“P3s”, Urban Growth Machines, and the Glass City by Curtis Alan Deeter

A Master’s Thesis entitled “P3s”, Urban Growth Machines, and the Glass City by Curtis Alan Deeter Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Geography

______Dr. Sujata Shetty, Committee Chair

______Dr. Bhuiyan Alam, Committee Member

______Dr. Neil Reid, Committee Member

______Dr. Amanda Bryant-Friedrich, Dean, College of Graduate Studies

The University of Toledo

May 2018

This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.

An Abstract of

“P3’s”, Urban Growth Machines, and the Glass City

Curtis Alan Deeter

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Geography

The University of Toledo May 2018

As the landscape of 21st Century Rustbelt cities continues to change, city leaders are faced with important decisions on how to manage these changes. For some, growth is the most viable option. For others, especially those with a declining population and diminishing infrastructure, growth is out of the question.

This paper will attempt to analyze the growth politics of Toledo, Ohio, utilizing the Urban Growth Machine theory and public-private partnerships as the framework. One such partnership, the Toledo 22nd Century Committee, will be the focus for the analysis.

Census data, real estate data provided by a local real estate development agency, newspaper articles, and qualitative analysis using MaxQDA will work in tangent with key-member interviews to answer the underlying research question: do the public-private partnerships in the city of Toledo fit the model of an emerging growth machine? If so, what sort of impact might this have on future revitalization efforts?

iii

This is dedicated to all those who have wandered but have never felt lost. It is for those who are cursed with that most wonderful affliction: a desire to understand the world and the way it works. Sometimes, one must begin locally. Other times, one must traverse great lengths to find that which they seek.

Acknowledgments

First, I’d like to thank Dr. Sujata Shetty, my thesis advisor, for offering me assistance and advice when I needed it, as well as being patient with me throughout the process. I’d also like to acknowledge Dr. Bhuiyan Alam, Dr. Neil Reid, and Dr. Peter

Lindquist for providing me with access to the information and experience I needed to complete this study. Without them, this study would never have even gotten its roots.

Lastly, a special thank you to Dr. Mary Beth Schlemper and Dr. Daniel Hammel for providing me with the roadmap I needed to discover my place in the world.

Table of Contents

Abstract iii

Acknowledgements v

Table of Contents vi

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

List of Abbreviations x

Preface xi

I. Introduction: Rustbelt Cities, Legacy Dreams 1

II. Problem Statement and Thesis Objectives 4

III. Methodology 7

IV. Literature Review 10

A. Urban Growth Machine 10

B. Public-Private Partnerships 17

C. Successes in Midwest/Rust Belt Redevelopment 26

V. Case Study 32

A. Rust Belt Cities Overview 32

B. Toledo, Ohio Census Data – A Closer Look 33

C. Report Study Area 35

D. Toledo 22nd Century Committee 36

VI. Data Analysis – Results and Discussion 41

A. Real Estate Conditions 41

B. Code Definitions 51

C. Coding Results 53

D. Qualitative Coding Discussion 58

VII. Conclusion 65

References 68

Appendices

A. Interview Forms 73

vii

List of Tables

Table 1 Population Change in Rust Belt Cities ...... 32

Table 2 Toledo, Ohio Statistics ...... 33

Table 3 Toledo 22nd Century Committee ...... 37

Table 4 CBD Market Area Statistics ...... 43

Table 5 Real Estate Vacancies and Values ...... 44

Table 6 Downtown Toledo Median Sales ...... 45

Table 7 Downtown Redevelopment Projects; A Snapshot ...... 46

Table 8 Toledo Residential Building Occupancy ...... 49

Table 9 Coding Frequencies ...... 54

Table 10 Codes per Document ...... 55

Table 11 Code Frequency by Document ...... 56

Table 12 Code to Code Relationships pt. 1 ...... 57

Table 13 Code to Code Relationships pt. 2 ...... 58

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1 PPP Arrangements/Types of Public-Private Partnership Agreements ...... 22

Figure 2 Downtown Toledo Map ...... 36

Figure 3 Downtown Toledo Residential Buildings ...... 50

List of Abbreviations

CBD ...... Central Business District CEO...... Chief Executive Officers

HCR ...... Health Care (a Toledo company) HH ...... Household HKS...... International Architecture Group

LLP ...... Limited Liability Partnership

MKSK ...... National Planning Firm

NCPPP ...... National Council of Public-Private Partnerships

PDP ...... Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership PPP ...... Public-Private Partnership

SSOE ...... Local Architecture Group

TBA...... To Be Announced

UAW ...... United Auto Workers

VP ...... Vice President

Preface

What started as a Research Assistant position for the Jack Ford Urbans Affairs

Center, an applied research unit of The University of Toledo, quickly became a much more in-depth review of the Toledo area. The research compiled throughout the two-and- a-half-year process fueled two academic presentations, one at the 46th Urban Affairs conference in San Diego, California, and the other at a regional American Association of

Geographers conference in Marquette, Michigan, and put me in front of prominent civic and private leaders of the city of Toledo. As I began to see the sort of things happening behind the urban redevelopment curtain, my desire to understand the work being done grew. The natural extension of that was to complete my master’s degree with a paper that brought it all together—that examined the ways in which modern Rust Belt cities like

Toledo could possibly recover after devastating job loss, financial turmoil, and a steadily shrinking population base.

Chapter One

Introduction: Rust Belt Cities, Legacy Dreams

The landscape of human settlement, whether in the form of sprawling metropolises, medium-sized industrial cities, or quaint rural villages, is as fluid as the waterways that originally brought them together. Innovative technologies and new means of communication between locales, regionally, nationally, and globally, render old resources and economies obsolete. Community leaders who adjust to these changes, those willing to give up the past for new and unconventional means of production, tend to usher in growth and prosperity for their communities. But is unrestricted growth the only desirable outcome for drastically different places?

For a lot of cities in the Rust Belt, such as Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit,

Chicago, and many more, the loss of industry drastically changed their landscape.

The increased automation of industry and manufacturing in these areas, rapid changes in both freight and passenger transportation, the loss of manufacturing employment, structural changes in the economy, suburbanization and sprawl among other factors, streaked cities with unemployment, poverty, population loss and uncertainty. Skylines once filled with skyscrapers, billowing smoke stacks, and boundless opportunity darkened almost overnight.

City leaders eventually began to seek creative solutions for recovery. With decaying housing stock, vacant industrial brown fields, and faltering economies, a hundred different cities tried a hundred different things. A survey of revitalization methods in the many different Rust Belt cities is well beyond the scope of this paper, but one much debated and widely utilized process provides fruitful information in

1 studying the urban growth politics of Toledo, Ohio: public-private partnerships

(PPPs).

While cities are faced with the aftermath of deindustrialization, the same local governments also have to navigate their new landscapes with emptying coffers.

Federal and state funds for transportation, environmental protection, education, technology, and other forms of community development are sparse and spread out over a number of communities. To compensate for the loss of public funding, city leaders in the public sector engage in contractual agreements with private corporations. By doing so, leaders in both sectors share in both the resources and the risks of redevelopment and growth strategies.

According to a study conducted by the University of Illinois, Rust Belt cities, despite their varied approaches to structuring PPPs, “continue to redevelop in remarkably similar ways (Wilson 123). A lot of it is based on forming partnerships among interested parties downtown, focusing on shifting towards a strong service industry, updating the waterfront, and creating enticing entertainment districts. As this paper will discuss later, this is similar to some of the strategies conducted by active downtown Toledo partnerships.

PPPs come in many different forms, which will be discussed in further detail later in this study, so one such partnership will be analyzed. The Toledo 22nd Century

Committee, a group of public, private, and nonprofit organizations focused on downtown redevelopment being the key for economic success in Toledo and the greater Northwest Ohio region, capped off a meteoric rise with a completed comprehensive master plan. While no means operating alone, the committee members

2 operated at the forefront of Toledo’s more recent attempts at finding solutions to post- industrial decline. This committee formed in 2015 and disbanded in 2017, after the completion of the new Downtown Toledo Master Plan, though its members remain communicative and active in implementing the details of the vision.

The question remains, are public-private partnerships isolated phenomena or is their formation indicative of something much greater? In his much-cited urban growth machine theory, Harvey Molotch offers a decent context for looking at collaboration between public and private entities as it relates to the growth and prosperity of a region. While subunits involved in these partnerships tend to have pluralistic development interests, the desire for growth unites them in an attempt to improve the general economic status of the city (Molotch 311). Despite the age of the thesis, scholars and practitioners alike use the urban growth machine to analyze growth factors. Public-private partnerships fit nicely within the foundations laid out, and both will be utilized in this study to examine the growth politics of Toledo. In order to simplify the study, the geographic scope will be limited to the downtown area.

Chapter Two

Problem Statement and Thesis Objectives

The key research questions this thesis seeks to answer are whether or not Toledo

PPPs, specifically the 22nd Century Committee, fit the model of an emerging growth machine, and if so, how do the efforts of this growth machine impact the future revitalization of the city and region?

For Toledo, Ohio, in-depth research on the changing political and economic environment as it affects development is scarce. New political figures, increased activity by a selection of private sector elites, and increased public-private collaboration has the city on the cusp of a comprehensive revitalization movement. But are these redevelopment efforts, on both sides of the leadership spectrum, the beginnings of a modern urban growth machine? The theory encompasses a wide array of topics, so the collaboration between public and private sector entities needs to be highlighted.

Suburbanization, job loss, homelessness, and crumpling infrastructure are related issues and while addressing each individually is important, the purpose of this study is not to provide solutions to the individual problems, but rather to unpack the emerging growth politics of public and private city leaders involved in recent downtown revitalization efforts.

Several public-private partnerships have formed in Toledo in the past few years. One such group, the Toledo 22nd Century Committee, comprised of Toledo-area business leaders from the private and public sectors, including the City of Toledo Department of

Economic Development, has brought over two dozen organizations to sit at the table together with a single collective goal: successful redevelopment and growth of

4 downtown. Working in tandem with the group is the Downtown Toledo Development

Corporation, also a coalition of organizations. Although these two partnerships are not the only groups working in town, they seem to be the most active and properly funded, the latter of which is key to gaining traction and implementing successful growth strategies.

A systematic analysis of recent efforts, conducted within the context of the urban growth machine theory, paying attention to the nature and success of public-private partnerships, needs to be conducted to truly understand Toledo’s growth politics and the future implications of specific revitalization strategies. In order to do so, this paper will follow a number of steps as laid out below:

1. In order to begin to develop an understanding of Toledo’s growth politics, the

urban growth machine theory needs to be defined and discussed at length. Over

the last few decades, the theory has been expanded on, redefined by Molotch and

others seeking to better understand it, as well as been scrutinized within the

context of changing urban landscapes. Looking closer at the ever-changing

spectrum of the theory is important to develop a context in which to analyze the

growth conditions of Toledo. At the same time, the partnerships of city elites will

be the main focus.

2. This paper will then define and create an understanding of public-private

partnerships, which seem to be a large piece of the urban growth puzzle. Since the

primary goal is to analyze specific partnerships in Toledo’s urban development,

defining PPPs, learning how and when they have worked, as well as what factors

lead to ultimate failure, and explaining the forms in which they come in is the

logical next step. Seeing the part within the whole provides a framework for the

research to follow.

3. Then, a survey of the conditions of Toledo, including a brief synopsis of the

changes the city has undergone in the past few years, in relationship to the 22nd

Century Committee and recent redevelopment strategies, is needed. This includes

a brief demographic and economic analysis, as well as a closer review of the PPPs

function within the downtown core. Another goal of this portion of the study is to

define the study area in detail

4. After defining the issues of PPPs, the growth machine theory, and the conditions

of the city itself, an in-depth analysis of the city’s emerging growth politics needs

to be conducted in order to begin to establish an idea of the potential ramifications

of these partnerships. Only then can conclusions about where the city’s public and

private sectors are heading begin to be drawn.

5. The last step is to decide whether or not Toledo PPPs are truly indicative of an

emerging growth machine. And if so, answer the question as to what extent will

these specific attempts at growth impact the future revitalization of the city and

Northwest Ohio.

Chapter Three

Methodology

This paper utilizes a mixed methods approach to analyze the growth politics of

Toledo, Ohio, the majority of which are qualitative in nature. Where quantitative methods come into play is in analyzing the current demographic and economic status of the city.

Census data is used to provide a snapshot of current conditions. This includes population levels, both past and current, as well as percentage of change. It also offers a number of different status indicators such as poverty levels, homelessness, information about the housing stock and job market, income levels, and a variety of other demographics.

Census data is also used to draw comparisons between Toledo and other Rust Belt cities, to get a better idea to how it is performing in the greater context of Midwest redevelopment. A map generated using ArcGIS version 10.4 appears in tandem with demographic data to provide a graphic representation of the study area, as well as to provide information about key locations targeted for redevelopment in recent years.

Interviews with key city leaders serve as the launching point for the study including a dozen in-depth interviews conducted with local elected officials, government employees, planners, and local business elites, all of whom serve on PPPs involved with developments in downtown Toledo, including a number of leaders involved directly with the 22nd Century Committee or their respective constituents. The questions focus on public-private partnerships, collaboration, the general atmosphere of redevelopment in downtown Toledo, specific planning projects, and some of the hurdles the committees have had to overcome. Observations from participating in a half dozen or so city planning

7 meetings will also be used in this thesis, though the data relies heavily on the one-on-one interviews.

To support the evidence gathered from city elites, an extensive archival search of the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, provides some level of confirmation. The search utilized keywords such as partnership, collaboration, downtown, redevelopment, revitalization, growth, and public-private. With many articles, written by different journalists, some level of nonpartisan analysis of growth is possible. As the scope of this paper narrowed, the research was then limited to articles referencing the 22nd Century

Committee.

The transcribed interviews and the article from the Toledo Blade were then put through textual analysis. To do this, MAXQDA 12 was used to highlight common themes or discrepancies in what different individuals had to say. A coding system was developed based on prior research about public-private partnerships and included similar key words within the archival materials such as collaboration, public/private, downtown, improvements, challenges, etcetera. At the end of the analysis, seventeen codes were used. See tables 7 through 11 for an overview of these results.

A template for each of the interviews conducted can be found in the appendix following the study’s conclusions. These interviews can be categorized into two separate

“rounds” of questioning. First, questions about past planning practices and their challenges were asked. Second, public and private leaders, including two members of the private team contracted to draft the new downtown master plan, were asked questions related to redevelopment strategies, challenges, and how they felt about the current collaborative environment surrounding efforts downtown. The latter interviews were

8 adjusted slightly depending on which sector the committee member or interviewee belonged to. A general template is including to encompass both public/private versions, as the questions remained the same.

Chapter Four

Literature Review

Urban Growth Machine Theory

The urban growth machine theory is ever-expanding and utilized in a wide variety of academic disciplines. From political science, to urban geography and planning, as well as health and economics, Molotch provides an understanding of growth patterns with

“clarity of presentation and [a] provocative argument” (Jonas 4). A large body of work, both in favor and in criticism of the theory, has developed since its release in 1976. Even today the theory remains relevant and beneficial in exploring the complexities of the devices behind urban growth.

An entry in The International Encyclopedia of Human Geography defines the urban growth machine theory clearly and concisely. The key assumption here is that “the objective of growth unites otherwise pluralistic interests in relationship to a city”

(Rodgers 3). Business leaders, either in direct or indirect competition with one another, as well as public organizations, both governmental and nonprofit, all theoretically benefit from growth in their locale, “no matter how divided they may be on a specific issue or policy” (Gotham 271). This idea is best approached “where place is understood to be socially and economically valued land” (Rodgers 3), also known as the commodification of place theory. In other words, land serves two purposes to those who own it and those in proximity to it: use value and exchange value. The former considers how the land is socially used, as in whether it serves as housing or open space or any number of other things, while the latter stresses the importance of receiving monetary gain from the location. To put it another way, “use values are rooted in the neighborhood as a lived

10 place” (Jonas 6), while exchange value seeks to put a price tag on the same land. When organizational agendas align, the urban growth machine theory assumes both use and exchange values will increase, benefiting all involved.

However, it is not always clear whether or not participants view growth in the same light. If abandoning pluralistic views in order to come to a consensus on growth is an underlying assumption behind the theory, what happens when these views do not align?

An article about just that issue managed to draw the conclusion that government actors see the majority of the control related to growth as being in the hands of the private sector, while the private sector sees just the opposite (Hill 744). This seeming contradiction brings into question whether or not the public and private sides of a growth machine are even capable of visualizing growth through the same lens. Who is to be in charge, at the forefront of developmental decisions?

According to Harvey Molotch, the theorist behind the urban growth machine, these different actors play distinct roles within the overarching structure. Growth typically starts with business owners who have a vested interest in the city they are located within.

For the most part, this includes “property owners and investors in locally oriented financial institutions” (Molotch 314). These are companies whose profit is reliant on the local economy, while larger and more mobile corporations are less likely to be in the forefront. Along with the above private sector actors, the rentier class is at the core of most growth machines. Defined by Logan and Molotch in Urban Fortunes, the rentier class is centered around “developers, realtors, and banks with an interest in the exchange of land and property” (Logan chap. 2). Lawyers also tend to be active in the private

11 sector, as they succeed when they are able to assist property owners in increasing profitability.

On the public side of the spectrum, government agencies serve two major purposes.

First, they are able to ‘roll out the carpet’, so to speak, by putting into law business- friendly ordinances and regulations. At the same time, they are vital to “fund support

[for] boosterism of various sorts” (Molotch 314). By promoting the city, whether through appeal to other regional competitors or by enticing local entrepreneurial types to put down roots locally, public agencies ensure an increasing population base that benefits those in the private sector. This local promotion of place helps cities “compete with each other to attract mobile capital to their respective localities” (Jonas 7). The cyclical nature of this type of growth stratagem is said to be beneficial for the community as a whole.

To judge if the growth machine is working, Molotch says “the clearest indication of success at growth is a constantly rising urban-area population” (Molotch 310). This does not mean, however, that population is the sole indicator of growth. It just happens to be the easiest to measure. It can also be measured by both “change in class or racial composition” and the “increasing density of housing, office buildings, industrial parks, or malls” (Logan, Whaley 89).

As the actors involved within growth machines differ, so do the growth strategies.

According to Gotham, cities “can embrace different ‘growth’ strategies” (Gotham 271).

These range from leaders being pro-growth, to managing growth as dictated by the markets and overall atmosphere of their locale, to even anti-growth strategies for shrinking cities. In this sense, it is important to engage in open discussion in order to decide what policies are best for an individual city’s long-term health. In addition,

12 different kinds of growth, be it regarding population levels, manufacturing, the economy, or in housing stock, need to be considered. These may be a bit more difficult to analyze than increases in population but remain vital measurements in determining the conditions of a place. What is best for one city might not be as important in the next one.

To begin with, the benefits of growth are not always as cut and dry as they seem. For example, a common sentiment by pro-growth advocates is that an increase in infrastructure and economic units leads to a decrease in taxation. In theory, an increase in revenue should lead to either a decrease in how much taxes citizens are required to pay to maintain services or an increase in funds available for further investment. However, it all depends on the vehicles used for funding, the deals struck with private corporations, and the financial impact additional infrastructure requirements has on city coffers. Apart from additional requirements cities must also consider “their aging infrastructure” (Kushner

17). Especially considering Rust Belt redevelopment, a lot of money must be invested in repairing already dilapidated conditions. Constructing new buildings and attracting more people is going to put addition strain on already crumbling foundations.

There are a number of arguments against the urban growth machine theory, however.

One of the more common issues with it is that growth may not be universally beneficial.

While business elites certainly appreciate an increased population from which to draw profit from, and governments enjoy the luxury of sharing the burden of infrastructure upkeep and project planning, not everyone is keen on untethered growth. Consider, for example, the quality of life for standard citizens. More people in one location can lead to a lot of problems associated with “booming” cities, such as traffic congestion, increased pollution, poor planning, and decreased safety, whether perceived or real (Hill 740).

These are the same people who understand growth also leads to increases in taxes for necessities such as roads, sewers, water utilities, and schools (Vogel 70). Peripheral neighborhoods may also have to sacrifice their unique characteristics as density increases and people are forced to move outward from the city center. It is for the above reasons that “neighborhood organizations, environmentalists, and watchdogs of elected officials”

(Vogel 71) are among those who actively denounce urban growth. Consider also true the case of Kansas City, Missouri neighborhood groups who saw “the clearance of people and the destruction of neighborhoods” (Gotham 288) as a major downside to the enactment urban growth strategies.

An interesting perspective on how and why growth is not universally beneficial refers to Molotch’s likeness of a city as a “mosaic of competing land interests capable of strategic coalition and action” (Molotch 311). However, when those cities’ mosaics consist of contracting economic conditions, land potential becomes limited. Growth might occur in one place, but only at the expense of another. Hall and Hall describe this as “at best a zero-sum game and at worst an illusion” (Hall 80). If jobs are maintained in a downtown area, for instance—or even brought to that area from the outside—jobs are then lost elsewhere. When a residential complex is filled here, one is emptied there.

Without tangible growth as far as population goes, economic factors of growth might not necessarily indicate positive momentum overall.

Another argument against the urban growth machine focuses more on the systematic limits and risks of pro-growth. One particular study looks at several facets of this idea. It discusses “questions about the continued viability of the pro-growth agenda in the context of structural fiscal deficits, chronic infrastructural decline, and extreme capital-market

14 volatility” (Kirkpatrick 477). Structural deficit occurs when, despite economic peaks, money tied up in speculative ventures or loans of various types exceeds future revenue generated. If either the government or businesses stretch themselves too thin financially, the positive impacts of growth might not make up for initial investments. This may lead to cuts, especially on infrastructural expenditures, leaving the potential for streets and services to fall into disrepair. Emergency responders are laid off and rendered virtually ineffective. Schools suffer due to budget cuts. When all is said in done, the above worries of neighborhood organizations and other such groups can become all too real. This does not even take into account the risky nature of capitalism. If the market is bad, or the economy faces recession, the private corporations spearheading an urban growth machine will be unable to profit. Consequently, the increase in revenue loss exacerbates any other revenue or infrastructural related issues.

Another potential systematic limit is the restraints of the public sector. In some cases, the stability—or lack thereof—of the pro-growth regime in question can have a direct affect on the growth machine’s capabilities. Take the Bradley regime in Los Angeles, for example. According to a study conducted by the University of Washington, the regime had strong ties between multiple vocal organizations within the city. This, and the access to several distinct funding vehicles, allowed for cataclysmic growth. The results are tangible in the skyscrapers and massive developments seen today. However, once the funding dried up and some of the political ties were severed, the regime fell apart. Now,

“unanticipated delays (on development projects) of five years or more are not uncommon,” and “such struggles simultaneously cost time and money, and diminish a developer’s margins to the point where the project is no longer feasible” (Purcell 87). The

15 case of Los Angeles shows how fickle growth machines can be and how quickly they can fall apart when challenged or underfunded.

On a similar note, in some situations a pro-growth agenda is not viable. Take, for example, the previously mentioned case of Kansas City. After the Second World War, city officials went on the offensive in order to spur growth and revitalize the area.

However, it quickly became clear that their attempts were for naught. The seventies found Kansas City with over half a million people sprawled through more than three hundred square miles. Twenty years prior, less people lived in an eighty square mile area

(Gotham 286). What this means is, despite growth strategies and urban revitalization, people still vacated the urban core, making growth in the city impractical. When suburbanization is a main cause of population loss, an urban growth machine may not be feasible. Instead, leaders might benefit from planning for the loss of the population and focusing on the entire region instead. This is not the only case in which the restructuring of the landscape of cities brings to question the legitimacy of the growth machine theory.

A wide variety of “transformations in the economic and social ecology of cities”, as well as “spectacular conversions to their built environments” (Macleod 2630), have urged scholars and practitioners to rethink the ways in which growth is perceived.

So what are some alternatives to strictly growth-oriented strategies? A more balanced approach to redevelopment has gained traction over the years since the introduction of the urban growth machine theory. From smart growth to no growth, these strategies offer a sensible middle ground. In some cases, growth controls can be imposed to slow the effects of urban sprawl and uncontained—and unplanned—development. One of the most straight forward reasons growth management techniques are beneficial is that they enable

16 city elites to tailor plans based on the economic and political conditions of their own unique community. Its clear growth isn’t always the best answer. Examining the different options before implementing plans allows for informed and impactful decisions to be made. While theory argues that “higher-income towns with sustained activism concerning land use are the most likely to adopt growth management” (O’Neill 125), it is also a useful strategy in towns with economic and environmental constraints. Either way, city leaders need to be honest about what is the best method concerning growth.

The level of success or failure of an urban growth machine is thereby reliant on the actors involved and the specific strategies that are implemented. It is highly volatile, and each case will differ depending on the location in which it is born. Though the theory is a bit out of date, it is still relevant when analyzing emerging growth policies in urban areas such as Toledo, Ohio. It has been said that “public-private partnerships can be efficient at organizing growth coalitions that enhance expertise and funding resources” (Jezierski

218). As a big part of this sort of growth paradigm relies on the actors involved, it is necessary to look a little closer at the different types of partnerships formed.

Public-Private Partnerships

As the body of research on PPPs is vast and sometimes contradictory, the best source to define them is the website for The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships

(NCPPP). Founded in 1985, the organization is dedicated to providing up-to-date, nonpartisan information, training, and case studies on different types of PPPs, as well as how they work, and what effect they have on the communities within which they operate.

According to the NCPPP, “a public-private partnership is a contractual agreement between a public agency (federal, state, or local) and a private sector entity”

(NCPPP.org). The idea behind these types of contracts is each side brings a complimentary set of skills to the table, be it expertise, funding capabilities, or the ability to pass certain laws or regulations to stimulate growth—an all too overlooked role of the public sector. By doing so, the two sides are hypothetically able to accomplish much greater things in a shorter period of time, and at a fraction of the cost of working in silos.

While the role of the public sector is clear enough—allowing the private sector the room to fund and implement projects—the private sector has a much more hands on role to play. As if funding and implementation wasn’t enough responsibility, private industry must also consider the wider impact their actions might have on the community. One thing to consider is the health of a community. Not just economically, but physically. The government can have a say in the health of its people through regulatory measures and the banning or restricting of harmful practices, but “healthier communities rely on all of us coming together” (Soler 50). This includes the private sector, as well. Developers have a responsibility to consider the health of citizens when implementing new projects.

To add to the very broad definition, a survey of neoliberal planning policies conducted in 2011 states that PPPs are “working relationships where the parties are otherwise independent bodies, agree to cooperate to achieve a common goal, create new organizational structures or processes to achieve this goal, plan and implement a joint program, and share relevant information, risk, and rewards” (Sager 163). The Urban Land

Institute offers a similar definition, suggesting “partnerships tap the expertise, tolerance for risk, and financial resources of the private sector to help achieve public goals”

(Friedman 63). The key in these rather specific descriptions of PPPs is that the public and private entities working together tend to function on different ideals and strive towards

18 different visions of their community, while at the same time having a level of mutual affinity for general growth and economic development. This larger, overriding vision is what brings different groups together, stressing the capabilities of each within a more holistic approach to revitalization.

So why enter into a public-private partnership to begin with? Why would groups with pluralistic interests be so quick to set aside their differences in order to work together, sometimes towards a goal not necessarily aligned with their own? The opportunity to share in the risk, as well as in the reward of future outcomes, especially in economically depressed communities, tends to outweigh short-term, independent interests.

Governments that find themselves strapped for cash, struggling to keep up with infrastructure demands, and seeking outside support welcome private business investment, as well as input on design, construction, and operation of public facilities

(Hodge 1). On the other side of the deal, business owners work with one specific outcome in mind: profit. Without profit, it makes no sense to continue to invest in a business or put in the effort required to keep the doors open. Partnering with the public sector provides business leaders with an opportunity to have a say in the shape of the city, as well as be a part of working towards a stronger future economy.

Successful PPPs—those that account for the multi-faceted aspects of the partnership and all consequence thereof—ultimately lead to more productive city redevelopment. The combination of private sector involvement and an active, cooperative government lead to the accomplishment of many a lofty goal. After PPPs are defined in theory, it is useful to get a better sense of the broad way in which they can function in practice.

According to a paper by Roger Wettenhall, there are five main roles involved in the management of public affairs and the operations of cities. These roles include a

“producer, owner, provider, regulator, and facilitator” (Wettenhall 82). Though he does not explicitly define each role, the concept is simple enough to infer their individual purposes. A producer grows or manufactures goods and services. An owner holds the rights to land, property, or proprietary material. A provider sells goods and services both internally and externally. A regulator functions as a lawmaker and code enforcer, while a facilitator works among the others to help create some level of mutual understanding.

Wettenhall continues by arguing “each [of them] could be performed by either the state, the market, or civil society” (Wettenhall 82) and in any number of different combinations. This idea ensures the dynamism and extent of possibility associated with

PPPs, which will be explored further later on. First, there are limitations and guidelines partners should follow in order to optimize said success.

A number of different studies have identified some critical success factors for PPPs, no matter their shape or objective. To begin with, the NCPPP spells out seven tenets of success. Though these seven items are not absolute, they are considered “best practices”, and in some form or another accepted by other scholars. First, a PPP needs an advocate or spokesperson from the public sector to champion a given project. Plans need to be transparent and upfront insofar as goals and expected outcomes, while allowing the creativity of innovated ideas along the way. Once a project team is formed and a vision is shared with the community, it should be carried out with detailed public-sector organization. The fourth success factor also revolves around being detailed but relates to the meticulous execution of a business plan of sorts, laying out every responsibility,

20 every risk and benefit, and any other caveat of the partnership. Next, open communication with any possible stakeholder, from government officials, business leaders, down to community members with vested interest in the project is key to endgame satisfaction. Last, those involved on both the public and private side of the partnership need to really consider if they are going into business with the best partners.

As is true in any business arrangement, value is more important than price (NCPPP.org).

Another report outlines ten success factors that highlight the above, as well as expand on some of the ideas. Briefly, the report stresses the importance of proper preparation before entering into a partnership, along with developing a key understanding of the partners involved and the visions of each organization. Furthermore, the amount of risk undertaken by each, as well as the potential reward, needs to be clearly defined.

Communication between the parties involved needs to happen early and often, ensuring trust is built as the core value of the partnership (Corrigan, et al). In short, PPPs succeed and fail on practicing frankness and engaging in open dialogue throughout the revitalization process.

Another article discusses the importance of PPPs being an integral part of a much broader economic decentralization. In order for them to have the maximum impact, control over certain services needs to shift to non-state actors (Miraftab 91). When local, state, or federal government is unable to provide the quality of services vital to the wellbeing of the people, public officials need to be willing to relinquish control to businesses and community organizations, while still monitoring the overall equity of the partnership. This last point is absolutely vital, across a variety of literature, to maintaining successful long-term PPPs. Without willingness and trust on both sides, partnerships are

21 doomed to failure. For any large-scale endeavor, there is the potential for “limited stakeholder involvement, significant transaction costs, and disparities in negotiating power” (Leland 312), but as long as the critical success factors are in place PPPs have to opportunity to flourish.

Assuming critical success factors are in place, it is then necessary to clearly define what type of PPP is desirable. The World Bank outlines the wide range and variety PPPs come in. Each category represents the extent and involvement of both the public and private sector, as well as providing abstract examples of what types of contracts might be involved. Not all arrangements require full cooperation between the two entities. The following chart provides a visual tool to better understand this concept. It is apparent that as the public sector allows more and more freedom to private entities, they also have less ability to regulate or participate in ownership or control of assets, and vice versa. The middle of the spectrum represents contracts and agreements each party can invest in.

Figure 1. PPP Arrangements/Types of Public-Private Partnership Agreements

Source: https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/agreements

PPPs have proved useful in a number of cases, relating to a plethora of project types. In some cases, they are used to effectively and efficiently reroute travel patterns and transportation methods. Keeping up with modern transport needs, such as comprehensive public transportation and city-to-city routes, is a difficult undertaking, both financially and logistically, for the public sector alone. Similarly, declining infrastructure, such as local roads and interstate highways, is a burden on communities, affecting both public and private entities. Together, the challenge of fixing such issues is much more manageable. A third common project in which PPPs are being widely used to a varying degree of success is economic reform. This latter example, be it downtown redevelopment, neighborhood revitalization, or industry reform, will be the main focus of this particular study. Though this list is by no means comprehensive, it offers a fair representation of the spectrum of possibility concerning PPPs, as well as a reference point for related issues later in the paper.

While partnerships can be useful for a variety of community projects, the individual form they come in differs from case to case. No two PPPs are exactly the same. The NCPPP offers a basic list of the most common types. One such option is the design-build agreement. In this case, the public sector allows the private sector to design and the construct a public project, removing some of the financial pressure while remaining the owner of the property. There are multiple versions of the design-build contract, each allocated more responsibility and leeway to the private sector. By taking on maintenance, operation, and even temporary ownership, the private partner becomes more vested in the project. Another popular type of PPP is the developer finance contract.

The private partner still finances a public development project, but only in exchange for

23 the freedom to build residential or commercial establishments as a part of the new complex. Finally, tax-lease agreements can be reached, benefiting either partner. In these agreements, one agency leases a property to the other agency with the incentive being tax-exempt interest payments over a period of time (NCPPP.org).

Though PPPs look straight forward enough on paper, there are some potential issues that can surface if managed improperly. Like any form of privatization, communities run the risk of putting too much power in the hands of just a handful of businesses or, in some extreme cases, just one. By doing so, the public sector is assuming the private sector will hold their end of the bargain throughout the entirety of the contract.

What if a company decides to pack up and relocate? At the same time, there is always the risk that a business’s goals will not actually align with what is in the public’s best interest. A third downfall for the public is the potentiality to lose out on vital property taxes. Offering businesses tax incentives, such as the aforementioned tax-lease or even the utilization of tax increment financing, pulls a portion of the tax fund from other useful services such as schools, libraries, and utility maintenance.

When considering the risk factor of entering into a PPP, both public and private sectors need to carefully consider the possibilities. Above, the basic rewards for each side has been detailed. In multiple studies, “appropriate risk allocation” and the “effective management and transfer of risk” (Aziz 920) is listed among some of the key success factors of PPPs. But what exactly is meant by risk? For governments enlisted companies because of a need for project funding, the greatest risk is that the company fails to meet the specific monetary needs of said project. The public would then be in a position in which they could not bail the contractor out, thus ending up with an incomplete

24 development site. Another financial risk for both parties is not specifically outlining the conclusion process. An early PPP in Australia learned this when not being contractually specific. The public sector did not provide requests for the conditions in which the project should be kept or the obligations of the private sector once the partnership was disbanded

(Chung 466). Without being frank and comprehensive upfront, financial responsibility becomes difficult to legally determine.

Besides the obvious financial risk involved with relying on private industry for redevelopment capital, an article in the Project Management Journal summarizes a number of risk factor by category (Xiong 77). This study will touch on a selection of those factors. First, there is a certain level of political risk. From government corruption, to government stubbornness, private companies also take some of the burden. There are also social risks, such as increased taxes, pollution, and possible displacement of local peoples. A third risk to consider relates to markets. What if there is too much competition regional and a project doesn’t attract the necessary revenue? What if it turns out there isn’t a demand for those new high-rise apartments or that mixed-use development? These are all important considerations to keep in mind alongside the more apparent financial and infrastructural risks.

Reversely, there are a lot of risks a business must undertake when striking a deal with a public agency. One way to thrive economically is to maintain a competitive edge over other like companies in the area. Competition is, after all, the life blood of the American economy. The level of transparency required to be involved in a PPP might require a business to expose too much to remain viable in a competitive market. A lot of money is spent in open communications with the government, as well as the cost of divulging trade

25 secrets and other confidential information (Wettenhall 95). The inability to adjust as needed, without having to worry about the community’s best interests, can become an arduous task for those unprepared for the consequences of partnership.

Although risk is an intrinsic part of PPPs, and of downtown redevelopment in distressed cities tin general, there are some effective methods to mitigating that risk. On such method is by “mandating protective actions for avoiding harms” (May 140). Take the thorough regulation of industry for example. Knowing that nuclear plants, automobile manufacturers, and other such companies participate in environmentally harmful practices is only the first part. Armed with this knowledge, guidelines and regulations can be put in place to lessen or avoid environmental disaster. The same concept can be applied to downtown redevelopment. Consider the previously mentioned lack of market demand. By acknowledging this shortcoming from the start, developers and boosters can prepare by attracting regional, if not national, attention to the city. They can provide future consumers with incentives to choose that particular market, rather than just hoping the demand is met. The key here is communication and foresight.

Successes in Midwest/Rust Belt Redevelopment

In order to examine the current successes and future possibilities of Toledo PPPs, it is imperative to look at a number of case studies. By seeing the types of partnerships that have made a positive impact within their communities, as well as the structure in which they develop, analyzing the quality of PPPs locally becomes a much less daunting task.

Though there are dozens, if not hundreds, of these types of organizations nationally, not to mention internationally, this paper will focus on a select few. The case studies chosen represent concepts and ideas that appear most relevant to the current developmental

26 situation in Toledo, Ohio. While not all partnerships are successful, this paper will first summarize a handful of PPPs that seemed to work, or at least benefit the community.

Then it will mention a case in which the partnerships were not managed well and those involved failed to realize their ultimate vision.

One case, although not in the Midwest, represents a partnership between a public- school system, a nonprofit church organization, and a downtown redevelopment group. In

Tampa, Florida, leaders initiated a plan called the Downtown Partnership Elementary

School. The plan was aimed at providing higher quality education for kindergarten through fifth grade students, as well as opening up a school close to the downtown employment center (NCPPP.org). The assumption was twofold. First, by having a new school closer to the downtown area, parents could be more involved in the education of their children. At the same time, the convenient proximity to a major job center empowered them to work more hours and earn higher wages. In turn, the business community, who invested money in renovations and transportation upgrades, would have the added bonus of more people close by to employ, as well as the patronize restaurant and other commercial stores. A number of organizations, including the First Presbyterian

Church, the government, and the Easter Seals, donated money to both renovate parts of the church to serve as the new school, as well as to offset new rent costs and improve transportation. All said, everyone involved seems to have benefited from the unique partnership.

Perhaps one of the most prolific and active PPPs involved in downtown redevelopment is The Downtown Partnership of Baltimore. This partnership encompasses a wide range of organizations in the Baltimore area, including the University of

Maryland, a local medical group, banks such as Wells Fargo and M & T, real estate groups, government agencies, nonprofit groups, and even private citizens interested in the redevelopment of the area. This PPP is responsible for a number of initiatives ranging from “harbor redevelopment, housing and arts initiatives, and transportations improvements” (Mangum 70). Upon receiving a number of awards, including the Merit

Award, recognizing a current project the partnership is working on called the Hopkins

Plaza redevelopment project in downtown, this PPP is starting to be “recognized as a model to follow for urban cities across the nation and the world” (Mangum 71). It was clear that the city was in need of comprehensive revitalization. Since the necessary projects were numerous and each distinct, it required a collective effort from groups with different expertise. Without partnerships like this, accomplishing city-wide redevelopment endeavors might not be feasible.

A recent study commissioned by the Baltimore Downtown Partnership and released in April of 2018 seeks to analyze the conditions of the downtown area. Through redevelopment efforts, downtown Baltimore has made it to the top 15 in the country

(one-mile Metro areas) in four categories: population, average household income, households over $75,000, and employment. These statistics are quantitative proof that declining downtown areas can be revitalized, making positive waves for the metro area and attracting people and jobs alike. Residential projects continue to be constructed, occupancy rates are at 93% overall, and demand continues to grow. A similar picture can be seen in retail market, with the downtown area seeing a 96.2% occupancy rate. As the partnership continues to thrive, the city expects the upward trends to continue.

Another successful Rust Belt PPP is the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership (PDP).

Like the collaborative group in Baltimore, the PDP consists of downtown business owners, professionals, civic organizations, foundations, and local residents

(downtownpittsburgh.com). They work tirelessly to develop and implement projects, improve the downtown business district and the surrounding neighborhoods, and market and promote the city to the rest of the region. Among their top focuses are the creation of an equitable and environmental friendly transportation system, meeting lifestyle requirements as demanded by the people of Pittsburgh, ensuring continuous corporate investment, and establishing a global brand for the city as a whole. Since 2006, the PDP has invested over seven million dollars in redeveloping the downtown area. This money has been dispersed amongst neighborhood improvements, creating lively entertainment and nightlife, providing citizens with parks and trails, and a number of other successful ventures that have changed the face of the city.

Like the Baltimore partnership, the PDP conducts regular surveys of the conditions of downtown Pittsburgh. The population of the downtown area has grown 22% since 2010, with 14,764 residents living in the city’s fastest growing neighborhood. A linked study showed that 22% of that increase is from other states, while 70% is from Allegheny

County or border counties. This seems to indicate that while a lot of Rust Belt cities are seeing a population base moving out to the suburbs and beyond, Pittsburgh redevelopment is starting to attract people back to the core. To support future growth, the city has created 2,000 new living units and plans for over 4,000 more. Apartment occupancy has decreased since 2012, however, while the rent has increased. The city continues to invest heavily in entertainment, such as theatres and sports arena, as well as

29 new retail and lodging opportunities. 84% more flights are arriving or departing from the

Pittsburgh airport and there was a 7% increase in on-street metered parking from 2013 to

2016. Both these factors seem to indicate an increase in the cities desirability and value as a transportation hub.

The PDP spring boarded off of earlier partnership success in Pittsburgh. In the

1940’s, city leadership sat down with local bankers and private organizations to develop a two-stepped comprehensive redevelopment program. This PPP formed as “a business- government relationship, but political struggles to expand [the] arrangement to include neighborhood groups developed over its forty-year history” (Jezierski 223). This is an important aspect of the PPP because it shows just how important inclusion is. The first stage of the program included pollution controls, fixing of infrastructure, and extensive downtown revitalization. The second stage built on the positive momentum of the first, further enhancing the riverfront, retail opportunities, transportation, and technology corridors. The lesson to be taken from the PPPs in Pittsburgh over the years is that partnerships need to have some sort of long term plan in place and build on successes, rather than constantly trying to rewrite growth strategies.

Though PPPs in Tampa, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh have been at least partially responsible for positive change in their respective locales, it’s important to bare in mind that not all stories are of success. Whether it be criticisms about “civic equity, economic cost, environmental contributions, (or) democratic accountability” (Holden 451), not all redevelopment ventures have produced solely positive results. While this paper won’t go into specifics, the formation and execution of a PPP is not the end all be all strategy for reform. They too will have negative factors to consider. There are often short term

30 focuses on profit, rather than consideration of general wellbeing, and developers don’t always consider surrounding communities (Holden 646). Still, collaboration is as good a start as any.

Chapter Five

Case Study

The best way to develop an understanding of the current urban conditions of this studies area of focus, Toledo, Ohio, this section will examine relative data starting from a larger, regional scale and concluding at a smaller, local level. One must look at Toledo among the greater context of Rust Belt cities, as their stories tend to be of a similar nature. From there, Toledo will be examined in closer detail. As this study relies specifically on the downtown central business district and a public-private partnership based in that are, those will be the last two stops in this brief overview.

Rust Belt Cities Overview

Table 1

Population Change in Rust Belt Cities. Source: Planning Downtown Toledo

City Peak 2010 2014 Percentage

Population Population Population Change

(year) (Estimate)

Toledo, Ohio 383,818 (in 287,208 281,031 -27%

1970)

Detroit, 1,849,568 (in 713,777 680,250 -63%

Michigan 1950

Cleveland, 900,429 (in 396,815 389,521 -57%

Ohio 1930)

Buffalo, New 580,132 (in 261,310 258,703 -55%

York 1950)

City Peak 2010 2014 Percentage

Population Population Population Change

(year) (Estimate)

Flint, 196,940 (in 102,434 99,002 -50%

Michigan 1960)

Youngstown, 170,002 (in 66,982 65, 062 -62%

Ohio 1930)

The above data represents a trend faced by many Rust Belt cities. Due to post- industrialization, suburbanization, and other factors, a lot of these cities are experiencing a declining population base. As seen in the table, Toledo experienced a similar loss of population, but at a much lower rate than the examples.

Toledo, Ohio Census Data – A Closer Look

The following are selected statistics on Toledo, Ohio. The data has been taken from the United States Census Bureau. Recent data (2016 and on) is an estimate based on bureau projections and population sampling. Though the data is not 100% accurate, it is the most up-to-date representation of the study area.

Table 2

Toledo, Ohio Statistics. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Population Statistics

July 2016 (estimate) 278,508

% change since 2010 -3%

April 2010 (census) 287,208

Per square mile 3,559

Housing Market Statistics

Units in 2015 141,160

Units in 2010 138,039

% change between ’10 and ‘15 <1%

% Owner-occupied 53.40%

Median value ($) $78,200

Education

High school degree or higher 85.20%

Bachelor’s degree or higher 17.40%

Economy/Income

% in labor force (16+) 61.80%

Median HH income $33,687

Per capita income $19,422

% persons in poverty 27.8%

Toledo’s population has continued to decrease, three percent between 2010 and 2016.

At the same time, more housing units are being constructed or, in the case of downtown, renovated for market-rate use. Table 2 also shows a much higher percentage of High

School graduates than those with a bachelor’s degree or higher, and a high percentage of people living under the poverty level (27.8% compared to 13.5% nationally). The percentage in the labor force is in alignment with the current national percentage of 62.7

A lot of these issues are synonymous with the problems faced in declining or shrinking metropolitan areas.

Report Study Area

The following map (Figure 2), created in ArcGIS and utilizing data layers provided by the Lucas County Auditor’s office, represents the accepted boundaries of Downtown

Toledo. It also delineates certain districts of downtown as drawn out in prior city plans.

Woodruff Avenue is the boundary to the north, Collingwood Boulevard and Dorr Street the west, Nebraska Avenue and Woodville Road to the South, and the Maumee River to the East. The primary Zip Code of the study area is 43604.

Downtown Toledo is typically divided into four distinct districts. The Warehouse

District contains most of the area south and west of the Mudhens stadium. It is typically an entertainment and housing district. The Central Business District (CBD) spans from

10th Street to the river and is a multi-use district under heavy redevelopment. It contains hotels, major entertainment venues, commercial buildings, residential housing, and smaller businesses. The Government District is centered around One Government Center and the courthouse, falling northeast of the CBD. Uptown District is northwest of 10th

Street and is also a multi-use district containing housing, bars, offices, and other commercial destination.

Although the efforts put forth in the most recent master plans, as well as by the

Toledo 22nd Century Committee (which will be discussed further in the next subsection), there is the underlying assumption that what is good for downtown is good for the rest of the city. From a strong core, city leaders anticipate comprehensive, outward

35 revitalization, both to surrounding neighborhoods and to the greater Northwest Ohio region.

Figure 2. Downtown Toledo Map

Source: ArcGIS, Lucas County Auditor’s Data Layers

Toledo 22nd Century Committee

The following table shows the members of the public-private partnership of which this study is based. It lists the member, which organization he/she represents, and whether that organization is classified as public or private. This data shows how inclusive the 22nd

Century Committee is as a PPP focused on downtown redevelopment. Each organization operates under their own mission statement, whether it be providing excellent healthcare, giving the people of Toledo the best zoo experience around, improving local school

36 districts, and any number of other community-driven goals. They all came together under the unified mission of improving downtown and, in turn, the entire region.

Table 3

Toledo 22nd Century Committee Members. Source: downtowntoledoplan.com

Member Name Position Organization Public or Private

Billie Johnson President/CEO Area Office on Aging Private (Non-

Profit)

Bob Howell CEO SSOE Private

James F. White, Counsel Shumaker, Loop, and Private

Jr. Kendrick, LLP

Bob LaClair* Co-Chair/CEO 5/3 Bank Private

Brian Kennedy Director Toledo Museum of Art Private (Non-

Profit)

Clyde Scoles Executive Director Toledo Public Library Public

Gene Partner Eastman & Smith Private

Abercrombie

Jerry Jones CEO Woodlands Consulting Private

Joe Napoli* President/G.M. Mud Hens/Walleye Private (Non-

Profit)

Joseph Zerbey President/G.M. The Toledo Blade Private

Jeff Sailer Executive Director Toledo Zoo Private (Non-

Profit)

Michael Thaman CEO Owens Corning Private

Member Name Position Organization Public or Private

Steve Cavanaugh Executive VP HCR Manorcare Private

Randy Oostra Co-Chair/President ProMedica Private (Non-

Profit)

Richard Hylant Executive VP Hylant Group Private

Romulus Durant Superintendent Toledo Public Schools Public

Sharon Speyer* Regional President Huntington Bank Private

Tom Manahan President The Lathrop Private

Corporation

Wendy Gramza President Chamber of Private

Commerce/EPIC

Bruce President UAW/Local 12 Private

Baumhower

Stephanie CEO Libbey, Inc. Private

Streeter

Dan Johnson Facilitator University of Toledo Public

Liz Dufrane* Real Estate ProMedica Private (Non-

Specialist Profit)

Barb Petee Chief Government ProMedica Private (Non-

Relations Profit)

Megan Vahey Director, Planning Lucas County Public

Casiere & Development Improvement

Corporation

Member Name Position Organization Public or Private

Sharon Gaber President University of Toledo Public

Calvin Lawshe Director – City of Toledo Public

Economic &

Business

Development

Paula Hicks- Former Mayor City of Toledo Public

Hudson**

Thomas Director Plan Commission Public

Gibbons**

Bill Thomas** President Downtown Toledo Private (Non-

Development Corp Profit)

Paul Architect Design Center Private (Non-

Hollenbeck** Profit)

Ray Boezi** Planner Design Center Private (Non-

Profit)

*indicates individuals with which interviews took place **non-committee members interviewed

The primary purpose of the 22nd Century Committee was to bring public and private leaders to the table to fund and oversee the development of a new downtown master plan. This plan was drafted in collaboration of MKSK (downtown strategic planning), HKS (downtown urban design), Development Strategies (market positioning and economic development strategies), MannikSmith Group (traffic, transportation, and infrastructure), and the Toledo Design Center (local urban design). In addition to the

39 expertise of the above companies, three public meetings were held to allow open-forum citizen input. As this goal has since been realized and the master plan drafted, the group has disbanded, but the members remain active in the community and in carrying out the plan.

As suggested by their name, the 22nd Century Committee was comprised of forward looking members of the public and private sectors. These men and women understand the importance of working together to achieve short term success, but also know that the real future of Toledo depends on a comprehensive, long term strategy.

Without forward thinking plans, the city will continue to blunder through one solo project after another.

Included in the list is also a few individuals who worked with the committee, whether directly or indirectly. These are members of the local government, as well as local planners and architects, who have extensive institutional knowledge of the city.

Their initial input helped generate leads on who else to interview, develop the codes for the qualitative research, and point the study in the right general direction.

Chapter Six

Data Analysis – Results and Discussion

The subsections to follow will serve a number of different purposes. First, they will use real estate statistics gathered by a local real estate group to identify whether or not some of the perceived trends apply to the Toledo area. If Toledo is indeed utilizing PPPs to move towards becoming an urban growth machine, the real estate market should in the least indicate basic levels of growth. Then, recent redevelopment projects conducted within the lifespan of the Toledo 22nd Century Committee will be laid out.

Following a review of the structural conditions and changes in the downtown area, an extensive subsection will cover the results of the data analysis conducted on the key leader interviews. This will look at both code definitions and some discernible patterns found during a more holistic analysis of the data. A final discussion will wrap up the section.

Real Estate Conditions

A few key real estate statistics, provided by the Reichle-Klein group, provide a snapshot of the current downtown Toledo market. By examining insights from the 2015 mid-year report and the 2017 mid-year report, one can get a feel for the current redevelopment status of the CBD.

The Lucas County Auditor is in charge of keeping an extensive real estate data repository up-to-date for citizen use. This data is used in conjunction with the Reichle-

Klein reports to further analyze property values and sales.

This is then followed by a table of redevelopment projects, either completed or underway, since the formation of the Toledo 22nd Century Committee. Though this table

41 is not all inclusive, it serves as a representation of downtown’s atmosphere in relationship to improvements and construction activity. These projects have been reported by the local newspaper or have been spoken about by any number of members of the above committee. They are included in this paper to support later claims. A large portion of these projects can be classified as renovation of existing infrastructure, though there are two cases of completely new construction.

Finally, the City of Toledo created a report on residential building occupancy in the downtown area. A table provides information on the occupancy of individual buildings, while a map shows the footprints of occupancy overall in the CBD.

A cursory analysis of the Reichle-Klein 2015 and 2017 reports draws some interesting conclusions. In the two-year timeframe, retail vacancy has not changed much, though there is optimism surrounding certain projects. 2017 brought additional residential vacancies, but also saw a continued strengthening in area rent performances. Similarly, the office market in the general region continues to be in a state of flux. ProMedica moved downtown, as well as smaller companies like Lathrop moving from Maumee to the CBD. Minute improvements of about 1% in industrial vacancies capped off the real estate shifts between 2015 and 2017.

A major portion of many studies conducted related to the success of downtown redevelopment incorporate market statistics and other economic factors to quantify results. Thus, the following section adds to the population statistics. Moving forward, more detailed statistics need to be gathered and analyzed to judge whether or not efforts in Toledo, Ohio have been successful. Such a study is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is important to keep in mind for any additional research that is done on the topic.

Table 4

CBD Market Area Statistics. Source: Reichle-Klein MarketView Midyear surveys

Year Retail Residential Office Market Industrial

2015 -small pockets -vacancy rates -Class A -overall, market of strong retail downtown vacancy at improving -vacancy rate declined 18.7% -CBD at 6.2% of 41% (largest rate it -Class B vacancy rate -optimistic city) vacancy at about -strong rent 21.6% completion of performances -Class C projects like -Berdan vacancy at Hensville building and 21.6% Warehouse -slight declines district working -Promedica to meet move expected additional to alter these housing demand rates 2017 -Central city -increase in -large number -minute vacancy rates: apartment of major- improvement 24% anchor vacancies occupiers -CBD at 5.2% retail, 19.2% -rents escalating moving (state vacancy rate strip inline -downtown and of flux) -additional Perrysburg the -Tower on the projects hot spots for Maumee downtown (see development brought back separate table) -see Table 5 and -Promedica Figure 2 for move additional -120,437 details square feet under construction

The Lucas County Auditor also provides useful data to analyze the real estate conditions of Downtown Toledo. Offered to the public, AREIS Online is a massive free- use real estate data repository. It houses information reality to property sales, vacancies, values, ownership, use type, and much more. For use in this study, data related to vacancies and median value for commercial, residential, and industrial properties was

43 pulled in from 2010 and 2018. 2010 reflects quantitative measures from before the last sexennial revaluation. 2018 reflects the most recent numbers, pre-revaluation.

A preliminary review of the below figures backs up the conclusions drawn by the

Reichle-Klein market reports. Residential and Commercial vacancies remain relatively stable, with insignificant decreases to both. The industrial sector, on the other hand, saw a significant increase in vacancies. This is likely due to smaller industrial companies closing their doors, whether permanently or for relocation, and due to the conversion of industrial sites to other use types. Also in line with the market reports, the median value of downtown properties has risen by almost $8,000.

Table 5

Real Estate Vacancies and Values. Source: Lucas County Auditor, AREIS Online

Category 2010 2018

Vacant Residential 26 25

Vacant Commercial 202 197

Vacant Industrial 4 28*

Median Value $31,100 $38,800

*possibly reflective of several factors: new construction in the works, conversion of industrial parcels for other use, or relocation

In addition, sales data from 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 was pulled to see if the sales trend of the downtown area reflect similar patterns to the values of the same properties. Once a list of all sales in those four years was generated, the data was then clipped to include only “arms-length” transactions, or sales in which neither the grantee or grantor are acting in their own self-interest and not subject to any pressure or incentivization by the other party. Transactions such as Sheriff’s Deeds or Corporation

Quit Claim deeds are not generally considered valid. Thus, they were left out of this analysis.

In general, the sales prices in downtown Toledo have steadily risen over the past four years. This trend suggests a willingness in buyers to invest more to live, work, and own property in the downtown area. Several multi-million-dollar sales brought the 2017 median price up, but the rest all reflect Reichle-Klein’s assertion that rents are going up in the CBD.

Table 6

Downtown Toledo Median Sales. Source: Lucas County Auditor, AREIS Online

Sale Type 2015 2016 2017 2018

All Sales $125,000 $140,000 $140,000 $150,000

(Median)

Arms-Length $151,000 $153,500 $204,900* $162,550

(Median)

*skewed by the sale of 4 Seagate and 401 Madison

As mentioned, a lot of projects have been implemented and completed since the formation of the Toledo 22nd Century Committee in 2015. Although the following table is not comprehensive, it does seem to indicate a spike in downtown redevelopment efforts.

It does not include projects in the peripheral areas such as nearby neighborhoods or suburban communities with close ties to the city of Toledo.

Table 7

Downtown Redevelopment Projects; A Snapshot. Source: The Toledo Blade,

Interviews with city leaders

Company Name Project Name Project Use Type Date

Type Reported

Cornerstone Renovation Exempt/ 5/21/2016

Church Residential

ProMedica Edison Steam Renovation Commercial 10/28/2015

Plant

ProMedica KeyBank Renovation Commercial 10/28/2015

ProMedica New Parking 10/28/2015

Construction

ProMedica Fort Industry Renovation T.B.A. 9/21/2016

Square

ProMedica New Parking 12/7/2016

Construction

ProMedica Market on the Renovation Commercial 12/8/2015

Green

Collaborative One Seagate Relocation Commercial 1014/2016

Inc

ProMedica Willis Day Renovation Commercial 11/30/2016

Company Name Project Name Project Use Type Date

Type Reported

Diversified Real Nasby/Madison Renovation T.B.A. 12/3/2016

Estate

Management

LLC

Private Pythian Castle Renovation T.B.A. 11/21/2016

Developer

First Hospitality Renaissance Renovation Hotel/Lodging 11/21/2015

Group Hotel

The Eyde Co. Fiber Glass Renovation Residential 8/7/2016

Tower

Key Hotel and Seagate Hotel Renovation/ Hotel/Lodging 7/29/2015

Property Demolition

Management

Nexus Health New Health Care 4/13/2016

Care Construction

The Lathrop Co. Fleetwood Relocation Commercial 11/15/2016

Lucas County Federal T.B.A New County Facility 6/3/2016

Courthouse Construction

ProMedica Marina Districts T.B.A. Parks/Recreation 6/8/2016

Lucas County Middlegrounds Renovation Parks/Recreation 9/16/2016

Metroparks

Company Name Project Name Project Use Type Date

Type Reported

Rustbelt Coffee Renovation Commercial 8/5/2016

Private Secor Buildings Renovation Hotel/Lodging 6/28/2016

Developer

Company Name Project Name Project Use Type Date

Type Reported

Potbelly Roulet Co Renovation Commercial 12/23/2015

Sandwich Jewelry

Table 8

Toledo Residential Building Occupancy. Source: City of Toledo

Figure 3. Downtown Toledo Residential Buildings

Source: City of Toledo

While construction activity is a decent indicator on the economic conditions of a locale, it is also important to develop a base understanding of the state of the residential real estate market. The above table and map provide a snapshot of the number of currently occupied residential buildings downtown. As indicated by a number of individuals, there is an unfulfilled need to create additional residential units in the downtown area.

There are strong pockets of residential buildings in the Warehouse district, particularly in some newer condominium developments and around the Mudhen’s stadium. In addition, there are some clusters of living space in Uptown, near Adam’s street, and some luxury high rise living corridors being renovated is buildings such as the

Fiberglass Tower in the heart of the CBD.

Code Definitions

Once compiled, the interviews were transcribed and coded using the latest version of MAXQDA, a qualitative program for analyzing data such as historic archives, imagery, newspaper articles, and, in the case of this study, personal interviews. After analyzing the interviews and a selection of local news stories about the Toledo 22nd

Century Committee, a seventeen-code system was created. The documents hit within these seventeen codes a total of 442 times. The following is a list of the codes with brief explanations. This list is organized by frequency, the first being the most frequent and the last being the least. Codes were flagged based on both key word use and whether the text was directly or indirectly related to one of the seventeen. In some cases, a sentence or paragraph might have been flagged for more than one, as the complexity of the research topic is reflected in the dynamic ways in which city leaders answer each question. For example, someone might mention how strong public-private partnerships in downtown redevelopment impact the Northwest Ohio region. In this case, collaboration, downtown, and community all come up in a single statement.

Collaboration: public and private organizations working together towards one common goal, despite pluralistic motivations. Collaboration is key to successful PPPs and the best form involves government agencies, non-profits, private businesses, and the general public. Each entity has a stake in the success of the collaboration.

Challenges: roadblocks to success, whether in redevelopment or in private and public entities working together. Although there will always be challenges, open dialogue and mutual understanding ensure they can be overcome.

Projects: specific development projects surrounding the downtown area, including individual buildings, entire districts, and complete master plans.

Community: from adjacent residential neighborhoods to Toledo’s surrounding suburbs to the Northwest Ohio region as whole, this implies focus beyond the CBD.

While downtown is the focus of the study and of the 22nd Century Committee, the larger picture includes much more.

Investment: stress on the importance of having a financial backing. Without money on the table, projects cannot be accomplished, and collaboration does not provide results.

Private: referring to either corporations or small businesses, such as 5/3 Bank and local retail, and the role they play in the process of redevelopment.

Downtown: emphasis on the CBD. A common theory is that a strong city core leads to improvements beyond the downtown area. Thus, downtown redevelopment must be the priority.

Public: referring to government entities, such as the City of Toledo, or the general public and the role they play in the process of redevelopment.

Long term: any mention of goals beyond the immediate future. The big picture.

Improvements: either structurally or in the ways different entities interact. How the overall environment has improved over the years, specifically sense the last master plans were drafted in 2002 and 2011.

Government: any specific reference to the city or county or state government.

Toledo 22nd Century Committee: any specific reference to the public-private partnership for which this study is based.

Redevelopment: ways in which the downtown area has, might, or should redevelopment. Includes successes, current stratagem, and suggestions for the future.

Short term: any mention of the most immediate goals. What the city needs now before focusing on what needs to be in the pipeline for the future.

Small business: any stress on the importance of smaller, specialized, and often local businesses, as opposed to larger, mobile corporations.

Non-profits: referring to private companies who operate on a non-profit basis such as ProMedica and the Toledo Mudhens, and the role they play in the process of redevelopment.

Corporations: any stress on the importance of larger, anchor corporations. In a lot of cases, more profitable companies have more resources to invest in their headquarters and nearby areas.

Coding Results

After running the interviews and newspaper articles through vigorous coding based on key words from previous research and which frequently occurred in the data, three phases of results can be determined. First, the frequency of each of the seventeen codes and the number of times any of the codes appeared in each of the seven documents loaded into MAXQDA is presented. This is useful in developing a base understanding of the data and is included as a simple table. Then, a code matrix browser is used to visualize the number of segments coded for each code in each respective document. By doing so, an understanding of how much importance each interviewee places on each topic. Last, a code relations browser is used to identify potential relationships between codes. This shows how often two codes appear with each other, hinting at a possible

53 relationship between concepts. The last two phases will also be presented in tables to be discussed in the next section of the report. All tables have been generated in MAXQDA and exported from Microsoft Excel.

The first table is a snapshot at how often each topic appeared in the coding process.

They were flagged if the word itself was present or their overarching concept fell into the category. In cases in which a sentence or fragment could qualify under more than one code, multiple flags were applied when necessary.

Table 9

Coding Frequencies. Source: MAXQDA12

Code Word Frequency Code Word Frequency

Collaboration 82 Long Term 24

Challenges 45 Improvements 22

Projects 40 Government 17

Community 31 22nd Century 14

Investment 31 Redevelopment 13

Private 30 Short Term 10

Downtown 29 Small Business 10

Public 28 Non-Profits 9

Corporations 7

The second table looks at the number of flags allocated to each batch of interviews. Though this doesn’t break the codes down within each round, it does show the relevancy of each interview to the thesis topic.

Table 10

Codes per Document. Source: MAXQDA12

Document Name Number of “Hits”

Thomas 8

Gibbons 6

Hollenbeck 23

Boezi 51

Napoli 71

Second Round 236

Blade Articles 47

Lastly, relationship matrixes between the codes and individual documents, as well as between multiple codes from outside of their respective interview batches, are provided. These are useful in showing possible patterns between concepts discussed by participants. In a lot of cases, different codes were the focus of the conversation, thus there are numerous occasions in which a code is not tagged alongside others. However, some codes are a smaller part of a much more involved concept, this they appear in a string more frequently than they appear alone. While it’s difficult to tell exactly how important each code is to the other through a simple matrix, it is a good starting point for a later discussion. The following three tables show how often codes appear amongst the documents and how often the codes appear in tangent to a second code.

Table 11

Code Frequency by Document. Source: MAXQDA12

Table 12

Code to Code Relationships pt. 1. Source: MAXQDA12

Table 13

Code to Code Relationships pt. 2. Source: MAXQDA12

Qualitative Coding Discussion

In order to address the initial research question of whether or not recent redevelopment and rising public-private partnerships are indicative of an emerging urban growth machine, a closer look at some of the key points derived from the interviews is needed.

Although this section won’t address each of the seventeen codes, it will first look at the top five and then those directly related to PPPs.

It is interesting to note that the concept of growth didn’t emerge from any interviews with key leaders from either the public or private sector. In addition to discussing the

58 codes that did surface, this study will leave of with speculation as to why growth remains outside the spectrum of concern for the members of the Toledo 22nd Century Committee and local government officials.

The most frequently invoked term across the board was collaboration. Flagged 82 times, the concept of sitting together at a table, despite pluralistic goals, despite operational differences, has been made a priority on both sides. Leaders can’t stress enough how vital it is to have cooperation throughout every phase of the redevelopment process. As frank communication, starting early and occurring often, is cited as one of the keys to a successful PPP, this is a step in the right direction for the city of Toledo. This sentiment is shared by both government officials and local business owners.

In a late-stage interview with the former mayor Paula Hicks-Hudson, she conveyed a sense of urgency regarded a collaborative effort, mentioning that “the city council, law department, tax department, the department of development, etcetera need to utilize programs and tools to partner with business entities in order to enable jobs and corporations.” By doing so, local government partners can “leverage these business entities” for funding and other redevelopment resources. This idea is echoed by many of the local CEOs, one of which made it clear that the work moving forward needed to be “a total collaboration to work”. He continued to stress that “everyone always needs to be onboard.” It’s not just a matter of agreeing and working together on one objective.

Partnership must reach long-term sustainability. This remains true between all levels of business and with the local public sector. These exclamations also reflect the importance of having an organized government structure and a finely tuned and carried out business

59 plan behind the partnership, another of the key factors of success as presented by the

NCPPP.

Naturally, the second largest focus ended up on the challenges, referring to both the struggles the city of Toledo faced in the past and those possible difficulties in the future that need to be foreseen and planned for. One of the greatest challenges is directly related to collaboration. What is the best way to ensure open communications from the start to the finish of a project? In fact, according to a local business owner, “constant communication, well in advance of when it is needed,” is key to “keeping everyone onboard.” How does a PPP allow for all voices to be heard and all opinions considered when executing action steps to reach its end goal? Although this constant dialogue is difficult to first coordinate and then to achieve, it is of utmost importance to the success of a partnership.

Although many expressed improvements in public-private relationships in the city, the collaboration is far from perfect. Both sides admitted that there are still some organizations “working in silos”, while others are working on the outside looking in.

Consider a number of out-of-town developers who share a stake in the future success of the city but are not actively apart of the recent planning process funded by the Toledo

22nd Century Committee. A local bank CEO stated that, “these out-of-towners are sitting on buildings, and are being pressured to sell or develop. We are realizing the opportunities and what the community wants.” Outside developers might have a vision for their assets that conflicts with what has been shared between the local public and private sectors, as well as with members of the community at large. Without total and

60 complete involvement, there is always the change of unproductive strain on a partnership’s long-term vision.

Another commonly bemoaned challenge is that of funding. With state and federal funding for downtown revitalization at a minimum, cities across the Rust Belt rely on creative strategies to fund projects. On one side of the coin, the public sector is responsible for the keeping up of utilities and infrastructure. On the other side, private dollars are heavily relied upon for funding massive redevelopment projects. Take, for example, the redevelopment of the Steam Plant and of the Key Bank building in downtown Toledo. Without the investment on ProMedica’s part, a regional health care provider, these projects would not have been completed. In addition, the funding of a new master plan for downtown would have been difficult without the pooling of both public and private resources. As public agencies continue to struggle with the issue of “staffing and funding” not being available, as expressed by a local city planner, these types of

PPPs are going to become more and more predominate. When thinking about the short term versus the long term, the planner continued in saying, “the staffing and funding is not available at multiple levels to truly focus on the long term. The question is where you meet between the two different sets of goals giving these limitations.” This sentiment is implicit in a lot of what the city elites expressed throughout the interview process.

How do cities, particularly Toledo, continue to build on the moment of successes like the newest master plan or the early stages of waterfront redevelopment? According to those interviewed, continued success relies wholly on projects. A consultant hired by the

Toledo 22nd Century Committee expressed this perfectly in stating that completed projects gain momentum, but “there always has to be something in the pipeline. There is

61 currently nothing lined up in the pipeline to apply for additional historic tax credits. We need to maintain momentum and look over the horizon.” Without additional projects, without additional opportunities to cease the scarce outside funding through mechanisms such as historic tax credits, long term visions become impossible to attain. Though short- term goals, those low-hanging fruit that can be plucked by small organizations and through public-sector initiative, are important to revitalization, the final product needs to be clearly visualized.

As far as the specific relationships between the public and private sides of recent partnerships in Toledo are concerned, a few key observations have been made. First, the public sector, particularly the mayor’s office, stresses the importance of allowing the private sector an environment in which to thrive. Without key corporations and an active small business community, especially considering the challenges faced, redevelopment, yet alone any measurable growth, are not obtainable. Both sides see the local government as a sort of ambassador to private companies with money to spend. By writing business- friendly codes and through a streamlined permitting process, the public sector enables the private sector to thrive. According to a local planner, this has not always been the case in

Toledo. Historically, Toledo has held with a stringent permitting process and has “made small business jump through hoops” to get off the ground. Moving forward, there is an expectation that the city will work with non-profit organizations such as ProMedica and the Toledo Mud Hens/Walleye, as well as with smaller scale entrepreneurs such as restaurant owners, artists, and tech companies, to allow for rapid growth and redevelopment. And, as said by a local CEO interviewed early on, each participating member needs to “work without political motivation.” He continued that line of thought

62 by suggesting that “the private sector needs to take the lead. The public sector has constraints the private sector doesn’t”. Both sides need to be aware and willing to allow the other to operate within its capabilities. In the end. it’s the community’s interests and that of the private sector that need to take priority, especially when political turnaround has become all too common.

The latter, smaller companies, are going to become more and more important in shaping the face of cities just like Toledo. As more mobile, larger corporations, are bought by the highest bid, moving to international cities and those that have the resources to afford corporate campuses, local business owners and invested companies such as those currently in Toledo need to be the focus. That being said, only in seven cases did anyone interviewed mention the importance of large corporations. In one case, they were even mentioned in a negative light by a real-estate specialist working for ProMedica. She stated that involvement by “smaller businesses and private citizens, not just corporations” is the best practice holistically for the community. Without corporate-level investment, redevelopment is a challenge, but still accomplishable with strong partnerships. In the past, Toledo, and other cities, have felt the consequences of larger companies relocating or closing their doors. There is an inherent mistrust in the underlying motivations of such companies, which is expressed in the lack of emphasis placed on the importance of their role among both public and private area leaders.

While each piece of this, from the determinants of an urban growth machine to the key success factors of public-private partnerships to the sentiments expressed by the leaders of Toledo, Ohio, it is important to realize that they are all interrelated and equal parts to a more holistic approach to redevelopments. As seen in Tables 12 and 13, the

Code Relationships Browser, often these concepts are mentioned in tandem. For example, collaboration is frequently tied in with investment. To expound on that, it is also mentioned nine times with the Toledo 22nd Century Committee, which is the best candidate to fund and oversee the individual parts of the new downtown master plan. At the same time, said redevelopment in the downtown area goes hand in hand with the well-being of the greater community, including tightly knit neighborhoods, Lucas County in general, and the entirety of Northwest Ohio. It is folly to completely ignore the periphery, but each of them relies on a strong urban core to succeed on a larger scale. By focusing efforts on downtown, leaders in the area create a launching point see positive improvements from the inside out.

Chapter Seven

Conclusion

So, to address whether or the Toledo 22nd Century Committee, a public-private partnership formed to fund a new downtown master plan and since disbanded, though the former members remain active in the community, fits the model of Harvey Molotch’s urban growth machine theory, one must circle back and determine whether or not the individual requirements have been met.

Two main shifts in the downtown atmosphere fall in line with critical factors of an up and coming urban growth machine. An urban growth machine, as defined by The

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, requires public and private organizations with pluralistic, and often competing, interests to unite under the overarching goal of growth. In Toledo, leaders express their desire to set aside their differences to fund a new master plan, invest in the urban core, and streamline projects over a long period of time to vastly improve the economic conditions of the area overall.

Those involved see how communication and partnership will benefit their respective organizations over time, whether that be through increased profit margins, larger populations to pull taxes from, or improved neighborhood conditions. As this type of partnership is critical to both urban growth machines and PPPs, it is certainly a step in the right direction.

In addition to mutually beneficial gain, the urban growth machine stresses the differences between use value and exchange value, the latter being the main focus.

Through redevelopment and investment, a city becomes more desirable. As it does so, people are willing to further invest and pay more towards living expenses and rent. The

Reichle-Klein real estate reports show minor decreases in vacancy rates, indicating more and more of the empty space downtown is being filled. They also show an increase in rents. Higher rents indicate the exchange value of real estate is increasing, which is yet another step closer to realizing some semblance of growth.

However, one of the main indicators of an urban growth machine is growth itself.

Population continues to decline, albeit at a slower rate, and people continue to move from the city to the suburbs or to other locales. More recent polls suggest that the suburbs of

Toledo, places like Sylvania and Maumee in Lucas county and Perrysburg in Wood

County (South across the Maumee River)—all places that have historically been known as suburbs of the city of Toledo—might also face declining populations.

There is a sense from some of the local leaders that downtown is once again becoming the place to be. New apartments are being refurbished and businesses are either moving downtown or opening for the first time. Large-scale renovations, such as

Hensville, the ProMedica campus, and the new Nexus Healthcare facility, are becoming a common site. Construction, an accepted sign of development, is occurring on dozens of city clocks. Another local bank CEO touts that, there is attractive housing, mostly for younger people and empty nesters. The Huntington Center and Fifth Third ballpark are helping to create strong entertainment districts. Sores and restaurants are moving in. A lot of work is being done to create a desirable environment with more stuff to do—and more coming.” Still, no matter how hopeful city leaders and the public might be, the census numbers just don’t support any real growth at this point. With only colloquial data to go on, it’s hard to say what sort of growth politics are emerging in the city of Toledo.

Although there are signs of growth, and revitalization is taking place on a much larger scale than in recent years, conclusive evidence cannot yet be drawn to determine whether or not Toledo, Ohio is striving to become an urban growth machine. Too many questions, such as if growth is good for the whole community and how to deal with stubborn, out- of-town developers, remain unanswered. As the city continues to take strides towards the future, public and private collaboration needs to remain strong. Input from private citizens and consideration for the community as a whole need to continue to be top priorities. Further research needs to be conducted as PPPs like the Toledo 22nd Century

Committee form and take part in redevelopment efforts. Their long-term impact has yet to be seen, but the general feeling among city elites is optimistic. Only time will decide if

Toledo becomes a growth machine or merely seeks to optimize the resources it has for the population base that remains hopeful in achieving a brighter future.

As proven by reviewing the successes of other Rust Belt cities, particularly

Baltimore and Pittsburgh, it’s going to be important for Toledo to monitor the state of the downtown area. Without quantifiable data—without a group of individuals willing to conduct and finance comprehensive market studies—the efforts of the 22nd Century

Committee will be for naught. The next steps, after planning and financing new redevelopment projects, is to track successes, especially the monetary impact efforts have on the city and on the greater Northwest Ohio region. Not only will this show the ultimate outcomes of the efforts listed above, it will also bolster a sense of pride and accomplishment to use moving forward.

References

Abdel Aziz, A. M. (2017). Successful Delivery of Public-Private Partnerships for

Infrastructure Development. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management,133(12), 918-931.

Barger, T. (2016, May 21). Cornerstone Church plans campus next to Hensville. The

Blade. Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Burris, K. (n.d.). The man with the plan: A talk with Randy Oostra. The Blade. Retrieved

January 3, 2017.

Chavez, J. (2015, November 13). ProMedica CEO touts development. The Blade.

Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Chung, D. (2016). Risks, Challenges and Value for Money of Public-Private

Partnerships. Financial Accountability & Management,32(4), 448-468.

Corrigan, M. B. (2005). Ten Principles for Successful Public, Private Partnerships.

Urban Land Institute.

Deeter, C. A., Shetty, S., & Reid, N. (2015). Planning Downtown Toledo. Jack Ford

Urban Affairs Center.

Downtown Partnership of Baltimore (2018, April). 2017 State of Downtown Baltimore

Report https://www.godowntownbaltimore.com/

Downtown Partnership of Baltimore. (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2016, from

https://www.godowntownbaltimore.com/

Downtown Pittsburgh | The Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership. 2017 State of Downtown

(n.d.) Retrieved April 14, 2018, from http://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/

Downtown Pittsburgh | The Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership. (n.d.). Retrieved October

21, 2016, from http://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/

Franck, K. A feather in our cap. (n.d.). The Blade. Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Franck, K. (2016, June 12). Another giant step. The Blade. Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Franck, K. (2016, September 19). Protecting the regular bus. The Blade. Retrieved

January 3, 2017.

Friedman, S. B. (2016). Successful public/private partnerships from principles to

practices. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Gotham, K. F. (2000). Growth machine up-links: Urban renewal and the rise and fall of a

pro-growth coalition in a US city. Critical Sociology, 26(3), 268-300.

Hall, M. F., & Hall, L. M. (1994). A Growth Machine for Those Who Count. Critical

Sociology,20(1), 79-101.

Harris-Taylor, M. (2015, May 28). 22nd Century Committee hopes to grow Toledo. The

Blade. Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Harris-Taylor, M. (2015, May 27). Area leaders create 22nd Century Committee. The

Blade. Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Hill, Kim Quaile, and Roger Durand. "The" Growth Machine" Revisited: Public and

Private Sector Elites' Assessments of Growth and Growth Policies." Social

Science Quarterly 69.3 (1988): 737.

Hodge, G. A. (2004). The risky business of public–private partnerships, Australian

journal of public administration, 63(4), 37-49.

Holden, M., Scerri, A., & Esfahani, A. H. (2015). Justifying Redevelopment ‘Failures'

Within Urban ‘Success Stories': Dispute, Compromise, and a New Test of

Urbanity. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(3), 451-470.

Jezierski, L. (1990). Neighborhoods and public-private partnerships in Pittsburgh. Urban

Affairs Review, 26(2), 217-249.

Jonas, A. E., & Wilson, D. (1999). The urban growth machine: Critical perspectives, two

decades later. Suny press.

Kirkpatrick, L., & Smith, M. P. (2011). The infrastructural limits to growth: rethinking

the urban growth machine in times of fiscal crisis. International Journal of Urban

and Regional Research, 35(3), 477-503.

Kushner, J., & Ogwang, T. (2017). Th e Fiscal Impact of Urban Growth on

Municipalities. Canadian Journal of Urban Research,16-28.

Leland, S., & Read, D. (2012). Stimulating real estate development through public-

private partnerships: assessing the perceived opportunities and challenges. Public

Administration Quarterly, 311-340.1

Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. (2007). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place.

Univ of California Press.

Logan, J. R., Whaley, R. B., & Crowder, K. (1997). The Character and Consequences of

Growth Regimes An Assessment of 20 Years of Research. Urban Affairs

Review, 32(5), 603-630.

MacLeod, G. (2011). Urban Politics Reconsidered Growth Machine to Post-democratic

City?. Urban Studies, 48(12), 2629-2660.

Mangum, B. A. (2013). A case study on redevelopment in downtown Baltimore, and

strategies for downtown urban revitalization (Doctoral dissertation).

May, P. J., & Koski, C. (2013). Addressing Public Risks: Extreme Events and Critical

Infrastructures. Review of Policy Research,30(2), 139-159.

Messina, I. (2016, June 10). Government, business leaders praise park plan. The Blade.

Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Messina, I. (2016, November 7). Study calls for downtown area overhaul. The Blade.

Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Miraftab, F. (2004). Public-Private Partnerships The Trojan Horse of Neoliberal

Development?. Journal of Planning Education and Research,24(1), 89-101.

Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of

place. American journal of sociology, 309-332.

O’Neill, K. M., Rudel, T. K., & Mcdermott, M. H. (2011). Why Environmentally

Constrained Towns Choose Growth Controls. City & Community,10(2), 111-130.

Purcell, M. (2000). The Decline of the Political Consensus for Urban Growth:

Evidence from Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Affairs,22(1), 85-100.

Reiter, M. (2016, June 3). $104M secured for upgrades to city’s federal courthouse. The

Blade. Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Reiter, M. (n.d.). Consultants will offer plans for city’s future. The Blade. Retrieved

January 3, 2017.

Rodgers, S. (2009). Urban growth machine. In: Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.) The

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:

Elsevier, pp. 40-45.

Sager, T. (2011). Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–

2010. Progress in planning, 76(4), 147-199.

Soler, L. A. (2013). Importance of the private sector in creating healthier

communities. National Civic Review, 102(4), 49-51

Vogel, R. K., & Swanson, B. E. (1989). The Growth Machine versus the Antigrowth

Coalition the Battle for our Communities. Urban Affairs Review,25(1), 63-85.

Wettenhall, R. (2003). The rhetoric and reality of public-private partnerships. Public

Organization Review, 3(1), 77-107.

Wilson, D., & Wouters, J. (2003). Spatiality and Growth Discourse: The Restructuring of

America’s Rust Belt Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs,25(2), 123-138.

Xiong, W., Zhao, X., Yuan, J.-F., & Luo, S. (2017). Ex Post Risk Management in Public-

Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects. Project Management Journal, 48(3),

76–89.

Appendix A Interview Forms Form A: Bill Thomas (Design Center)

Form B: Thomas Gibbons (Planning Commission)

Form C: Paul Hollenbeck (Design Center)

Form D: Ray Boezi (Design Center)

Form E: Joe Napoli (Toledo Mud Hens/Walleye)

Form F: Second Round Questions