Perspectives on Urban Economic Planning: the Case of Washington, D.C., Since 1880

Portland State University PDXScholar

Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Publications and Presentations Planning

Spring 1989 Perspectives on Urban Economic Planning: The Case of Washington, D.C., Since 1880

Carl Abbott Portland State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac

Part of the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y

Citation Details Abbott, C., Perspectives on Urban Economic Planning: The Case of Washington, D.C., Since 1880. The Public Historian, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Spring, 1989), pp. 5-21.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Research

Perspectiveson Urban Economic Planning:The Case ofWashington, D.C., Since 1880

CARL ABBOTT

THEREIS LITTLE DOUBTthat the United States has been undergoinga sweeping and multi-facetedeconomic transformationsince the early 1970s. The industrialmix and spatialdistribution of activities within the nationaleconomy are being alteredby basic changes,including (1) the simultaneousgrowth of certain manufacturing industries and the decline of others,(2) the broad decentralizationof manufacturingproduction to overseaslocations and the risingimportance of international trade, (3) the shiftof employment from manufacturing and transportationinto informa- tionprocessing activities, and (4) the emergenceof historically peripheral regionsin the South and West as centersof innovationand economic change.' In varyingcombinations, these changesare alteringthe economiccir- cumstancesof American cities and forcingreconsideration of appropriate economicroles. Withthe effectivewithdrawal of the federalgovernment

Researchfor this essay was made possibleby the supportof the Center for Washington Area Studies,the George WashingtonUniversity. 1. For examplesof ways to conceptualizethe changes, see BarryBluestone and Bennett Harrison,The Deindustrializationof America (New York:Basic Books, 1982); LarrySawers and WilliamTabb, eds., Sunbelt/Snowbelt:Urban Development and RegionalRestructuring (New York:Oxford University Press, 1984);Alfred Watkins and David Perry,eds., The Rise of the SunbeltCities (BeverlyHills: Sage Publications,1977); Daniel Bell, The Comingof Post-IndustrialSociety (New York:Basic Books,1973); George Sternlieb and JamesHughes, eds., Post-IndustrialAmerica (New Brunswick,N.J.: Center forUrban PolicyResearch, 1975).

The PublicHistorian, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Spring1989) C 1989 by the Regentsof the Universityof California 6 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN as an initiatorof local economicdevelopment in the 1980s,responsibility has fallenon statesand municipalitiesas the traditionalpromoters of urbangrowth.2 State economic development agencies, blue-ribbon pan- els, futurestask forces, and special economicplanning committees in a varietyof versionshave all aimed to considerwhat theirvarious cities shoulddo next. In some cases, the resultmay be the abandonmentof economicstrategies that sufficedfor a centuryor more. Civic leaders acrossthe countrychase high-techindustry. Manufacturing cities seek positionsin the transactionaleconomy. Other communities try to devise new rolesas internationalretail cities, travel destinations, amateur sports centers,or healthcare centers. Debates aboutthe futureof American cities draw heavily on academic expertisein economics,planning, regional science, and relatedfields. Bookcatalogs in theseapplied fields are filledwith city and regionalcase studieswhose titlesor subtitlesproclaim their interest in "deindustrial- ization,""reindustrialization," "economic prospects," "structural change," and "prospectsfor change.'"3 However, few studies are availableto allow comparisonof current economic planning concerns with past experiences. As a contributiontoward a historicallyinformed discussion of decision- makingin economicrestructuring, I have begun to explorethe case of Washington,D.C., a citythat has neverfound it easy to achievea "natural"economic role. It has experiencedan ambiguousregional orientation, uncertainopportunities, and entrenchedpreconceptions about appropriate activities.In particular,the generationof Washington leaders follow- ing the upheavalsof Civil War and Reconstructionfaced a need foreco- nomicredirection with parallels to the deindustrializingfactory towns of the 1970sand 1980s. The focusof this examinationis the evolvingcharacter of ideas on Washington'spotentials as an economicentity. Washingtonians have engagedin an ongoing"conversation" or discussionabout the possibilities of

2. EdwardM. Bergman,ed., Local Economiesin Transition:Policy Realities and Devel- opmentPotentials (Durham: Duke UniversityPress, 1986); Roger S. Ahlbrandt,Jr. and Clyde Weaver,"Public-Private Institutions and AdvancedTechnology Development in Southwest- ernPennsylvania, "Journal of the American Planning Association 53 (Autumn1987), 449-58; Dennis R. Juddand RandyL. Ready,"Entrepreneurial Cities and the New Politicsof Eco- nomicDevelopment," in George Petersonand Carol Lewis, eds., Reagan and the Cities (Washington,D.C.: UrbanInstitute Press, 1986),209-47; Dewey Bandy,"Local Develop- mentPlanning in the 1980s,"Journal of Planning Literature 2 (Spring1987), 136-52. 3. RichardChild Hill, "Crisisin the MotorCity: The Politicsof EconomicRedevelop- mentin Detroit,"in NormanFainstein and Susan Fainstein,eds., Restructuringthe City (New York:Longman, Inc., 1986), 80-125; HarryW. Richardsonand JosephH. Turek, eds., EconomicProspects for theNortheast (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985); BarryCheckoway and Carl Patton,eds., The MetropolitanMidwest: Policy Problems and Prospectsfor Change (Urbana:University of IllinoisPress, 1985); MortonSchoolman and AlvinMagid, eds., ReindustrializingNew YorkState: Strategies,Implications, Challenges (Albany:SUNY Press, 1986); David McKee and RichardBennett, eds., StructuralChange in an UrbanIndustrial Region: The Northeast Ohio Case (New York:Praeger, 1987). URBAN ECONOMIC PLANNING * 7

Table 1. GROWTH OF FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT IN RELATION TO POPULATION

Change in Changeas Percentof Federal Jobs BeginningPopulation 1851-61 666 1.3 percent 1861-71 4,023 5.4 1871-81 6,902 5.2 1881-91 7,710 4.3 1891-1901 7,760 3.7 1901-1910 10,867 3.9 1910-20 55,199 16.7 1920-30 -21,078 -4.8 1930-40 66,738 13.7 1940-50 83,542 9.2 1950-60 16,561 1.1 1960-70 87,496 4.4 1970-80 18,631 0.7

Base populationsthrough 1930 are forthe Districtof Columbia; for 1940 for the Washington MetropolitanDistrict; for 1950-70 forthe Washington metropolitan area. Through1900, the beginningpopulation is takenat the census year. Sources: HistoricalStatistics of the UnitedStates and U. S. Officeof PersonnelManage- ment,Federal CivilianWorkforce Statistics: Annual Report by GeographicalAr- eas (1980) economicdevelopment.4 My interestlies in thearticulation and evolution ofpublic ideas, not in the separatequestions of the implementationpro- cess or the equitable divisionof the benefitsof growth. Ideas about economicdevelopment may have theirfinal test as theyaffect the production and distributionof wealth, but theyalso have careersas intellectualcon- structsthat express a socialcontext of power and values. Because of the continuingpresence of the federalgovernment as a guarantoragainst complete economic obsolescence, it mightbe argued thatWashington's economic debate lackedthe same do-or-diecharacter of suchdebates in othercities. In fact,most economic strategy in established citieshas to do withchoices at the margin,whether they involve additions to a governmentalor a manufacturingemployment base. Participantsin the Washingtonconversation were seekingways to expand a profitable economyon thefederal foundation. It is also worthnoting that the level of interestin Washingtonrose between 1880 and 1914 and againduring the 1950s and 1970s, all times of relativestability in Washington'sfederal employmentfollowing periods of more rapid expansion (see Table 1).

4. Use ofthe term"conversation" is borrowedby analogyfrom Thomas Bender's recent descriptionof the protractedand fragmenteddiscourse about the characterof New Yorkas an intellectualcommunity in New YorkIntellect: A Historyof Intellectual Life in New York City,from 1750 to the Beginningsof Our Own Time (New York:Alfred A. Knopf,1987). 8 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

Explorationof Washington's experience with economic strategy-making can also help to amplifya relativelyundeveloped topic in thehistoriogra- phy of urbaneconomic growth and planning.Historians have a broadly based understandingof the importance of a business-basedgrowth consen- sus and growthcoalitions in shapingpublic decisions in Americancities. Wide-ranginghistorical case studiessupplement a substantialbody of socialscience theory detailing the dynamicsof the entrepreneurialcity.5 An even more extensiveliterature describes the specifictechniques of promotionand developmentthat have been triedand testedby urban businessand politicalleaders through nearly two centuries.6 Betweenacceptance of growthas a majorcivic goal and the choiceof particularpromotional techniques and programs,however, is an interme- diate step of developingand articulatinga growthstrategy to guide governmentbodies, community organizations, and perhapsprivate entre- preneurs.The processof community entrepreneurship has requireddeci- sionson the orientationof hinterlands,on promisingindustries, and on the balance amongbasic sectorswithin the economy.Indeed, citiesas arenasfor decisions about economicdevelopment are analogousto more clearlydelimited institutions such as businessfirms, government agencies, or nonprofitcorporations, all ofwhich analyze their changing envi- ronmentsas the basis forstrategic decisions about future mixes of prod- uctsand services.7 One reasonfor neglect of this middle step maybe therelative stability ofthe American urban system since the middle 1800s. Once pastthe first decadesof settlement and transportationdevelopment on successivefron- tiers,most cities have performedthe same rolesand functionsover sev- eral generations,offering few cases of fundamentalchange to challenge

5. For theoreticalstatements see OliverWilliams, "A Typologyfor Comparative Local Government,"Midwest Journal of Political Science 5 (May 1961),150-64; HarveyMolotch, "The Cityas a GrowthMachine," American Journal of Sociology 82 (September1976), 309- 32; JohnLogan and HarveyMolotch, Urban Fortunes(Berkeley: University of California Press,1987); Mark Gottdiener, The Social Productionof UrbanSpace (Austin:University of Texas Press, 1985); Stephen L. Elkin, "TwentiethCentury Urban Regimes,"Journal of UrbanAffairs 7 (Spring1985), 11-28; ArnoldFleischmann and JoeR. Feagin,"The Politics ofGrowth-Oriented Urban Alliances," Urban Affairs Quarterly 23 (December1987), 207- 32; JohnMollenkopf, The ContestedCity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983). For generalhistorical statements, see Daniel Boorstin,The Americans: The National Experience (New York:Random House, 1965), 118; Blaine Brownell,The UrbanEthos in the South, 1920-1930(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UniversityPress, 1975), xix, 125; GuntherBarth, InstantCities (New York:Oxford University Press, 1976), 128-54. 6. CharlesGlaab, "HistoricalPerspective on UrbanDevelopment Schemes," in Leo F. Schnore,ed., Social Scienceand the City(New York:Praeger, 1968), 197-219; Elizabeth Bloomfield,"Community, Ethos, and Local Initiativein UrbanEconomic Growth: A Review ofa Themein CanadianUrban History," Urban History Yearbook (1983), 53-72. 7. ArthurCole, BusinessEnterprise in Its Social Setting(Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sityPress, 1959), 108-9, 124-28, 161-64; Carl Abbott,Boosters and Businessmen:Popular EconomicThought and Urban Growthin theAntebellum Middle West (Westport, Conn.: GreenwoodPress, 1981). The applicabilityof corporate strategic planning to publicsector activitiesis thesubject of a specialissue of the Journal of the American Planning Association 53 (Winter1987). URBAN ECONOMIC PLANNING * 9 historicalexplanation." As promisingcases foranalysis of urbanstrategy- making,however, it is possible to identifyperiods and regionsin which setsof cities faced changes in theireconomic circumstances comparable to thoseof the currentera. One examplemight be westernresource cities in the era ofagricultural and miningdepression after World War I.9 Another mightbe the cities of the postbellumand postreconstructionSouth as theyfaced changed patterns of trade, markets, and leadership.10

Washingtonand theNew Century

Washington,D.C., entered the last two decades of the nineteenth centuryin much the same circumstancesas otherurban centers of the New South. New arrivalsfrom Vermont, New York,and Ohio challenged nativeWashingtonians for local businessleadership. " The city'scommer- cial ambitionswere disrupted,its financesdominated by cities to the north,and the futureof its potentialhinterland uncertain. Indeed, little had gone accordingto plan duringthe preceding quarter century. During the 1850s,the limitedimpact of the Chesapeakeand Ohio Canal and the isolationof Washington within the growingAmerican railroad system had ended hopes to turnWashington into a diversifiedmanufacturing and tradingcenter on the model ofPhiladelphia. The Civil War broughtflush

8. JohnBorchert's data showthat most cities that emerged in thecanal and railroaderas ofurban development retained their importance in successivegenerations ("American Met- ropolitanEvolution," Geographical Review 57 [July1967], 301-32). 9. RogerLotchin, "The Cityand the Sword:San Franciscoand the Rise ofthe Metro- politanMilitary Complex, 1919-41," Journalof AmericanHistory 65 (March 1979), 996- 1020; Roger Lotchin,"City and the Sword in MetropolitanCalifornia, 1919-1941," Ur- banismPast and Present7 (1982), 1-16; David R. Johnson,"The Failed Experiment:Mili- taryAviation and Urban Developmentin San Antonio,1910-1940," in RogerLotchin, ed., The MartialMetropolis (New York:Praeger, 1984), 89-108; Eugene Moehring,Resort City in the Sunbelt:Las Vegas, 1930-1970 (Reno: Universityof Nevada Press, 1989). 10. Dana Whiteand TimothyCrimmins, "How AtlantaGrew: Cool Heads, Hot Air,and Hard Work,"in AndrewM. Hamer, ed., Urban Atlanta:Redefining the Role of the City (Atlanta:Georgia State University,1980), 25-44; Don Doyle, Nashvillein theNew South: 1880-1930 (Knoxville:University of Tennessee Press, 1985), 212-32, and Nashvillesince the 1920s (Knoxville:University of Tennessee Press, 1985), 143-78. 11. Washington'sdominant commercial organization for the last centuryhas been the WashingtonBoard ofTrade. When it was foundedin 1889, itsfirst directors included three men bornin Washington,five born in the South,three born abroad, and eleven bornin the North.The medianarrival date in Washingtonfor the northernerswas approximately1870. Biographicaldata from the followingsources: John P. Coffin,Washington: Historical Sketchesof theCapital Cityof Our Country(Washington, D.C., 1887);Leading Merchants and Manufacturersof the City of Washington: A Resumeof Trade, Enterprise, and Develop- ment(New York:International Publishing Co., 1887); Eminentand RepresentativeMen of Virginiaand the Districtof Columbia of the NineteenthCentury (Madison: Brantand Fuller, 1893); A. K. Parrisand W. A. Means, eds., Investor'sHandbook of Washington Securities(Washington, 1900); AllanB. Slauson,ed., Historyof theCity of Washington: Its Men and Institutions(Washington, D.C., The WashingtonPost, 1903); District of Columbia: ConciseBiographies of Its Prominentand RepresentativeContemporary Citizens, and Valu- able StatisticalData, 1908-09 (Washington,D.C., The PotomacPress, 1908). 10 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN timesto local retailand servicebusinesses, but it also occasioneda flight of capitaland interruptedregional trade.'2 Development efforts in the immediatepostbellum years failed to changeWashington's status as "a mereappendage of Baltimore."'3 The onsetof depression in the 1870sand therapid rise and fallof Alexander Shepherd as the Haussmannof Wash- ingtonleft the cityundirected and ill-at-ease. By the lastdecades ofthe century,in short,it was clearthat the city's historicambitions were illusory.Save forthe presenceof the federal government,the citymight have faded into a backwaterlike scoresof otherriver towns bypassed in the railroadera. In fact,the numberof federaljobs in Washingtonincreased six-fold from 1860 to 1880, to be followedby slowerexpansion over the next generation. The federalestab- lishmentafter 1880 thus gave Washingtona base ofeconomic support but limiteddirect stimulus to furthergrowth and diversification,leaving local businessmeneager to defineand developtheir own economicstrategy to capitalizeon the federalfoundation. Graduallyin the 1880sand withincreasing clarity toward the turn of the century,Washington businessmen responded to thisuncertain present by formulatingtwo distinctversions of theircity's economic future. One argumentfound Washington's future as the manufacturing,distributing, and bankingcenter for the Virginias,Carolinas, and pointssouth. In a phrase,advocates of this view envisioned a New Yorkof the South. Other residentsdescribed Washington's potential as a unique nationalcity that could lead the United States in educationand the arts and house its nationalinstitutions. The city,they hoped, could be theVienna or Parisof America. The forumsfor economic discussionwere the nineteenth-century standards-newspaperssuch as the WashingtonStar and Washington Post and local commercialorganizations. Prominent business and civic leaders establishedthe WashingtonBoard of Trade in 1889. The first directorsincluded the publishersof the Star and Post,leading retailers, manufacturers,bankers, and attorneys.Washingtonians soon accepted that the Board of Trade spoke forthe local marketbusinessmen and investorsin areas rangingfrom economic development to government and public services. The Chamber of Commerce,appearing in 1908, definedits goal morenarrowly as a "GreaterCommercial Washington." Its membershipoverlapped the Board of Trade but with heavier represen-

12. Constance M. Green, Washington:Village and Capital, 1800-1878 (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1962), 113-18, 157, 192-94, 263, 293; FrederickGutheim, The Potomac(New York:Grosset and Dunlap, 1968),268, 275. 13. Elizabeth Miller,"The WashingtonBusiness Community in the NineteenthCen- tury:Dreams and Disappointments,"manuscript in libraryof Columbia Historical Society, Washington;Harvey W. Crew, ed., CentennialHistory of Washington,D.C. (Dayton, Ohio: United BrethrenPublishing House, 1892), 413; Reportof theJoint Committee on Manufacturesof the LegislativeAssembly of the Districtof Columbia(Washington, D.C., 1872),22. URBAN ECONOMIC PLANNING * 11 tationof smaller retailers and wholesalers.As in othernineteenth-century cities,professional publicists and journalistscompleted the set of active discussants.14 In many respects, the WashingtonBoard of Trade functionedas a shadowgovernment into the 1950s. The federallyappointed commission- ers who governedWashington after 1878 tookcare of basic urban services, but offeredDistrict of Columbia residentslittle opportunity for direct participationin local affairs.In response, the Board of Trade assumeda quasi-governmentalrole, claimingto representall sectorsand interestsof the cityin relationto economicdevelopment, planning, and public serviceneeds. Its claim is as valid as thatof many formally repre- sentativebusiness-reform governments of the 1910s and 1920s or the neoprogressivecity administrations that worked the will of business coali- tionsin the decades afterWorld War II. There is no reasonto thinkthat strategicthinking proceeded any differentlyin Washingtonthan in Dal- las, Phoenix,Omaha, or othercities where nonbusinessinterests were systematicallydisregarded.'15 Washingtonas the businesscenter for the New Southwas an idea that felleasily into the practicedrhetoric of Americanboosterism. Washing- toniansphrased the city'ssouthern strategy in the familiarlanguage of inevitability.It had "greatadvantages" in the South,it was "destined"to utilizesouthern resources, it was a "natural,""proper," and "logical"centerfor southern business.16 In one view of naturaladvantages, Washing- ton was the "Gatewayto the South fromthe NorthAtlantic States" for travelersand merchandise.Southerners seeking the summerresorts of the Northand northernerslooking to winterin the South would find Washingtona naturalstopover. To capturebusiness travelers, Washing- tonwholesalers needed onlyto expandtheir stocks of goods and intercept southernstorekeepers before they reached Baltimore or New York.In a complementaryemphasis, Washington was presumablythe mostconve- nientassembly and processingpoint for the rawmaterials of the South- coal, cotton,and lumberon everylist, tobacco, iron, sulphur, and phos-

14. WashingtonBoard of Trade, Twenty-SeventhAnnual Report (1917-18), 12-13; WashingtonChamber of Commerce,First Annual Report (January 14, 1908),3; Constance M. Green, Washington:Capital City, 1879-1950 (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1963), 30-31; The Book of Washington,Sponsored by the WashingtonBoard of Trade (Washington,D.C., 1930),3, 7, 250. 15. FrederickGutheim, Worthy of theNation: The Historyof Planningfor theNational Capital (Washington,D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1977), 166-67; HaroldA. Stone, Don K. Price, and KathrynH. Stone, CityManager Governmentin Nine Cities (Chicago: Public AdministrationService, 1940); Carl Abbott,The New Urban America:Growth and Politicsin Sunbelt Cities, revised ed. (Chapel Hill: Universityof NorthCarolina Press, 1987). 16. WashingtonBoard of Trade, FifteenthAnnual Report (November 1905), 50, Nine- teenthAnnual Report (November 1909), 59; The WashingtonEnterprise 1 (August8, 1906); WashingtonPost, "ProsperousWashington," June 11, 1912, 53; WashingtonChamber of Commerce,First Annual Report (January 14, 1908), 5; The SouthernCommercial 1 (Octo- ber 15, 1906),5. 12 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN phateson one or another.Northern capital and local entrepreneurship could combineto turnthe region'snatural products into manufactured goodsand shipthem back to southerncustomers."1 Growinginterest in southernmarkets was tied to the improvementof Washington'ssouthward rail connections.J. P. Morganbuilt the South- ern Railwaysystem in the mid-1890son the foundationof the Richmond and DanvilleRailroad, locating the executive offices in New Yorkbut the operatingoffice in Washington.The Southernoperated a main line throughthe Piedmontand secondarylines to southAtlantic ports and the southernOhio Valley. The new AtlanticCoast Line and Seaboard Air Line, assembledfrom smaller companies by Richmondand Balti- more capitalists,linked Chesapeake Bay cities to the Tidewaterand Florida. 18 The SouthernRailway showed a specialinterest in promotingits head- quarterscity and northernterminus and inattracting settlers and investors intothe South. Its managersclaimed to be "notmerely a carrierof the people and productsof the South,but also a helpfulfactor in Southern development."Its Land and IndustrialDepartment published the monthly SouthernField from 1895 to 1905.It boostedsouthern progress and oppor- tunitiesin resourceproduction and manufacturing,Washington's economy, and northernVirginia as a locale forcountry estates and winter homes. "As Washingtonis the gatewayto the Southland,"said an 1898 pamphlet,"there is sentimentalas wellas businessjustification for locating herethe headquarters of this, the greatest and mostcomprehensive trans- portationcompany in the South."'19 Interestin a southernstrategy peaked during the national boom of 1905 to 1912.Washingtonians argued that their own city would rise in tandem

17. WashingtonBoard of Trade, TenthAnnual Report (November 1900), 57-58; Elev- enthAnnual Report (1901), 53; Twenty-FifthAnnual Report (1915-16), 7-8; Louis P. Shoe- maker,Manufacturing in the Districtof Columbiaand Its Influenceon the UnitedStates, Copiedfrom the Evening Star and Reprintedby theBusiness Men's Association (Washing- ton:Judd and Detweiler,1905); GeorgeH. Gall, Washington:Industrial, Commercial and CivicFeatures (Washington, D.C.: WashingtonChamber of Commerce, 1908); Washington Condensed:Five ThousandFacts for ReadyReference (Washington, D.C.: BertS. Elliott, 1909),10; Jobbers and ShippersTrade Journal August 8 and September15, 1906.Trade and manufacturingwould presumablysupport an expanded financialrole. Accordingto J. SelwynTait, Presidentof the Washingtonand SouthernBank, the city"should rapidly become to the South the bankingcenter which New Yorkis now to the countryat large" (quotedin GeorgeGall, The New Washingtonand theSouth [Washington, D.C.: Southern CommercialCongress, 1915], 43). 18. JohnF. Stover,The Railroadsof the South,1865-1900: A Studyin Finance and Control(Chapel Hill: Universityof NorthCarolina Press, 1955), 233-53, 263-73; Burke Davis, The SouthernRailway: Road of the Innovators(Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press, 1985), 38, 66; Howard D. Dozier, A Historyof the AtlanticCoast Line Railroad(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1920). 19. SouthernRailway Company, Seventeenth Annual Report (1910-11), 8; FairfaxHarri- son, The Southand theSouthern Railway: The Statementof a Recordand of an Ambition: An Addressbefore the VirginiaBankers Association (Washington, 1916), 15; The Southern Field 9 (May 1904),6, (Sept. 1904),8; FrankPresbrey, The Southland(Washington, D.C.: SouthernRailway Co., 1898). URBAN ECONOMIC PLANNING * 13 withthe "progressof the rejuvenatedSouth."20 Newspapers and booster literaturecited Washington wholesale, business service, and construction firmswhose tradeextended as faras Tennessee and Alabama.The Wash- ingtonStar chartereda "trade-gettingtrain" that hauled a contingentof businessmenand exhibitcars to Lynchburg,Roanoke, Raleigh, and their neighbors.The result,claimed one boosterin 1906,was to call intoplay "a newpublic opinion which has resultedin thecry for 'Greater Washington' that has not only thrilledthe District of Columbia, but the whole South."21 The alternativevision of Washington as a second Parislacked the sup- portingtradition of urban imperialism. Washington's function as thefederal city-the presumablyneutral seat ofgovernment-was set by consti- tution,law, and custom.The laternineteenth century, however, brought increasinginterest in buildingon the federalrole to become a true national city-a multi-facetedcapital that attractednational institutions, privatedecision centers, public attention,and patrioticpride. Alexander Anderson's 1897 volume on Greater Washington:The Nation's City Viewedfrom a MaterialStandpoint, for example, argued that Washington was destinedto be a "paradisefor authors" and the"great University City of America"because ofaccess to the Libraryof Congress and the federal science establishment.It was alreadyheadquarters for a numberof nationalorganizations interested in "the promotionof greatand important public movements"and a focalpoint for national conventions and travel. In Anderson'sview, it could aspireto be the Romeof America in thearts, the Berlinof America in educationaladvantages, and the Parisof America as a cityof beauty and pleasure.22 Washingtonboosters found it easy to assertthat their city was special. ThomasPresbrey, writing for the SouthernRailway, found its onlypeers in the majorcapitals of Europe. Newspapereditor Theodore Noyes, in a presidentialreport to the Boardof Trade, claimedthat Washington could expectto take its growthautomatically from national expansion, for "the greaterthe currentof nationallife, the largerand strongerthe heart." Real estatedeveloper Arthur Randle agreed thatnational capitals always grewinto their country's greatest cities.23 It was harderto figureout the specificsof a nationalstrategy. Although one writerclaimed thatWashington's equal convenienceto Northand

20. WashingtonEnterprise, September 8, 1906;The SouthernCommercial 1 (October1, 1906); WashingtonBoard ofTrade, FifteenthAnnual Report (November 1905), 50. 21. WashingtonPost, "Prosperous Washington," 55. 22. AlexanderAnderson, Greater Washington: The Nation'sCity Viewed from a Mate- rial Standpoint(Washington, D.C.: Hartmanand Chadwick,Printers, 1897). 23. Presbrey,Southland; Theodore W. Noyes, in WashingtonBoard of Trade, Eighth Annual Report(November 1898), 27-28; ArthurE. Randle, "The Future of Washington [1899],"in Ulmo S. Randle,Reminiscences (Washington, D.C.: Juddand Detweiler,1924). These assertionsof Washington's national role followedclosely on the publicationof James Bryce'sThe AmericanCommonwealth (1893), whichargued that the UnitedStates had no truecapital and dismissedWashington in twoparagraphs. 14 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

Southwould make it an educationalcenter, geographical reasoning of- feredlimited insight into a role thatrequired the accretionof private activitiesthat might benefit from proximity to the federalgovernment.24 Some of these activitiesdepended on external"investors" such as the bishopswho locatedthe CatholicUniversity of Americain 1889 or the Methodistswho foundedAmerican University in 1898. The expansionof officesof variousassociations and organizationslikewise depended on externaldecisions. Nationalconvention business offered one of the fewspecific areas for local promotion.As earlyas 1903, the Board ofTrade reportedthat the annualnumber of major gatherings had doubledin a decade. After1908, the new Chamberof Commercedefined conventions as "greatcommer- cial resources"and tookthe lead in conventionrecruitment, in coopera- tionwith the Board ofTrade and the RetailMerchants Association. The imageof Washingtonas a second Pariswas a directpromotional tool for the conventiontrade.2 Like the southernstrategy, attention to conven- tionsand to privatetourism (as indicatedby the volumeof Washington tourbooksand illustratedguides published in theearly 1900s) was tiedto the completionof the Americanrailroad system. Improving service and fallingpassenger fares were greatlyfacilitating middle-class travel, open- inga new age ofplanned excursions, national expositions, and civicfesti- vals thatcatered to school teachers,families, and smallbusinessmen.26 Washingtonrolled out itssouthern hospitality for conventioneers, served as a jumpingoff point for southern resorts, and promotedthe Jamestown Expositionin 1907.27 The majorcountercurrent to theearly-twentieth-century development strategieswas a half-spokenconcern about spoiling the amenities of Wash- ingtonas a ceremonialand residentialcenter with dirty, ugly factories. The Boardof Trade periodically argued that the proper choice of manufac- turingcategories and sitescould ensureindustrial growth without detri- mentaleffects.2 One presumabletarget of thesereassurances was Con- gressmenwho wantedto keep the city'swhite palaces freefrom soot and its streetsfree from industrial workers. Another target was the military retireesand the "menof wealth or politicalprominence" who had estab-

24. WashingtonPost, "Prosperous Washington," 21. 25. WashingtonBoard of Trade, ThirteenthAnnual Report (1903), 22, Twenty-Second AnnualReport (November 1912), 8; Anderson,Greater Washington, 62; WashingtonCham- ber ofCommerce, Annual Report (January 14, 1919),5. 26. Earl Pomeroy,In Searchof the Golden West: The Touristin WesternAmerica (New York:Alfred A. Knopf,1957); John Jakle, The Tourist:Travel in TwentiethCentury North America(Lincoln: Universityof NebraskaPress, 1985). There were nine majornational/ internationalexpositions in the UnitedStates from 1897 through 1915. 27. SouthernCommercial 1 (December 15, 1906); W. Y. Barnet,"Washington Enter- tainsBankers," The Bankingand MercantileWorld 7 (November-December1905), 206. 28. WashingtonBoard of Trade, EighthAnnual Report (1898), 46-47, Tenth Annual Report(1900), 58-59; Green,Washington: Capital City,174. URBAN ECONOMIC PLANNING * 15 lished Washingtonhomes withoutany interestin the city'seconomic development.29 By and large,Washington's federal supervisors ignored the concernsof local economicgrowth. From the timeof the McMillanCommission and plan in the earlyyears of the century,Congress centered its attentionon thecreation and embellishmentof what Frederick Gutheim has called the "publiccity" of federal offices and nationalinstitutions. Physical develop- mentideas and plansevolved through the work of the Commission on Fine Arts(1910), the NationalCapital Park Commission(1924), the National Capital Park and PlanningCommission (1926), and the NationalCapital RegionalPlanning Commission (1952). In turn,a limitedset of federal decisionmakersresponded to a focusedplanning agenda withthe invest- mentsthat shaped Washington'sparks, monuments, and publicspaces.30 Washington'sblack community also sat out the local economicdebate. The city'ssubstantial black elite was essentiallynoncommercial in employment and interests.Washington listings in nationalblack Who's Who volumesfor 1915, 1928, and 1950 confirmthe generalimpression of a culturedcommunity of universityfaculty, high schoolteachers, govern- mentworkers, lawyers, and clergy.Three-quarters of the personslisted each yearworked in education,the arts,or the learnedprofessions. The otherquarter consisted of an increasingproportion of civil servants and a decreasingproportion of small businessmen.31The segregationof the WashingtonBoard ofTrade earlyin the twentiethcentury excluded sev- eral blacks of significanteconomic standing,such as hotel owner and buildingcontractor James T. Wormley,from direct participation in the economicdialogue. The Districtof Columbia Chamber of Commerce, which emerged as the major black business organization,represented smallbusiness operators such as insuranceagents, undertakers, dry clean- ers, beauticians,realtors, and otherswith purely local marketinterests.32 By implication,the blackelite saw itsfuture within the "Paris" strategy of a nationalcultural center. The centerpiecewas Howard University,

29. Shoemaker,Manufacturing in the Districtof Columbia; CarrollD. Wright,"The Economic Developmentof Washington,"Proceedings of the WashingtonAcademy of Sci- ences 1 (December 1899), 180-82; JulianStreet, "Wartime Washington," Saturday Evening Post 190 (March2, 1918), 3. 30. JohnReps, MonumentalWashington: The Planningand Developmentof the Capital Center(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); Frederick Gutheim, The FederalCity: Plans and Realities (Washington,D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1976); Gutheim, Worthyof theNation. 31. FrankLincoln Mather,ed., Who's Who of the Colored Race: GeneralBiographical Dictionaryof Men and Womenof African Descent (Chicago, 1915); ThomasYesner, Who's Who in ColoredAmerica: 1928-29 (Brooklyn:Who's Who in ColoredAmerica Corporation, 1928); JamesG. Flemingand ChristianE. Burckel,Who's Who in ColoredAmerica, 1950 (Yonkers-on-Hudson,NY: ChristianBurckel and Associates,1950). 32. ConstanceM. Green, The SecretCity: A Historyof Race Relationsin the Nation's Capital (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1967), 133, 162-63; HaynesJohnson, Dusk at theMountain (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1963),217-18. 16 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

conceivedas a "nationalNegro university" and proudlypromoted as "the Capstoneof Negro Education." The presenceof the Howard faculty made Washingtona significantcenter of literary and artisticwork into the mid- 1920s.Washington's national role also attractedthe headquarters of schol- arlyorganizations such as the AmericanNegro Academy (1897) and the Associationfor the Studyof Negro Life and History(1915). Withinthe obviouspriorities of Washington'sblack leadership, however, the city's nationalrole was takenas a valuableprecondition to institutional develop- mentrather than as a goal in itself.

StrategicImages in ContemporaryWashington

Washington'sturn-of-the-century strategies coexisted for the next forty yearsas assumptionsthat needed onlyoccasional elaboration. The Wash- ingtonChamber of Commerce (until merger into the Board of Trade 1934) and theBoard of Trade itself continued to pushthe vision of a nationalcity withthe promotionof conventions, tourism, and air travel.Interest in a federallyfinanced National Cultural Center or NationalTheater (growing graduallyfrom the 1930sand culminatingin theKennedy Center) marked one ofthe few instances of a directfederal role in localeconomic development.34The doctrineof southern resources was also restatedin industrial surveysand economicplanning documents. Washington as the portalto the SouthAtlantic states remained a standardtheme into the 1950s,when the Boardof Trade's economic research department mapped a hinterland thatextended only 100 miles to the northbut 400 miles southward.35 Atlantanow appeared moreoften than Richmond as Washington'schief competitorand comparator,but the southwardtilt remained.36

33. Ronald M. Johnson,'Those Who Stayed:Washington Black Writers of the 1920s," Recordsof the ColumbiaHistorical Society 50 (1980),484-99; LetitiaW. Brownand Elsie M. Lewis, Washingtonin theNew Era, 1870-1970(Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrint- ingOffice, 1972), 23-28; RayfordW. Logan,Howard University:The FirstHundred Years, 1867-1967(New York:New YorkUniversity Press, 1969). 34. IndustrialSurvey of the WashingtonMetropolitan Area (Washington:Joint Indus- trialCouncil, 1928); WashingtonChamber of Commerce,Greater Washington [monthly magazine],1920-33; Book of Washington;Washington Board of Trade, President's Annual Reportfor 1936-37, for 1950-51, in Boardof Trade Papers,George Washington University Library;Roger Meersman, 'The JohnF. KennedyCenter for the PerformingArts: From Dream to Reality,"Records of the Columbia Historical Society 50 (1980),535-88. 35. WashingtonBoard of Trade, It's a Capital Idea (First-Fiftheditions, 1955-59); HeadquartersUSA . .. theStory of Profit and Prestigeon thePotomac: An Area Surveyby IndustrialDevelopment and ManufacturersRecord, reprintedfrom Industrial Develop- ment,February 1959, 18-39. 36. For earlyand latercitations of comparators, see WashingtonBoard of Trade, Twelfth AnnualReport (1902), 10; The SouthernCommercial 1 (October1, 1906),9, 16; WilliamB. Wrench,Executive Director, Fairfax County Economic and IndustrialDevelopment Com- mittee,in WashingtonMetropolitan Area EconomicDevelopment: Hearings before the Joint Committeeon WashingtonMetropolitan Problems, July 8-10, 1958,85th Cong., 2d sess., 64; "MarketingConcept forthe Baltimore/WashingtonCommon Market," June 1976, in Boardof Trade Papers,George Washington University. URBAN ECONOMIC PLANNING * 17

It is likelythat Washingtonians gave less attentionthan previously to local economicdevelopment issues because so manyother changes were in process.The Depression,New Deal, and wartransformed Washington after1930. Federal civilianemployment jumped from62,000 in 1930 to 230,000 in 1950. Metropolitanpopulation in the same yearsgrew from 621,000 to 1,464,000.37Local traditionremembers a painfulend to southern gentilityin the face of hordes of new bureaucratsand professionals fromYankee cities and Yankee universities.Mississippian John Stennis, forone, recalled the postwarerosion of "southernattitudes in the social realm-neighborliness,friendliness, conviviality." Business proprietors began in the 1940s to incorporate"Atlantic," "'mid-states" and otherneu- tralterms in their name in to "southern"or company preference "dixie.'"38 Simultaneouswith these changes in metropolitanWashington was a changein the communityof discourse on economicstrategy. To the businessmenand journalistswho dominateddebate fromthe 1880s to the 1940swere added academicallytrained development specialists acting as staffor consultantsto governmentagencies and businessorganizations. Discussionof naturaladvantages using the spatiallybased rhetoricof the nineteenthcentury began to give place to the analysisof industrial advan- tagesusing the general categories of modern economics. Instead of sweep- ingperorations on the possibilitiesof commercial empire, the new professional reportsoffered technically phrased employmentprojections and forecastspresented through a wealthof catchybar graphs,trend charts, and othervisual substitutes for the apt phrase."3 One resultof the changingapproach and rhetoricwas to erode the geographicalorientation of the "southern"strategy. A new professional developmentstaff helped the Board of Trade redefineits goals as the attractionof nationalorganizations and businessheadquarters, wholesal- ing, and regionalbusiness offices.The firstpoint recycledthe national strategy.The two latterpoints reworked the historicsouthern strategy withoutregional reference. Widely used consultingreports by the Coun- cil forEconomic and IndustrialResearch and by Hamer and Associates furtherchanged the termsof discussionby treatinglocal and regional demand formanufacturing and wholesalingwithout direct reference to the risingSouth as the targetedmarket.40

37. PostwarPlanning Committee, Washington Board of Trade, People,Jobs, Homes: MetropolitanWashington (1946); MetropolitanWashington Council of Governments,An EconomicProfile of theWashington Region (Washington, D.C., 1980),52. 38. Quoted in Howard Means, "The Northernizationof Washington," Washingtonian 13 (August1978), 82. Also see Gore Vidal, Washington,D.C. (Boston:Little Brown,1967), 251. 39. For an exampleof the new style,see thePolicies Plan for theYear 2000: The Nation's Capital (Washington,D.C., NationalCapital PlanningCommission and NationalCapital RegionalPlanning Council, 1961). 40. MetropolitanWashington Board of Trade, "Summaryof Activities,1954-1970," in Board ofTrade Papers, George WashingtonUniversity; Council for Economic and Industry Research,Inc., EconomicBase Surveyfor theGeneral Development Plan, NationalCapital 18 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

Successas a nationalcenter since the 1960shas also feda newand grandervision of Washington as an internationalcenter. Explosive metro- politangrowth, especially in the 1960s and 1980s, has been heavily based on "nationalcapital functions." Washington has become a centerfor nationalinstitutions and businessactivity, including federal scientific and culturalinstitutions, lobbyists, and tradeorganizations ("AAA" in the Washingtonparlance, meaning attorneys, associations, and accountants). A handfulof corporate headquarters have begun to relocatefrom north- easternindustrial cities.41 On the basisof thisincreasingly prominent nationalrole, Washington business leaders such as developerOliver Carr andBoard of Trade executive John Tydings began to arguein the1970s thatWashington was growing into an internationalbusiness city. By the 1980s,civic organizations have found it reasonable to assert that Washing- tonwas an internationalpolitical and financialcoordinating center or a "worldcenter of research and information."The WashingtonPost sup- portedthe new world-city image with stories on thecity's cosmopolitan character-foreignreal estate investment, foreign residents, and even the numberof Washingtonians holding passports (twice the proportion held inDetroit or Dallas).42 Thesame factors that worked to makeWashington a national business and informationcenter presumably worked as wellon theinternational scale.The Board of Trade's 1987 promotional brochure argued that Wash- ingtonis theplace to be forcompanies engaged in worldmarkets. It houseskey international financial institutions inthe World Bank, Interna- tionalMonetary Fund, and Import-Export Bank and offers crucial access toinformation. "For American firms," argue the boosters, "Greater Wash- ingtonoffers a community ofworldwide investment and trade organiza- tionswhich create an entreeto thefar corners of the earth. For interna-

Region(1956); Hamer and CompanyAssociates, "Economic Development in the Washing- tonArea," staff study for the Joint Congressional Committee on WashingtonArea Problems (1958). 41. See, forexample, Gail GarfieldSchwartz, Technology Oriented Firms in the Washing- ton Area (Washington,D.C., GreaterWashington Research Center, 1984); Edward J. Malecki,"Science and Technologyin theAmerican Metropolitan System," in StanleyBrunn and JamesO. Wheeler,eds., TheAmerican Metropolitan System: Present and Future(New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1980); WashingtonStar, November26, 1974; "Trade Groups Flockto Washington,"Washington Post, Feb. 14, 1987;"Area Has 50 ofNation's 1000 Most ValuableCompanies," Washington Post, April 20, 1987. 42. MetropolitanWashington Council of Governments, Economic Profile, 1-4; OliverT. Carr,transcript of remarks at inaugurationof Mayor Marion Berry, Jan. 3, 1978,and John R. Tydings,statement to MetropolitanWashington Savings and Loan League, May 27, 1978, bothin Boardof Trade Papers,George Washington University; Atlee Shidler, "Local Com- munityand NationalGovernment," in Shidler,ed., GreaterWashington in 1980(Washing- ton: GreaterWashington Research Center, 1980), 13-14; Governmentof the Districtof Columbia,Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital (Washington,D.C., 1983), 81; WashingtonPost, Retail Memo and Sales Planner22 (February1984); "Washington:The New InternationalCity," Washington Post, February 3, 1980. URBAN ECONOMIC PLANNING * 19 tionalfirms, Washington offers the U. S. base of operationsclose to the governmentregulatory agencies which oversee import/exporttrade."43 The resultis now the denial thatWashington has any NorthAmerican rivalsexcept New Yorkand possiblyLos Angeles. "The mostimportant cityin the world"is now a commonphrase around town.44

Conclusion

Because Washingtonis a special case amongAmerican cities, we need to takecare in lookingfor generalizations to help thepresent generation of economicplanners and urbanstrategists understand more fully the characterof theirtask. As a citywithout the normalinstitutions of local self- governmentuntil 1974, Washingtonmay have exaggeratedthe importance of privateinstitutions in the processof strategicanalysis. In other citiesas well, however,the privatesector has oftentaken the lead with local governmentfollowing ideas generatedwithin the business elite. Washington'sefforts to defineappropriate incremental development on the foundationof governmentemployment are substantiallycomparable to similarefforts in citieswith previous growth based on manufacturingor regionalservices. In thiscontext, the experienceof Washington reminds current partici- pants in discussionsof economicstrategies and restructuringabout the importanceof continuityand persistence.Setting a new strategyis a gradualprocess in whichideas slowlycoalesce arounda compellingset of images and ideas. It took nearlya generationfor the "southern"and "nationalcity" strategies to develop into accepted visionsof the city's future.The idea of Washingtonas a multi-purposeinternational center emergedover a quartercentury between 1955 and 1980. The corollaryof slow incubationhas been long life. Once accepted as realisticand appropriate,development strategies were embeddeddeeply in local understanding.The southernstrategy lasted formore than sixty yearsin publicdiscourse, and the city'sretail and servicemarkets still tilt south.The idea ofa nationalcity also remainsvery much a partof Wash- ington'seconomic planning. There is no reasonto thinkthat the visionof Washingtonas "the most importantcity in the world"will have any shorterlife. Much ofthis inertia derives from the powerof compelling self-images.

43. WashingtonBoard ofTrade News 41 (December 1986), 10-11A; WashingtonBoard ofTrade, A Capital Link (Washington,D.C., 1987),6. 44. HaynesJohnson, "The Capital of Success," The WashingtonPost Magazine,Feb. 2, 1986,44. Interviewsby authorwith Jack Limpert (Washingtonian magazine), April 9, 1987, WilliamRegardie (Regardie's magazine), March 13, 1987, JoelGarreau (Washington Post), March25, 1987. 20 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

Well-acceptedstrategies link the future of a cityto thebroader realization of regionalor nationalpossibilities. It's tellingthat it is the idea of an internationalcity that has excitedWashingtonians during the 1980srather thansome of the alternativessuch as "informationcenter" or "research and developmentcenter" that are phrasedin moretechnical and perhaps more precise terms."International city" is an idea thatthe interested publiccan visualizein thesame way that earlier generations could picture rolesas a secondNew Yorkor Paris. Economic redefinitionsin Washingtonhave not been quick fixesfor immediatecrises. Structural change occurs over decades rather than years. For a recentexample, the New Englandmiracle of the 1980s is based on a generationof growth in theregional electronics industry and twogenera- tionsof disinvestment, outmigration, obsolescing of labor skills, and loss of individualand corporatecapital. Change in Washingtonhas operatedin a similartime frame. New strategiesresponded to long-runchanges in the cityand its environment.Both the 1890s and the 1970s, forexample, broughtmajor improvements in externaltransportation-better rail con- nectionsto the South and improvementsin the nationalrail passenger systemin thefirst case, increasesin nationaland internationalair travel in thesecond. Strategic redefinition has also followed permanent increases in localfederal employment. The ideas of1890-1920 reflected basic changes in thecharacter of Washington dating from the 1860s and 1870s.New ideas in the 1960s and 1970s followedanother era offundamental change be- tween1930 and 1950. The experiencein Washingtonand elsewheresuggests that privately based organizationsmay be particularlywell positionedto fosterthe slow emergenceof economicconsensus. 45 The repetitiveformulation of economicstrategies has limitedappeal forelected officials who need visible accomplishmentsevery two or fouryears. Politicalefforts at economic goal-setting,usually under the rubricof long-range planning, often land on thetop shelf when one mayoror governorreplaces another. Metropoli- tan newspapers,in contrast,have historicallyand currentlyassumed re- sponsibilityfor proposing, analyzing, and promotingviews of feasible economicfutures. The WashingtonStar earlyin thiscentury and the WashingtonPost in recentdecades are goodexamples. Business organiza- tionssuch as theWashington Board of Trade have the same sort of staying power.To theextent that their interests extend to conceptualplanning as

45. Thereare parallelsin therole of private organizations in theevolution of comprehensive cityand regionalland use and facilityplanning. An obviousexample is thework of the CommercialClub of Chicago,the ChicagoCity Club, and the ChicagoRegional Planning Associationbetween 1905 and 1940. Otherexamples are the PittsburghRegional Planning Associationor the RegionalPlan Associationof New York,which has supportedsystematic regionaldevelopment planning since the 1920s. Examplesof privately based organizations thathave engagedin comprehensiveeconomic development planning and implementation over protractedperiods might include the AlleghenyConference on CommunityDevelop- mentand the San FranciscoBay Area Council. URBAN ECONOMIC PLANNING * 21 well as to specifictasks of lobbyingand promotion,they can contribute significantlyto workingnew ideas intocoherent wholes.46

46. Local governmentmay complement and enrichthe economicplanning process in its potentialopenness to issues of equity. Whetherin the 1880s or 1980s, the local market businessmenand real estate holderswho have dominatedthe definitionof development strategiesin Washingtonhave foundit naturalto assume a "risingtide" theoryin which everyonegains by increasesin the overalllevel of economicactivity. Since the adventof home rule in 1974, however,the Governmentof the Districtof Columbiahas introduced whatcan be characterizedas a "communitydevelopment" agenda intoeconomic planning. The city'sefforts have centeredon capturinga highshare of metropolitanjob growthand investment,with expected impacts on minoritybusinesses, unemployment levels, and tax revenues.This approachassumes an aggregatelevel ofeconomic activity in themetropolitan area and deals withthe distribution of that activity by raceand place. The economicdevelop- mentcomponents of documentssuch as the ComprehensivePlan for the Nation'sCapital, pp. 2, 24-5, 75-80, and DowntownDC: Recommendationsfor the DowntownPlan (1982), pp. 105-8, largelytake the growthof the nationaland internationalcity as a givenfor their discussionsof such issues as neighborhoodbusiness revitalization,convention center job spinoffs,and the facilitationof downtown real estateprojects.