow temporary vendors to come in and build their businesses. In the long term, it will give BPMA an opportunity to reassess the market-mix and calculate demand after being in operation. A couple of interviewees spoke about how the market begins will affect the trajectory of where the market will go (Morningstar and Sehlke, personal communication). Especially with an 85-year lease, long term planning and vision is a key part of the operation.

Market Customers

There is a focus on the market being a welcoming space for everyone. The interviewees view the market as a social space where people can ask questions and mingle.

The market has three main customer bases, the people who work in the area, the people who live in the area, and the people who are visiting the area. Although these customer bases differ, how they use the market may overlap. All three of these groups may buy lunch at the market. Although this maybe the largest demand on the market, BPM works hard not to be as viewed as a food court (Project for Public Spaces 2009, Morningstar and Sehlke, personal communication). There is deliberately little seating in the market and eating areas offer tables that encourage strangers to mingle (Morningstar and Sehlke, personal communication).

A second use of the market is to purchase groceries. This is the primary directive of the market ad attracts the people living and working in the area. Many commuters purchase items on their lunch break, while other commuters and people who live in the area may pick

41 items up on their way home. With the market not yet open a full year it is difficult to gauge this use of the market.

The Kitchen

The goal of the market is to be welcoming and public space for everyone. However, the interviewees were all aware the some people, especially from low-income backgrounds, might feel excluded, as they might not be able to afford to purchase items from the market.

One of the key areas to make the market more welcoming is the programming in The

Kitchen (Lafosse-Baker, Morningstart, Sehlke, and Watson, personal communication).

Through its programming, The Kitchen is a key piece in fulfilling the market’s educational mission. The Kitchen offers classes, lectures, and workshops and offers a variety of programming for different audiences. The Trustees of the Reservation is the lead programming partner and coordinates and manages the programming schedule. It works with other community partners such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, Project Bread, and

REI. The programming ranges from free to classes over $60.

The Kitchen works to make many of the programs affordable to all income levels. In

May 2016, over 55% of its programming was free. Most of the free programming is put on by community partners and occur on a weekly basis. For example, Project Bread’s offers a weekly culinary demonstration, creating healthy meals on a budget and participants sample the chef’s meal of the week. Other free programs include REI Thursday morning yoga and

Friday Brown Bag Lunch and Learns.

Another 20% of the programming cost under $20. The timing of the programs varies over the course of the day, but most of these programs occur during the weekend. Some of the programs are single events with guest authors and others programming, like Kids

Cooking, is part of a monthly kids workshop series.

42 The rest of the programming cost over $20, with very few programs costing over $50 per class. These programs include learning how to make a dish or learning about floral design. The most expensive classes include learning how to make something and taking leftovers home such as Batch Cooking or multi-course meals. The programs are still developing, however in May 2016 none of the free programming occurred in the evening. In addition, only one recurring event happened on the weekend. By watching the mix and balance of free and low-cost programming, when recurring programming occurs, and noting participant preference, The Kitchen will be able to build a strong program schedule that supports the mission to educate the public about food sources, nutrition, and preparation.

In addition to its programming open to the public, The Kitchen also offers targeted programming such as technical assistance workshops for vendors and a monthly nutrition workshop for SNAP program participants. The Kitchen creates a less intimidating introduction to the BPM and provides program participants to learn more about the food system (Lafosse-Baker, personal communication).

43 Chapter 6: Recommendations for Policy and Planning Consider context, location, and mission

The creation of the market was a major undertaking with no guarantee that the market would open or be a success, even with major government funding and ongoing benefits through the lease agreement. It is a complex project with tensions that require careful consideration. First, was defining the mission and vision of a public market in downtown Boston. BPMA’s vision was always to have the BPM be a 100% locally sourced market, but even MassDOT’s RFP left some room for interpretation. It stated that products needed to be almost exclusively sourced and produced in Massachusetts. With BPM’s location near Faneuil Hall and next to Haymarket, BPM could focus exclusively on locally sourced items, since conventionally grown produce and prepared food items are offered at other markets in the vicinity. Context and mission are important. Will the local area be able to support a full-time market or would it be better for the market to be open a few days a week? What other prepared food and grocery options are available in the area? What is the purpose and mission of the market?

Collaboration and aligning interests

The project will take a tremendous amount of collaboration between partners.

Beyond the mission, there is the planning, financing, design, and construction of the market.

Building and retrofitting space costs money and investors will have their own motivations and reasons for investing. Those interests will need to be taken into account for the direction and mission for the market. For BPM, investors were motivated by the direct retail opportunities for farmers, creating additional emphasis on the farm vendors in the market.

44 Proactively addressing the access gap

Even though there is intent for the market to be accessible for all income levels, this will not happen without planning and concrete action. The BPM worked on this by requiring all vendors selling eligible products to accept EBT and SNAP benefits, participating in the local incentive program, Bounty Bucks, and building The Kitchen to promote programming around healthy eating, cooking, and meal planning. Because BPMA rents space to individual vendors and is not a traditional grocery store, the BPM was not automatically eligible to accept EBT and SNAP benefits as a market. In addition, individual vendors may not have been eligible to accept EBT/SNAP benefits because of their individual mix of products, but do sell products that are EBT/SNAP eligible. Farmers markets also run into this problem.

BPM was able to work with the Commonwealth to allow all vendors selling eligible products to accept EBT/SNAP benefits.

Locally sourced food produced sustainable costs more for the farmer and those costs are passed on to the consumer. To address some of that gap in Boston there is the Bounty

Bucks program. The program provides a dollar-for-dollar match up to $10 for purchases made at farmers market and the Boston Public Market. Other cities and states across the country have similar programs like Double Up Food Bucks in Michigan. During the writing of this thesis Boston Bounty Bucks is being phased out for a statewide incentive program.

Incentive programs are imperative, if locally sourced food is going to be affordable for all income levels. Even the current matching programs often do not bring prices down to the cost of produce at a grocery store. More work, thought, and money need to be put behind incentive programs or planners will need to disconnect projects whose primary purpose is to support local farmers from projects working on providing healthy food access to all income populations. A project whose purpose is to support local agriculture and local farmers

45 cannot at the time be expected to provide healthy food for all, without providing incentives to fill in the cost gap.

A true point of access in the BPM is The Kitchen. Through is various programming, including free programming on cooking and nutrition, it is place of education and discussion. The Kitchen is the anchor for the second part of the BPM’s mission to nourish the community, and educate the public about food sources, nutrition, and preparation. The question is what kind of funding will be required to sustain its efforts and who will fund it?

The Kitchen’s goal is to be self-sustaining, that revenue from private and fee events will be able to cover free and reduced cost programming (Lafosse-Baker, personal communication).

It will be an exciting space to watch as the BPM matures and see if the self-sustaining goal can be realized.

As a symbol for local food and space for discourse about the cost of food, the BPM has made its mark on Boston. Due to the collaboration of many and their tireless effort for over a decade, Massachusetts’ farmers have full-time a year round direct retail outlet in downtown Boston. It is not perfect and work needs to be done to make the market accessible to all income levels. Finally, only time will tell if the BPM is meeting the needs of the public it serves.

46 Bibliography

AAFM. 2015. Vermont Farmstand to Open at Boston Public Market Accessed March 10, 2016. http://agriculture.vermont.gov/pr/vermont _farmstand_to_open_at_boston_public_market

Allen, P. 2010. Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 3: 295–308.

Baics, G. 2015. The geography of urban food retail: Locational principles of public market provisioning in new york city, 1790–1860. Urban History: 1-19

Blumberg, R. 2015. Geographies of reconnection at the marketplace. Journal of Baltic Studies 46 (3): 299-318.

Born, Branden, and Mark Purcell. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (2): 195-207.

Brooks, M. P. 2002. Planning theory for practitioners. Chicago, Ill: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

Chen, H. 2012. Local foods, public markets: Cultural and ecological implications in and around the works of chi li. ISLE Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 19 (4): 691-705.

City of Boston. 2016. Farmers Markets in Boston accessed March 20, 2016. https://www.boston.gov/health-and-human-services/farmers-markets-boston

Donofrio, G.A. 2009. The container and the contained: The functional preservation of historic food markets. Ph.D. Dissertation, City and Regional Planning, Cornell University.

EEA. 2016. Boston Market Commission accessed March 14, 2016. http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/public-market/

Fava, N., M. Guardia, and J. L. Oyon. 2015. Barcelona food retailing and public markets, 1876–1936. Urban History.

Gentry, J.D. 2013. A sustaining heritage: Historic markets, public space, and community revitalization. Master’s Thesis, School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, University of Maryland, College Park.

47 Goodman, D. 2010. Place and space in alternative food networks: Connecting production and consumption. In Consuming space: Placing consumption in perspective, ed. M.K. Goodman, D. Goodman, and M. Redclift, 189–211. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Hamel, J., S. Dufour, and D. Fortin. 1993. Case study methods. Newbury Park, Calif: SAGE.

Harner, J. 2007. Globalization of food retailing in guadalajara, mexico: Changes in access equity and social engagement. Journal of Latin American Geography 6 (2): 33-53.

Howe, E. 1994. Acting on ethics in city planning. New Brunswick, N.J: Center for Urban Policy Research

Katz C. 2006. “Power, space, and terror: social reproduction and the public environment” in The Politics of Public Space edited by S. Low and N. Smith, 105-121. New York: Routledge 105-121

Kayata, E. 2015. “Everything you need to know about the new Boston Public Market ; The permanent, year-round fixture at Haymarket, features products - - mostly food -- solely from New England.” The Boston Globe, August 16.

Kurland, N. B., and L. S. Aleci. 2015. From civic institution to community place: The meaning of the public market in modern america. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (3): 505-21

Lyson, T. 2005. “Civic Agriculture and Community Problem Solving.” Culture & Agriculture 27(2): 92–98.

Marcuse, P. 2005. The “threat of terrorism” and the right to the city. Fordham Urban Law Journal 32 (4): 767-785.

MassDOT. 2014. Lease Boston Public Market Boston Massachusetts accessed March 14, 2016 https://bostonpublicmarket.org/MDOTLeaseMain.pdf

MDAR. 2015. A Snaphot of Massachusetts Agriculture accessed March 14, 2016. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/facts/snapshot-of-ma-ag-presentation.pdf

MDAR. 2016. Agricultural preservation restriction program (APR) accessed March 14, 2016. http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/land-use/agricultural-preservation-restriction- program-apr.html

Morales, A. 2011. Marketplaces: prospects for social, economic, and political development. Journal of Planning Literature 26 (1): 3-17.

48 Morales, A. and G. Kettles. 2009. Healthy food outside: Farmers' markets, taco trucks, and sidewalk fruit vendors. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 26 (1): 20-48.

Palmer, T. 2004. “Turnpike is said to choose arts center for prime parcel.” The Boston Globe, October 16.

Press M. and E. Arnould. 2011. Legitimating community supported agriculture through American pastoralist ideology. Journal of Consumer Culture 11(2): 168–194

Project for Public Spaces. 2009. Boston Market District Feasibility Study.

Németh, J., and S. Schmidt. 2011. The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38 (1): 5-23.

Sandercock L.1998. “The death of modernist planning: radical praxis for a postmodern age” in Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age Edit by M Douglass, J Friedmann. Chichester: John Wiley. 163-184

Shakow, D. 1981. The municipal farmer's market as an urban service. Economic Geography 57 (1): 68-77.

Spitzer, T.M., and H. Baum. 1995. Public markets and community revitalization. Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute and Project for Public Spaces Inc.

Yong, R., S. H. Lee, H. Freishtat, S. Bleich, and J. Gittelsohn. 2013. Availability of healthy foods in prepared food sources in urban public markets. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 7 (4): 468-81.

Zade, J.C. 2009. Public market development strategy: Making the improbable possible. Master’s Thesis in City Planning and Master of Science in Real Estate Development, MIT.

49