Maneuvering Global Spaces by Marketing Local Places: The Process and Practice of Downtown Revitalization in Columbus, Ohio
THESIS
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Jay Knox, B.A.
Graduate Program in Geography
The Ohio State University
2011
Master's Examination Committee:
Daniel Sui, Advisor
Edward Malecki
Jennifer Evans-Cowley
Copyrighted by
Jay Knox
2011
Abstract
Due to changing local, national and global economies, the process and practice of downtown revitalization in many Midwestern cities have undergone significant changes over the last several decades. The form and function of downtown are no longer a strictly local issue, but have socio- economic processes across geographical scales. This thesis provides a comprehensive review of the practice of downtown revitalization in Columbus, Ohio paying particular attention to how the geographic concepts of ―space‖ and ―place‖ have been used in the construction of modern downtown areas. While the early practice of downtown revitalization was concerned with the redevelopment of obsolete and abandoned local downtown areas, more recent revitalization initiatives by Midwestern cities are focused on maneuvering global spaces by marketing local places. Recognizing the increasing spatial mobility of human and business capital across the globe, cities seek to attract, capture, and retain these elusive flows in their cities. In order to accomplish this task cities have turned to increasingly innovative and entrepreneurial planning to establish downtowns that are competitive ―global places.‖ Through the implementation of carefully planned downtown revitalization strategies and aggressive place marketing over the last two decades, the Columbus downtown has been transformed into a mixed-use environment. Unlike early downtown renewal projects aimed at functionality and urban design (every city wanted a convention center, waterfront park, indoor mall, and sports arena) the new global competitive environment requires cities to set themselves apart, creating ―sticky‖ places in downtown. This research shows that the importance of ―place‖ in a world which mobile capital increasingly treats as ―place-less‖ has only been enhanced as cities seek to distinguish themselves in the urban hierarchy. The construction and marketing of local places for global consumption in many cities usually starts with downtown. In an effort to create a globally competitive city, growth coalitions not only must concern themselves with local amenities, such as art, culture, entertainment, and social media, but must have an iconic national and global image.
Keywords: space, place, downtown revitalization, Columbus, globalization.
ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to the following persons who have provided their time and guidance during the completion of my thesis:
To my advisor, Dr. Daniel Sui, for his continued guidance, support, and feedback over the past two years, and for his mentoring and genuine care for both my present and future academic and professional career.
To my co-advisor, Dr. Ed Malecki, for helping guide my research over the course of my graduate career. I am especially grateful for his knowledge and insights on my research topic, his timely feedback and constructive comments on early drafts of this thesis, and his advice, both academic and professional.
To my co-advisor, Dr. Jennifer Evans-Cowley, for graciously serving on my committee, her sincere suggestions throughout the writing process, and her added insights and perspectives on my research topic.
To Dr. Olga Medvedkov, for introducing me to fields of Urban Geography and GIS, and for her continued support and guidance since my first Geography class as an undergraduate.
To Chris Hermann, Dr. Bill LaFayette, and Matthew McCollister for taking the time to share their insight and knowledge on the Columbus downtown with me.
To all OSU Department of Geography faculty, staff, and students for making the last two years such an enjoyable experience.
Finally and most especially to my Mom and Dad for their love, support, and encouragement throughout my life. iii
Vita
2005 ...... St. Charles Preparatory School
2009 ...... B.A. Wittenberg University
2009 to present ...... Graduate Research Assistant, Department of
Geography, The Ohio State University
Fields of Study
Major Field: Geography
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... ii
Acknowledgments...... iii
Vita ...... iv
Fields of Study ...... iv
Table of Contents ...... v
List of Tables ...... viii
List of Figures ...... x
Chapter 1: Introduction: Why Downtown and Why Now? ...... 1
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework and Literature Review ...... 5
2.1 Downtown in Slippery Space ...... 9
2.1.1 Historical Space Transformations ...... 9
The Beginnings of the Modern Global City ...... 10
2.1.2 Slippery Space and the Modern Global City ...... 12
2.1.3 The Implications of Slippery Space...... 13
2.2 Sticky Places in Downtown...... 15
v
2.2.1 Historical Downtown Place Transformations...... 15
2.2.2 Sticky Places and the Modern Global City ...... 17
2.2.3 The Implications of Sticky Places in Downtown ...... 26
Chapter 3: Methods and Data ...... 34
3.1 Maneuvering Slippery Space Methods ...... 37
3.2 Sticky Places in Downtown Columbus Methods ...... 39
3.3 Qualitative Methods ...... 41
3.4 Quantitative Methods ...... 44
Chapter 4: Columbus Case Study ...... 48
4.1 Columbus in Slippery Space ...... 53
4.1.1 Columbus Historical Space Transformations ...... 53
4.1.2 Slippery Space and Columbus as a Modern Global City ...... 55
4.1.3 Implications of Columbus in Slippery Space ...... 70
4.2. Sticky Places in Downtown Columbus ...... 76
4.2.1 Historical Place Transformations in Downtown Columbus ...... 76
4.2.3 Columbus 2.0: The Implications of Sticky Places in Downtown ...... 114
Chapter 5: Conclusion...... 127
5.1 The Form and Function of the Modern Downtown: A Sticky Place in Slippery
Space ...... 127
vi
5.2 Downtown Columbus: Insight into Space, Place, Downtown Revitalization and
Economic Development ...... 129
5.3 The Future of Downtown Revitalization ...... 132
References ...... 136
Appendix A: Additional Tables ...... 142
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. List of Interviews Conducted ...... 42
Table 2. Major Planning Document Sources ...... 43
Table 3. Other Major Documents ...... 43
Table 4. Demographic Data Sources ...... 44
Table 5. Economic Data Sources ...... 45
Table 6. Business Data Sources ...... 46
Table 7. Assertive Data Sources ...... 47
Table 8. Percent Population Change by Decade for US Regions and Ohio ...... 49
Table 9. Columbus Population: 1950 to 2010 ...... 50
Table 10. Major Ohio Cities Population Change 2000 – 2010 ...... 51
Table 11. Columbus MSA Fortune 1000 Company Ranking ...... 59
Table 12. Columbus MSA International Companies ...... 61
Table 13. Columbus Top International Exports, 2008 ...... 70
Table 14. Columbus 2002 Strategic Plan Action Strategies ...... 90
Table 15. 2002 Columbus Downtown Strategic Plan Successes ...... 93
Table 16. Columbus Downtown Companies by Industry ...... 101
Table 17. Location Quotient Calculations for Downtown Industries ...... 102
Table 18. Largest Tapestry Segments in Downtown Columbus ...... 107
viii
Table 19. The 12 Ideas of the 2010 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan ...... 111
Table 20. Top 25 Columbus Facebook Pages - People ...... 116
Table 21. Top 25 Columbus Facebook Pages – Check -Ins ...... 117
Table 22. Major Companies in the Columbus Region ...... 142
Table 23. Columbus MSA High Output Industries ...... 144
Table 24. Columbus Downtown Tapestry Descriptions ...... 150
Table 25. Arena District and Short North Facebook Place Pages ...... 155
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1. Traditional vs. Modern Downtown ...... 21
Figure 2. The Columbus Eight County Region ...... 36
Figure 3. The Columbus Downtown Boundary ...... 37
Figure 4. Percent Population Growth by Decade from 1950 to 2010, Midwest and Ohio 50
Figure 5. Percent of Ohio Population located in the Columbus MSA ...... 51
Figure 6. Columbus Downtown Population 1950 - 2010 ...... 52
Figure 7. Columbus Region Employment by Industry ...... 57
Figure 8. Columbus Employment by Occupation...... 58
Figure 9. Columbus Fortune 1000 Company Locations ...... 60
Figure 10. State of Ohio Domestic Migration ...... 63
Figure 11. Ohio Metropolitan Area Net Migration Comparisons...... 64
Figure 12. Columbus One-Day Drive Map...... 66
Figure 13. Share of the US Population Within a 500 Mile Radius of Major Inland Ports.
...... 67
Figure 14. The Heartland and Gateway Rail Corridors ...... 68
Figure 15. Ohio Exports by Region ...... 69
Figure 16. January to May Columbus 2020! Business Development Activities ...... 75
Figure 17. June to December 2020! Development Activities ...... 75
Figure 18. Arena District Walkways, Nationwide Arena, Battelle Plaza ...... 83
x
Figure 19. Union Station Arch and McFerson Commons ...... 84
Figure 20. The Arena District Master Plan ...... 86
Figure 21. The Arena District in the Early 1990s ...... 87
Figure 22. The Arena District 2005 ...... 88
Figure 23. Primary Columbus Downtown Corridors ...... 94
Figure 24. North Market and The High Street Bridge Cap in the Short North ...... 96
Figure 25. Aerial View of the Columbus Commons ...... 98
Figure 26. Downtown Columbus Fortune 500 Companies ...... 103
Figure 27. The Geographic Distribution of Creative Sector Employment in Columbus 105
Figure 28. 2010 Downtown Strategic Plan Ideas ...... 112
Figure 29. Columbus Facebook Page Location Map ...... 118
Figure 30. Columbus Downtown Facebook Page Locations ...... 119
Figure 31. Downtown Facebook Page Locations by Number of Check-Ins...... 120
Figure 32. Arena District and Short North Facebook Page Locations ...... 121
Figure 33. Downtown Facebook Page Locations by Type ...... 122
Figure 34. Short North Arts District Facebook Page ...... 124
Figure 35. Google Maps Screenshot of Downtown Columbus ...... 125
xi
Chapter 1: Introduction: Why Downtown and Why Now?
Urban areas have long been the subjects of research across a wide-range of disciplines. In particular, the evolution of the American downtown has attracted the attention of academics, planners, and policymakers since 1920 when the US census officially declared the majority of the population to live in urban areas. Since hitting its pinnacle in the early 20th Century, the American downtown has experienced a rise, fall, and recent renewal. Due to changing national and global economies as well as numerous socio-economic and political factors, the American downtown has been in constant state of transformation over the last century. The evolution of cities and downtown areas is frequently studied from a spatial perspective. From the historical development of cities along major transportation routes to the widespread suburbanization, urban sprawl, and decentralization which has taken place in many US cities over the last several decades, the concept of space has been utilized as method for better understanding urban development and economic growth. Rapid advances in transportation, communication, and information technology have continued to change societal notions of space and place. Following the height of decentralization after WWII and the emergence of a new global economy in 1970s urban economic development strategies in general and downtown planning in particular reflected these transformations. The shifting functions of downtown can be attributed to a variety of economic, political, sociological, and technological processes; however, no matter what the circumstances, downtown has always remained a focal point of a city‘s identity. While it is generally understood today that the American downtown of many cities has experienced a ―renaissance‖ of sorts, what has not emerged is a real consensus on how to define or monitor exactly what constitutes the ―new‖ American downtown (Ford, 2003) One thing that is undeniable is that overall downtowns are generally considered less important, most notably in terms of the retail trade, office space, and industrial and warehousing activities located in central city areas. (Ford, 2003) argues that the central city should be for people, not industry, for only when downtown has suffered significant absolute losses in prime office space, high-end retailing, cultural venues, entertainment and public space, then there should be a real cause for alarm. While globalization and the increasing 1 spatial mobility of people, goods, ideas, and information have caused many to declare a decreasing importance of distance and to bemoan a loss of sense of place, the concepts of ―space‖ and ―place‖ have never been more important to cities and downtowns. With suburban sprawl hitting its peak in the mid 1970s, resulting in the decentralization of residents, jobs, retail, and services away from core city areas, by the beginning of the 1980s, the revitalization of downtown was on the agenda of many American cities. Ford (2003) describes America‘s new downtowns, writing ―In spite of seemingly homogenizing trends, big-city downtowns are really becoming more different than each other than they have at any time during the 20th century. More than ever, place matters‖ (p. 22). Nowhere in the US was downtown revitalization more important than Midwestern cities in the area appropriately named the Rust Belt. Once considered the urban economic center of North America, many Midwestern cities have suffered heavily from deindustrialization, experiencing a massive migration of industry, people, and jobs out of the region. While the early practice of revitalization was concerned with the redevelopment of obsolete and abandoned local downtown spaces, by the late 1980s, Midwestern cities have faced a new reality: globalization. The rise of a new global capitalist economy and increased spatial mobility of human and business capital has resulted in amplified competition among localities. Consequently, cities have increasingly turned toward entrepreneurial and innovative strategies to market their local downtown spaces as attractive global places. The modern practice of downtown revitalization over the last 20 years is reflected in the wide scale transformation of downtown areas in cities across the US. The city of Columbus, Ohio is no exception. Having lived in Columbus my entire life, I have witnessed the transformation of the Columbus downtown first-hand. In particular, over the last twenty years there have been significant downtown projects and investment, making the Columbus downtown today quite unrecognizable from the downtown of 1990 or even 2000. Fascinated by downtown places since childhood, the research questions formulated for this thesis have come primarily from such experiences. The city of Columbus, a city having limited urban research conducted, provides a great opportunity for a case study on modern downtown revitalization and urban economic development. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of the history, practice, and importance of downtown revitalization in the city of Columbus, Ohio, paying close attention to how the concepts of ―space‖ and ―place‖ have been used in the construction of downtown areas. The following literature and case study are meant to provide a comprehensive review of the process and practice of downtown revitalization, situated both locally and globally. Instead of 2 focusing attentively on one aspect of downtown revitalization, the data and information collected touch on a variety of broader topics related to the revitalization process. By bringing together the multiple aspects of the revitalization as it relates to the city of Columbus and its downtown, this research provides a an unique perspective to the process of downtown revitalization, a perspective which can help situate and guide further study on downtown areas. This perspective stems from the following research question: - How and why has the form and function of downtown Columbus changed over time, paying particular attention to the last 20 years? More specifically, this thesis aims to address the following research questions: 1. What specific revitalization projects have been planned and implemented over the last two decades in Columbus? Who were the actors involved? 2. What are the ―sticky‖ places in downtown Columbus? What types of business and people call these places home 3. How is Columbus linked and positioned in global economy? How has it impacted modern economic development in the city? 4. Who are the major actors in the revitalization and economic development process in Columbus? 5. Does downtown revitalization play a role in economic development for Columbus?
Ultimately, by answering these questions, this thesis will help situate the modern downtowns function in the global space of flows, showing that in order to understand modern downtown revitalization that both a local and global perspective is needed. This thesis has three main underlining objectives as related to space and place, firstly to show that the geographic concepts of ―space‖ and ―place‖ can be used to understand the process and practice of downtown revitalization. These concepts have implications across spatial scales from the local to the global and downtown must necessarily be studied as such. Secondly, a new type of geographic space, cyberspace, and the rapid advancement of social media and information communication technology are providing new ways to understand and study downtown places. Not only are these types of technologies facilitating the interactions of people within downtown places, but they are providing a wealth of user-generated content that was previously unavailable. Finally, these objectives will be shown through the case study of Columbus, Ohio, a city whose downtown has experienced a wide scale downtown transformation over the last two decades, a transformation complimented by the recent launching of Columbus 2020!, a major economic development initiative among the most comprehensive in the nation. The following chapters are organized as 3 follows: First, attention will be given to geographic history of the terms ―space‖ and ―place‖, exploring theoretical meanings and setting the context for which the terms will be used in this paper. Within the context of ―space‖ and ―place,‖ influential literature will be explored, setting the geographical and historical context for modern downtown revitalization. Chapter 3 will outline the primary data and methods used, leading into a case study of Columbus, Ohio, in Chapter 4. Finally, Chapter 5 will summarize findings and provide some critical questions of thought for the future.
4
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
Space and Place: A Geographical Perspective While studying urban development from a spatial perspective is argued to be as old as the city itself, the use of spatial concepts is no less important today than it was in the past. While the centrality of space and place has always been taken for granted in geography (Berry, 1964; Relph, 1976;Tuan, 1977;Kern, 1983; Sheppard, 2002; Cresswell, 2004; Warf, 2008), largely a result of the space-time compression resulting from rapid revolution of information and communication technology, the analysis of space and place has become an increasingly pivotal component of social science over the past two decades, with space providing a firm framework for the integration of different social processes, from advanced spatial technologies and quantitative methods to government sponsored placed-based initiatives meant to address human well-being and changing environments (Goodchild et al., 2000; Goodchild & Janelle, 2004). Involving dynamic social processes across both time and space, research on urban areas in general and downtowns in particular can benefit greatly from being examined from such spatial perspectives, both physical and conceptual. Put simply, geography provides a unique way about thinking and reasoning about the world and the interactions between its places and inhabitants. According to Eliot (2000) ―knowledge of space is phenomenal, knowledge about spaces is intellectual‖ (p. 2). A spatial perspective is not just about observing the spatial arrangement and interactions of social processes, but taking it one step further and extracting knowledge by recognizing the relationship of these processes across space. In his presidential address on ―The Nature of Geographic Knowledge‖, Golledge (2002) argues that ―In the past decade, this revival of integrated approaches in geography has been stimulated in part by the emergence of global communities and global domains that required integrations of knowledge about place, culture, interactions, economics, resources, and natural environment characteristics,‖ all of which certainly play a role in urban economic development (p. 3). It seems that in a world which mobile human and business capital and information increasingly treat as place-less, understanding and isolating the place-specific nature of all things in real, imagined, or virtual worlds only becomes more is paramount (Golledge, 2002, p. 7). This is precisely what cities and regions are trying to do today,
5 identify what makes their place unique and then selling these assets to successfully maneuver global spaces. The concepts of space and place have historically been a popular topic across all breadths of geographic and academic literature; however, the terms do not lend themselves to easy definition. In Berry‘s (1964) work New Approaches to the Geography of the United States, Berry describes geography studies and the spatial perspective as ―the organization of phenomena over space, or the integration of diverse phenomena in place‖ (p. 4). But what exactly do space and place mean? While the concepts of space and place are widely-used and critical to the geographical perspective, in a sense, the meaning of ―space‖ and ―place‖ is both simple and complicated (Agnew, 2011). In fact, the words themselves are often used interchangeably with one another in everyday usage. Spaces and places are all around us, we traverse them and experience them everywhere, and every day. As wide-spread economic and technological changes occurred in the late 19th and 20th century vastly changing the notions of the space and time of everyday life, a more rigorous conceptual understanding of these terms was explored in depth in literature, most prominently during the 1970s and early 1980s. At the surface, there are some distinctions to be made between the meanings of space and place. Space is often viewed as a more abstract concept than place; spaces evoke the sense of being elusive or distant in nature, taking the form of processes and movements which occur across geographical scales. In contrast, places are often seen as being local and concrete phenomena. Places are often characterized by physical locations on earth‘s surface which are personal and meaningful. There is a vast literature on space and place, representing great differences in opinion, the most common of which around the argument of which is more important, space or place. While stances have been taken on both sides, the most favorable opinion argues that space and place are not separate, but mutually constituted (Wainright & Barnes, 2009). Relph (1976) writes that space provides the context for places. Building upon this idea, in his book, Space and Place: The Perception of Experience, Tuan (1977) characterizes space as movement and place as pauses, for each pause in movement makes it possible for location to be transformed into place. According to Tuan (1977) the ideas of ―space‖ and ―place‖ require each other for definition, for ―from the security and stability of place we are aware of the openness, freedom, and threat of space, and vice versa (p.6). Using this same logic, Cresswell (2004) refers to places as spaces that have been made meaningful, writing:
6
Space, then, has been seen in distinction to place as a realm without meaning – as a ‗fact of life‘ which, like time produces the basic co-ordinates of human life. When humans invest meaning in a portion of space and then become attached to it in some way it becomes a place.‖ (p. 10)
Agnew (1987) suggests there are three aspects to place as a ―meaningful location‖: 1. Location 2. Locale and 3. Sense of place. First and foremost, in everyday language a place refers to a location. Within the physical location of a place there exists the material setting for social relations or the actual shape of the place within which people conduct their lives as individuals, a locale. Finally, sense of place refers to the subjective and emotional attachment people have to a place. Thus, a place is not just a thing in the world, but a way of seeing, knowing, and understanding the world. Accordingly, the designation of places is often given to something at a small scale, most often physical locations such as neighborhoods, villages, towns and cities; however, it has been commonplace in postmodern western societies in the 21st century to bemoan a loss of sense of place as the forces of globalization have eroded local cultures and produced homogenous global spaces (Cresswell, 2004). While the validity of this statement continues to be intensely debated, nonetheless, due to rapid advancements in internet and communication technology, the concepts of space and place remain more relevant than ever in understanding urban processes. Kotkin (2000) argues that the digital revolution has resulted in a new geography in which information technology continues to reshape the geographic drives of American places, for virtually any kind of place can be a player in the information age if it has the right characteristics. As a result, the hierarchy of place is once again being re-ordered, cities across the country plunge into the hard work of re-inventing themselves. Cities are having to adapt to restructuring and globalization trends with a range of policy choices previously unanticipated; ―Rather than an end of geography, we are facing a transformative era in which we need to redefine the links among local, national, and global economies‖ (Clark and Gaile, 1998, p. 4). In short, place matters more than ever before. In fact, the digital economy has had a tendency to favor locating its activity closer to the urban core, for it is tied to closely to creativity and subjective skills more suited to the natural advantages of dense urban areas (Kotkin, 2000). As discussed in the next chapter, this has resulted in the creation of new cyberspaces within downtown places, places whose stickyness is being enhanced through social media and information technology. Building upon the above mentioned framework for the concepts of space and place, the following chapters will use these concepts to help better understand the practice of modern downtown revitalization in Midwestern cities.
7
The modern downtown has a role across spatial scales, from the local to the global. To help construct this argument, cities and downtowns in particular are considered ―places‖, and they and the region they are situated are connected by ―spaces‖ – highways of information, people, materials, ideas, and capital which flow across the globe and which situate themselves in local places (cities and downtowns). Spaces and places are where downtown revitalization and economic development happens, but new spaces and places are also created through downtown revitalization and modern economic development. Thus, these terms can provide an important insight as both a context and construct of the revitalization process. In her influential work Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts, Markusen (1996) provides a framework for this realization, noting that as advances and transportation and information obliterate distance, cities and regions face a tougher time anchoring income generating activities within their boundaries. According to Markusen (1996), production space in advanced capitalist countries became increasingly ―slippery‖ due to accelerated world market integration in the mid- to late 20th century and new markets of competition in lower-cost regions. Driven by the belief that there was no other option, localities aggressively pursued ways to improve their ―local business climate‖ in order to remain ―sticky‖ places in ―slippery‖ space (p. 294). While Markusen uses a typology of industrial districts to explain why certain places manage to anchor productive activity while others do not, the ―sticky‖ place concept could certainly be applied any number of place-based economic phenomenon found in contemporary regional economies. Markusen‘s clever categorization of this concept has certainly stuck around itself as it often cited and still relevant today for describing the reality that cities and regions face in this age of globalism. Markusen (1996) writes, In reality, sticky places are complex products of multiple forces: corporate strategies, industrial structures, profit cycles, state priorities, local and national politics. Their success cannot be studied by focusing on local institutions and behaviors, because their companies (through corporate relationships, trade associations, trade, government contracts), workers (vis migration and international unions), and other institutions (universities, government installations) are embedded in external relationships – both cooperative and competitive – that condition their commitment to the locality and their success there. (p. 309)
As cities in general and downtowns in particular continue to compete today to be sticky places, downtown revitalization and economic development analysis must necessarily be studied from a broad geographical context, for the fate of local downtown places is inexplicably bound up in the slippery spaces of regional and global economies. Thus, the process and practice of modern downtown revitalization are organized into two categories: 1. Downtown in slippery spaces and 8
2. Sticky places in downtown, ultimately establishing downtowns importance today as a sticky place in slippery space.
2.1 Downtown in Slippery Space
2.1.1 Historical Space Transformations While the concepts of space and place have always been relevant for understanding urban areas and processes, several prominent waves of space and place transformations over the last two centuries have been paramount to the analysis of modern urban development. The beginnings of the concepts of the economy and space and place can be traced to Ancient Greece as a divide between the household economy (oikos) linked to place, and commercial trade (kapelike) linked to space (Wainwright & Barnes, 2009, p. 979). Since the beginnings of the civilization and the economy, the historical process of space transformation over time is generally referred to as space-time compression (Harvey, 1989; Warf, 2008) The concept of space-time compression is largely a result of the idea that space has somehow become less important as a result of globalization. This concept was most notably expressed by Karl Marx in his assertion of the ―annihilation of space by time‖ and more recently the ―death of distance‖ (Cairncross, 2001). In essence, time-space compression refers to the continuing quest of human beings to conquer space, to cross distance more rapidly, and to exchange goods and information more efficiently (Warf, 2008). Indeed, just over the last few centuries the world has seemed to become exponentially smaller at a progressively faster rate. When comparing the maximum transportation speed at various historical points in time, the world became 60 times smaller from 1500 to 1970; however, by accelerating the velocities of people, goods, and information, in reality the world is made to seem larger in a sense making the term ―compression‖ misleading for every round of compression throughout time has involved an expansion in the geographic scale of social activities (Warf, 2008). In various additions of Global Shift, Peter Dicken provides a historical perspective on the evolution of the global economy. Dicken (1992) argues that while the development of the global economy was greatly accelerated by the process of industrialization in the second half of the 18th century, its basis was established much earlier, being traced back to the expansion of trade during the period of 1450 to 1640 when the geographical context of trade increased dramatically with the expansion of European maritime nations. Industrialization greatly accelerated the expansion of world trade and significantly transformed its character (Dicken, p. 11). In Kern‘s (1983) influential book The Culture of Time and Space 1880-1918, Kern addresses how the industrial
9 revolution, one of the major modern major waves of space and place transformations, brought about sweeping cultural changes in social and technological culture including the telephone, wireless telegraph, x-ray, cinema, bicycle, automobile, and airplane transformed the conventional notions of time and space. Only after the industrial revolution did cheap, safe, and convenient movement for people become possible, albeit only in industrial societies. The increasing ease of the physical movement of people and goods across the globe had another consequence, the opening of endless markets for business. Not only were technological innovations allowing the mass production of goods at levels previously unattainable levels, but transportation and infrastructural improvements were allowing goods to be shipped further and more cheaply than ever before.
The Beginnings of the Modern Global City After WWII, continued changing notions of space continued to impact the economic development of cities. While the industrial revolution opened up new physical and production spaces across the globe, not until after WWII did the beginnings of a true world economy emerge. It was around this same time in the late 1960s and early 1970s that a global dimension entered into discussions on the analysis of urban economic development. Since this time large cities have fascinated social scientists and academics alike, reflected in the range of terms used to describe them: imperial cities, primate cities, great industrial cities, millionaire cities, world cities, global capitalist cities, international financial centres, mega-cities and global cities to name a few (Beaverstock, Taylor, & Smith, 1999). It is generally accepted that the starting point for the categorization of cities as a global urban hierarchy was through Hall‘s (1966) analysis of London, Paris, Randstad, Rhine-Ruhr, Moscow, New York and Tokyo. According to Hall these cities sat atop the hierarchy due to their influential political and functional powers in areas such as trade, finance, communications, and technology. Building upon the work of Hall, Friedmann (1986) published his influential ―World City Hypothesis‖ which connected the study of cities and an urban hierarchy to the emerging world economy. According to Friedmann (1986), the study of cities from the perspective of the spatial organization of the new international division of labour ―sharpened insights into processes of urban change…and offered a needed perspective on an economy which seems increasingly oblivious to national boundaries‖ (p.1). In particular, since WWII the process by which capitalist institutions freed themselves from national constraints and benefited from organized global production markets only accelerated (Friedmann & Wolff, 1982). Friedmann‘s (1982) early concept of what Markusen termed ―slippery space‖ included the 10 idea that world city formation was a direct result of economic restructuring, or the growth of a primary cluster of high-level business services who employ a large number of professionals - the transnational elite. The chief economic functions of these high-level business clusters included management, banking and finance, legal services, accounting, technical consulting, telecommunications and computing, international transportation, research, and higher education. In addition to these clusters, a secondary cluster was rapidly developing in world-cities. This cluster of employment includes professionals in real estate, construction activities, hotel services, restaurants, luxury shopping, entertainment, private police and domestic services. In essence, this cluster of permanent and high-paying jobs served the first primary cluster. A reflection of the larger world economic shifts from an industry to service, the economic restructuring of world cities and the growth of the above sectors often takes the place of manufacturing employment. While there are certainly exceptions in local markets, this is not to say that manufacturing employment was being completely replaced, but as a proportion of all employment in many cities its numbers were declining. In many areas and regions of the world which historically had a heavy reliance on industrial manufacturing as the base of the local and even national economy, this restructuring away from manufacturing had profound impacts on local cities and economies. It is important to note here that the focus of this study, the Midwestern United States, an area today appropriately termed the ―Rust Belt‖, is such a region. In the Midwestern region of the United States, a region once referred to the ―industrial heartland‖ and considered one greatest economic centers of the world, the massive loss of industrial operations and jobs has resulted in deteriorating and shrinking cities. Consequently, throughout the latter half of the 20th century many Midwestern cities have sought to reinvent themselves as cities which can compete in the modern world-economy. In the first theses of his ―World City Hypothesis‖, Friedmann (1986) notes that the form and extent of a city‘s integration with the world economy, and the functions assigned to the city in the new division of labour, will be decisive for any structural changes occurring within it, for contemporary urban change is for the most part a process of changes that are externally induced (p. 70). Friedmann‘s early argument that changes in metropolitan function and physical form of cities (sticky places) can be explained by world-wide processes such as the direction and volume of transnational capital flows, the spatial division of the functions of finance, management and production (slippery spaces) provides an important framework for contemporary urban development in places such as the Midwestern United States, in particular a city like Columbus whose serice-oriented economy is reflected in both its built environment (downtown) and its historical economic development. 11
2.1.2 Slippery Space and the Modern Global City Influential work by world city theorists such as Hall and Friedmann has essentially started a decade‘s long debate still continuing today concerning the study, order, arrangement, and hierarchy of world cities. Cities are unique and diverse places, with no two having the same composition or story. It follows that the process of urban development is complex and unique to each city. Efforts to quantify and qualify world-cityness are as diverse as the cities themselves, whereupon the problem lies in determining what exactly makes a city a ―world city‖. While the common concept of mega-cities, based entirely on population is rather intuitive, it is argued that just because a city is large does not mean it is world city and vice versa. The main component of world city literature has been to rank cities based upon their power in the world system (Beaverstock, Taylor, & Smith, 1999). Historically, this has included the presence of TNCs, Global HQ, advanced producer services, creative centers. (Friedmann, 1986; Sassen, 1991; Currid, 2006; GaWC research network) While there is a consensus as to what cities are at the top, most notably London, New York, and Tokyo, the tougher question is where a Midwestern cities such as Columbus falls in the hierarchy. According to Derudder (2006) part of this confusion arises from the fact that ―world cities‖ and ―global cities‖ cover analytically distinct concepts. The core basis for these two concepts comes from two sources, Friedmann‘s concept of the world-city and Sassen‘s concept of the global city. Derdudder argues that Friedmann represents global urbanization in terms of power and dominance while Sassen emphasizes the production of inputs that demonstrate the capacity for global control. Sassen (1991) introduces the term global city to distinguish contemporary cities from past ―world cities‖ for it is global cities that are unique to our age. Sassen argues that the production processes in advance service industries result in the creation of central places in global networks. In contrast to the metropolitan region, which is Freidmann‘s territorial basis for a world city, these central places are considered by Sassen to be the Traditional CBD or grid of intense business activity, areas which often operate separate from their hinterlands (Derudder, 2006). Sassen‘s identification of global cities as central places of intense business activity located in global networks lends itself well to the importance of the modern downtown as a sticky place in slippery space and these concepts have greatly influenced contemporary research on cities as networks. Over the past twenty years the concepts of networks, flows, and new political spaces in global research have represented a significant transition from the taxonomic and hierarchical accounts of global cities in early research. According to Lai (2009), Sassen‘s (1991) initial 12 discussion on global cities and comparative analysis of London, New York, and Tokyo has little explicit discussion on the actual relations among the cities. The beginnings of a networked perspective to global cities research was developed primarily by Castells (1996) in The Rise of the Network Society. Castells argues that in the network society, the dominant form of space is no longer spaces of places, but a new space of flows. Most importantly, places (nodes and hubs) do not disappear but they become defined by their position within flows, part of which is constituted by social agents who use infrastructure networks to link together specific places to carry out economic, cultural, and political functions (Cited in Lai, 2009). Castells work has continued to inspire the theorization and research on the topic of global networks and flows from new empirical evaluations to measures of diversity and power, telecommunications and research by the GaWC (Sheppard 2002; Graham 1999; Taylor 2005; Taylor et al., 2002).
2.1.3 The Implications of Slippery Space In the spaces and places of the global network, cities are both cooperative and competitive. Under this assumption Taylor (2005) argues that leading cities can only be indentified and understood in the context of their relations with myriad cities across the world for if any city is truly to be interpreted as a global city it is because many other cities through their interdependencies and dependencies make that city special. Thus, a city relies upon its position in the network to build collaborations with other cities to successfully maintain economic and political advantages in the space of flows. While cities do collaborate together for these purposes (e.g trade, transportation, tourism) cities also undoubtedly compete with one another to establish themselves as the most important nodes in the network hierarchy (Allen, 2010) While some cities maintain their position primarily due to locational advantage (e.g ports, airline hubs, market location etc.) other cities actively pursue strategies to build and maintain locational advantages which can fix mobile flows of human and business capital within their cities. To this end, cities have increasingly turned toward developing new and innovative strategies to market their places and spaces. Depending on a cities position in various urban hierarchies or networks, they can create weaker or stronger forms of competition (Jessop & Sum, 2000). Cities can build favorable linkages to the wider economy through both horizontal linkages and a vertically nested set of scales. Horizontal linkages occur in the same scale and include building on territorial interests, joint resources and capacities, such as establishing cross-border regions and translocal alliances. In contrast, the vertical integration strategy involves promoting economic development at ascending spatial scales from the local to the regional to the national to the global. In order to 13 better understand this process, Jessop and Sum (2000) coin the term ―glurbinasation‖ to refer to entrepreneurial strategies which seek to secure the most advantageous insertion of a given city into the changing interscalar division of labour in the world economy. Glurbanisation is thus pursued by cities to enhance their place-based dynamic competitive advantage to capture certain types of mobile capital and/or to fix local capital in place (Jessop & Sum, 2000, p. 2295). The term itself reveals an inherent contradiction between ―capital‘s constant striving to enhance is spatial mobility by diminishing its place-dependency and states‘ attempts to fix capital within their territories through the provision of immobile, place-specific externalities that either cannot be found elsewhere or cannot be abandoned without considerable devalorisation costs to capital‖ (p. 2295). This contradiction represents the modern reality faced by cities as they seek to maneuver and conquer global spaces. Doel & Hubbard (2002) caution that a city is no longer a localized place of economic competitiveness but is a constellation that translates and mediates flows through global space and networked time and suggest that ―cities can only enhance their competitiveness by recognizing that world-cityness is not determined by a city‘s location in a pre- existing structure, but needs to be performed and worked at in a multiplicity of sites‖ (p. 365). Urban competiveness today can be addressed from multiple angles, perspectives, and scales. While this thesis emphasizes downtown revitalization, it is clear that the local process is tied to the much larger geographic context of global economic and urban development processes. In his paper, ―The spaces and times of globalization: Place, Scale, Networks, and Positionality‖, Sheppard (2002) comments that the economic dynamism of places can be explained in terms of certain place-based attributes that can fix globalization locally as the prospects of localities (e.g downtowns) depend on place-based processes and both shape and are shaped by the regional, national, and global territories in which they are embedded (p. 310). Sheppard argues that such spatial fixes require investment by both firms and the state in the built environment and social infrastructure. One of the foremost targets of spatial fixes to the built environment in the last twenty years in Midwestern cities has been the often deteriorating and empty downtowns areas, due decentralization, suburban sprawl, and globalization. Today we are living, or so it has been widely accepted in new global times. In what was once taken for granted the top position of many world and American cities in the global economy is being challenged. The modern global city today bestows an image that is ―contemporary, international, multicultural, wired, cosmopolitan, congested, polarizing and commanding geographically boundless spheres of influence‖ (Boschken, 2008, p. 3). The modern American
14 global city is no exception. Boschken (2008) argues that large evidence of this is found throughout the US in economic development strategies which Attempt to carve-out post industrial habitats from declining urban cores…including the comprehensive development of new multi-purpose central districts, having generously landscaped promenades threading together artfully designed high-rise business towers with entertainment and residential centres, all made regionally accessible by stylish, technologically advanced rail transit…the reclaiming of core cities in this way is said to reflect a forward-looking constituency determined to advance the global position of its city, competitively, symbolically and by appearance.‖ (p.6)
Nowhere is this idea more important than in the declining urban areas in the industrial Midwest where such competitive and symbolic advancement has gone hand in hand with revitalization projects, the ultimate goal of which is to enhance each area‘s stickyness.
2.2 Sticky Places in Downtown
2.2.1 Historical Downtown Place Transformations Throughout its history the American downtown has undergone significant changes in its content and function. While downtowns are certainly not like they used to be, they have not suffered an absolute decline, but instead a shifting function over time. One nearly constant feature of cities throughout time has been downtown, albeit different sizes, functions, and names. Ford (2003) describes the historical importance of downtown rather succinctly writing, ―Downtowns tell us who we are, where we have been, where we are going, and at what speed‖ (p. 3). Cities have always been concerned with the vibrancy of downtown, a fact reflected in the buildings, land, and people. Buildings represent nearly every architectural and functional era during a cities existence and come in a variety of sizes, shapes, and conditions, s situation which allows for a variety of rents and activities, as well as a diverse mix of people living and on the streets. Today‘s downtown in many major metropolitan areas may not reflect the traditional central business district of last century, yet downtown still often remains the primary destination for tourists, conventioneers, high-level government, and business decision-makers; Indeed, the current transformation from an industrial to a post-industrial recreational landscape is but the latest chapter in the ever-changing downtown (Ford, 2003). Old definitions of the vernacular downtown or CBD are no longer really helpful; however, nothing has emerged to replace the concept. Compounding this matter is that each city defines their downtown differently. On the other hand, one can find extensive literature on ―edge-cities‖, ―ex-urbia‖ and the like for ―While we have ignored the changing spatial realities of the new downtowns, we have applied more precise 15 definitions to major suburban developments‖ (Ford, 2003, p 7). Yet, if the general consensus is that downtown has declined from its peak, what then was the peak of downtown or this earlier golden age? The golden age of downtown of the traditional American downtown is usually attributed to sometime during the period between late 1880s and early 1960s. Ford (2003) argues that there are three possibilities for Golden Era Status, 1910, 1928, and 1950, with 1910 representing the height of the City Beautiful Era and urban embellishment, 1928 the downtown building boom associated with the end of the Roaring Twenties, and 1950 during the booming fifties when nearly anything of economic importance was located downtown. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that taking full advantage of the new spaces and places opened up by the industrial revolution, at the turn 20th century many American cities were among the fastest growing, dynamic, and wealthiest cities in the world. Accordingly, the prosperity of many US cities was reflected by vibrant downtowns during this same time period. At its peak downtown was the center of commercial and residential life. The most accessible part of the city, downtown was the location of highly concentrated pedestrian and business activity. The establishment of high-rise buildings, office parks, retail zones, and affluent neighborhoods created an iconic image of downtown to both locals and outsiders. Despite increasing populations and economic prosperity in many major American cities, core downtown areas experienced a steady decline throughout much of the latter part of the 20th century. The decline of downtown is usually traced back to a period of heightened decentralization after WWII caused by the availability of financing for single family homes, increased use of the private automobile, and the creation of new road networks (Faulk, 2006). The development around the periphery of declining central cities flourished as residents and businesses relocated to suburban areas. Downtown became increasingly characterized by ―dead spaces,‖ vacant parking lots, buildings, and deteriorating neighborhoods (Robertson, 1995). Faced with these challenges, city leaders actively pursued urban renewal strategies aimed at downtown revitalization. City leaders faced the daunting task of reversing the deteriorating image of downtown. Nonetheless, downtown areas had one major advantage over suburban areas, the ability to establish a ―sense of place.‖ Unlike the characteristic flat areas, low-rise buildings, and often homogenous neighborhoods of the suburbs, the dense, mixed-use, multi-function downtown environment had more potential to be the sites of unique and exciting spaces that residents and consumers desire (Faulk, 2006; Ford, 2003) and by the late 1970s, many cities actively pursued downtown revitalization strategies aimed at remaking the image of the downtown area. Often 16 viewed by residents in stereotyped ways, images of cities can be seen as combinations of belief, attitude, and icon, capable of being expressed both positively and negatively (Checkoway & Patton, 1985). Planners had to use city image-making to their advantage if they wanted to successfully revitalize a downtown. Both residents and outsiders needed to once again view downtown as a desirable place to be. In an increasingly competitive service-oriented economy, a vibrant downtown was a key asset for urban economic growth across the US, but most notably in the Midwest. The section of upper Midwest now commonly referred to as the Rust Belt was once recognized as the industrial heartland and center of North America‘s urban economy. At the turn of the twentieth century many Midwestern urban areas were ―at the height of their powers, their achievements in manufacturing, government, architecture, and literature turning the heads of observers throughout the world…but by the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Milwaukee had turned gray…their feebleness winning nationwide attention‖ (Teaford, 1993, p. 211). In fact, 8 of the 12 largest Rust Belt cities lost population between 1950 and 1980, with only Columbus, Ohio, recording population gains in every decade of the period (Teaford, 1993). The reliance of many Midwestern cities on the might of manufacturing and industry to propel itself to the top of the national urban economy was also its downfall. As the mid-20th century brought about a restructuring of the national and global economies from industry to service based, the region experienced a mass departure of people and business to escape from decaying cities, a declining economy, and harsh winters, often migrating to Sunbelt cities (Checkoway and Patton, 1985). According to popular urban growth rhetoric of the time, it was imperative for Rust Belt cities to shed the image of rural, dull, and vacant cities and downtown places to reassert their position in an increasingly competitive and service-oriented urban economy. Thus, in the early 1970s, Midwestern Rust Belt cities had two priorities on their agenda: renewal and revitalization.
2.2.2 Sticky Places and the Modern Global City Space, Place, and New Urban Politics The emergence of literature on the restructuring of local politics occurred at the height of downtown revitalization in late 1980s. Globalization represented a new reality for cities seeking to revitalize their cities and downtowns. The advancement of technology and the increasing ease of movement of business, capital, information, and ideas across the globe meant that space no
17 longer locked people and commercial activities inside of cities. Capitalist firms seeking to maximize profits could relocate and expand to areas with better business climates. Hence, a restructuring in local economic development planning also occurred at the same time, one in which localities sought to assert themselves in the future space-economy, resulting in the increased competition between ―places‖ (Cox & Mair, 1988). Cities no longer were occupied with endogenous development, but desired to attract, capture, and retain increasingly mobile capital flows in order to assert their position in the emerging regional, national, and global urban hierarchy. The enhancement of local business climates was especially important to cities. Local state policies such as tax abatements, subsidies, and local infrastructural and redevelopment projects sought to make localities more attractive to investors in the areas of white-collar industry, amenities and high-tech services (Cox & Mair, 1988). Under the same premise, firms also sought to insert themselves into local politics as a means to protect, preserve, and enhance the business climate in their own locality. A rising business interest in local politics combined with a lack of federal funding in the 1980s left cities looking for new financial sources for revitalization projects. To address this issue, city leaders turned towards increased public-private cooperation in urban economic development strategies. The civic exploration of new ways to encourage economic growth was further explored by Harvey in his influential work on the shift from managerialism to entrepreneurialism in urban governance. According to Harvey (1989), the managerial practices so characteristic of the 50s and 60s gave way to increased public-private partnerships, private funding, and entrepreneurial strategies to enhance business climates. Faced with deindustrialization, widespread unemployment, serious fiscal problems and the ―declining powers of the nation state to control multi-national money flows,‖ cities had to ―maximize the attractiveness of the local site as a lure for capitalist investment.‖ (p. 5) The increased significance of city imagery is well-described by Harvey (1989), commenting, ―The selling of the city as a location for activity depends heavily on the creation of attractive urban imagery. Part of what we have seen these last two decades is the attempt to build a physical and social imagery of cities for that competitive purpose‖ (p.13-14). The mechanism required to create a new physical and social imagery was clever, innovative, and entrepreneurial planning. Harvey (1989) further argues that he ensuing rise of entrepreneurialism is focused on the:
18
Political economy of place rather than territory…for with the diminution in transport costs and the consequent reduction in spatial barriers to movement of goods, people, money, and information, the significant qualities of place has been enhanced and the vigor of inter-urban competition for capitalist development (investment, jobs, tourism, etc) has strengthened considerably.‖ (p.7, 10)
The center of corporate activity and key to any city‘s local, national, and global image, the concentration of increased ―place-making‖ was directed primarily towards downtown areas. The new era of downtown revitalization was characterized by unique and innovative planning from local government and business entrepreneurs, planning characterized by both risk and reward. Under this framework, four key concepts are prevalent in modern downtown revitalization and urban economic development literature: Globalization, entrepreneurialism, Inter-city competition, and city marketing/branding. While not explicitly mentioned, Cox & Mair‘s (1988) concept of the ―future space- economy‖ and Harvey‘s (1989) description of ―multi-national money flows‖ are synonyms for what is contemporarily referred to as globalization. Overcoming spatial barriers, through rapid technological advances in the speed of communication and travel, humans, capital, and information are travelling more often, faster and farther than ever before. While different areas of the world are more connected than others, virtually no community has been untouched by the globalizations reach. Today, growth rhetoric of cities reflects this new global reality: ―a spatially compressed and relentlessly flowing economic world with highly mobile flows of money and jobs‖ (Wilson and Wouters, 2003, p. 129). In order to compete in the accelerated growth of the global economy, cities have to maintain an attractive physical and social climate. Consequently, ―Local growth coalitions asserted that city competition for investment and jobs was the new reality. Whether myth or reality, globalization was used to convince people to embrace a singular vision of growth‖ (Wilson and Wouters, 2003, p.127). Due to globalization and increased city competition, contemporary downtown revitalization is no longer strictly a local issue, but exists on different spatial scales, being implemented by collaboration among several different actors. Concerned with their position in the local, regional, national, and global urban hierarchy, local governments, private corporations, non-profit development groups, entrepreneurs, and citizen led coalitions all have a hand in the revitalization process. The rise of a global capitalist economy and increased inter-city competition certainly presents new challenges to cities attempting to revitalize downtown spaces as well as secure an overall urban economic future.
19
As a result of globalization and inter-city competition, cities often rely upon entrepreneurial planning to design and market their downtowns as new global places. This reality is well described by Hall & Hubbard (1996) writing: In essence, it has been argued that there has been a reorientation of urban governance away from the local provision of welfare and services to a more outward-oriented stance designed to foster and encourage local growth and development. These profound changes in the way that cities operate have seen the public sector taking over characteristics once distinctive to the private sector – risk taking, inventiveness, promotion and profit motivation – leading many commentators to term such modes of government as entrepreneurial. (p.153)
In an effort to foster future economic growth and remain competitive on a global scale, contemporary cities have become increasingly entrepreneurial in planning practices. While prevailing literature often portrays the entrepreneurial city as an exclusively recent phenomenon, others have been more cautious, arguing that the entrepreneurial city has existed for centuries if not millennia for the selling of the city is as old as the city itself. (Jessop & Sum, 2000; Hall & Hubbard, 1996) Nevertheless, the question remains: What is an entrepreneurial city? Aspects of the contemporary entrepreneurial city generally include an emphasis on innovation, place- marketing, image-construction, and advertising. Jessop & Sum (2000) propose three defining features of entrepreneurial cities: 1. An Entrepreneurial city pursues innovative strategies intended to maintain or enhance its economic competitiveness vis-à-vis other cities and economic spaces. 2. These strategies are real and reflexive. They are not ‗as if‘ strategies, but are more or less explicitly formulated and pursued in active, entrepreneurial fashion. 3. The promoters of entrepreneurial cities adopt entrepreneurial discourse, narrate their cities as entrepreneurial and market them as entrepreneurial (p.2289). As capital freely moves about the globe and capitalist firms seek to exploit local differences to enhance their global operations, cities strive to capture certain types of mobile capital to fix it within their boundaries (Jessop & Sum, 2000). In order to win the spatial battle between slippery spaces and sticky places, city place-marketing often goes hand-in-hand with the creation of a new urban landscape, playing a ―crucial role in the entrepreneurial ‗selling‘ of cites‖ (Hall and Hubbard, 1996, p. 161). Consequently, the rise in entrepreneurial planning and marketing has introduced ―new types of urban place or space for producing, servicing, working, consuming, living, etc.‖ (Jessop & Sum, 2000). Globalization, inter-city competition and entrepreneurialism have, at a basic level, resulted in the evolution of downtown revitalization away from managing 20
local spaces to promoting global places. (Figure 1) In other words, downtown revitalization and associated local politics began to transform from just a local process to having implications outside of the city boundaries. Increased inter-city competition and the rise of entrepreneurial planning practices in the promotion of local places are further reflected in the emergence and popularity of city marketing and branding efforts.
Figure 1. Traditional vs. Modern Downtown
A. B.
A. Traditional Downtown B. Modern Downtown Local Spaces Global Places Local Politics – Provision of Services Local Politics – Innovative Planning, Public- Private Partnerships, Entrepreneurialism Downtown Function: Commercial/Retail Downtown Function: Mixed-Use, Live, Work, Hub Play Renewal Strategies – Functionality, Urban Revitalization Strategies – ―Place-making‖, Design, Land Use Distinctive City, Art, Culture, Entertainment Districts Enhancement of National, Global Business Climate
21
Over the last several decades the process of city marketing has become an established practice for cities around the world. The increased use of marketing practices arguably comes from the shift from managerial to entrepreneurial forms of urban governance during this same time-period (Harvey, 1989). As cities are increasingly treated as products and run in business-like manner, and governments and city managers promote and sell them as so to gain a competitive advantage in the global marketplace, it follows that traditional business marketing and branding practices would be integrated into urban planning practices. Indeed, it seems that today any ‗wannabe‘ world city now has obligatory set of promotional materials, websites, and images all portraying the city as an attractive and vibrant place to live, work, and play (Doel & Hubbard, 2002). While the use of city marketing has increased significantly in recent decades, the practice is certainly not unique to our age. In pursuit of certain economic or political objectives, places have always needed to differentiate themselves from each other and the conscious attempt of governments to shape a place identity can be argued to be almost as old as civic government itself (Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2005). Thus, Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2005) further argue that ―any consideration of the fundamental geographic idea of sense of place must include the deliberate creation of such senses through place marketing‖ (p. 506). In his work, Selling Places: the marketing and promotion of towns and cities1850-2000, Ward (1998) identifies four stages of place-selling efforts in urban and regional system. According to Ward (1998), the contemporary stage of place-selling is centered upon the post-industrial city where policy priority has shifted to urban regeneration. In terms of modern city marketing practices in post-industrial cities, such as the Midwest, the desire for urban regeneration and economic development has led to a realization of the significance of the image of the city. Illustrated in Chapter 4, city image has been especially important in economic development for the city of Columbus, not because the city has a negative image per say, but because city leaders are concerned that it has no clear image or brand. The significance of city image can be seen in two distinct senses: first, that the image is the crucial and determining factor for people who use the city, such as investors, developers, visitors, and residents and second, that the image of the city and the attempt to influence it could be an effective way to coordinate marketing efforts, a realization that has led to the popularity of the concept of city branding (Kavaratzis, 2007). The primary way in which people encounter places is through perceptions and images, and it is branding which deals specifically with such images (Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2005). According to Crang (1998) and Holloway & Hubbard (2001) people make sense of places or construct places in their minds through three processes, first, through planned interventions such 22 as planning, urban design etc, second, through the way in which they or others use specific places, and third, through various forms of place representations such as films, novels, paintings, news reports etc. (Cited in Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2005) The practice of city marketing is used just for this purpose, an attempt to influence peoples sense of place, for ―a place needs to be differentiated through unique brand identity if it wants to be first, recognized as existing ,second, perceived in the minds of place customers as possessing qualities superior to those of competitors, and third, consumed in a manner commensurate with the objectives of the place‖ (Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2005, p. 510). In the case of Midwestern cities, this objective is to shed any negative images associated with deteriorating, industrial urban areas in order to reassert themselves in the global economy as a modern, attractive, innovative, and unique place. The use of city marketing and to a greater extent city branding are important components of downtown revitalization and local and regional economic development practices.
The Process and Practice of Downtown Revitalization: Past and Present The early practice of downtown revitalization which primarily took place in the late 1970s and 1980s was a process that was primarily managerial and local. Most revitalization strategies were devoted to urban design and land use. Projects for revitalizing downtowns were ―relatively placeless in the sense that the goal was to create ‗modern‘ landscapes and efficient functional arrangements‖ (Ford, 2003). Cities did not seek to create necessarily distinct or unique landscapes but were primarily concerned with image and functionality. By rehabilitating downtown ―dead spaces‖, widening streets, and building new freeways and downtown shopping centers, city‘s sought to make downtown spaces more attractive and accessible to local residents. These projects, undertaken by local civic leaders, represented the managerial approach to urban politics characteristic of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s in which the government‘s primary purpose was the provision of services. In his end of the century assessment of downtown redevelopment strategies, Robertson (1995) discusses seven common revitalization strategies: 1. Pedestrianization 2. Indoor Shopping Centers 3. Historic Preservation 4. Waterfront Development 5. Office Development 6. Special Activity Generators 7. Transportation Enhancements. Cities focused their attention on mostly endogenous development, often implementing several of these strategies at once. While constructing a pedestrian mall, large indoor retail center, waterfront park, or convention center certainly improved the image of downtown, it was often not enough to reverse years of economic and social change. Although these common approaches were able to jump start downtown 23 renewal, many downtowns remained 9 to 5 locations, lacking the residential population and 24/7 activity needed for a vibrant and attractive downtown. As the approaching turn of the century brought new challenges, the establishment of sticky places downtown required new, innovative planning. Harvey (1989) argues that spatially grounded urban processes produce observable artifacts such as a ―built form and produced spaces and resource systems of particular qualities organized into a distinctive spatial configuration‖ (p.6). Analysis of the built form and produced spaces of cities have attracted renewed attention due to the contemporary restructuring of the national and global space-economy. Modern downtown revitalization is no longer strictly a local issue, but can be examined on a variety of spatial scales and through a variety of actors (Harvey, 1989). Concerned with their position in the local, regional, national, and global urban hierarchy, local governments, private corporations, non-profit development groups, entrepreneurs, and citizen led coalitions all have a stake in the revitalization process. In terms of content and function it is argued that globalization, inter-city competition, and entrepreneurialism have created a ―new‖ American Downtown. This is reflected in the evolution of downtown from primarily a commercial/retail hub to mixed-use place for living, working, and playing (Birch, 2009). Downtown strategies are no longer considered primarily managerial and in some cases ―place-less.‖ In fact, the opposite is true. Cities seek to set themselves apart from other cities through unique downtown landscapes, areas, and amenities. This image is the ultimate goal for Midwestern cities such as Columbus who seek to turn formerly production centered local spaces into globally competitive consumption places. Referring to the recent spatial turn in urban studies, (Wilson & Wouters, 2003) argue that humanly created space is neglected in analysis of growth discourse in post-industrial Midwestern Rust Belt cities. Humanly created space is used in discourse narratives to give form and character to urban processes. Due to the use of similar growth discourse, the restructuring of Rust Belt cities has occurred in remarkable similar ways. Globalization requires a singular vision of growth for Rust Belt growth coalitions, one whose goal is to create a physical and social climate to attract and contain businesses. Accordingly, the discourse of entrepreneurial planners is to modernize the obsolete and abandoned downtown spaces. To accomplish this task, Wilson & Wouters (2003) suggest the ―Community-scape is given elaborate and positive images. It is often presented as a modern, middle-class livable, clean neighborhood or downtown…this included posh neighborhoods, high technology growth nodes, elite culture districts, and conspicuous consumption retail zones‖ (p. 127,131). Most notably, downtown gentrification, the transformation of CBD to services, development of sports stadia and waterfront development are 24 all commonly pursued strategies in Rust Belt cities (Wilson and Wouters, 2003). Under this ―growth-first‖ mentality, Rust Belt cities are capable of being saved by entrepreneurial leaders and innovative planning in order to ascend back to the top of the urban hierarchy and once again be recognized as global places. This is the modern reality faced by all Midwestern cities from true Rust Belt cities such as St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, to other more service-oriented cities such as Indianapolis, Minneapolis, and Columbus.
New Economic Development Theories, Concepts, and Strategies While the concepts of globalization, inter-city competition, entrepreneurialism, and city marketing represent some general aspects of the process and practice of revitalization strategies, there also exists a substantial amount of literature on more specific strategies for creating urban economic growth and attracting highly-skilled workers and global firms into cities and downtowns. These include such strategies, for example, as consumption-driven urban development (Markusen & Shrock, 2009) the importance of Meds and Eds in urban economic development (Adams, 2003), and the attraction of the creative class (Florida, 2002; Evans, 2009) These types of strategies emphasize the importance of consumption amenities, occupations (art, culture, entertainment, media etc), knowledge-driven institutions, and skilled workers as a source of local and regional job growth and stability. These are exactly the type of amenities that the modern downtown revitalization strategies aggressively promote to construct a downtown that is recognized as a national and global live, work, and play destination. Besides innovative urban design and land use, the modern city and downtown must include a local labor pool to attract and retain highly-skilled workers and business firms. Specifically, the presence of arts, culture, and bohemians has been explored as a means to attract human capital, generate economic development, and foster high technology industrial growth (Florida, 2002; Currid, 2009). In terms of downtown place-making, it is argued that ―On a local level, art and ‗bohemian‘ street life have been nurtured as a way to establish ‗authenticity‘ and to lure attractive labor pools‖ (Currid, 2009, p. 369). Such authenticity helps make downtown areas more sticky. Accordingly, the use place-specific cultural and artistic productions may aid in the ability to ―brand‖ a place. According to Currid (2009) this branding happens in interrelated ways: First, on a symbolic level people like to be around the cultural milieu and often seek out such places just to be around them. Secondly, cultural consumption is closely linked to cultural production. Places where art, music, and film are being produced are often important sites for consuming these same goods. Finally, an established reputation or place-based cultural identity 25 can aid in the further attraction of the cultural inputs that gave the city its competitive advantage in the first place (Currid, 2009). Midwestern cities such as Milwaukee (Zimmerman, 2008; Ward, 2007), and Detroit (McCarthy, 2002) have used entertainment and creative city development strategies. Similarly, the city of Columbus has used and promoted its thriving art scene and creative economy as a catalyst for downtown revitalization, particularly in the development of the Short North Arts District (see Chapter 4). Such artistic and cultural distinctions help construct unique places for production and consumption, unique places which are most often found in and around central city areas. The primary users of these places are the very people who live and interact within them on a daily basis. Ultimately, it is the people that live and interact in downtown on a daily basis that make downtown places sticky. Downtowns are areas of high density and interaction. A city‘s image or brand cannot be simply created through a slogan, but is constructed through the experiences of the people at the ground level. These experiences are then transferred through word of mouth. There is often an energy and experience downtown which most suburban counterparts cannot reproduce. A beautiful, downtown park can be constructed, an abandoned warehouse refurbished, or downtown office building built, but the built environment and firms located within it are still nothing without the experiences and interactions of people within that environment. Downtown areas are combinations of history and experience. If the modern downtown is to be truly live/work/play environment, each of these aspects must work together. The firm should want to locate downtown because of regional assets and availability of diverse, well-educated workforce, harnessing the buzz , energy, an innovation of the local community. Conversely, residents should want to be downtown to experience the unique cultural and social amenities that can only be found in such places. With this in mind, the experiences and perceptions of the people and businesses in downtown places is a critical component of the vitality of the modern downtown.
2.2.3 The Implications of Sticky Places in Downtown What does it mean to focus on global cities as places? According to Lai (2009), the answer is two-fold. First, it means acknowledging and examining the differences that enable global cities to perform particular roles in the global urban network. Secondly, viewing global cities as places means recognizing that they are inhabited by real people and communities whose social and political lives shape, and are in turn influenced by, processes of global city formation, for it is the ‗grounding‘ of flows which transforms global cities, a process which is only possible because cities themselves are places. There is a need to bring downtown analysis closer to the 26 ground in seeking to understand the perspectives and motivations of these actors. Global cities research has come a long way over the last half century and urban scholars, social theorists and geographers interested in the interplay between urban development and global restructuring have developed multiple approaches towards understanding these processes and impacts. The exploration of downtown revitalization offers one such approach, bringing the processes globalization back to the ground in the form of sticky places. Indeed, ―The prospects of localities depend on place-based processes and both shape and are shaped by the regional, national, and global territories in which they are embedded‖ (Sheppard, 2002, p. 310). As a result of the time- space compression there is increasing uncertainty about the meaning of places and how people relate to them. Massey (1994) questions: How in the face of all this movement and intermixing, can we retain any sense of a local place and its particularity? Due to rapid advancements in information and communication technology, there now exists new means of understanding how people interact within downtown places as well as interact with each other.
The end of geography or the explosion of place?: How Cyberspace is Revolutionizing Space and Place Today, rapid advances in the development of the internet and information and communication technology have continued to re-write the notions of space and place. Batty (1993) suggests that he coupling of computers, the internet, and digital media which is infusing rapidly into social, cultural, and economic life is creating a ‗cyberspace‘ a ―new kind of space, invisible to our direct senses, a space which might become more important than physical space itself [and which is] layered on top of, within and between the fabric of traditional geographical space‖ (Batty, 1993, Cited in Graham, 1998) Driven by the internet, the rise a new information economy has further impacted how people are able to maneuver local and global spaces. To some this idea has been cause for alarm and is intensely debated. In terms of the spatial impacts of the advances of information and communication technologies, there has emerged two related discourses: First, widespread predictions that concentrated areas will somehow lose their ‗spatial glue‘ in a wholesale shift toward reliance on broadband, multimedia communications grids, and secondly debates about the development of immersive virtual environments which are allowing the immersive qualities of geographical place to be transmitted remotely (Graham, 1998). According to graham, ―most common here is the assumption that networks of large metropolitan cites will gradually emerge to be some technological anachorism, as propinquity, concentration, place-based relations and transportation flows are gradually substituted by some universalized, 27 interactive, broadband communications medium (the ultimate information superhighway)‖ (p.168) and it is argued that these virtual reality technologies will somehow provide ―all the richness and subtlety of the immersive communications once only available through placed based interactions in urban areas‖ (p.169). In other words, rapid advances in telemediated exchange are thought to eventually make the need of face to face interaction and high-density urban environments obsolete. In a famous work by Gelerntner (1991) called “Mirror worlds: the day software puts the universe in a shoebox…How it will happen and what it will mean” Gelerntner imagines that the advancement of 3D immersive environments would allow you to ―look into a computer screen and see some sort of reality. Some part of your world – the town you live in, the company you work for, your school system, the city hospital – will hang there in a sharp colour image‖ (Cited in Graham,1998, p. 170). Arguing that such views only perpetuate a dangerous myth and fallacy, neglecting the embeddedness and richness of human life within space and place, Graham (1998) instead proposes a co-evolutionary perspective in which new communications technologies are not substituting for the experience of metropolitan places but creating a synergy between place- based and telemediated exchanges or what Graham describes as ―the parallel social production of geographical space and electronic space‖ (p. 171). Consequently, major urban places are areas of dense face to face interactions and high level business activities that will not be mediated by telecommunications. Similarly, Storper & Venables (2004) argue that face-to-face contact remains central to the urban economy, in particular due to globalization and emerging creative business environments where information is imperfect and rapidly changing. In what they term buzz cities, or important nodes of highly developed cultural and business activity, individuals require the benefits of face-to-face interaction to communicate complex ideas and solve the critical coordination problems of the modern economy. Accordingly, the agglomeration of highly-skilled individuals, firms, and beauracracies in high cost urban centres will continue into the future. Such face-to-face activity remains highest in the populated downtown business centers. Thus, the CBD remains an important place to be for global businesses and innovative, creative industries and people (Storper & Venebles, 2004, p. 368). While globalization and technological advances are continuing to annihilate distance and shrink spaces, making cities lose their stickyness, the very same technologies are also allowing cities to enhance their stickyness. In a sense, physical places and electronic places are being fused together through cyberspace, opening up new spaces within cities and downtown places. Careful examination of internet and social media, shows that much of the traffic actually represents and 28 articulates real places and spaces, supporting and generating physical mobility, tourism, transport and trips for the highly mobile, elite groups, which use the medium (Graham, 1998). Instead of substituting for physical places, the internet and social media allow such places to be understood and navigated in ways never thought possible. Along these lines, Graham (1998) argues that ―New Information technologies, in short, actually resonate with, and are bound up in the active construction of space and place, rather than making it somehow redundant.‖ (p.174). In essence, the emergence of cyberspace has resulted in continued rapid space and place transformations, those of which have constituted a new wave of space transformations over just the past decade. These transformations are bound up in the modern downtown revitalization and economic development process. Urban areas in general and downtowns in particular remain the point of convergence of the physical and electronic world. Graham (1998) writes: But while cities are often spreading out to be vast, multi-centered urban regions linked into global networks, place-based relational webs that rely on adjacency, propinquity and physical flows remain central to the experience of human social, economic, and cultural life. The two rely on each other; they recursively interact. (p.182)
The form and function of the modern downtown provides an useful geographic lens to understand modern space and place based interactions. As Gollege (2002) succinctly writes, ―the place- specific nature of all things in real, imagined, or virtual worlds is paramount. Today‘s geographers- more so than ever before – relish this factor and make a search for such understanding place-specificity their guiding objective‖ (p.7). Such place-specificity is essential in understanding the stickyness of places in slippery space.
Neogeography and the Construction of Place: One way of understanding modern urban places and the people who interact within them is through the emerging web 2.0 and social media technologies which dominate modern urban society. According to Wikipedia (May, 2011), a Web 2.0 application itself, the definition of web 2.0 is as follows:
The term Web 2.0 is associated with web applications that facilitate participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumers) are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies. 29
Web based applications such as Twitter, Foursquare, Open Street Map, Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube are radically changing the lives and experiences of those who use the applications, from passive consumers to active participants. This has largely been correlated with the Google‘s release of their API (Application Programming Interface) which has resulted in the widespread use of Google map ―mashups‖ were with a bit of programming background anyone can use Google as a base map for the display of virtually any information (such as creating a map of vacation photos). But, why does web 2.0 matter to the geography of places? According to Goodchild (2009), everyone is a geographer, for geography is experienced by everyone. Recent technological developments such as GPS, the web, and open source GIS have reduced the cost of entry into map-making and geographic information collection almost to zero (p. 83). The explosion of citizen-based online mapping and geographic data production has been termed ―neogeography‖. Neogeography is characterized by the use of geographical techniques and tools for personal and community activities, activities which are blurring the traditional roles of subject, consumer, and producer of geographic information. (Goodchild, 2009) The description of neogeography as a tool for personal and community activities lends itself to concept of place as a meaningful location. Many neogeographic practices are in fact detailed descriptions of particular places or regions as neogeographical knowledge emanates from personal interactions with places, highly contextual and specific to the community of users who generate the data (Sui & Warf, 2010) What makes such data an authentic measure of places is the fact that it is user-generated. Goodchild (2007) discusses such user-generated content that has a geographical component as VGI, or volunteered geographic information. According to Goodchild (2007), VGI is a subset of user-generated content that concerns the characterization of the geographic domain, in other words the Earth‘s surface and near-surface, or any other information that has been associated with a specific geographic location. Made possible by technologies such as web 2.0 broadband, GPS, and geotagging, VGI has two key components, it is generated by the user and it is volunteered. The use of such technologies in the web 2.0 environment points to a profound shift in the nature and role of geographic information, a ―bottom-up‖ reconfiguration in how data are collected, transmitted, analyzed, visualized, and utilized that differs considerably from traditional ―top down‖ models in which experts and government agencies dictate the criteria of data collection, analysis, applications, and standards of truth (Sui & Warf, 2010). This bottom-up approach is characterized by the distinction between authoritative and asserted data, authoritative being ―top-down‖ and asserted being ―bottom-up.‖ VGI data is a 30 highly localized phenomenon, characterized by people using and creating their own maps on their own terms, sharing local information and conveying understanding of places to friends and visitors. (Goodchild, 2007) Assertive data at the local level, such as downtown places and neighborhoods, remains an effective and temporal source of information about an area. In fact, facts about well-populated places and readily observed phenomena are likely to be more accurate than facts about remote places and obscure phenomena, a pattern that is already evident in research on the accuracy of Wikipedia (Giles, 2005) One big advantage of ―bottom-up‖ user- generated data is temporal currency. Instead of waiting for census updates and aggregate data, much user-generated data is updated online in near real time. One could go beyond just knowing that 5,000 people live in downtown, but use user-generated data to measure more abstract concepts such as sense of place, attitudes, opinions and what are the popular and trendy locations, all of which have the potential to be accessed through web 2.0 applications and volunteered geographic information. Fine-grained social and geographic data is rapidly becoming available on scales previously not thought possible. In his work titled, ―The data avalanche is here, shouldn‘t we be digging?‖ Miller (2009) argues that: We have access to an unprecedented amount of fine-grained data on cities, transportation, economies, and societies, much of these data referenced in geo-space and time. There is a tremendous opportunity to discover new insights and knowledge about spatial economies that can inform theory and modeling in regional science, as well as policy and infrastructure decisions. (p.754)
This idea is echoed by Latour (2009) who notes that in terms of data availability it has been argued that social scientists are on par with physical scientists for first time ever! Such information is already being harnessed by planners, academics, and the general population for many purposes (Batty et al., 2010). The massive scale on which the virtual world was created and now covers is well described by Graham (2009). According to Graham (2009), in less than a decade a virtual dimension to the physical world has been constructed, a feat of engineering that is unprecedented in human history. This feat is largely a result of web 2.0 which has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to work on constructing virtual representations of place almost simultaneously. Such virtual representations of place, as well as people‘s ability to use social media to interact within them are providing new tools for community engagement. One discipline which has recently explored and began to embrace social media as a means of community engagement is urban planning. In just the last few years, academic work on the topic of social media has expanded across academic fields, including urban planning. Urban planning has 31 evolved significantly over the last 20 years in response to the rapid revolution of information and communication technology (ICT) (Foth et al., 2009). ICT has contributed to the globalization of cities and facilitated increased contacts between places and people at both the global and local levels. At the local level, planning can harness a variety of technologies and web 2.0 applications from participatory GIS (PPGIS) to 3D visualization and virtual communities. According to Foth et al. (2009) the connections between the ‗digital and the real‘ need to be explored further (p.114). One such way these connections are being explored is through the use of Facebook in planning, a relevant topic for showing how online social networking and real place-based interactions are being fused together. While to-date there is limited academic work exploring the use of social media in planning, nonetheless, there has been a rapid growth in the use of such technology by planners for organizing and promoting community engagement. In her article, ―Planning in the age of Facebook: the role of social networking in the planning process‖, Evans-Cowley (2010) provides insight on the extent to which planners are using social networking sites and on what specific issues might raise. Evans-Cowley (2010) argues that recognizing the rapid growth in use of online social networking sites, communities and planners are increasingly using such sites for organizing around place-based issues (p. 407). The capacity for social media as tool for place- based issues is centered on the idea that not all social ties are either totally online or off-line. Horrigan (2001) argues that much on-line contact is between people who see each other physically, such as individuals who live in the same city (Cited in Evans-Cowley, 2010, p.410). Some of the largest users of online networking and social media in urban areas are the younger population, a demographic segment who are typically underrepresented in the participatory process. Accordingly, Evans-Cowley (2011) suggests that planners can use online social networking as one more tool in the participatory tool box as a way to engage the younger demographic (p. 409). This tool might be particularly relevant in revitalized downtown areas today, places which often include younger, tech-savy, and engaged populations. In particular, large scale redevelopment, revitalization, and gentrification projects in downtown areas of cities are often topics of heated contention and debate, especially between residents and developers. Downtown places are also characterized by high place-based interactions and are highly connected places in terms of social networking. For instance, in the city of Columbus, the location of places represented by Facebook pages is highly concentrated in downtown areas as opposed to the suburbs (See Chapter 4 for more details). While further research needed, it is clear
32 that urban downtown areas are a modern convergent point for both the physical and electronic world, a fact that warrants additional attention in academia and participatory planning. Ultimately, Face-to-Face contact remains an important aspect of the modern innovation and creative industry driven society. These interactions have continued the need of high-profile CBDs which facilitate the physical interaction and efficient communication of individuals. There has not been an end of geography, but rather the explosion of place. Today, rapid advances in the development of the internet and information and communication technology have continued to re- write the notions of space and place. Emergence of cyberspace, web 2.0, VGI, and online social networking have provided new ways to understand places, particularly a new ―bottom-up‖ approach to collecting data, a new way of monitoring and understanding interactions between people and between people and places. Taken together, globalization, modern economic development and downtown revitalization, and cyberspace has resulted in a modern downtown whose form and function has rapidly changed over just the last half-century. These processes have resulted in a modern downtown with a very different function than a century ago, processes which have and continue to influence downtown revitalization and economic development in the city of Columbus, Ohio.
33
Chapter 3: Methods and Data
The thesis is meant to provide a comprehensive review of the process and practice of downtown revitalization, situated both locally and globally. Instead of focusing attentively on one aspect of downtown revitalization, the data and information collected touch on a variety of broader topics related to the revitalization process. By bringing together the multiple aspects of the revitalization as it relates to the city of Columbus and its downtown, this research provides a broad perspective to the process of downtown revitalization, a perspective which can help situate and guide further study on downtown areas. In order to accomplish this goal, the city of Columbus, Ohio provides a great opportunity for a case study. Thus, the primary goal of research conducted is to evaluate the Columbus region and its downtown in particular as a sticky place in slippery space, ultimately showing the implications of modern downtown revitalization across spatial scales from the local to the global. First and foremost, research will demonstrate how the Columbus downtown has changed over the last two decades, paying particular attention to downtown plans and past, current, and future revitalization projects. Secondly, data collected will show how Columbus is connected to the global economy and the Columbus region assets which aid in the maneuvering of slippery space. The methods and data collected are structured around the literature review framework. The slippery space and sticky place sections of the above literature review are each divided into three subsections: 1. Historical space/place transformations 2. Slippery space/sticky place and the modern global city 3. The implications of slippery space/sticky place
Each of these three above topics and the literature explored within each are related to the city of Columbus through analysis of relevant data and documents collected. Downtown Columbus has undergone significant transformations over the last few decades. In order to best show the process and practice of modern downtown revitalization in the city, discussion and data collected are focused on the years 1990 to 2010. Any relevant background and historical data prior 1990 is used as needed. In general, the methods and data collected for ―Columbus in Slippery Space‖ and ―Sticky Places in Downtown Columbus‖ can be summarized in the 34 following categories: Position, People, Places, and Plans, with slippery space evaluated primarily in terms of Position and People, and sticky places in terms of Places and Plans. In order to evaluate ―Slippery Space‖ and ―Sticky Places‖, data is collected within two primary study areas, the Columbus region and the Columbus downtown. Ultimately when studying the Columbus as a sticky place in slippery space, the entire region as a whole should be examined, as Columbus shares close economic and social ties with the immediate surrounding area. The prosperity of the region as a whole impacts the city of Columbus, and conversely the economic vitality of Columbus drives the economics of the region. As the capital, administrative unit, and home to key business and political leaders, the Columbus downtown is not only a reflection of Columbus, but of the region as a whole. The Columbus region is defined as the eight county Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as designated by the US Census Bureau. MSA‘s are administrative units derived by the US Census as an ―urbanized area‖, which combined with its surrounding communities and counties totals at least 100,000 people. The Columbus MSA is represented in Figure 2. The official Columbus downtown boundary is designated by the city of Columbus. This boundary is defined as the 2.2 sq. mile area located within the 4 boundaries of the Columbus Interstate Highways, I-70 to the south, I-670 to the north, I -71 to the east, and State Route 315 to the west. The downtown Columbus boundary is represented in Figure 3.
35
Figure 2. The Columbus Eight County Region
36
Figure 3. The Columbus Downtown Boundary
The rest of this chapter is organized into three sections. First, the general methods used to evaluate Columbus in terms slippery spaces and sticky places will be outlined, followed by two sections: 1. Methods (Qualitative and Quantitative) and 2. Data (Authoritative and Assertive).
3.1 Maneuvering Slippery Space Methods
In order to better understand the Columbus‘s position as a city in global space, a variety of aspects and data are examined. These are divided into two categories, Position and People; with Position referring to Columbus‘s position in the regional, national, and global economy and People referring to how political and professional actors in Columbus actively utilize, promote, and manipulate Columbus‘ economic position as a means for downtown planning and economic development. Foremost, Columbus‘s position as a city in the national and global economy is
37 evaluated. The historical economy, current economy, and impacts of globalization are explored, all relating back to the literature reviewed on historical space transformations, emerging global cities, and the implications of slippery space. In particular, the industrial revolution, suburbanization, deindustrialization, and inter-city competition are topics explored for Columbus. These will be qualified through appropriate historical literature, as well as quantified through various sources of economic and business data. The data is used to capture economic characteristics over time such as business and employment by industry, fastest growing industry sectors, economic drivers, and labor force by occupation. These data will provide insight into what types of business, industry, and people have found Columbus to be a sticky place. These numbers are complemented by business data, including HQ and branch presence, Fortune 1000 and 500 companies, and international companies, all meant to understand Columbus‘s economic position not just locally, but regionally, nationally, and globally. This data will be complimented by a report produced by the Columbus Chamber of Commerce in which the economic drivers, or high-output industries located in the Columbus region are identified. Finally, a report on Population Migration patterns by the CRP, is used to explore the primary origins and destinations of population migration into and out of Ohio and the Columbus region from the around the country. This data provides insight into where people moving to Columbus from, and if they leave Columbus, where are they moving to. Part of the attractiveness of the Columbus region to both business and people can also be directly attributed to its geographic location. The position of Columbus as a node in the global network is explored in terms of how the geographic location of Columbus has impacted the downtown and region both historically and at present time. In particular, Columbus‘ location at the center of the state of Ohio, as well is being within reach of nearly half of the US population in just one day‘s drive has helped drive both the past and future economic development in the region. With this in mind, data collected on freight and air connections to the US and world, including top exports, commodity flows, and infrastructure. Such data are used to show how Columbus‘ location has allowed the city to extend its regional, national, and global reach and how this is impacting what industries and businesses find Columbus to be an advantageous location. In particular, the emergence of the city as a logistics hotspot is used as an example. The goal of this section is to situate the Columbus region across spatial scales, showing how the stickyness of the Columbus region in terms of both population and business is being impacted by its location in the regional, national, and global urban network. This provides context for the Columbus region as a sticky place.
38
Finally, maneuvering global spaces is examined in terms of people, local political and professional actors and their strategies to maneuver global space. This portion will primarily be taken from interviews and planning documents. Actors are involved across spatial scales from the local downtown planning to national and global economic development. Each of the actors has a particular stake in the revitalization process. Particular attention is placed on economic development in Columbus through the recently launched Columbus 2020! Initiative, one of the largest and most comprehensive economic development plans in the country today. The Columbus 2020! Initiative includes regional, national, and global business attraction efforts, and the Columbus image project (marketing & branding), all of which are being actively used as means to maneuver global space. The initiative also includes comprehensive business retention and expansion efforts to maintain and grow the businesses already located in Columbus. To understand the motivation behind the initiative, the actors involved, the methods used to maneuver global space data are collected from directly from Columbus 2020!, including the 2020! Business plan, quarterly and monthly reports, interviews, and 2011 actual business attraction, expansions, and retentions , showing how Columbus is actively maneuvering global space through a variety of mechanisms, and also how and why and by whom Columbus 2020! was created and how a vibrant, modern downtown might aid the initiative.
3.2 Sticky Places in Downtown Columbus Methods
Sticky places in downtown are evaluated in terms of Plans and Places, analyzing what sticky places are in downtown Columbus, what plans have been used to make downtown places sticky, and what actors and organizations developed these plans. These objectives are qualified through historical and present downtown plans and quantified through demographic and business data. The demographic and business data was processed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and specifically ESRI Business Analyst Desktop. Such data are used to understand how downtown has changed over the last two decades (1990-2010) in terms of both residential and business activities. Residential information is taken from the 2002 and 2010 Columbus downtown strategic plans as well as various studies completed by local research and real estate organization. The residential information is complimented by US Census and ESRI demographic information about the downtown population. Demographic information was collected specifically inside the downtown boundary by creating a study area using ESRI Business Analyst. Market reports are run for the downtown study area to show demographic data including, population, age, income,
39 and households. More specifically, ESRI Tapestry data (described in detail below in data section) is used to more comprehensively describe the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the Columbus population which call downtown home. Secondly, Business Analyst is used to explore the composition of businesses located in the downtown area. Business analyst contains a point layer of all businesses locations in the Columbus region. Using the select by location feature in ArcMap, all of the businesses located within the downtown areas are selected, exported and analyzed. Specific analysis included looking at what businesses are located downtown, what industry‘s they represent, and how many workers they employ. The breakdown by industry was done using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and then compared to the region as a whole using a Location Quotient (LQ) Calculation. Next, the actual downtown revitalization projects which have made the Columbus downtown a sticky place for business and people are described, looking most notably at what projects have been implemented the last 20 years and what projects are planned for the next 10 years. Specifically, the 2002 and 2010 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plans are described in detail. Set within the context of 2002 and 2010 plan as well as the interviews, one downtown district, the Arena District, is illustrated as a sticky place downtown. Built on a previous ―brownfield‖, the Arena District provides a great example of an innovative, collaborative, and entrepreneurial revitalization project which has been the catalyst for downtown revitalization in the city. Based on interviews with the planning firm who designed the district, the story of the Arena District from idea to completion is illustrated. Finally, sticky places in downtown Columbus are evaluated in terms of social media and information technology. The purpose here is to show the extent to which places in downtown Columbus are being represented within social media and how cyberspace and social media may be facilitating the interactions of people within such downtown places. Data collected is primarily from user-generated websites. Evaluation of websites and blogs in the Columbus area, as well as in-depth look at Facebook place pages and foursquare check-ins. Using the search terms ―Columbus‖ and ―Downtown Columbus‖, a database of 170 place pages in Facebook is mapped, looking at the distribution of the locations across the region and in downtown. Similarly, examples of user-generated content from Google maps and various Columbus websites are presented. The assertive (―bottom-up‖) data collected is meant to provide a glimpse of the types of data available and demonstrate their potential use by planners, academics, and residents, relating back to the recent emerging literature on web 2.0 and social media technologies. The methods described above are divided into two categories, qualitative and quantitative. 40
3.3 Qualitative Methods
Research on the Columbus downtown relies heavily upon qualitative assessment from a variety of sources. Three interviews were conducted with local planning and economic development officials concerning downtown revitalization in Columbus. These interviews were purposely chosen to represent both the public and private sectors, as well as the local and regional/global spatial scales. A list of interviews is listed in Table 1. The first interview was conducted with Dr. Bill LaFayette of the Columbus Chamber. Dr. LaFayette is the VP of Economic Analysis. As the chief economist at the Columbus Chamber of Commerce, Dr. LaFayette analyzes and interprets economic and demographic trends for Columbus region, thus providing valuable insight on the Columbus and Midwestern economy both past and present, as well as historical and first-hand perspective of the importance of downtown to the local economy. The second interview was conducted with Chris Hermann of MSI design. Chris Hermann the director of Planning at the MSI. MSI is a planning, urban design, landscape architecture, and entertainment design firm with offices in Columbus. MSI has planned and designed several of the Columbus downtown revitalization projects over the last decade, including the Arena District. The purpose of this interview was to provide first-hand account of the process of the development of downtown projects, specifically the Arena District, the actors involved, and the specific planning used in the designs. The third interview was conducted with Matt McCollister of Columbus 2020! Matt McCollister is the Vice President of Economic Development for the Columbus 2020! Economic Development Initiative. The purpose of this interview was to connect downtown revitalization and economic development in Columbus. Each interview consisted of specific questions and casual conversation to gain insights into the certain aspects of the revitalization process mentioned above.
41
Table 1. List of Interviews Conducted
Interviewee: Title: Organization Dr. Bill LaFayette Vice President of Economic Analysis Columbus Chamber of Commerce Christopher Director of Planning MSI Design Hermann Matthew Vice President of Economic Columbus 2020! McCollister Development
Outside of the interviews, remaining qualitative assessment was centered upon a variety of planning documents related to downtown revitalization and economic development. These documents are outlined in Table 2 below. Besides the planning documents, several other relevant research documents on a variety of topics were used. These are outlined in Table 3. Besides these official sources, relevant newspaper and online articles were searched and collected to support the Columbus downtown case study. Also, my own personal experiences are used to supplement the above material and planning documents. The research questions for this paper were derived from my own observations over the last ten years. Having lived in Columbus my entire life, I have witnessed the transformation of downtown first-hand. In particular, being employed downtown over the last 6 months and walking and observing downtown both day and night has proved very useful in understanding the downtown places talked about in this research.
42
Table 2. Major Planning Document Sources
Planning Document Organization: Description 2002 Downtown Strategic City of Columbus Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan Plan 2010 Downtown Strategic City of Columbus Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan Plan Columbus 2020! Business City of Columbus Official 2020! Business Plan Plan
Table 3. Other Major Documents
Other Major Documents Organization: Description Downtowners of Columbus: Community Research Data Byte exploring the demographic Who They Are and How Partners (CRP) characteristics of downtown residents. They Live Creative Columbus Columbus College of Report on the creative economy in Art and Design Columbus. (CCAD) Coming or Going? Ohio Community Research Data Byte Exploring where people are Population Migration Partners (CRP) moving to and from within and outside Patterns Ohio. A Downtown Multifamily The Danter Company Past trends and future projections of Housing Analysis in the City housing development and market of Columbus support in downtown Columbus.
43
3.4 Quantitative Methods
In order to support the information gleamed from the qualitative assessment; quantitative data was collected from a variety of sources. The data collected fall into two categories, Authoritative (top-down) and Assertive (Bottom-up). The authoritative data collected is divided into three categories: Demographic, Economic, and Business. Authoritative data is data which is collected, aggregated, and disseminated, and controlled by government or other professional institutions. This represents a top-down approach to the collection of data, in which release and collection of data is undertaken by authorities and most often involves a strict collection, and sampling method, being reported and/or aggregated at set geographies. Only general statistical information is collected, and most often not released at the individual level. Authoritative data used can be summarized in three categories: Demographic, Economic, and Business. (Table 4, 5, 6)
Table 4. Demographic Data Sources
Data Source: Description US Census Bureau A division of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the US Census Bureau is responsible for collecting and providing relevant data about Demographic the people and economy of the United States. Conducted every 10 years the Census provides updated population and demographic information. (census.gov) ESRI ESRI, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. is the largest commercial producer of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Demographic ESRI provides extensive geographic data and the software to analyze Tapestry it. ESRI Tapestry data was used to classify the downtown population. Tapestry classifies U.S. residential neighborhoods into 65 unique market segments based on socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Esri‘s Tapestry Segmentation system combines the ―who‖ of lifestyle demography with the ―where‖ of local neighborhood geography to create a model of various lifestyle classifications or segments of actual neighborhoods with addresses— distinct behavioral market segments. (Esri.com)
44
Table 5. Economic Data Sources
Data Source: Description US Bureau of Labor The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the principal fact-finding agency for the Federal Government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics. Statistics BLS collects, analyzes, and disseminates economic information to CES support public and private decision-making.
OES Each month the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program surveys LAUS about 140,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 410,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and about 400 metropolitan areas and divisions.
The Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program produces employment and wage estimates for over 800 occupations. These are estimates of the number of people employed in certain occupations, and estimates of the wages paid to them. Self-employed persons are not included in the estimates. These estimates are available for the nation as a whole, for individual States, and for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas; national occupational estimates for specific industries are also available.
The Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program produces monthly and annual employment, unemployment, and labor force data for Census regions and divisions, States, counties, metropolitan areas, and many cities, by place of residence
Documents Ohio Department of Development:
March 2010, Ohio Exports 2009: Origin of Movement Series
Columbus Chamber of Commerce:
February 2011, Indentifying High-Output Industries in the Columbus MSA Economy
45
Table 6. Business Data Sources
Data Source: Description ESRI Business Updated annually, Business Locations and Business Summary databases Analyst give you overview information about businesses by location and industry classification codes. The Business Locations database classifies businesses by
SIC and NAICS industry classifications Infogroup's proprietary six-digit SIC and eight-digit NAICS
The Business Summary database gives statistics for:
Total sales Total number of employees Number of businesses by industry (ESRI.com) Documents Columbus College of Art & Design
June 2009, Creative Columbus: A Picture of the Creative Economy in Central Ohio
The second category of quantitative data is assertive or ―bottom-up‖ data. These data are characterized as user-generated content. The availability of user-generated content within the web 2.0 environment points to a profound shift in the nature and role of geographic information, a ―bottom-up‖ reconfiguration in how data are collected, transmitted, analyzed, visualized, and utilized that differs considerably from traditional ―top down‖ models in which experts and government agencies dictate the criteria of data collection, analysis, applications, and standards of truth (Sui & Warf, 2010). Assertive data at the local level, such as downtown places and neighborhoods is seen as an effective and temporal source of information about an area outside of the traditional sources of demographic data. One big advantage of ―bottom-up‖ user-generated data is temporal currency. Instead of waiting for census updates and aggregate data, much user- generated data is updated online in near real time. Beyond just knowing that 5,000 people live in downtown, user-generated data from sources such as Facebook, foursquare, and Google is used to 46 measure more abstract concepts such as sense of place, attitudes, opinions to help understand the sticky places within downtown. The user-generated content used for this study comes primarily from Facebook. (Table 7) Data are collected on Facebook place pages and groups which exist in the city of Columbus, Ohio. For each Columbus Facebook page, data are collected on the number of ―likes‖ and the number of check-ins at that location via the foursquare Smartphone application. Complementing the Facebook Page analysis, examples of user generated data from Google Maps and other Columbus specific websites is also presented.
Table 7. Assertive Data Sources
Data Source: Description Facebook Facebook is a social networking service and website launched in February 2004, which today has over 600 million users. Data are collected on place pages and groups which exist in the city of Columbus, Ohio. Google Google is one of the world‘s largest online search engines. Google‘s Map interface allows users to view and upload photos, videos, webcams, Maps Wikipedia entries at any location on earth. Websites The following Columbus-based web sites have user-generated content: ColumbusUnderground.com Columbusneighborhoods.com Columbusalive.com Downtowncolumbus.com Experiencecolumbus.com
47
Chapter 4: Columbus Case Study
Introduction: Columbus shining bright in the Rust Belt
Our downtown can emerge stronger than ever, reclaiming its place as a sparkling center of commerce and entertainment, shining brightly among American cities of the 21st Century.
-Mayor Michael B. Coleman, April, 2002
One of the few major metropolitan areas in the Midwestern US to record significant population gains over the last several decades, the city of Columbus provides useful insight into how the use of public-private partnerships, entrepreneurialism, innovation, leadership, and community pride have helped initiate a successful downtown turnaround. In fact, in 2003, the Columbus Downtown experienced its first residential population gain, reversing a 50 year decline. This population growth has coincided with numerous other downtown revitalization strategies aimed at ―bringing life to the city‖ and making downtown, ―everybody‘s neighborhood‖ (2002 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan). However, the portrayal of Columbus today as a vibrant, energetic and world-class city represents a dramatic departure from a century ago. Since its official designation as the state capital in 1851, the city of Columbus has not been the most recognizable city in Ohio, that title more often than not going to Cincinnati or Cleveland (Teaford,1993). Located in a section of the Midwest still today regarded by many today as predominantly agricultural and rural, many outsiders viewed Columbus as nothing more than a state capital and college town. In the 1980 Chicago Tribune, Paul Gapp wrote that Columbus ―has the sleepy ambience of an overgrown county seat. It is neat, snug, provincial, and slow to accept change‖ (Cited in Checkoway & Patton, 1985) Similarly, Columbus was also described at that same time as ―countrified and dreadly dull‖ (Checkoway & Patton, 1985). Despite this image, as other old, industrial towns of the Midwestern Rust Belt suffered major economic setbacks in the 1970s and 1980s, Columbus continued to experience population and economic growth. Curry et al. (2004) argues that, ―Columbus‘s sleepy, bucolic image has masked the facts
48 of the city‘s last thirty years. Columbus has been the most rapidly growing and dynamic city of the old industrial Rust Belt‖ (p. 43). Columbus‘s central location in the state has made it a center for transportation and trade. Never as heavily reliant on manufacturing as cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, and having a large public-employment sector and a well balanced mix of manufacturing, services, and trade, Columbus has been able to weather the storm of deindustrialization and maintain an advantage over other Midwestern Rust Belt cities concerning future economic growth. The Columbus population grew in every decade from 1950 to 2010, from 375,901 in 1950 to 787,033 in 2010, a feat accomplished by no other Rust Belt city (Teaford, 1993, p. 212). Since 1950, the Midwest in general and Ohio in particular has seen decelerated growth with many major cities losing significant population. The trend in Figure 4 (Table 8) gives a clear indication of how the period of deindustrialization during the post war years from 1960 to 1960 resulted in rapid deceleration of population growth in the Midwest and Ohio. With the increased attention on revitalization and renewal in many cities took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, population growth saw some traction increasing in the period from 1990 to 2000, before being slowed once- again by the economic recession of the late 2000s. While the Midwest and Ohio have been in general population growth decline, the city of Columbus paints an entirely different picture. Both the Columbus MSA and Columbus City have more than doubled their population during the period from 1950 to 2010. (Table 9)
Table 8. Percent Population Change by Decade for US Regions and Ohio
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Midwest 10.8 16.1 9.6 4.1 1.4 7.9 3.9 West 40.4 38.9 24.1 24 22.3 19.7 13.8 Northeast 9.7 13.2 9.8 0.2 3.4 5.5 3.2 South 13.3 16.5 14.2 20 13.4 17.3 14.3 Ohio 15.0 22.1 9.7 1.4 0.5 4.7 1.6 Source: US Census Bureau
49
Figure 4. Percent Population Growth by Decade from 1950 to 2010, Midwest and Ohio
Source: US Census Bureau
Table 9. Columbus Population: 1950 to 2010
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Columbus MSA 745,970 977,790 1,170,780 1,270,290 1,405,168 1,612,694 1,836,536 Columbus City 375,901 471,316 539,677 564,871 632,945 711,470 787,033 Source: US Census Bureau
The recent release of the 2010 census reports that Columbus population at 787,033, making it the 15th largest city in the US and 3rd largest state capital, with the entire MSA surpassing 1.8 million people, growing 13.88% from 2000 to 2010. Such positive population growth was not experienced by the remaining top 5 largest cities in Ohio. As seen in Table 10, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Akron all had negative population growth from 2000 to 2010, with the Columbus population growing 10.6%. Even more telling is the percentage of the Ohio Population
50 which is represented by the Columbus MSA, a percentage which has been steadily increasing every decade from 9.4% in 1950 to 15.9% in 2010. (Figure 5)
Table 10. Major Ohio Cities Population Change 2000 – 2010
Top 5 cities in Ohio 2010 Pop % Change 2000 to 2010 Columbus 787,033 10.6 Cleveland 396,815 -17.1 Cincinnati 296,943 -10.4 Toledo 287,208 -8.4 Akron 199,110 -8.3 Source: US Census Bureau
Figure 5. Percent of Ohio Population located in the Columbus MSA
Source: US Census Bureau
While the Columbus city and Columbus MSA have seen significant population gains, the Columbus downtown has seen the opposite trend. Columbus, like many other US cities, lost significant downtown population due to suburban sprawl and decentralization. After reaching approx. 30,000 residents in 1950, the Columbus downtown lost an estimated 20,000 residents
51 between 1950 and 1970, reaching a low of 3,500 in 2000. (2010 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan)
Figure 6. Columbus Downtown Population 1950 - 2010
Source: 2010 Downtown Strategic Plan
In the 1950s and 1960s, downtown Columbus was the center of business and retail activity for the city. Large office buildings, industrial plants, major department stores, and affluent neighborhoods surrounded the downtown core. Yet by the 1980s the suburbanization of housing and shopping malls along with the creation of a new outer-belt freeway resulted in the wide-spread relocation of people, business, retail, and services away from the central city. (Curry et. al, 2004) Inner-city neighborhoods declined, shops and industry were left abandoned and the downtown became virtually empty after the working day was over. In response to these negatives, Columbus growth coalitions since the 1980s have placed a renewed focus on downtown Columbus, with numerous mixed-used development projects spurring a true ―rebirth‖ of the area, most notably over the last twenty years .Today the downtown projects are complemented by the start of the Columbus 2020!, one of the nation‘s largest and most comprehensive economic
52 development initiatives. Columbus has implemented revitalization and economic development projects not because the city is in ―trouble‖, but to maintain its status and push forward to be truly world class city and more successfully maneuver slippery space.
4.1 Columbus in Slippery Space
4.1.1 Columbus Historical Space Transformations In his Personal Geography of Columbus, Ohio, Hunker (2000) comments that site and situation both had a ―quite a bit to do‖ with the original settlement of central Ohio and Columbus (p. 8). The concept of situation is based on the idea that the success of a community or region is driven by its relative situation, or geographic location, with respect to other cities and regions, to the state, or to the national and international arenas, whereas site is an absolute concept that deals with the physical characteristics of a single place. In other words, site and situation are closely related to what I have described in this paper as space and place. Accordingly, the founding and development of Columbus is closely tied not only to its geographic location in the center of the state of Ohio, but to the opening of new national and global spaces by industrial and transportation technology advancements during the 19th and early 20th Century (1800 to 1940), one of the major waves of space and place transformations mentioned in Chapter 2. What is now Columbus, is located in a former region just west of the Scioto River which opened as part of the Northwest Territory following the Revolutionary War. A Virginian land surveyor by the name of Lucas Sullivant founded the settlement of Franklinton on the west bank of the Scioto River in 1797. Ohio statehood in came in 1803, an in 1812 the state sought a permanent capital within 40 miles of the geographic center. Four Franklinton land owners submitted a proposal that was accepted by the state, and the city of Columbus was born (AIA, 2008).
The Columbus Economy 1812 – 1960 Since its founding in 1812 the Columbus economy was dictated primarily by its geographic location and the city‘s chief function as the center of state government. Despite being the capital, Columbus remained a small community during its early years. When the city was incorporated in 1834 there were 3,500 residents and by 1850, the city has reached a population of only 17,882 (Hunker, 2000). However, during this same time period vast improvements in transportation opened the Columbus region to increased regional trade and commerce. By 1831 a
53
Feeder Canal was opened connecting the city with the Ohio and Erie Canal, by 1833 the National Road passed through the city, and by the 1850s railroads were in place (Hunker, 2000). By the late 1860s, the expansion of federal and state government activities as well as the development of numerous small manufacturing firms positioned the city favorably for a rapid period of urban industrialization from 1870 – 1890, growing to a population of 125,560 in 1900 as Ohio‘s third largest city (Hunker, 2000). In 1890 fifteen railroads came into Columbus, hauling the rich mineral and timber resources from southeastern counties to Columbus and other markets outside the region. (Hunker, 2000). These resources combined with transportation connections which opened up Columbus to regional and national markets provided the foundation for new and expanded manufacturing activities in the city. In fact, local innovations attributed to much of the industrial development in the city, with some of the companies that emerged claimed to be the largest of their type in the world. These included: Jeffrey Manufacturing (mining machinery), Jaeger Machinery (portable cement mixers), Buckeye Steel Castings (railroad castings), Ralston Steel Car Company (railroad freight cars), Seagraves (fire engines), M.C. Lilley (regalia), and Peruna Drugs (patent medicines) (Hunker, 2000). In fact, Columbus was considered one of the largest producers of wagons, carriages, and buggies in the world, with twenty buggy companies in 1990, including one the largest in the world, the Columbus Buggy Company (Hunker, 2000). However, ―Despite this burst of industrial expansion, which was occurring in many American cities in the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, Columbus remained true to its initial role as government center, with associated trade and commerce of continued importance to its economic success‖ (Hunker, 2000, p. 52). While employment in manufacturing reached an all-time high during and after WWII, and establishment of national plants by the federal government, such as the Curtiss-Wright aircraft plant (employing 25,000 people), brought recognition of the city as a place where national firms might thrive, Columbus did not show ―either a willingness or desire to become a blue collar industrial town‖ (Hunker, 2000, p.55). Led by opposition from local residents, Columbus even turned down branch plants from both Ford and International Harvester in the 1950s. Columbus simply did not support the typical industrial firms characterized by the steel, chemical, rubber, and automobile manufacturing industries of the Midwest. As a result, Columbus has not suffered the same fate since the 1960s as other Ohio cities such as Akron, Cleveland, Youngstown, and Dayton, where heavy industry dominated the local economy and the loss of residents and jobs has been widespread. As a result, Columbus found itself to be well-positioned for development in the new service-oriented global economy which emerged during the post war period. 54
4.1.2 Slippery Space and Columbus as a Modern Global City The Columbus Economy 1960 – 2000 After WWII, continued changing notions of space continued to impact the economic development of cities. While the industrial revolution opened up new physical and production spaces across the globe, not until after WWII did the beginnings of a true world economy emerge. Friedmann‘s (1986) world city hypothesis included the idea that world city formation was a direct result of economic restructuring or the growth of a primary cluster of high-level business services who employ a large number of professionals - the transnational elite. The chief economic functions of these high-level business clusters included: management, banking and finance, legal services, accounting, technical consulting, telecommunications and computing, international transportation, research, and higher education. In addition to these clusters, a secondary cluster was rapidly developing in world-cities. This cluster of employment includes professionals in real estate, construction activities, hotel services, restaurants, luxury shopping, entertainment, private police and domestic services. A reflection of the larger world economic shifts from an industry to service, the economic restructuring of world cities and the growth of the above sectors often takes the place of manufacturing employment. While there are certainly exceptions in local markets, this is not to say that manufacturing employment was being completely replaced, but as a proportion of all employment in many cities its numbers were declining. Ohio was not exception to this phenomenon. In 1960 approx. 1,285,000 people were employed in manufacturing, or 41 % of the labor force, by 2000 manufacturing represented less than 20% of the labor force (Hunker, 2000). Similarly, in the Columbus MSA 30% of labor force was engaged in manufacturing in 1960, and by 2000 only 11% (Hunker, 2000). However, while this loss was devastating to many other cities local economies, it was less pronounced in Columbus, a city supported by continuing growth of employment in the service sector, which increased from 283,000 in 1970 to over 730,000 by 2000, an increase of more than 155% (Hunker, 2000). With a growing service sector economy and well-established reputation as a government center, Columbus maintained a diverse, and complex economy and population size which few other state capitals can claim. Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s the Columbus service economy and related industries continued to expand. The creation of an extensive interstate highway net and the Columbus region, including the I -270 outer belt, along with the geographic advantages of Columbus location allowed the growth of wholesale and retail trade sectors. Companies such as Sears, J.C. Penney, and The Limited located corporate offices and 55 warehousing and distribution centers in the region. The 1999 list of the 25 largest employers in Columbus reflected the diverse government and service economy. Only one manufacturing firm, Honda, is in the top 10. Government and education account for 8 of the top 25, as well as seven retail establishments, four financial and insurance companies, three hospitals, and one utility (Hunker, 2000) In addition, three of the world‘s largest and leading research organizations were located in central city area of Columbus, including Battelle Memorial Institute, Chemical Abstracts, and The Ohio State University. These business and institutional assets as well as a large, well-educated workforce and perceived high quality of life, gave the Columbus economy the potential to ―market its services beyond the local region, attract dollars and investments from other parts of the nation and world‖ (Hunker, 2000, p. 62). Over the past decade, through numerous region wide initiatives, including downtown revitalization and economic development projects, the city has sought to attract such investments and increasingly portray itself as truly ―world-class‖ city.
The Columbus Economy 2000 – Present Columbus has the look and feel of a young city as it anticipates the 21st century. There is a vibrancy that reflects a new focus in the economy, that responds to an aggressive demand for a more inspiring culture, and that significantly, responds to new leadership and new confidence at work, building on the establishment of previous generations. (Hunker, 2000, p. 7)
The state of the current Columbus economy shows that the city is well-positioned to maneuver slippery space. The Columbus Region has a diversified economy where no single major industry sector represents more than 18 percent of employment. (Figure 7)
56
Figure 7. Columbus Region Employment by Industry
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics
The top sectors of employment in Columbus include Information (18%), Manufacturing (17%), and Wholesale Trade (13%). Over the past decade (2000 to 2010), the fastest growing sectors have been education and health (+21 percent), transportation and utilities (+12 percent), and professional and business services (+13 percent). (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics) The Columbus Region has a majority white-collar workforce, including a workforce of 35,200 in management occupations, 57,970 in business and financial occupations, and 40,310 in computer and mathematical science occupations. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). (Figure 8)
57
Figure 8. Columbus Employment by Occupation
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, May 2009
Columbus as a Sticky Place for Business The Columbus Region labor force has also been growing. In April 2011, Columbus MSA had a total workforce of 959,100 people (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics). In 2000, the annual average labor force was 881, 936 and in 1990 it was just 756,460, representing an increase of over 200,000 workers in the two decade span. The diverse economy of Columbus and its service-oriented workforce is reflected by the major employers and companies headquartered in the region which employ the workers in the above occupations. Fifteen Fortune 1000 companies are headquartered in the region, including six Fortune 500 companies. Several other Fortune 1000 and major international companies are among the region‘s largest employers. (Table 22, Appendix A) In fact, compared to other MSA‘s of similar size, Columbus ranks very high in terms of number of Fortune 1000 companies. If you take the five MSA‘s above and below Columbus in terms of population according to the 2010 Census, Columbus is ranked third (tie) out of the 11 MSAs (Table 11) Major employers are located throughout the region, with 4 Fortune 1000 (Forbes, 2011) companies located in downtown boundary, including Nationwide Mutual Insurance, American Electric Power, Momentive Specialty Chemicals, and Huntington Bancshares.
58
Table 11. Columbus MSA Fortune 1000 Company Ranking
Fortune Fortune MSA 2010 Pop 1000 500
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 1,836,911 27 13
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH MSA 2,077,240 18 7
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN MSA 2,130,151 15 9
Columbus, OH MSA 1,836,536 15 5
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 1,758,038 13 8
Kansas City, MO-KS MSA 2,035,334 10 3
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN MSA 1,756,241 8 3
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA 1,951,269 7 3
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA MSA 1,600,852 6 2
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA 1,671,683 4 4
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX MSA 1,716,289 3 2 Source: US Census Bureau, 2010; Forbes Magazine
59
Figure 9. Columbus Fortune 1000 Company Locations
0 2.5 5 10 Miles
Many of the employers which have found Columbus to be a sticky place are both nationally and internationally known establishments that have significant connections both to people and places as well as branch locations located throughout the US and world. Outside of domestic companies, the Columbus Region also has a significant presence of international companies. According to the International Corporate Investment report released in June 2010 by the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD), there are 3,363 international establishments in Ohio employing 194,080 people. These establishments represent 41 countries, including: Japan (27%), Germany (15%), United Kingdom (13%), Canada (8%), Switzerland (7%), and France (7%). As expected, the metropolitan areas of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati have the highest concentrations of investment. According to the survey, the eight county Columbus MSA contains 243 internationally owned companies representing 28 different countries. The top 10 countries are summarized in Table 12. 60
Table 12. Columbus MSA International Companies
Rank Country Count 1 Japan 64 2 Germany 40 3 Canada 30 4 Switzerland 22 5 United Kingdom 18 6 France 15 7 Ireland 12 8 Netherlands 10 9 Sweden 5 10 Italy 4 Source: ODOD, 2009
To the person unfamiliar with the Columbus region, and perhaps even those who live here, the data presented above might be somewhat surprising. Columbus is rather quietly home to major Fortune 1000 companies, hundreds of international companies from around the world, a well- educated workforce, growing service-economy, and world-leading research institutions, all of which are helping to make Columbus a sticky place in slippery space. However, while it easy to compile lists of major employers in the region, the more relevant and perhaps harder to answer question is what industries truly find the Columbus region to be sticky; In other words, what industries do the environmental and economic characteristics of Columbus make the firms more competitive than their counterparts in other places across the US? Another mechanism for understanding the current Columbus economy is by identifying high-output industries. These industries are considered to be the regional economic drivers. In other words, these industries have greater-than-average employment and/or output that is growing faster than average. Also, they are export industries creating a net inflow of dollars to the Columbus MSA by producing goods and services for an area larger than the region. Because these industries represent a larger-than-average share of total output that is growing faster than average, there is probably some environmental or economic characteristic that makes firms in the industry more competitive than their counterparts elsewhere (LaFayette, 2011). Under the
61 framework of sticky places in slippery space, there is a strong argument that Columbus is a sticky place for these high-output industries. In this analysis by LaFayette (2011) categorization of high- output industries was calculated at the 4-digit NAICS level at the regional and national level on the basis of their output Location Quotient (LQ) and their Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR). If the difference between an industry‘s local CAGR and and National CAGR is positive, it is growing faster than average and is a candidate to be a driver. Based on the resulting analysis by the Columbus Chamber of Commerce, (LaFayette, 2011) the list of Columbus MSA drivers is: 1. Logistics and Distribution 2. Business and Professional Services – particularly information technology, marketing, design, retail support, administrative support, and corporate offices 3. Finance and insurance – particularly insurance 4. Manufacturing subsectors, including motor vehicles and parts, plastics, food and beverages, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and glass and clay products 5. Life Sciences and healthcare 6. Creative industries – arts, entertainment, tourism (See Appendix A, Table 23 for full list of data) The above economic driver industries comprise a diverse and strong mix of professional and service-related activities, as well as manufacturing and creative industries. Thus, it is these industries for which Columbus can be categorized as a sticky place. Accordingly, based on interviews with Dr. LaFayette and Matthew McCollister, these are the industries that are given focus in terms of economic development, most notably the retention, expansion, and attraction efforts of the Columbus Chamber of Commerce and Columbus 2020!.
Columbus Population Migration As illustrated by the population, employer, and workforce data above, Columbus has been a relatively sticky place for both population and employers in comparison to other major cities in both Ohio and the Midwest. This begs the question where are people moving to Columbus from, and if they leave Columbus, where are they moving to? According to a study of Ohio Population Migration patterns released from the Community Research Partners (CRP) in 2009, from 2007 to 2008, 407,288 people moved into Ohio from other parts of the US and 442,980 moved out of the state to elsewhere in the country, representing a net loss of 35,692 domestic migrants. Data comes from the IRS which aggregates tax returns, i.e if a household files 62 taxes from X county in 2007 and Y county in 2008, this is interpreted as a migration between X and Y county. The migration between Ohio and the rest of the U.S. is most telling. The top fivestates for net out-migration include Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, and Kentucky. Based on the data from 2007 -2008, people moving to Ohio are predominantly from surrounding states, such as West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and most notably Michigan. The geographic distribution is seen in Figure 10.
Figure 10. State of Ohio Domestic Migration
Source: Map Courtesy of Community Research Partners, October 2009
Within the state of Ohio, Franklin County (Columbus) is the only county which had substantial net in-migration from across the state, evidence of the health of the Columbus economy. According to the CRP (2009) study, Franklin County gained 4,260 residents from across Ohio outside the Columbus metro area, balancing out the loss to its suburban neighbors within its own metro. In comparison, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) had a net loss of -1,565 residents to counties outside its metro area. (For net migration comparisons see Figure 11)
63
Figure 11. Ohio Metropolitan Area Net Migration Comparisons
Franklin County (Columbus) Cuyahoga County (Cleveland)
Key: Orange: net out-migration Blue: net in-migration
Hamilton County (Cincinnati)
Source: Maps Courtesy of Community Research Partners, October 2009
A combination of the Columbus economy, availability of jobs, and quality of life is certainly drawing residents from other areas of the Midwest to Columbus, most notably other major metros of Ohio. This data shows that Columbus today is primarily a sticky place for people from within the region. While the data collected is from 2007-2008 a similar analysis today will most likely
64 yield similar patterns. Part of Columbus‘ appeal can also be attributed to the accessibility of Columbus geographic location in the center of Ohio as well as its easy access to other major markets of the Midwest and US.
Columbus Geographic Location: A Node in a Global Network Columbus and surrounding counties are located in the center of the state and the city‘s geographic accessibility has been a major resource since its selection of the site to be Ohio‘s capital. According to Hunker (2000), The Progression in Central Ohio from overland trails through the wilderness to canals and national road to the coming of the railroads to modern highways and finally to the vast Interstate Highway System and modern air transport systems attest to this. Each improvement had the effect of changing the relative value of Columbus and its location as it altered or improved the city‘s accessibility. (p. 25)
The following snapshot is meant to provide a glimpse of the present day connections of Columbus first to local markets (regional and national), and second to global markets. Ultimately, Columbus accessibility in physical space is a critical component to the future stickyness of the region. Located in the heart of the Midwest U.S., the Columbus Region provides easy access to major national and global markets through the interstate highway system and freight, air, and rail connections. Attesting to this is the population and industry which can be reached from Columbus in a one-day (600 min) truck drive. (Figure 12)
65
Figure 12. Columbus One-Day Drive Map
0 62.5 125 250 375 500 Miles Source: Computed using ESRI Business Analyst Desktop
Columbus is within a one-day drive of 144,553,553 people, representing of 47% of the US Population. The drive boundary also contains 47% of the US company HQ locations, and 47 % of US manufacturing capacity. (Source: ESRI Business Analyst Desktop) This is higher than any other major inland freight distribution center in the entire US. (Figure 13) This is complimented by Columbus‘ freight rail and port access to major east coast ports. The newly completed Heartland Corridor allows double-stacked freight trains to travel directly from the Port of Virginia (Norfolk International Terminals) to an intermodal facility located at Rickenbacker International Airport in Franklin County. Furthermore, the Heartland Corridor connects Columbus to Virginia ports that will increase their capacity in anticipation of the Panama Canal‘s expansion in 2014. The National Gateway Corridor provides the Columbus Region additional port connections in Baltimore, MD and Wilmington, NC. (Figure 14) One of Columbus‘ largest 66 logistics assets is Rickenbacker International Airport and Rickenbacker Global Logistics Park. Located just 10 miles south of downtown Columbus, Rickenbacker is an international, multi- modal logistics hub with two 12,000 ft runways and home to Foreign Trade Zone No. 138 which gives FTZ designation to any site located within a 25 county area in Central Ohio. These assets are a large selling point for the attraction of new companies and distribution centers to the Columbus region, as well as providing resources for the retention and expansion of existing businesses. For this reason, a great deal of investment and marketing is put into the Columbus region logistics industry by local organizations such as the Columbus Chamber of Commerce, Columbus Region Logistics Council, and Columbus 2020!.
Figure 13. Share of the US Population Within a 500 Mile Radius of Major Inland Ports.
Source: Map Courtesy of Dr. Jean Paul Rodrigue, Hofstra University, October 2010.
67
Figure 14. The Heartland and Gateway Rail Corridors
0 62.5 125 250 375 500 Miles
The impact of Ohio‘s geographic location and logistics assets combined with the strength of the state‘s manufacturing and goods producing industries is reflected in export movements. In 2009, Ohio was the 7th largest exporting State; 213 countries and territories received exports from Ohio with 7 of the countries receiving over 1 billion in Ohio Exports. (Ohio Department of Development, 2009). (Figure 15) While nearly 50% of the products exported from Ohio are moved to North American locations, a large percentage of Ohio goods are also moved into international markets, including Europe (20.4%), Asia (11.6%), SE Asia (5.1%), and South America (5.1%) (Ohio Department of Development, 2009). A traditional manufacturing driven economy, the state‘s domestic and international exports are a key component of the well-being of the state‘s economy. Ohio‘s geographic location continues to play a leading role in the efficient distribution of products around the globe. The strength of Ohio‘s export economy is driven by the 68 state‘s major metropolitan areas. In terms of 2008 Exports, Columbus Metropolitan area was ranked 5th in Ohio behind Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Akron, cities recognized as more traditionally manufacturing based than Columbus. (ODOD, 2009) While Columbus ranks 5th in Ohio, the city still exports a significant amount of commodities to the international market. The Top 5 international exports for Columbus in 2008 are listed in Table 13.
Figure 15. Ohio Exports by Region
Source: ODOD, 2009
69
Table 13. Columbus Top International Exports, 2008
Rank Commodity $M 1 Transportation equipment $944.2 2 Chemical $499.3 3 Machinery $389.6 4 Computer and electronic products $402.5 5 Plastics and rubber products $259.0 Other $1,387.2 Total $3,881.8 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce-Bureau of the Census and Manufacturing and Services, 2008
Columbus‘ top exports include transportation equipment as well as chemical, machinery, computer and electronic products. These products represent Columbus‘ strength in the advanced manufacturing industry, particularly in the areas such as plastics, and chemical and electronic products. The combination of the diverse economy of Columbus, with its government, service, and advanced manufacturing strengths along with its strategic and well-connected geographic location, positions Columbus well for maneuvering global space in comparison to other Midwestern cities. Columbus is located not only in the center of the US market, but through freight, rail, and air connections the city has favorable links to global markets as well. In Columbus, this provides the opportunity for the shipment of new innovative products across the world. These assets also provide a selling point of the region for the relocation or expansion of new manufacturing and distribution operations. Yet, despite the positives of geographic location for maneuvering physical space, the forces of globalization still present major implications for the Midwest and Columbus.
4.1.3 Implications of Columbus in Slippery Space In 2008, renowned journalist Richard C. Longworth released a book whose title captures the very essence of globalization and the current state of the Midwestern United States: Caught in the Middle: America’s Heartland in the Age of Globalism. According to Longworth, if no part of America is immune to globalization, its impact is felt most in the heartland. The transformation of the Midwest economy has been going on for half a century, with the Midwest becoming the Rust Belt decades before anyone had heard the term globalization. Globalization has only brought the Midwestern transformation to full-speed, where a region that had lost its competitive edge to 70 other American regions now finds itself competing with the whole wide world (Longworth, 2008, p. 247). This is the reality faced today in Midwestern cities, an age where the communications revolution and global money market has allowed corporations to view the world as one big market, moving their goods and services wherever it makes economic sense (p.6). In the Midwest this reality is shaped through two related concepts: 1. Inter-city competition and 2. The need to fix globalization locally. Columbus must compete with other cities both regionally, nationally, and globally to both attract and retain businesses and people within its borders. Thus, like cities across the US and world Columbus actively pursues strategies to fix globalization locally. These strategies encompass everything from the built environment, to city marketing and branding. What has set Columbus apart from many other Rust Belt cities is that Columbus has emerged relatively unscathed from deindustrialization, its success lying in the expanding emergence of an enlightened service economy and cultural resource base (Hunker, 2000, p.27). In what can be viewed as a proactive response to globalization, inter-city completion, and the need to fix globalization locally, Columbus is actively pursuing economic development and downtown revitalization strategies. The focus of economic development in Columbus is the formation of a regional economic development initiative, Columbus 2020!. Columbus 2020! started in 2008 when a group of community leaders, including representatives from the boards of directors of the Columbus Partnership, the Columbus Regional Chamber of Commerce and Compete Columbus, launched an effort to review economic development in the region. What they found was that several challenges faced the initiative. Most notably that there were no clear goals or aspirations for what the region should become, current economic development strategies were fragmented and lacked adequate resources, and there was intense competition from similar regions that are actively pursuing economic development. In response, a community-driven, innovative, and entrepreneurial private-public partnership emerged, Columbus 2020!. The initiative represents the entire eight county Columbus MSA and has bold goals over the next ten years. These goals include meeting the following metrics: Add 180,000 net new jobs by 2020. Increase personal income per capita 40 percent or $15,000 by 2020. Attract capital investment of $10 billion. Become a recognized national leader in economic development by 2020. (Columbus 2020! Business Plan, July 2010)
71
The above goals were established to reveres economic trends of the past decade and catapult Columbus‘s position into the top 5 among major US MSAs in terms of growth rate of jobs and income. To reach these goals, the Columbus 2020! Strategy is shaped around four pillars, Retention and Expansion, Attraction, creation, and Civic Infrastructure. The foremost goal is the retention and expansion of existing businesses and industries that call Central Ohio home. The remaining pillars include the attraction of major employers to establish operations in Central Ohio using world-class marketing efforts, the creation of more commercial enterprises by leveraging the region‘s research assets, and finally the support of civic infrastructure and political conditions that enhance the economic-development environment. Taken together, the above pillars represent a comprehensive plan to enhance the region‘s stickyness, focusing on the local Columbus business climate which first and foremost will help keep existing companies in the region and help them grow. However, it is the attraction of major employers to the region through world-class marketing efforts that is a true reflection of the state of modern economic development in global spaces. The major attraction efforts of Columbus 2020! across the US and World represent the new, global stance adopted by cities, a stance needed in a world in which business, people, and capital are increasingly mobile. Columbus 2020! is a reflection of the impact of globalization on the city of Columbus, specifically the large-scale attraction efforts used by economic development professionals to actively maneuver global space. However, as illustrated by the data collected on Columbus in slippery space above these efforts at attraction are made easier by the numerous assets, human and business which already exist in Columbus. According to the Columbus 2020! Regional Economic Growth Strategy (2010), Columbus 2020! was not formed because the city was in a ―crisis‖, but to ensure that the city remains one of the best places to live, work, and play in America. While the city is certainly not in a ―crisis‖ there are still many issues facing the future economic development of the city. Worth noting here, one of the issues facing economic development as designated by the Columbus 2020! research is that Columbus lacks a proactive, positive and cohesive brand and identity. In a world of increased inter-city competition, the issue of image is extremely important in the field of city marketing and branding. In terms of the city of Columbus, site consultants describe the city with terms that have negative connotations, for example ―Rust Belt‖, ―high union concentration‖, and ―not unique of differentiated.‖ Such connotations negatively impact regions ability to attract and retain business. In a survey of non-Columbus based CEOs conducted by Columbus 2020! (2010), 39 percent were unable to provide a top-of-mind association, more than 60 percent were unable to name the region‘s primary industries and only 34 percent 72 considered Columbus as a good place to do business. Some leaders even viewed Columbus as a suburb of Cleveland! In order to combat the image problem for the city, the Columbus 2020! Initiative includes several marketing and image components, including the Columbus Image Project, a multi-year and collaborative effort meant to study, understand, and create an image for Columbus to help the city be recognized nationally as a leading place to live and work, as well as the launching of a world-class economic development website in the summer of 2011. These image-making strategies are meant to make Columbus more competitive as a region. Competition was cited as one of the reasons for the formation of Columbus 2020!, most notably the intense competition from similar regions that are actively pursuing economic development. These competitors were benchmarked by Columbus 2020!, including the cities of Austin, Raleigh –Durham, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh. In order to compete with these cities the Columbus 2020! team not only studied the components of their economic development programs, but also researched and identified the industries for which Columbus was already an advantageous location. In other words, these are the industries for which Columbus is considered to be a sticky place by the Columbus 2020! economic development team. Columbus2020! addresses four main industry sectors: Advanced Manufacturing Headquarters and Back-Office Functions Information Technology Logistics
Within these four main sectors, there are several specialized areas of focus within these sectors, including: Advanced Energy Agricultural Bioscience Apparel Automotive Finance Food and Nutraceuticals Health and Beauty Products Medical Devices Plastics and Packaging
The above industries are highly correlated with the Columbus Region‘s economic drivers and high-output industries, including logistics, corporate offices, finance, food and beverages, plastics, life sciences, healthcare, and related industries. Specifically, the logistics industry concentration reflects Columbus favorable geographic market location and existing logistics
73 infrastructure. Other specialized areas of focus include creative sectors such as Apparel and Health and beauty products. With an established headquarter presence of nationally known corporations such as the Limited Brands, including Bath & Body Works, Victoria Secret, and Abercrombie & Fitch, Columbus has a unique business case for the attraction of similar companies and creative workforce. Also, the presence of Research & Development institutions such as Ohio State University, Children‘s Hospital, Ohio Health, Battelle, and Chemical Abstracts, help support a majority of the sectors above. The national and global targeting of these sectors is evidence in the data released by Columbus 2020! in their 2011 First Quarter Report. As of May 2, Columbus 2020! reported 55 total company projects YTD. Projects are defined as being identified and qualified directly with a company actively looking at the region to relocate, or expand business. Of these 55 projects, 17 were designated as Prospects, projects that the company or consultant had visited the region. In terms of projects by industry, manufacturing led the way with 36 total projects. It seems that manufacturing is not dead, but still a major contributor to the Columbus economy. Providing a good illustration, it was announced in the first quarter that Axium Plastics, a Canadian manufacturer of plastic containers that services the food, personal care, healthcare and automotive markets, will invest more than $16 million in a manufacturing and research and development facility in the Columbus Region. The project is expected to create 165 jobs and will locate in New Albany in the new Personal Care and Beauty Innovation Campus. (2020 First Quarter Report, 2011) For the remaining projects industries were identified as Logistics (8), Office (8), and Tech/R&D (3). Furthermore, from January to May, the Columbus Region received 13 first time visits from perspective companies that were looking to relocate into the region (2020 First Quarter Report, 2011). Reflecting the implications of slippery space, the 2020! economic development initiative is not just locally active but nationally and globally as well. In the first quarter of 2011, the Columbus 2020! reported that 72% of all projects were domestic and 28% were international. These numbers are a reflection of the geographic reach of the 2020! business development activities which this year will include market visits to 22 states and over 28 cities. (Figure 16, 17)
74
Figure 16. January to May Columbus 2020! Business Development Activities
Figure 17. June to December 2020! Development Activities
75
On a global scale, international business development includes missions to Canada, India, Germany, Israel, China, and Europe. The purpose these missions is to meet with dozens of companies, both companies which have existing operations here and new companies which might have interest locating here. Part of the purpose is also to promote the region, showcase Columbus‘ assets, and get the Columbus brand in front of as many people and businesses as possible. Promoting the image and brand of Columbus is also being worked on from other angles, including the development of new Columbus Region branding, logo, and a world-class economic development website. Ultimately, the purpose of the Columbus 2020! Initiative is to help to help secure Columbus‘ economic future by actively maneuvering global space by marketing the local places of Columbus. The goal of which is to make Columbus a sticky place, first and foremost through the retention and expansion of the existing industry, but also through attraction of new companies from across the US and the World. While they were not explicitly created together, the Columbus 2020! Initiative is being complimented by the Columbus downtown revitalization strategies over the past two decades. While Columbus 2020! Is seeking to Maneuver Global Space, current downtown revitalization are being used to construct and market Columbus downtown places, places which are meant to boost the Columbus image and aid in the city‘s ability to maneuver global space. According to 2020! Vice President of Economic Development, Matt McCollister, a strong downtown core is essential for attracting new businesses, and a city‘s competitiveness can change rapidly if the downtown area becomes a detriment. McCollister commented that to compete as a major metropolitan area today to attract new companies and new ideas ―You need a vibrant downtown. Downtown is essentially a barometer of the health of the region…a vibrant and attractive downtown helps to make prospective companies comfortable, removing anxiety about locating operations in the region‖ (personal communication, June 8, 2011) In this way, the revitalization of the Columbus downtown has helped enhance the marketability of the Columbus Region, as well as create sticky places for local residents as well as outside visitors.
4.2. Sticky Places in Downtown Columbus
4.2.1 Historical Place Transformations in Downtown Columbus While this research concentrates specifically on downtown place transformation during the period from 1990 to Present, it is pertinent to set the present Columbus downtown within its historical context. Since the founding of the city in 1812, the one constant attribute of downtown
76
Columbus has been Capital Square. The centerpiece of Capital Square is a Greek Revival Statehouse which still stands as one of downtowns most impressive buildings today. A national historic landmark, the building was begun in 1839 and took twenty-two years to build and cost $2,200,000. By 1890 a network of electric streetcar lines allowed for continued development away from capital square. These ―streetcar suburbs‖ created neighborhoods, still visible today, in every direction from downtown, allowing residents to live several miles outside the city yet easily commute to downtown to where most of the city‘s jobs, shops, and entertainment were located. By the beginning of the 20th century, downtown had a thriving business district surrounded by established neighborhoods on all sides, creating an urban area about ten miles from north to south, and eight miles from west to east (AIA, 2008) Over this period, the introduction of the automobile allowed continued development further outside the city, creating auto-dependent suburbs such as Bexley, Upper Arlington, and Grandview Heights. However, through the 1930s downtown remained the focus of retail trade and business activity, and began to take the form that residents know today. What is known today as the LeVeque tower was constructed in 1927 and at the time was the highest building between New York and Chicago, becoming the distinguishing feature of the Columbus skyline both then and today. With growth slowed by the depression, not much changed in the downtown skyline between the 1930s and early 1960s. During the post war period from 1960 – 1980 Columbus experienced its most rapid growth. Not coincidently, this is the same period that downtown experienced its greatest decline. The number of downtown residents decreased by over 16,000 during this same time period. In 1960, downtown Columbus had 659 retail stores, but by the 1980s only 150 remained (Curry et al., 2004). The downtown economic slide can be contributed to the widespread suburbanization of the population and shopping, a situation which was only exacerbated by the completion of the interstate freeway system and the I-270 outer belt in the 1970s and early 1980s. Jobs, businesses and large downtown stores moved to the periphery of the city, and investment in the city core dwindled, however the decline was not as severe as in other places. The freeway system allowed residents to live anywhere in Columbus and still easily commute downtown, also being a state capital, important, and large employment government functions remained in downtown. Downtown remained the highest concentration of jobs in Franklin county, however, the area was a virtual ghost town after work hours. Construction of parking lots and one-way streets made downtown accessible by car, but it was designed to move people and pedestrians out of downtown, not keep them there. Despite the
77 loss of the walkable areas and residents in the downtown core, not all central city areas suffered the same fate. The historic neighborhoods which surrounded the downtown core flourished as they became core areas of gentrification and urban renewal for thousands of urban dwellers. In fact, begun in the 1960s, the neighborhood of German Village, located just south of downtown, became one of the first gentrified neighborhoods in the United States, a process which still continues today. Other gentrified neighborhoods such as Italian Village and Victorian Village still exist today on the periphery of downtown and are some of the most desirable locations to live in the city, contributing greatly to the vibrancy of downtown. Starting in the 1980s, however, pro- growth coalitions placed a renewed focus on the core of downtown, and from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, downtown Columbus experienced a turnaround. This turnaround was spurred by the 1988 downtown Columbus Strategic Plan which for the first time in decades places a significant renewed emphasis on planning downtown. Consequently, the downtown rebirth of Columbus was really accelerated starting in the 1990s.
Downtown Projects 1990 -2010 Early downtown revitalization projects in Columbus represented many of the common approaches designated by Robertson (1995). Projects reflected the early practice of downtown revitalization characterized by this time period, most notably a heavy concentration on urban design and local functionality. The most significant projects included the construction of a new world-class convention center, the City Center indoor shopping mall, new high-rise office buildings, several new or refurbished hotels, restaurants, and theatres, new luxury condominiums, new center of science and industry (COSI), an upgraded farmers market, and new public parks. (Curry et al., 2004, p. 49, 63). Major projects were meant to bring residents, visitors, business, and retail back to the city core. The anchor of downtown revitalization in the mid-1990s, but since demolished, at the time one of the largest and most upscale shopping centers in Ohio, Columbus city center was a 1,200,000 sq. ft. three level shopping center built in the center of downtown near capital square. However, the malls popularity did not last. After hitting its peak in 1992, the mall slowly saw its numbers decline until its official closure in March of 2009. The decline if City Center can be directly attributed to competition from new shopping centers built in the suburban areas of Columbus, including Tuttle Crossing (1997), Easton Town Center (1999) and Polaris Fashion Place (2001). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_City_Center).The modern, innovative designs and geographically accessible locations of these malls made City 78
Center look obsolete. Despite City Center‘s eventually closure and demolishment, other revitalization strategies did help to start a downtown turnaround. Three of the city historic downtown theatres were refurbished, including the State, the Southern, and the Palace. Also, continued gentrification in the downtown peripheral neighborhoods such as Goodale Park, Italian Village, the Brewery District and Old Town East helped to the maintain a large residential population near the downtown core. These historic neighborhoods are a great strength of the Columbus downtown, a feature which many other Midwestern downtowns simply cannot claim. They have not only brought residents to the downtown vicinity and have made the area desirable place to live, but they have established a population base which desired and would consume additional arts, entertainment, and recreation activities. Also, these diverse, close-knit communities, such as German Village, Victorian Village and the Short North including some of Columbus‘ most notable arts, music, and gay communities, communities which are fueling the creative industries and sticky places of downtown today. These neighborhoods and other early downtown improvements leading up to the turn of the century set the stage for downtown today. According to the 2002 Columbus Downtown Strategic Plan, the city reported that from 1990 to 2002, the number of visitors to downtown arts and cultural events more than doubled, rising from two to five million people a year. These projects represented significant progress in starting to bring people and business back to the downtown, but the city realized there was still a long way to go if the downtown was to be a fully functional, 24/7 mixed-use environment and nationally recognized by outsiders. In particular, a lesson learned from the closure of City Center, strategies needed to be more innovative, and distinct to make downtown truly a ―place‖ to be and be seen. As ―globalization‖ and ―enhanced local business climate‖ became watchwords on the minds of planners and policymakers at the turn of the century, Columbus sought news ways to invigorate downtown places. Like other cities, Columbus turned to the increasing use of public-private partnerships and entrepreneurial strategies to construct a new physical environment and image of downtown. Specifically, the vision and development of the Arena District starting in the mid- 1990s represents the modern practice of downtown revitalization in the city of Columbus, a revitalization process which transformed a portion Columbus‘ downtown area into a truly modern sticky place.
79
Nationwide Arena District: A Sticky Place in Downtown Columbus History – The Arena District: From a Vision to a Reality
The Arena District has been an important component of revitalizing downtown as a destination to live, work, and play. As one of the region‘s largest employers, Nationwide believes a dynamic downtown is essential in attracting and retaining a quality workforce.
- W.G Jurgensen, Nationwide (2002 Downtown Plan) A 75 acre mixed-use site for business, residential, retail, and entertainment venues, the Arena District in downtown Columbus provides a constructive example of how the utilization of place-making, innovative planning, public-private partnerships, and entrepreneurialism have been used by Columbus to transform abandoned downtown spaces into a modern mixed-use consumption place. The site chosen for the Arena District was a neglected area of collapsing buildings and empty lots in the Northwest corner of the downtown business district. This neglected area of downtown was formerly the site of the Ohio Penitentiary, once one of the world‘s largest prisons. The last inmates left the Pen in 1984, leaving the 23 acre industrial landscape unoccupied for 14 years until its demolition in 1998. With the exception of a few parking lots and isolated bars, the land sat vacant and detached from the renewal efforts on the city‘s northern edge (NRI, 2006). Once home to farmers and Irish immigrants, the bustling railroad traffic of Union Station, the ornate limestone architecture of the Ohio Pen, and dozens of manufacturing establishments, including the Columbus Buggy Company, the now abandoned Pen Site was a sad reminder of the waves of activity that had historically called the area home (NRI, 2006). Sitting abandoned for over a decade, the area was a prime candidate for revitalization in the mid 1990s. It was at this same time that community leaders sought the development of an arena to capture the concerts and sporting events that were passing Columbus by for other cities. While the downtown projects completed in the early 1990s started a downtown turnaround, local officials and concerned business leaders were asking how downtown redevelopment could be moved ahead? At this time, Columbus was no exception to the popularity of business-district entertainment which was occurring in downtowns throughout the country. Columbus‘s push for a business-district entertainment area was led by some of the most powerful civic leaders of the city, collectively referred to as the ―Titans.‖ (Curry et al., 2004) These city leaders, who represented a mixture of public and private interests, included Leslie Wexner (CEO, The Limited), John F. Wolfe (CEO, Dispatch Printing Company), Dimon McFerson 80
(CEO,Nationwide Companies), Gordon Gee (President, The Ohio State University) and Greg Lashutka (Mayor of Columbus). While each shared differing motives, the collective agreement was to bring Columbus to the ―big time‖ of American cities, advance the physical and economic redevelopment of downtown through the construction of arena and stadium facilities, and the desire to create a new image of downtown as a place to live, work, and shop. (Curry et. al, 2004) To the titans the Pen site was the perfect location for an arena and business-entertainment district as it could enhance the operation of the nearby convention center and Short North arts district, as well as stimulate a business comeback for the northwest sector of the downtown. The opportunity to build the district officially came in 1997 when the Titans had a shot at obtaining a National Hockey league franchise, provided they had an arena, an arena which the titans wanted the taxpayers to pay for. After Columbus residents rejected the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the arena at the ballot box in the defeat of issue 1 in 1997, with time running out, local entrepreneurial leader, Dimon McPherson, CEO of Nationwide, stepped forward to provide the majority of funding for arena, saying, ―We need it for the vitality of downtown. We need it for workforce development. We need it to support so many other things downtown‖ (Curry et. al, 2004, p.85). Nationwide Mutual Insurance had been one of the business anchors of downtown Columbus since its inception. With the 40 story One Nationwide Plaza office building looking down over the Pen site, McPherson and Nationwide could not pass up the opportunity to help revitalize the downtown and develop the area around their headquarters. In a list minute deal, Nationwide partnered with The Dispatch Printing Company to construct a $125 million dollar arena, with the city covering the costs of the road and other infrastructure improvements needed for the arena‘s development. By 2000, the Nationwide Arena was built and Columbus was home to its first professional sports franchise, the Columbus Blue Jackets. Anchored by the one of the few privately financed civic arenas in the nation, the success of the Arena District can be attributed to the innovative planning and unique design which went into its creation. The development of the area was managed by Nationwide Realty Investors Ltd (NRI), a subsidiary of Nationwide Insurance. The task of creating the master design of the district was awarded to local planning firm, MSI Design.
Planning and Design After touring seven other cities sports arenas, planners ultimately decided that the design of the Columbus arena needed to be something completely different, even unpredictable. Thus, rather than building an arena isolated from the city‘s surroundings, officials developed a holistic 81 plan to transform the entire area into a lively neighborhood (NRI, 2006) The district would include 75 acres of offices, housing, restaurants and entertainment venues, seamlessly integrating new and old buildings with city streets, sidewalks, and public gathering places, creating a true mixed-use environment and destination location. The anchor of the District, would be Nationwide Arena. The idea for the arena was to create a breakthrough design that would make the arena more than a place just to enjoy a hockey game. Unlike most sports arenas which often stand alone surrounded by parking lots, the arena was designed to create a human-friendly scale and proportion. Situated on a sloping site, part of the interior of the Arena today is actually located underground. When approaching the main entrance of the arena from Nationwide Boulevard, visitors are barely aware that there is an arena hidden in the urban landscape. Both the Arena and Nationwide Boulevard are constructed of red brick, giving the impression that the arena and surrounding area had co-existed for years. Visitors are greeted by an open brick plaza, home to numerous entertainment and food venues, as well as a jumbo television screen. The plaza provides a great place to bid time before the start of the hockey game as well as after the game, with plentiful options for eating, drinking, and people watching right outside the Arena entrance. Well hidden from view, several parking garages and pedestrian walkways provide easy access to the plaza as well as the entire district. All of these aspects were purposely incorporated into the planning by MSI design. According to the director of Planning at MSI design, Chris Hermann, the Arena district was designed around the idea that Columbus is a car city (personal communication, March 9, 2011) All areas of the district are easily navigated by vehicle so that people can explore the area before parking and setting out on foot. All areas of the district are connected by easily navigable pedestrian walkways that channel people from one area to another. The primary pedestrian thoroughfares, Nationwide Blvd and Ludlow Alley, are complimented by street-level architectural detail, wide brick sidewalks, inviting green spaces, and hospitable store fronts that create a comfortable buffer between walkers and the smooth flow of traffic (Nationwide Realty Investors, 2006). (Figure 18)
82
Figure 18. Arena District Walkways, Nationwide Arena, Battelle Plaza
Ultimately, the Arena District was designed for people, a principle which guided the design of the areas and buildings. By incorporating design elements from both the past and present, the Arena District was meant to provide both visitors and residents with a true ―sense of place‖. Great care was taken to preserve the historic 19th century warehouses which already called the district home. In fact, architects deliberately applied familiar materials such as brick and glass
83 in timeless designs that would create warm, inviting, and contemporary spaces (NRI, 2006). Thus, newly constructed buildings were designed to echo but not copy the original architecture. Architecture that mixed the past and present, was complimented by green spaces and gathering places that provided a welcome environment for a variety of activities. One of the key design elements of the District was McFerson Commons, a triangular shaped three acre greenspace mallway which connected Nationwide Blvd to North Bank Park and the Scioto River. Anchored in the middle of the park, is the icon of the Arena District, Union Station Arch. The last remaining piece of Columbus landmark Union Station, the 660-ton arch is a true representation of the Columbus past mingling with the Columbus present. (Figure 19)
Figure 19. Union Station Arch and McFerson Commons
While the historical aspect of the arch is quite obvious, many other subtle reminders of Columbus downtown past have been worked into the Arena District design. If one looks closely they can see iron cell doors from the Ohio Pen used for flowering terraces and Limestone from the Pen used in the retaining walls of North Bank Park, and an urban village which bears that name of the former occupant of the space, Columbus Buggy Works. Taken together all the architectural and landscape design elements were used purposely to create a true neighborhood atmosphere. The complex planning process and intricate details of the design are a reflection of the transformation of downtown revitalization in modern American cities at the turn of the century, a transformation characterized by the desire to create truly and unique places for urban consumption. According to
84
NRI (2006), ―The Arena District is about more than just nationwide Arena itself. It‘s about the synergy of urban living, downtown working and city nightlife coming together to create unique connections that soothe, inspire, and electrify the senses – often all at the same time‖ (p.58). Building on this idea, the Arena District was planned to be a premier entertainment and residential environment that had round the clock activity. In addition to the hockey arena, the district includes an urban theatre, the Arena Grand, three music venues, including Lifestyle Communities pavilion, the nation‘s first indoor/outdoor amphitheater. Also, integrated into the design, the Burnham Square condominiums and the Arena Crossing Apartments provide urban living opportunities in the heart of the district. Serving as a catalyst for the downtown development on the northwest side of the city, planners purposely designed the District with future development in mind as well. Specifically, intentional decisions were made to expand downtown by connecting the area to the High Street corridor on the east and the riverfront on the North. Thus, in a ten minute walk today, one can walk from the Short North Arts District on high Street south past the convention center and North Market to the Arena District down Nationwide blvd and to the riverfront with relative ease, passing along the way bars, restaurants, theatres and Class A office buildings.
85
Figure 20. The Arena District Master Plan
Source: MSI Design
The completion and success of the arena district today represents the modern process and practice of downtown revitalization, most notably public-private partnerships, entrepreneurialism, and innovative design. As elaborated by Curry et. al (2004), The project works because public and private resources were pooled in an intelligent way, and the important community leaders put their reputations ‗on the line‘ to make it happen. Had this been a project funded mostly by taxpayer dollars, we doubt that the district would have received the same amount of attention from the private sector. (p.108)
A model used for other cities, the Arena District provides a great case study of how place-making, entrepreneurial strategies and private funding were used to transform an old industrial ―brownfield‖ into a nationally recognized business and entertainment district. (Figure 21 and Figure 22) The success of the Arena District served as a catalyst for the creation of the 2002 Strategic Downtown Plan.
86
Figure 21. The Arena District in the Early 1990s
Source: Photo Courtesy Nationwide Realty Investors, 2006
87
Figure 22. The Arena District 2005
Source: Photo Courtesy Nationwide Realty Investors, 2006
2002 Strategic Plan Last year, the city of Columbus embarked on a process to revitalize our downtown. The Strategic Business plan represents a community-wide consensus, containing thousands of citizen suggestions, and feedback and ideas from hundreds of community and business leaders. Most importantly it is an action plan that represents the first step in re-energizing our most important economic asset. Downtown‘s renewal requires vision, money, and commitment from the public and private sectors. This plan shows how to translate big visions into civic realities.
-Mayor Michael B. Coleman, April 2002
The 2002 Downtown Strategic Plan reflected the new growth mentalities of modern cities, particularly image making, arts/culture/entertainment, public-private funding and entrepreneurialism. The rhetoric of the 2002 Plan included aggressive marketing of downtown as a ―place‖ of destination, and reflected a more outward looking stance, both nationally and globally. Using phrases like ―Bringing Life to the City‖ and ―Downtown: Everybody‘s 88
Neighborhood‖ the use of downtown ―place‖ and ―image-making‖ was a common theme in Columbus‘s vision of the downtown of the future. The plan was guided by five action strategies: 1. Build more downtown housing 2. Stabilize the downtown office market 3. Concentrate new, mixed-use development around City Center and along Gay Street – support City Center Mall 4. Create a riverfront park and promenade 5. Improve parking and the movement of cars, transit, and people. (Table 14) As described below, these goals reflected the desire to make the downtown area a truly 24/7 environment, focusing on mixed-use developments for residents and business that improved the downtown experience.
89
Table 14. Columbus 2002 Strategic Plan Action Strategies
Action Strategy Issues/Description and Goals 1. Build more Downtown More downtown housing is essential. People living and Housing playing downtown 24/7 will lead to more restaurants, shops, and entertainment. Goals: Close the gap between development cost and rental and sales value for the construction of downtown residential units. To close this gap city will offer financial incentives, including real estate tax abatements, a downtown housing equity and investment fund, improve the living environment by creating greenspace, a new riverfront park, and making the sidewalks more pedestrian friendly. Develop 10,000 housing units in the next 10 years. 2. Stabilize the downtown The city center is losing its share of the office market. office market Finance, insurance, and real estate jobs located downtown have dropped 10% from 1990 – 2000. The current 21 % office vacancy rate is among the highest in the nation Attracting and retaining private sector jobs is crucial to the revitalization effort, because a mix of employers keeps downtown vibrant and interesting. Goals: Reduce office vacancy rates so they equal national averages in 10 years Supply new, lower cost parking Create downtown amenties specific for business environment 3. New Mixed-Use Devlopment Successful downtowns depend on lively, bustling streets and interesting built environments. While downtown does have many successful and vibrant districts, there are still areas with significant holes. Downtown redevelopment must focus on these holes, with mixed- use neighborhoods that bring people, activity, and shops back to sidewalk level. In particular, downtown between city center and the county office complex is distressed, and the gay street corridor needs reinvigorated. Goals: Establish mixed-use neighborhoods near City Center, support City Center Mall, and revitalize Gay Street. continued
90
Table 14 continued
4. Create a Riverfront Park and The Scioto riverfront and civic center drive areas will be Promenade transformed with a park and promenade to compliment residential and office development, making the area a place to gather and play, to connect existing parks on the north and south end of the river, and make the park part of the downtown experience. Goals: Create a riverfront park for visitors, residents and office workers to enjoy outdoor activities 5. Improve parking and the Traffic improvements will slow down vehicles and make movement of cars the downtown environment friendlier for pedestrians, visitors, and residents. Goals: Change downtown traffic and transit patterns to create a better street ambience and pedestrian experience. Construct additional parking garages, support public transit improvements.
In order to implement the plan‘s strategies significant monetary investment and collaboration was needed. In the plan, the City of Columbus pledged a total of $100 million from 2002 to 2012, with added private sector investment to reach a goal of over $250 million. To attract private investment and implement the 2002 plan, the new Columbus Downtown Development Corporation (CDDC), a private, non-profit corporation that ―will use private sector expertise and practices to deliver on a set of very specific public goals‖ was created (2002 Columbus Downtown Strategic Plan). According to the CDDC, the organization is focused on making downtown one of the most attractive city centers in the United States, and the use of public/private partnerships are central to making this goal a reality (2002 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan). In addition to the establishment of public-private partnerships, the 2002 plan was also developed with extensive community input, including three public meetings and the ―Tell Us Your Great Idea‖ campaign. Specifically, over 100 community leaders were involved the development of the strategic direction of the 2002 plan. Most notably, recognizing that vitality, and image of downtown is important to the future of business in the downtown and the entire region, many of the area‘s most prominent business leaders actively supported and participated in the revitalization process. One of the core components of the plan centers on enhancing the 91
Columbus business climate to encourage not only regional development, but make the city a nationally competitive metropolitan area. This vision was reflected in the growth narratives of Columbus business leaders in both the private and public sectors. For instance, Leslie Wexner, founder and CEO of the Limited Brands, a fortune 500 company headquartered in Columbus, commented that: Downtown has always been the center of our area‘s entertainment and commerce, as it should be. A healthy downtown benefits us all, and makes our entire region more attractive and marketable. In addition, the existence of an energetic, urban atmosphere helps us attract the creative talent we need to sustain and grow our businesses…and should help create jobs and build the tax base that Columbus need. (2002 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan)
-Leslie H. Wexner, The Limited Inc. Similarly, the Columbus Chamber of Commerce was a staunch supporter of downtown revitalization: The growth of the entire greater Columbus region is directly linked to our downtown. A vibrant downtown is critical to successfully attracting new companies with high wage, high skill jobs to Greater Columbus. (2002 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan)
- Sally Jackson, Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce
With the support from the public and private sectors as well as the community, the implementation of the 2002 Plan was a milestone for downtown revitalization in Columbus. A report released by the Mayor‘s office in 2010 outlined the successes of the 2002 Plan. (Table 15) A direct reflection of the successes of the 2002 Strategic plan, the form and function of downtown Columbus today is very different than just a decade earlier.
92
Table 15. 2002 Columbus Downtown Strategic Plan Successes
Action Strategy Successes 1. Build more Downtown Housing Through city incentives, 2,542 units were built since 2002, another 2,468 were under construction or in development (Feb 2010), and the downtown population has reversed its 50 year decline, increasing by more than 2,000 since 2003. 2. Stabalize the downtown office market In 2003, office vacancy rates peaked at 26%, but ended 2009 at 14.7%, while 1,000,000 square ft. 3. New Mixed-Use Development Continued development in Gay Street corridor, with restaurants, hotels, and new residential housing The RiverSouth neighborhood, once filled with 23 blighted, underutilized blocks, is now bustling with activity, anchored by the newly renovated lazarus building to the north and the new county courthous under construction to the south Columbus Commons began with the demolition of city center mall in October 2009. 4. Create a Riverfront Park and The riverfront‘s North Bank Park is open, as Promenade well as the Grange Audubon Center on Whittier Peninsula. The Scioto Mile is under construction to open in June 2011, and funded through historic partnership between the public and private sectors. 5. Improve parking and the movement of Capital South and the City of Columbus cars opened two new public parking garages, with 1,450 spaces. New bridges c onstructed over the river for main and rich streets.
The Form and Function of Downtown Today In order to set the context for the principles and ideas of the 2010 Strategic Plan, it is first necessary to understand the current form and function of the Columbus Downtown. Downtown Columbus today is a reflection of the above mentioned downtown projects of the mid 1990s and early 2000s. Looking at downtown from a bird‘s eye view above most activity is centered on a North-South Axis along High, Front, and Town Streets. This corridor contains the core of 93 downtown activities, and is often referred to as the High Street Core. The core is flanked on either side by the Riverfront and Discovery District corridors. (Figure 23) Starting on High Street in the Short North Arts District and walking south from the northern most edge of the downtown boundary, one passes by Goodale Park, the Greater Columbus Convention Center, through the Arena District, past Capital Square, the Columbus Commons, the renewed RiverSouth Community, and the Brewery District, finally ending in German Village. Taken together, these areas represent the core of downtown‘s modern sticky places, a combination of residential, office, and entertainment areas, many of which until the turn of the 21st century were undeveloped and unconnected. Over-time revitalization efforts have seemingly moved from North to South across this corridor.
Figure 23. Primary Columbus Downtown Corridors
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
94
The revitalization of north downtown Columbus can be traced directly back to the construction of the Greater Columbus Convention center in 1993. To accommodate the growing convention industry, the Greater Columbus Convention Center was built on North High Street. Designed by famous Deconstructivist architect Peter Eisenman, the $41 million dollar facility contained 600,000 sq ft of floor space, and was connected the already existing Hyatt Regency Hotel. An expansion in 1999 brought the center to 1.7 million sq. ft of convention and meeting space (Nationwide Realty Investors, 2006). The expansion helped Columbus successfully attract and host meetings and conventions from around the world. In 2000, the convention center hosted 572 meetings and conventions attracting 2 million people to the area. In 2010, the Convention hosted 602 meetings and increased attendance to over 2.6 million people, including 20 international and 131 national groups. (http://www.experiencecolumbus.com/) The establishment of the convention center in the early 1990s and the subsequent increase in visitors to the area helped spur the development of the surrounding area as well, specifically the rebirth of the Short North. The popularity of the Short North officially began in 1995 with the reopening of the North Market, Columbus‘ only surviving public market. Situated in a refurbished turn-of-the-century warehouse, the Market features a variety of merchants, creating a neighborhood and local aspect to the area. Building on the completion of the North Market and the pedestrian traffic from the convention center, the Short North has become one of the most popular areas in downtown Columbus for both residents and visitors. Significant development has stretched both North and South from the North Market, linking the area along High Street to Ohio State University in north and the Arena District to the south. By placing a cap on the High Street bridge over I-670, the Short North Market area and Columbus Convention center were seamlessly connected to the existing neighborhoods located just north of the interstate. Containing numerous upscale restaurants, bars, and cafes, the ―Cap‖ (Figure 24) is a well-known term used by locals as a landmark and popular place to meet. Standing on the corner of the Cap, one has a impressive view of all that the area has to offer.
95
Figure 24. North Market and The High Street Bridge Cap in the Short North
A mile long stretch is known as the ―Arts District‖, the view north up High St brings a glimpse of a series of arches draped over a road lined with trees and local shops and restaurants including art galleries, cafes, gay/lesbian clubs, bars, and upscale restaurants. The first Saturday of every month, a ―Gallery Hop‖ is held in the district bringing thousands of people to High St to view artwork, eat, drink, and socialize. To the east lies historic Goodale Park, established in 1851 as the city‘s first recreation area, and to the south a look down the bar and club lined Park St, one of most popular and energetic areas of the Columbus nightlife. This modern view is a far cry from the areas landscape in the 1980s. Originally named by Columbus Police to describe the dilapidated and crime ridden area between downtown and the Ohio State University, the Short North now contains a thriving and nationally claimed arts and entertainment scene. The popularity of the Short North is a result of its truly local and creative feel. The district is most popular among the cities younger residents, with its trendy environment and bohemian lifestyle, but with upscale restaurants and sushi lounges, visitors can view people of all ages pass by while eating at a window booth or on a street side terrace. Alive during both night and day and called home by numerous artists and musicians, the Short North would be what Richard Florida would describe as a creative class haven. The Short North website describes the area saying, It is a place where history and modernity blend. A place ripe with diversity and steadfast in acceptance. It is a hub for creativity. A place to eat, sleep, work, and play. A place where dog walkers gather. A place where vendors and residents know each other and visitors are always welcome. It is not what is now; it is what is next. (www.shortnorth.com, May 2011)
The Short North is a truly unique area whose primary downtown functions include art, culture, and entertainment. Located just to the south, the Arena District and Short North have driven the 96
Columbus downtown revitalization as truly sticky places that maintain a local feel and modern outlook and design. Today, the Arena District contains two award-winning sports stadia, Nationwide Arena and Huntington Park, as well as 1.5 million sq. feet of office, retail, and entertainment space with over 500 residential units. (Nationwide Reality Investors, 2010) The general area encompasses a vast majority of the nightlife and entertainment, aided by its location just a few mile south from OSU campus and over 55,000 college students. While, the Arena District and Short North represent the true entertainment aspects of modern downtown Columbus, the Capital Square area to the south contains a majority of the daytime business functions. Situated on the corner of Broad St and High St, Capital Square is the busiest intersection in downtown Columbus. Anchored by the historic State House, the square contains downtowns largest and most significant office buildings, home to major companies such as Huntington Bank, Chase Bank, and the offices of the Ohio Governor and the Ohio Department of Development. These areas are most busy during the work day, when streams of pedestrians move across the sidewalk at all hours and local cafes and coffee shops along the revitalized Gay Street corridor provide morning coffee, afternoon lunch meetings, and after work happy hours. In recent years, the area just south of Capital Square has been a large focus of the downtown revitalization efforts. Most notably, the space previously occupied by the Columbus City Center Mall now contains a 95 Acre community green space called Columbus Commons. (Figure 25)
97
Figure 25. Aerial View of the Columbus Commons
Source: Photo courtesy of The Columbus Dispatch, May 2011.
Adjacent to the Commons the renovated Lazarus Department Building houses the Columbus Chamber of Commerce, the Columbus Downtown Development Coalition (CDDC) and Columbus 2020! among others. Three other revitalization projects are either completed or under construction currently, including the Annex at RiverSouth apartments, the Rich Street bridge, the Columbus Commons, and a brand new Franklin County Court House. The development of this area just south of the Capital Square has served to reconnect the core downtown area with the other revitalized areas of southern downtown, including the Brewery District, and German Village neighborhood. As a result the High Street Corridor has become nearly unified from the Short North to German Village. It is stretch that contains the vital components of downtown today. While the High Street Core remains the central component, the areas to the east and west have also received significant attention. The downtown North-South corridor is bound on either side by The Discovery District and Scioto River (Riverfront Corridor). Adopted by Columbus City Council in January of 1990, the Discovery District was created with the purpose was to rezone the area for commercial and residential use instead of manufacturing and make it more attractive for additional housing and a ―people-oriented area‖. Today, the district is characterized by its thriving arts and higher 98 education establishments. These establishments include three primary colleges including Columbus State Community College, Franklin University, and Capital University Law School. The Discovery District is also home to the Columbus Museum of Art, the Columbus Metropolitan Library, and annual Columbus Arts Festival. Often not as talked about, the Discovery District is an anchor of downtowns education and arts functions. Complementing the Discovery District, the downtown Riverfront corridor to the west of the High St Corridor has been developed through multiple projects along the Scioto River. Waterfront development has always been a key component of downtown development focus throughout the last century. In fact, some aspect of the Scioto River was mentioned in every Columbus downtown plan since 1908 (2010 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan). Finally, in the 2002 Downtown Strategic Plan, a major development project, the Scioto Mile was successfully implemented. Costing $44 million dollars, the Scioto Mile is a mile long green corridor that runs the length of the Scioto River from the Southern Downtown edge all the way to the Arena District. The Scioto Mile is described eloquently by its developers, the CDDC: It winds its way from Whittier Peninsula to the Arena District and features lush green spaces, a charming promenade and mesmerizing water features along with plazas, paths and bikeways. The Scioto Mile is Downtown‘s cornerstone revitalization project and will help attract and complement residential development, boost property values, and stimulate commercial growth. (http://www.sciotomile.com/, May 2011)
Opening in July 2011, the Scioto Mile is the largest downtown project set to be completed before the city‘s bicentennial celebration in 2012. Its completion will be complimented by the construction of new vehicle and pedestrian bridges connecting the east bank of the river to the western peninsula, already home to the Nation‘s number one science park, COSI. Upon its completion, the Columbus downtown will be truly connected from North to South and East to West. Taken together as a whole, the 2.2 square mile downtown boundary encompasses a wide variety of functions representing the major components of modern downtown revitalization and economic development literature: 1. Short North – Arts and Entertainment, Creativity, Culture 2. Arena District – Live, Work and Play, Entrepreneurialism 3. Capital Square – Major Corporation HQ Operations, Business and Professional Services 4. Discovery District – Education and Knowledge 5. Riverfront Corridor – Green spaces and Gathering Places 99
6. German Village and Victorian Village - Gentrification
The form of downtown today is characterized by the corridors above as well as numerous districts, each with their own unique history and local feel. Since 1990, revitalization projects have remade downtown for people, both residents and visitors, evolving into a true mixed use function. The increase of the downtown population for the first time has brought 24/7 activity back to many areas. Through the innovative creation and redevelopment of unique places only downtown can provide, downtown Columbus has been transformed into an entertainment destination for residents as well as out of time visitors helping downtown Columbus reclaim its core historical functions, a center for Business and a center People.
Downtown Columbus: A Sticky Place for Business Despite the widespread decentralization and suburbanization of jobs, population, and retail from the 1960s to 1980s and even today, downtown Columbus has remained the region‘s key economic engine. Over 100,000 jobs are located downtown (22% of all jobs in the city), generating $100 million in annual tax revenue. In fact, over the past 10 years, an average of $10 million has been spent on downtown capital projects annually, with the city of Columbus gets back in one year what it has invested over 10 years by supporting a vibrant job market (2010 Downtown Strategic Plan). To better understand the downtown job market, GIS and ESRI Business Analyst was used to gather data on the business establishments that are located within the downtown boundary. There 3,094 companies are located downtown representing 101,343 employees. It is important to understand not just what businesses are located downtown, but what type of industry they represent. In the ESRI database, each business is designated by a NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) code. For this analysis, the two digit NAICS code was used to represent the major industry sectors. Out of the 3,094 companies located downtown, the industries with the greatest representation include Professional and Technical Services, Other Services Public Administration, and Finance and Insurance. (Table 16) Taken together these service oriented sectors represent 57% of all the businesses within the downtown boundary. Another way to view the composition of the downtown business establishments is to compare the percentage of an industry located downtown to the percentage of that same industry in the entire Columbus region.
100
Table 16. Columbus Downtown Companies by Industry
% NAICS Code Industry Companies Downtown 54 Professional and Technical Services 681 22.01746 92 Public Administration 488 15.77756 81 Other Services 374 12.09182 52 Finance and Insurance 211 6.821856 72 Accommodation and Food Services 205 6.627869 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 179 5.787262 23 Construction 146 4.720336 53 Real Estate and rental and leasing 143 4.623343 56 Administrative and Waste Services 103 3.3301 44 Retail Trade 99 3.200776 Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2011
To compare the counts and percentages of the two areas a Location Quotient calculation was used. A Location Quotient is the downtown percentage of total companies in a given industry divided by the regional percentage of total companies in a given industry. Thus, a Location Quotient greater than 1.000 indicates a downtown employment concentration greater than average. In other words the concentration of that industry is much greater than what would be expected given the industry composition of the region. For the 63,271 companies located in the Columbus Region, a count and percentage by two digit NAICS industry was calculated. By dividing the downtown percentage by the regional percentage, a LQ is value is obtained. Those industries which had an LQ value above 1.000 are listed in Table 17. The top downtown industry is Public Administration with a LQ of 4.34. Other industries with greater than average concentration downtown include management of companies, Professional and Technical services, Utilities, and Information.
101
Table 17. Location Quotient Calculations for Downtown Industries
NAICS Downtown Region % % Code Industry Companies Companies Downtown Region LQ Public 92 Administration 488 2299 15.77 3.63 4.34 Management of 55 Companies 3 26 0.09 0.04 2.36 Professional and 54 Technical Services 681 6099 22.01 9.63 2.28 22 Utilities 8 112 0.25 0.17 1.46 51 Information 88 1277 2.84 2.01 1.40 Finance and 52 Insurance 211 3785 6.82 5.98 1.14 Arts, Entertainment, 71 and Recreation 58 1178 1.87 1.86 1.00
These industries show that downtown today remains a popular location for the management and everyday back office functions of the region‘s major corporations, as well as local, state, and federal government operations. Many of the region‘s major employers have office locations downtown with many of these companies maintaining their national headquarter operations in downtown. Ten out of the top 50 employers in the region hold significant operations in the Columbus downtown, including JPMorgan Chase, Nationwide, OhioHealth, Huntington Bancshares, and American Electric Power .Many of these companies are nationally and globally recognized firms. The locations of these companies are highly clustered around Broad and High St around Capital Square making the area a significant local, regional, and national command center for business operations. Furthermore, 3 out of the 6 fortune 500 companies in Columbus are located downtown, including Nationwide Mutual Insurance (107), American Electric Power (169), and Momentive Specialty Chemicals (433) (Forbes, 2011) (Figure 26)
102
Figure 26. Downtown Columbus Fortune 500 Companies
These companies are key economic drivers for the region and maintain connections with branches and distribution centers around the US and World. While the core of downtown business is represented by major companies, downtown is also home to many other establishments, particularly in the creative services sector. The creative services have a natural affinity for downtown. Creative services are companies that link creativity, business strategy, and technology to help client companies, services which are rapidly growing and essential in the modern service-oriented global marketplace. According to a report released in June 2009 by the Columbus College of Arts and Design (CCAD), Central Ohio‘s creative sector generates annually over $3 billion in total business receipts, $932 million in employee wages, and $67 million in state and local tax revenues. Defined as the arts, design, performance, media, and marketing fields, over 18,000 employees in 1,368 firms and 6,930 sole proprietors work in Columbus‘ creative sector, for a total of 25,000 people. What is most noteworthy is the geographic distribution of the creative sector in the region. The creative industries are highly concentrated within the Columbus
103 municipal limits, which contains 61.9% of the region‘s creative industry employment as compared to 37.3% of overall employment. The creative economy is even further concentrated in downtown Columbus, which contains nearly one‐fifth (19.5%) of the Columbus creative industry employment, even though it comprises only 6.3% of the region‘s overall employment (CCAD, 2009) (Figure 27) The downtown share is even larger for certain industries, including the performing arts (71% of the region‘s employment) and architecture, landscape architecture, and urban design (41%). In order to sustain these creative industries, a creative workforce is also essential. A survey conducted by the CCAD (2009) reported that ,―Image and marketing to attracting young professional or creative talent‖ came out as the foremost area where improvement would benefit the region‘s creative economy. Certainly, the establishment of the Short North Arts District, the Arena District, and the Discovery District are helping to improve the image of downtown as a creative place for talented people to live and work.
104
Figure 27. The Geographic Distribution of Creative Sector Employment in Columbus
Source: Map Courtesy of CCAD, Creative Columbus Report, June 2009
Today the Columbus downtown remains a dominant employment center, including major government functions as well as successful corporate firms who employ thousands of people and desire to harness the buzz, functionality, and image of being located in the Columbus CBD. Most notably, downtown remains a sticky place for the government operations, Professional and Business Administration, Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, and the creative services sector. Many of these industries are the economic drivers of the region, reflecting the continued importance of downtown as the region‘ s key economic engine. In particular, Columbus‘ emerging creative economy is an essential component for Columbus to be a sticky place for people and business both locally and globally. Today more and more creative people are residing in revitalized downtown areas such as the Short North, Arena District, and German Village, helping to reestablish the Columbus downtown area as a residential center.
105
Downtown Columbus: A Sticky Place for People After bottoming out at 3,400 residents in 2000, over 5,500 residents call downtown home in 2010. Who is moving downtown? The short answer to this question is ―Young Professionals‖ and ―Empty Nesters.‖ In 2002, the downtown plan called for the ambitious goal of adding 10,000 housing units in 10 years. In 2006, a downtown housing analysis by real estate research company Danter reported that from 2002 to 2006 there were 777 condominium sales and 1,501 apartment units added to the Downtown Columbus EMA (EMA includes the CBD, Short North and Periphery, Near East, Near southeast, German Village, Franklinton, and Grandview Heights)Based on interviews with sales agents of downtown condo developments, Danter (2006) reported that the downtown housing market was attracting two primary categories of buyers, Young Professionals and Empty-Nesters. Young Professionals represented the largest share of buyers in the market and were categorized as highly educated 25-34 years old and working long hours in the suburbs or Downtown. Next, Empty-Nesters were categorized as singles and couples 50 years older who owned a home in the suburbs. Released a few years later, a CRP report in 2009 (Downtowners of Columbus: Who They are and How They Live) reported that the most populous downtown age groups were people in their 20s (18-24) and early 30s (25-34) In particular, empty nesters , age 45-64, increased 38% from 2000 to 2009. The prominence of Young Professionals and Empty Nesters was also confirmed by analyzing ESRI Tapestry Data for 2010. ESRI‘s Tapestry Segmentation divides US residential areas into 65 distinct segments based on socio-economic and demographic characteristics. The largest segments within the downtown boundary are the segments described as Metro Renters, Social Security Set, City Commons, City Dimensions, Retirement Communities, and Inner-City Tenants, representing over 3,100 households. (Table 18) A complete description of each tapestry segment by ESRI is listed in Table 23, Appendix A.
106
Table 18. Largest Tapestry Segments in Downtown Columbus
Life Mode Segment % Number Households 2010 L4 Solo Acts 27. Metro Renters 31.7 1,002 L5. Senior Styles 65. Social Security Set 31.2 986 L9. Family Portrait 64. City Commons 15.9 503 L8. Global Roots 60. City Dimensions 14.1 446 L5. Senior Styles 30. Retirement Communities 4.1 131 L8. Global Roots 52. Inner City Tenants 2.9 91
The Younger residents that are moving into the Columbus Downtown are primarily represented by the tapestry segments Metro Renters, City Commons, and City Dimensions. The largest group is Metro Renters, representing 1,002 households (31.7%) of all downtown households. Metro Renters are typically young, educated singles just beginning their professional careers in some of the largest US cities. According to ESRI‘s classification, approximately 60 percent of employed residents in the Metro Renters segment work in professional and management occupations, most in the service industry sector. Also, Metro Renters is one of the Tapestry Segmentation‘s most educated markets with more than one in four residents aged 25 years or older holding a graduate degree and one in three holding a bachelor‘s degree. Similarly, the City Commons (503 households) segment is comprised of single-parent families or singles living alone in rented multi-unit apartment buildings. However, in contrast to Metro Renters, City Commons median household income is much lower, with a majority of residents working in service occupations. Similar to City Commons, the City Dimensions segment (446 households) are represented by young, median age 29.2 years, single, single-parent, or married couple families living in either single-family or apartment housing. In contrast to the population of downtown housing for young, educated residents, both the Danter Real Estate Analysis and the CRP report noted that there was a significant increase in both singles and couples aged 45-65 into the downtown area from 2002 to 2009. The empty nester downtown residential demographic is represented by the second highest downtown Columbus Tapestry segment, Social Security Set. This segment is represented nationally by a median age of 46.4 years, with four in ten households aged 65 or older. This segment is typically dispersed in low- rent and high-rise apartment buildings among business districts and city parks in large US cities. Finally, the Retirement Community segment is represented by 131 downtown households. This
107 segment is represented by single seniors who live alone and married couples with no children living at home. This older market has a median age of 52.6 years, with those still working employed in white-collar occupations. Based on the three above sources of downtown residential demographics from 2002 to 2010, the downtown area is generally attracting three types of buyers: young professionals, young singles, and empty nesters. Mostly renters, these residents are primarily living in refurbished or newly constructed apartments and condominiums. What is most telling about the buyer demographics is that highly educated people are attracted to the downtown area. This includes both young professionals seeking an urban lifestyle, as well as established empty nesters who can afford posh high-rise condos as a primary or even secondary home. The steady increase of residents shows that revitalization projects, as well as tax abatements and infrastructure improvements have successfully created an environment, both built and social, that has become a desirable place to be both day and night. In order for downtown revitalization to be successful, the establishment of thriving downtown residential community is essential; a fact realized by both planners and city officials. While the 2002 Strategic Plan and previous revitalization efforts made significant progress in the area of arts and entertainment, more improvements in retail, commercial office, and housing are still needed to make downtown vibrant and active 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. To address these issues, Mayor Coleman joined a group of downtown residents, business owners, developers, retailers and advocates in February of 2010 to outline the next steps for bringing new investment, people, and activity back to the downtown. The result of these meetings was the 2010 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan.
2010 Plan and Beyond To achieve the goal of a ―new‖ downtown by 2012, the 2010 Strategic Plan was drafted by the city to build upon the downtown‘s revitalization successes over the last decade. Over the course of the last two decades there has been a significant amount of reinvestment in downtown Columbus, with over $2 billion in private investment since 2000 alone. (2010 Columbus Downtown Strategic Plan)The resurgence of downtown is due in part to the success of the 2002 Downtown Business Plan that called for building more downtown housing, improving the riverfront park system, and attracting and retaining jobs downtown. Wanting to capitalize on current success and to plan for the next 10 years and beyond, the 2010 Strategic Plan was created, containing 10 principles and 12 strategies to provide a starting point for implementation. Once again the 2010 Downtown plan puts renewed emphasis on the transformation of the urban core through strong public-private cooperation on project implementation to improve downtown and 108 solidify its place as the employment, governmental, institutional, entertainment and commercial core. First and foremost the 2010 plan is guided by 10 principles. These 10 principles were created to express both where downtown Columbus is today and the vision of what it will become in the future. The 10 principles are as follows: 1. Connect Uses, Districts and People a. Create an interconnected, walkable and vibrant downtown 2. Maintain Downtown‘s Status as the Employment Center of the Region a. Expand the role of downtown as economic engine of the region 3. Embrace Transit as a competitive advantage a. Improve and expand existing transit service 4. Guide building form, design and quality of the public realm a. Protect public and private investment and ensure that downtown achieves full potential as a unique urban environment 5. Increase Amount and variety of downtown housing a. Focus downtown housing to create dynamic, sustainable and active neighborhoods that will attract retail, entertainment and other supporting services. 6. Continue to develop signature parks and public spaces a. Plan an interconnected system of parks, plazas and green spaces that provide for a wide-variety of leisure activities 7. Invest in arts and Culture a. Ensure downtown‘s place as the preeminent cultural and creative hub of central Ohio 8. Prioritize Sustainability and the greening of downtown Columbus a. Establish downtown Columbus as the green capital of the Midwest by prioritizing sustainability 9. Continue collaboration between public and private sectors a. Target and prioritize new development opportunities and public green spaces that both the public and private sectors can jointly implement. 10. Celebrate the urban experience that only exists downtown a. Understand and cultivate the allure of the downtown experience
109
While these principles represent the first step in a longer planning process, the language provides a clear understanding of the downtown vision, a vision that is not just local but global. The 2010 Plan was adopted as an opportunity not just to transform the downtown core but the city as a whole. The 2010 Downtown Plan specifically states that ―A successful downtown will, in turn, create a more successful region that is both nationally and globally competitive.‖ The plan is as much as about local consumption as it is about global consumption. The idea of competition is a driving force behind the plan‘s objectives, with the one of the primary goals of the 2010 Plan ―to identify the innovative, energizing projects that will set Downtown Columbus apart from the competition.‖ This goal is clearly reflected in the language of the 10 principles of the 2010 Plan which use phrases such as ―unique urban environment‖, and ―the allure of the downtown experience.‖ To accomplish these goals, the strategies are constructed around the ideas of innovative urban design, and the unique social aspects that downtown can provide such as arts, culture, and gathering places. These strategies are really just an extension of the early revitalization projects of the early 1990s and 2000s which began a transformation of downtown into its form and function today. Districts and projects such as the Arena District, the Short North, Discovery District, the Columbus Commons, and the Scioto Mile have brought people, business, and investment back to many downtown areas. In essence, the 2010 Plan seeks to inter-connect the already existing uses, districts, and places downtown into one comprehensive, united, and vibrant downtown. Using extensive community input (more than 1,000 public comments), 12 ideas are outlined in the plan to accomplish this task. (Table 19, Figure 28)
110
Table 19. The 12 Ideas of the 2010 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan
Discovery District 1. Southeast Downtown Gateway Opportunity 2. Infill Housing around Topiary Park 3. The Creative Campus High Street Core 4. Redefine Broad St as the civic spine of the city 5. Restore High Street as Downtown‘s commercial corridor 6. Develop a Downtown Transit Center to replace High Street Transit Mall 7. 3-C Multi-Modal Station 8. Develop Downtown Bike Station 9. Develop Downtown Field House Riverfront 10. Pedestrian Bridge Connecting Arena District to Scioto Peninsula 11. Continue Development of Scioto Peninsula 12. Scioto-Olentangy Greenway Corridor
111
Figure 28. 2010 Downtown Strategic Plan Ideas
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
The12 ideas of the 2010 Plan fall within the three primary corridors of downtown, the Discovery District, the High Street Core, and the Riverfront. Since these revitalization plans are only ideas at this point in time, it is not necessary to elaborate on the details of each. The important point is that the ideas represent a comprehensive plan encompassing the entire downtown. Furthermore, the implementation of the ideas is divided among a variety of actors, both public and private, including Columbus College of Art and Design, Columbus Downtown Development Corporation, the center of Science and Industry (COSI), Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Department of Transportation, and The Ohio State University. The 2010 Downtown plan is a community-led effort that seeks to obtain the common goal of a vibrant downtown. The detail and scope of the projects represents just how much the city of Columbus believes its downtown to be important. The major themes of the 12 ideas include transportation enhancements both for vehicles and people, including work on 112 local streetscapes as well as major interstate freeway projects, and multi-modal stations for bikes and public transit. Also, similar to the 2002 Plan, the creative sector, including arts, culture, and entertainment is well represented. Also, since the Columbus downtown is surrounded on all four sides by interstate freeways, major connections are proposed for linking downtown to the areas located on the periphery by constructing additional caps and gateways over freeways. A great Great illustration of the vision of a fully connected downtown is the Columbus High Five project.
The High Five refers to a five mile stretch of High Street Five which contains five districts, the Ohio State University District, the Short North Arts District, The Arena District, the Downtown Core , and German Village. Created primarily as a marketing scheme, the vision of the High Five is to be nationally recognized term for Columbus, similar to Michigan Avenue in Chicago. High-Five marketing materials describe the stretch as containing countless encounters including historic architecture, culinary adventure, high art mixed with street culture, and professional sports and community events, proclaiming ―If it‘s hip, it‘s here.‖ High Five marketing brochures report that today five mile stretch contains 150 places to wine and dine, 200 stores and boutiques, 40 art galleries, 50 venues, 100 annual events, and 4,000 hotel rooms. The High Five represents the core form and function of downtown today. First, that downtown is a mixed-use live, work, and play environment and is truly ―everybody‘s neighborhood‖ Second, the amenities and experiences found along the districts cannot be found anywhere else in the region. Third, over the past 20 years revitalization projects have not only created these unique districts, but they have intentionally connected them to create a unified downtown. Finally, the High Five is a brand name that is focused not only on the local but perhaps more importantly on both the national and global markets. Collectively, the practice of downtown revitalization in Columbus and the form and function of downtown today illustrates the local and the global, making the geographic concepts of space and place a useful tool for understanding the modern downtown revitalization process. Furthermore, the new wave of space and place transformations, cyberspace, is reflected in the Columbus downtown. The increasing popularity and activities in downtown places and districts is reflected by the numerous websites, blogs, and Facebook pages which are directly linked to the areas. As outlined in the literature in Chapter 2, physical places and electronic places are truly being fused together through cyberspace and communication technology.
113
4.2.3 Columbus 2.0: The Implications of Sticky Places in Downtown As of June 11, 2011 the official city of Columbus Facebook page had 48,208 ―likes‖ by users. In April 2011 when the Facebook data for this research was collected, the same page had 45,772 ―likes‖ equaling an increase of over 3,000 during the two-month time-period. In today‘s world, the use of social media and online communication have been rapidly growing and are becoming a standard medium for social interaction among people. In large urban environments, such as Columbus this is no exception. In a sense, physical places and electronic places are being fused together through cyberspace, opening up new spaces within cities and downtown places. Graham (1998) notes that careful examination of internet and social media, shows that much of the traffic actually represents and articulates real places and spaces, supporting and generating physical mobility, tourism, transport and trips for the highly mobile groups which use the medium. Instead of substituting for physical places, the internet and social media allow such places to be understood and navigated in ways never thought possible. Today, social media and online communication allow the rapid creation and dissemination of user-generated data by a variety of users and at a variety of geographies. User-generated data at the local level, such as downtown places and neighborhoods, can be an effective and temporal source of information about an area. In downtown areas, census and demographic data is typically either hard to collect or not available at the specific geography desired (Every city defines their downtown differently). In contrast to these traditional sources of top-down demographic information, social media provides another mechanism for examining downtown places and the interactions of the people within them. In particular, user-generated content may be relevant for measuring the popularity or ―buzz‖ of downtown places. To illustrate this point, the city of Columbus is used as an example to show how social media and downtown places are connected. To examine the representation of social media in Columbus, an analysis of Facebook place pages was conducted. In Facebook, both single users and organizations can create a page that is tied to any specific group, business, company, or location. With few exceptions, every place page is tied to a specific geographic location. For instance, a page can be created for a single restaurant, or an entire neighborhood. These pages can be openly searched by users who join the page by clicking the ―like‖ button. Furthermore, many Facebook place pages are linked to Foursquare. Foursquare is a location-based mobile platform that makes cities ―easier to use and more interesting to explore‖. By ―checking in‖ via a smartphone app or SMS, users share their location with friends and share information about venues that they have visited and want to visit .(http://www.foursquare.com) Foursquare reports that as of April 2011 they have over 8 million 114 users and over3.5 million check-ins a day. Since Facebook and Foursqaure are linked, the number of check-ins is also reported on Facebook Places pages. In order to evaluate the locations and numbers of people for Facebook place pages in Columbus, a database was created by searching Facebook using the terms ―Columbus‖ and ―Columbus Downtown.‖ Based on this search a database of 170 Facebook pages that including a Columbus tag was created. For each page, an address was recorded (If applicable) as well as the number of people (―likes‖), the type of page (Organization, Event, or Place) and check-ins was recorded. The address was used to geocode the locations in ArcGIS. It was hypothesized that, since downtown areas are typically have the most dense population and greatest interaction that downtown places would be more likely to be represented on Facebook pages than their suburban counterparts. Also, it was guessed that the Facebook place pages with the most likes and check-ins would be located in the downtown area. The database used for mapping contains a total of 170 pages, representing 493,912 people, and 28,602 check-ins. (As of April, 2011). The top 25 Facebook pages in terms of people (―likes‖) are listed in Table 20. This list includes the Columbus Zoo at Number 1 (65,270 people) as well as the official Columbus city page(45,772), the Columbus Blue Jackets (44,371), the Columbus Library (19,162), the Short North Arts District (8,672), and the Columbus Museum of Art (5,016). Also, a total of seven pages had over 1,000 foursquare check-ins, including Nationwide Arena, (4,433), Union Café (2,057) and North Market (1,157). (Table 21)
115
Table 20. Top 25 Columbus Facebook Pages - People
Page People Check Ins Type The Columbus Zoo and Aquarium 65,270 50 Place WBNS-10tv - Columbus, Ohio 52,783 - Organization Columbus, Ohio (Company) 45,772 - Organization Columbus Blue Jackets 44,371 - Organization Columbus, Ohio (City) 31,630 - Organization Columbus Metropolitan Library 19,162 118 Place Columbus Crew 16,608 - Organization Columbus Blue Jackets 14,803 - Organization 365 Things to Do in Columbus 13,257 - Organization Columbus Alive 12,935 - Organization Columbus Clippers 10,891 4 Organization Short North Arts District 8,672 - Place Susan G. Komen for the Cure 7,349 3 Event The Thurman Café - Columbus, Ohio 7,213 - Place Columbus and Franklin County Metro Parks 6,254 - Organization The Columbus Marathon 5,786 - Event Columbus Museum of Art 5,016 5 Place Live Nation Columbus 4,236 - Organization The Social 3,819 3 Place Experience Columbus 3,818 - Organization Park Street Cantina 3,648 34 Place Union Café 3,581 2,057 Place Schmidt's Sausage Haus 3,574 910 Place Groupon Columbus 3,549 - Organization BalletMet Columbus 3,265 29 Organization Columbus Arts Festival 3,116 - Event
116
Table 21. Top 25 Columbus Facebook Pages – Check -Ins
Page People Check Ins Nationwide Arena 425 4,433 Union Café 3,581 2,057 Greater Convention Center 159 1,888 Addiction Medicine at Nationwide Children's Hospital 352 1,629 Urban Active - Grandview Yard 111 1,247 Grant Medical Center 128 1,232 North Market 224 1,157 Columbus Crew Stadium 252 998 Schmidt's Sausage Haus 3,574 910 Bodega 114 875 Columbus State Community College 1,630 748 Bar Louie 52 736 Capital University 99 628 Hyatt Regency Columbus 37 623 Mellow Mushroom 1,735 569 Surly Girl Saloon 1,570 555 Mac's Café 175 533 Betty's Fine Food & Spirits 706 516 Stauf's Coffee Roasters 1,293 504 Jeni's Splendid Ice Creams 156 466 Woodland's Tavern 65 449 Haiku Restaurant 58 445 Park Street Patio 2,091 387 Club 185 442 377 Barley's Brewing Company 953 368
In terms of geographic distribution, as hypothesized most of these pages were attached to places in downtown areas. The distribution of pages is displayed in Figure 29. Most page locations are concentrated on the North-South Axis across the downtown core. Interestingly, this pattern matches up almost exactly with the High-Street Corridor as well as the High Five.
117
Figure 29. Columbus Facebook Page Location Map
0 2.5 5 10 Miles
In fact, of the 170 Facebook pages geocoded, 56 are located within the downtown boundary. These 56 pages are represented by 216,461 people (―likes‖) and 14,136 check-ins. (As of April, 2011)Within downtown, the majority of places that have a Facebook page are located along High Street and Nationwide Blvd in the Short North and Arena District. (Figure 30)
118
Figure 30. Columbus Downtown Facebook Page Locations
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Also, there is a large cluster of locations around the state capital and in the Discovery District just east of Capital Square. The area of downtown with the most check-ins is overwhelmingly around Nationwide Arena and along High Street in the Short North. (Figure 31, 32) The top places for check-ins include Nationwide Arena and North Market, as well as numerous popular bars and restaurants such as Jeni‘s Splendid Ice Cream, the Park Street Patio, and Three Dog Bakery. A full list of Arena District and Short North Facebook pages is listed in Appendix A, Table 25.
119
Figure 31. Downtown Facebook Page Locations by Number of Check-Ins.
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
120
Figure 32. Arena District and Short North Facebook Page Locations
The abundance of Facebook pages and check-ins around the core areas of downtown Columbus provide some important insights. First, that these newly revitalized areas have become unique and sticky places. They are not only facilitating interaction among people in person, but on-line as well. Also, sheer volume of ―likes‖ on Facebook in comparison to other areas of downtown and the city show that the areas have created a ―Sense of place,‖ with people feeling compelled to express their identification with the area online and among friends. Applications like foursquare allow users to share their location with others. Therefore, not all locations are shared (i.e work, school, grocery store, bank etc.) or available on foursquare (in order to be a place on foursquare, an individual or organization must register through the company) but destinations which the user feels the need to share with others, in a sense saying , ―Look everyone, I am here!‖ Thus, the most popular downtown foursquare check-in locations can be
121 seen as the sticky places within downtown sticky places. However, it should be noted that not all Facebook pages and foursquare locations are tied to a specific place. Many of the pages are in fact events or organizations. (Figure 33) What is important that user volunteered content through Facebook and foursquare can help tell what is drawing people to downtown places, and what downtown places are most popular. As seen in Figure 33, most Facebook pages that are tied to a place (bar, restaurant, hotel, company, etc.) are heavily located in the Arena District and Short North Area.
Figure 33. Downtown Facebook Page Locations by Type
122
Thus, within downtown Columbus these are the most popular hangout spots (as represented on Facebook) for which people want to share with others that they have visited. While the popularity of the Arena District and Short North are in a way confirmed by the user- generated content on Facebook, it is important to point out that not everyone uses the technology or has it available to them. These areas of downtown are also the most popular among young professionals, college students and the ―hip‖ crowd, a demographic assumed to be the primary users of the most up-to date communication technology. Other places in downtown, such as German Village, may be just as popular but may include an older demographic less apt to express themselves online. These are issues that may be looked at in further research. The purpose here is to merely show that as expected the success of revitalized downtown areas is also reflected in cyberspace. Social media sites such as Facebook and mobile phone applications such as foursquare allow people to interact both in person and online. Consequently, the ―buzz‖ around newly revitalized downtown areas can be analyzed through not only the observation of physical locations but also through popularity in cyberspace as well. Many companies and organizations have recognized the importance of maintaining an online presence. Today, it is almost essential for any place to also be represented online in order to both market itself and facilitate interactions among potential customers and users. For instance, on the front page of the Arena District website, one of the largest advertisements proclaims ‗‘Like Us‘on Facebook!‖ Through social media such as Facebook there exists new opportunities for the collection of bottom-up data. Each place page on Facebook contains a variety of tabs, including a wall to post comments, as well as the capability to post photos, discussions, video, and links. On the Columbus, Ohio page there is a community edits tab which allows the user to add details about places within in Columbus. According to Facebook, ―the Community Edits tab lets you share your knowledge about places in Columbus, Ohio and makes Facebook Places more useful. Add details about places, report duplicates, and more.‖Also, viewing a Facebook page is an instant link to observing a user‘s friend activity. All Pages contain information on the user‘s friends that ―like‖ the page and which friends have recently checked in at the location. For instance, on the Facebook Short North Arts District page (Figure 34), I found that three of my own friends were members of the page. Combined with mobile technology such as Foursquare, Facebook provides a medium to reunite with people you know, schedule meetings with friends, post reviews and opinions and organize around other place-based issues. The type of information generated by users has many potential uses from the marketing of small businesses to uses in planning,
123 including facilitating the involvement of the younger generation in the planning process, participatory GIS, and organizing residents around downtown issues. These topics provide great opportunity for further research. Facebook and foursquare provide just one example of a source of user-generated content and volunteered geographic information.
Figure 34. Short North Arts District Facebook Page
A careful search of the internet turns of additional sources of user-generated content related to downtown Columbus. Through just a few clicks on Google Maps, a user can choose to display photos, videos, Wikipedia entries, webcams, and buzz (Twitter postings) on the map interface. Figure 34 shows a snapshot of downtown Columbus with these features displayed. One can click on a variety of user generated photos, as well as view all the Wikipedia entries for places within the downtown.
124
Figure 35. Google Maps Screenshot of Downtown Columbus
Outside of large search engines like Google, many local Columbus websites also include user-generated content. Popular websites such as ColumbusUnderground.com, ColumbusAlive.com, and ColumbusNeighborhoods.org, all of which allow users to post and view content online. The ColumbusUnderground website has a devoted base of users and contains all the latest ―Local Buzz‖ on message boards concerning anything and everything Columbus, including music, arts, and nightlife. ColumbusNeighborhoods.org is website wholly devoted to the Columbus downtown historic neighborhoods including the Short North, Franklinton, Old Town East, and German Village, among others. The website invites users to ―join us in telling the story of central Ohio by sharing your cherished photographs, your favorite video clips, your most amusing or poignant audio clips, or your memories and thoughts around your own particular neighborhood.‖ Along with social media, these local websites help to illustrate the energy and vibrancy which has returned to downtown Columbus over the past two decades. The form and function of the Columbus downtown has certainly changed evolving into a mixed-use environment for work, play, and leisure. Going ―downtown‖ and living ―downtown‖ have once again become popular phrases heard among Columbus residents. The revitalization of many
125 downtown areas can not only be attributed to the innovative designs and investment from the public and private sectors, but is also a product of the passion of the people who call Columbus home. Revitalization projects over the last two decades have successfully created new downtown places that have not only a local feel, but also a global reach.
126
Chapter 5: Conclusion
5.1 The Form and Function of the Modern Downtown: A Sticky Place in Slippery Space Throughout its history the American downtown has undergone significant changes in its content and function. Since, hitting its pinnacle in the 1920s, the American downtown has experienced what amounts to a rise, fall, and recent renewal. In terms of downtown‘s form and function today it is argued that globalization, inter-city competition, and entrepreneurialism have created a ―new‖ American Downtown. This is reflected in the evolution of downtown from primarily a commercial/retail hub to mixed-use place for living, working, and playing. (Birch, 2009) Downtowns are not portrayed as unitary places but contain identifiable districts, high culture epicenters, and popular leisure areas (Gospodini, 2006). Accordingly, the post-industrial city has undergone significant landscape transformation over the last two decades. These transformations have given rise to a new paradigm, namely that ―throughout history, major urban design schemes and the avant-garde design of space were mostly an outcome of economic growth of cities and countries. Nowadays, a reverse procedure is taking place, and urban design appears to be consciously ‗used‘ as means of urban economic development for all classes and groups of cities (Gospodini, 2006) This has resulted in the introduction of ―glocalised‖ landscapes of built heritage and innovative design of buildings and public open spaces (Gospodini, 2006) Downtown strategies are no longer considered ―place-less.‖ In fact, the opposite is true. Cities seek to set themselves apart from other cities through unique downtown landscapes, areas, and amenities. The impact of new local policies on the transformation of the American downtown is described by Boschken (2008): In this spirit of economic development, political support is often thrown to public-private partnerships that plan and carve out post-industrial habitats from economically declining urban cores. Evidence of such consortia at work is found, for example, in the comprehensive development of multi-purpose central districts, having generously landscaped promenades threading together artfully designed high-rise business towers with entertainment and residential centers, all made regionally accessible by stylish, technologically advanced rail transit. Satisfying to a productivity-minded fiscal conservative, the reclaiming of core cities in this way is said to reflect a forward-thinking constituency determined to advance the global position of its city, competitively, symbolically, and by appearance. (p.6)
127
This has resulted in what Markusen & Shrock (2006) term the rise of ―the Distinctive city,‖ one in which ―city leaders, understanding that their positions in urban hierarchies are not assured and their traditional strong suits are under attack increasingly seek to distinguish themselves from other cities, domestic and international‖ (p.1302). Unlike early downtown renewal projects aimed at functionality and urban design (every city wanted a convention center, waterfront park, indoor mall, and sports arena) the new global competitive environment requires cities to set themselves apart, creating ―sticky‖ places downtown. Cities such as Columbus have actively embraced these ideas in their revitalization strategies. To create a truly distinct city, planners aggressively adopted the vision of modern global downtown place, characterized by innovative design which provides unique business, entertainment, art, culture, and leisure amenities to the new post-modern world. In order to be globally competitive, cities have to be truly multi-dimensional entities. Today, multi-dimensional also includes cyberspaces and harnessing information and social media technology as an enhancement of sticky place. Applications such as Facebook and Foursquare allow users to maintain existing relationships with people and places, while at the same time facilitating new interactions. As illustrated in the recent literature and through the Columbus case study, the emergence of cyberspace has revolutionized how people are interacting within physical spaces and places. Through user-generated content and volunteered geographic information, today there is an unprecedented amount of data available for understanding people‘s interactions and within downtown places. As the above literature and concepts illustrate, the importance of ―place‖ in a world which mobile capital increasingly treats as ―place-less‖ has only been enhanced as cities seek to distinguish themselves in the urban hierarchy. The construction and marketing of local places for global consumption in many cities usually starts with downtown. In an effort to create a globally competitive city, growth coalitions not only must concern themselves with local amenities, such as art, culture, entertainment, and social media, but must have an iconic national and global image. A modern, attractive downtown is a key component of any modern global city and can help cities achieve each these goals. When taking a step back, it is clear that the process and practice of downtown revitalization cannot be examined on a local scale alone. The process is tied up in multitude of scales and processes, and must be examined as so. Downtown revitalization is just one chapter of the ongoing story of historical space and place transformations. These processes have resulted in a modern downtown with a very different function than a century ago, processes which have and continue to influence downtown revitalization and economic development in the city of Columbus, Ohio. 128
5.2 Downtown Columbus: Insight into Space, Place, Downtown Revitalization and Economic Development The wide scale transformation of downtown Columbus over the last two decades provides a great case study for how the concepts of ―space‖ and ―place‖ can help understand the process and practice of modern downtown revitalization. The story of Columbus‘ downtown revitalization starts with the city‘s position in the spaces of the national and global economy. Unlike many industrial cities of the Midwestern Rust Belt which have suffered major economic setbacks due to deindustrialization since the 1970s Columbus has continued to experience population and economic growth. Never as heavily reliant on manufacturing as cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, and having a large public-employment sector and a well balanced mix of manufacturing, services, and trade, Columbus has been able to weather the storm of deindustrialization and maintain an advantage over other Midwestern Rust Belt cities concerning future economic growth. While the Midwest and Ohio have been in general population growth decline, the city of Columbus has been quietly shining bright in the Rust Belt. Both the Columbus MSA and Columbus City have more than doubled their population during the period from 1950 to 2010. A reflection of its strong, diverse economy, Columbus has maintained itself as a ―Sticky‖ place and is well positioned to maneuver global space. According to Hunker (2000), Columbus had the look and feel of a young city as it anticipated the 21st century…a vibrancy reflected by a new focus on the economy (p. 7). In what can be viewed as a proactive response to globalization, inter-city completion, and the need to fix globalization locally, Columbus is actively pursuing economic development and downtown revitalization strategies. Columbus must now compete with other cities both regionally, nationally, and globally to both attract and retain businesses and people within its borders. Columbus has implemented revitalization and economic development projects not because the city is in a ―crisis‖, but to maintain its favorable position and push forward to be truly world class city and more successfully maneuver slippery space. These projects encompass everything from the built environment, to city marketing and branding. The true convergent point of Columbus in slippery global space and the revitalization and marketing of local places is downtown. While the Columbus population and economy maintained steady growth during the second half of the 20th Century, the Columbus downtown experienced the opposite trend going from 30,000 residents in 1950 to just 3,500 in 2000 (2010 Columbus Downtown Strategic Plan) The widespread decentralization of downtown places throughout the late 1970s and 1980s due to 129 the automobile, the interstate freeway system and the suburbanization of housing, business, and retail left downtown Columbus largely empty and abandoned after the workday was over. In response to these negatives, Columbus growth coalitions since the 1980s have placed a renewed focus on downtown Columbus, with numerous mixed-used development projects spurring a true ―rebirth‖ of the area, most notably over the last 20 years. Over this time-period downtown has certainly been the largest focus of planning by the City with dozens of projects and billions of dollars in investment. Largely concerned with functionality and design, early downtown projects such as the creation of City Center Mall, refurbished hotels and theatres, transportation improvements, and the construction of a new Columbus Convention center represented the common approaches of the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was not until the vision of the Arena District came to fruition that a true national and global mentality worked its way into the rhetoric and design of downtown places. In Columbus this vision of new downtown places was largely led by business leaders and the private sector. Columbus‘s push for a business-district entertainment area was led by some of the most powerful civic leaders of the city, collectively referred to as the ―Titans.‖ While each shared differing motives, the collective agreement was to bring Columbus to the ―big time‖ of American cities, advance the physical and economic redevelopment of downtown through the construction of arena and stadium facilities, and the desire to create a new image of downtown as a place to live, work, and shop. (Curry et. al, 2004) A model used for other cities, the Arena District provides a great case study of how place-making, entrepreneurial strategies and private funding were used to transform an old industrial ―brownfield‖ into a nationally recognized business and entertainment district. Ultimately, the Arena District was designed for people, a principle which guided the design of the areas and buildings. By incorporating design elements from both the past and present, the Arena District was meant to provide both visitors and residents with a true ―sense of place‖. Similarly, the development of the Short North Arts District around arts, culture, and entertainment has created truly unique, and exciting places downtown. The popularity of these places is also reflected within the virtual world, including ―likes‖ on Facebook and the foursquare check-ins. Cyberspace and advances of information and communication technology (ICT) have allowed places to become stickier. Places such as the Arena District and Short North have driven the downtown revitalization of Columbus as truly sticky places that maintain a local feel and modern outlook and design. Building on the successes of these districts, the city of Columbus has adopted a more outward looking stance, both nationally and globally. The projects implemented by the 2002 Plan helped bring 24/7 activity back to the downtown area, shaping downtown into 130 the form and function it is today. Downtown Columbus is best characterized by the numerous districts and historic neighborhoods which call the area home. By connecting the people, districts, and uses of downtown, revitalization strategies have helped to make downtown a true mixed-use environment. Significant government, corporate, entertainment, arts, and cultural activities can be found throughout downtown. Furthermore, the presence of the Ohio State University, historic neighborhoods, and numerous creative people and industries, are helping downtown maintain a vibrant atmosphere now and into the future. The development of the 2010 Strategic Plan can attest to the continued emphasis placed on the Columbus downtown over the next decade. The 2010 Plan specifically states that ―A successful downtown will, in turn, create a more successful region that is both nationally and globally competitive.‖ Downtown remains the key economic engine of the region and is essential to it its vitality. A result of not just local processes, but global as well, the form and function of downtown today is drastically different than twenty or even ten years ago. Due to its economic and geographic position, Columbus is well-positioned to maneuver slippery space. A modern and vibrant downtown is now a great asset not only for local residents but also for the marketing of the city. The revitalization of the Columbus downtown over the last two decades has been complimented by the start of the Columbus 2020!, a new, comprehensive economic development initiatives. In this research, the maneuvering of global spaces is represented by Columbus 2020!. Conversely, the marketing of local places is represented by Columbus downtown revitalization projects. However, the two ultimately are working toward the same goal. While not explicitly created together, both coexist for the same purpose, to make Columbus a sticky place in slippery space. The importance of downtown revitalization and regional economic development was confirmed by an interview with Matt McCollister, the Vice President of Economic Development at 2020! According to McCollister, while the first and foremost goal of the 2020! Initiative is to retain and expand the companies already located in the region, in order to change the long term trajectory of a region you need to bring in new companies and new ideas. In order to compete with other regions, a vibrant downtown is as an important asset. McCollister commented that it is important not just have a vibrant downtown, but ―to manage downtown so it doesn‘t become a detriment.‖ (personnel communication, June 8, 2011) A city‘s competitiveness can change rapidly in today‘s modern economic development arena and a vibrant downtown can help remove any anxiety about a place. The point here is that the image of downtown does play a role in the attraction of new companies. Recognizing this fact, the revitalization of downtown Columbus has been largely promoted and supported by business leaders and existing companies 131 in the region, particularly in the downtown. With over 2$ billion in private investment since 2000 alone, the Columbus downtown has received significant support from the private sector (2010 Downtown Strategic Plan). Through public-private partnerships, and mostly private funding, Columbus has successfully implemented revitalization projects that have both benefited the residents and businesses, creating a downtown which is truly ―Everybody‘s Neighborhood.‖ As a long-time Columbus resident and current downtown employee, there seems to be a new energy in Columbus that did not exist even a few years ago. Much of this energy is concentrated in the revitalized areas of the downtown core. A walk through downtown areas, including Capital Square, the Short North, and the Arena District, both day or night, reveals a ―buzz‖ of street level activity as well as visual reminders of the numerous downtown projects currently in progress. One of the fastest growing, and modern Midwestern cities, Columbus and its downtown have become a ―sticky‖ place in ―slippery‖ space.
5.3 The Future of Downtown Revitalization Despite the widespread use of entrepreneurialism and private-funding for downtown revitalization in cities such as Columbus, the practice has raised several critical questions. The first question is related to the singular vision ―growth- first‖ mentality often adopted by cities (Wilson & Wouters, 2003). As the shift from managerialism to entrepreneurialism in local politics occurred in the late 1980s, Harvey (1989) cautioned against ―concentration on spectacle and image rather than substance of economic and social problems‖ for entrepreneurial strategies may constitute a subsidy at the cost of welfare for the poor (p. 16). Similarly, Hall & Hubbard (1996) argue that increased reliance of private funding for public policy and the convergence of private sector interests in the public sector has undermined the working-class giving heightened polity control to the new bourgeoisie and property owners. Indeed, while downtown revitalization projects seek to enhance the overall well-being of a city or region, the involvement of the private sector represents primarily the interests of capitalist firms and the attraction of highly-skilled workers. The creation of business-entertainment districts is similarly marketed towards white- collar workers and affluent suburbanites. There are many questions yet to be answered and much research to be done on the social impacts of downtown revitalization strategies. While a city may enhance its position in the global economy, the local impacts of globalization must not be forgotten. Life is lived at the local level, not the global. However, global processes are having more and more impact on local life. A highly distinctive city may not be necessarily a good city in terms of sustainability, growth, 132 equity, or quality of life. (Markusen & Shrock, 2006) Along these same lines Ng and Hills (2003) argue that in this global age it is more important to be a great city than a world city. Striving to obtain the status and ―image‖ of true global city, the ―growth-first‖ mentality of many cities have pushed many local social issues aside. According to Hall and Hubbard (1996), ―the failure of urban entrepreneurialism to alleviate the social and economic problems of many cities, and in particular its neglect of issues of social equity in favor of the prosperity of certain elite groups, has therefore been argued to exacerbated social and territorial inequalities in cities‖(p. 167-168). Indeed, any entrepreneurial venture is characterized by both risk and reward. What does this mean for the sustainability of mixed-use downtowns that largely depend on the global capitalist economy? In response to future sustainability issues more cautious approaches to consumption- driven growth as well as a recommendation for new local asset-based development have already emerged in the literature. (Friedmann, 2007; Storper and Scott, 2009) The rise of globalization and entrepreneurialism in downtown planning certainly has its clear advantages, but also some potential drawbacks which need be explored. The success of revitalization projects largely depend on the specific characterists (environment and people) of the city which is implementing them. While in a city such as Columbus entrepreneurial and privately led revitalization projects have had much success, the same strategies would not necessarily work in other Midwestern cities such as Detroit or Cleveland. While entrepreneurial approaches have allowed many American cities to revitalize and reinvigorate their downtowns, planners must be careful not to forget the importance of addressing local issues and developing local assets for a sustainable future. Due to the modern complexity of downtown revitalization, the topic can greatly benefit from new research approaches. The contemporary practice of downtown revitalization is more than an observable shift in urban governance, ―urban entrepreneurialism has ushered in a whole range of changes in the way in which the city operates at all levels, changes that can only be comprehended with reference to the changing nature of the social, economic, and political processes which are operating at both the global and local level‖ (Hall & Hubbard, 1996, p. 169) To better understand the changing political processes related to modern revitalization , there must be a an emphasis on research at the local level. With cities increasingly relying upon entrepreneurial and innovative planning to create distinctive downtown places, it stands to reason that each city will pursue unique strategies with differing results. Certainly, what works for one city may not be necessarily repeated for a different city. Under these circumstances, besides the general theoretical concepts, such as a restructuring of local politics to reflect competition among 133 localities, it is increasingly hard to generalize the modern practice of downtown revitalization. A comparative approach would be quite beneficial to deal with the specifics of how revitalization is implemented at the local level. A city to city comparison allows the similarities and differences of entrepreneurial strategies to be explored, giving a better understand on how civic leaders narrate, develop, design, and implement downtown revitalization strategies. The importance of local actors in the development of downtown as a global place should not be ignored. Lai (2009) argues that viewing cities as places means they are inhabited by real people and ―therefore there is a need to bring our analysis closer to the ground in seeking to understand the perspectives and motivation of these actors‖ (p. 1009). The revitalization of a downtown is a direct result of the vision, planning, and commitment of key civic leaders. The background, occupation, and personal interest of these leaders will most certainly vary from city to city. Therefore, it is not important to just look at what revitalization strategies are implemented, but who is behind the projects making the decisions. What are each actors motivations for a having a stake in downtown revitalization? These variables will vary considerably across cities. To better understand these questions a bottom-up approach is beneficial. City case studies may include personal interviews with civic leaders, entrepreneurs, and residents to get the local perspective of those directly involved or affected by the revitalization process. The results of a detailed city case study could then be compared with another city to gain useful insight to similarities and differences in the planning and outcome of revitalization strategies. A comparative approach is most practical if done among cities of similar characteristics. Attributes such as population, regional location, and size of downtown provide a good starting point for comparison. For instance, downtown revitalization has been especially important for Midwestern cities in the Rust Belt suffering from deindustrialization. Comparison among cities such as Columbus, Indianapolis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh may reveal different approaches taken by each city, leading to varying degrees of success. Similar comparisons could be done for Sun Belt cities or East Coast cities. Along these same lines, comparisons among cities of similar physical size (population, commuter-shed, extent of sprawl, downtown area etc.) represent a firm basis for comparison. It is hoped that such comparative studies would shed more light on the influence of local actors on the revitalization process, as well as contribute to a wider knowledge of how certain city characteristics may influence both successful and unsuccessful revitalization strategies.
134
In addition to local actors, an important aspect of modern downtown revitalization is the actual people and businesses who are attracted to revitalized areas, making them sticky places. In the context of this research, the Columbus downtown and region was analyzed as a sticky place for both people and business. Downtown revitalization research could greatly benefit from more specific analysis on not only the demographics and characteristics of the people and business, but their motivations as well. Similarly, in an era where it is assumed that people and business can move freely throughout the world, it is important to also understand the not only the destinations but the origins as well. Today, downtown business and people have a multitude of connections not only locally, but nationally and globally. Corporate downtown headquarters and CEOs conduct business with branch locations, distribution centers, and colleagues across the world. Similarly downtown residents are not only from local origins, but national and international as well. More research from the ground-up may help better understand connections between people and businesses across spatial scales. Modern downtown areas are particularly relevant for understanding how the globalization is impacting local places. Agnew (1987) suggests there are three aspects to place as a meaningful location: Location, Locale, and Sense of Place. The modern downtown is a representation of all three. First and foremost, downtown remains the key command and control center for cities situated within the global space of flows. The modern American downtowns remain a true locale, a place within which people maintain social relations and conduct their lives as individuals. Finally, modern revitalization efforts have helped maintain a true ―sense of place‖ through the subjective and emotional attachments that people only can experience in downtown areas. Perhaps today downtowns are more accurately defined not through a physical boundary by the experiences of the people within its places. In an increasingly global society, it is important not to forget that life is still lived at the local level. It is the people who make a truly ―sticky‖ place in ―slippery‖ space.
135
References
Adams, C. (2003) The Meds and Eds in Urban Economic Development. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(5), 571-588. Allen, J. (2010) Powerful City Networks: More than Connections, Less than Domination and Control. Urban Studies 47 (13), 2895-2911. Agnew, J. A. (1987) Place and Politics: the geographical mediation of state and society. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Agnew, J. (2011) Space and place. In J. Agnew and D.N. Livingston (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Geographical Knowledge. Los Angeles, CA.: Sage, 316-330. Allen, J (2010) Powerful City Networks: More than Connections, Less than Domination and Control. Urban Studies, 47 (13), 2895-2911. Batty, M., Hudson-Smith, A.,Milton, R., & Cook, A. (2010) Map mashups, Web 2.0 and the GIS revolution. Annals of GIS, 16(1), 1-13. Beaverstock, J.V., Taylor, P.J., & Smith, R.G. (1999) A roster of world cities. Cities, 16(6), 445- 458. Berry, B. (1964) Approaches to Regional Analysis: A Synthesis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 54, 2-11. Birch, E. (2009) Downtown in the ―New American City.‖ Annals, AAPPS, 626. Boschken, H.L. (2008) A Multiple Perspectives Construct of the American Global City. Urban Studies, 45(1), 3-28. Cairncross, F. (2001) The death of distance: how the communications revolution is changing lives. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Castells, M. (1996) The information age: economy, society, and culture volume 1: the rise of the network society. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Checkoway, B. & Patton, C. (1985) The Metropolitan Midwest. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. City of Columbus. (2002) 2002 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan. Columbus, OH: Author. Retrieved from http://www.downtowncolumbus.com/plan
136
City of Columbus. (2002) 2010 Downtown Columbus Strategic Plan. Columbus, OH: Author. Retrieved from http://www.downtowncolumbus.com/plan Clark, S. & Gaile, G. (1998) The Work of Cities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Columbus 2020! (2010) Columbus 2020! Regional Economic Growth Strategy. Columbus, OH: Author. Columbus 2020! (2011) First Quarter Report. Retreived in Person from Columbus 2020! (May, 2011) Columbus College of Art and Design (CCAD). (2009) Creative Columbus a picture of the creative economy of Central Ohio. Columbus, OH: Author. Community Research Partners (CRP). (2009) CRP Data Byte No. 1. Downtowners of Columbus: Who They Are and How They Live. Columbus OH: Author. Community Research Partners (CRP). (2009) CRP Data Byte No. 4.Ohio Population Migration Patterns. Columbus OH: Author. Cresswell, T. (2004) Place: A short Introduction. London: Blackwell. Currid, E. (2009). Bohemia as Subculture; ―Bohemia‖ as Industry: Arts, Culture, and Economic Development. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(4), 308-382. Curry et al. (2004) High Stakes. Big Time Sports and Downtown Redevelopment. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. Cox, K., & Mair, A. (1988) Locality and Community in the Politics of Local Economic Development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78(2), 307-325. The Danter Company. (2007) A Downtown Multifamily Housing Analysis in the City of Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Capital South Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation. April 2, 2007. Darbee, J.T., & Recchie, N.A. (2008) The AIA Guide to Columbus. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Dicken, P. (1992) Global Shift The Internatiolization of Economic Activity, 2nd Edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, Derudder, B. (2006) On Conceptual Confusion in Empirical Analyses of a Transnational Urban Network. Urban Studies, 43(11), 2027-2046. Doel, M. & Hubbard, P. (2002) Taking world cities literally: Marketing the city in the global space of flows. City, 6(3), 351-368.
137
Eliot, J. (2000) The nature and measurement of spatial intelligence. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. ESRI. (2011) Tapestry Segmentation Reference Guide. Redlands, CA: Author. Evans-Cowley, J. (2010) Planning in the age of Facebook: the role of social networking in planning processes. Geojournal, 75, 407-420. Faulk, D. (2006). The Process and Practice of Downtown Revitalization. Review of Policy Research, 23(2), 625-645. Florida, R. (2002) Bohemia and economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(1), 55- 71. Ford, L. (2003) America’s New Downtowns Revitalization or Reinvention? Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Foth, M., Bajrachary, B., Brown, R., & Hearn, G. (2009) Journal of Location Based Services, 3(2), 97-117. Friedmann, J. (2007) The Wealth of Cities: Towards an Assets-based Development of Newly Urbanizing Regions. Development and Change, 38(6), 987-998. Friedmann, J. (1986) The World City Hypothesis. Development and Change, 17, 69-83. Friedmann, J. & Wolff, G. (1982) World city formation: an agenda for research and action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 6, 309-344. Giles, J. (2005) Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900-901. Golledge, R. (2002) The Nature of Geographic Knowledge. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(1), 1-14. Goodchild, M.F., Anselin, L., Appelbaum, R.P., & Herr Harthorn, B. (2000) Toward Spatially Integrated Social Science. International Regional Science Review 23,2: 139 – 159. Goodchild, M.F. & Janelle, D. (eds) (2004) Spatially Integrated Social Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press. Goodchild, M. F. (2007) Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69 (4), 211-221. Goodchild, M. F. (2009) Neogeography and the nature of geographic expertise. Journal of Location Based Services, 3(2), 82-96. Gospodini, A. (2006) Portraying, classifying and understanding the emerging landscapes in the post-industrial city. Cities, 23(5), 311-330. Graham, S. (1998) The end of geography or the explosion of place? Conceptualizing space, place and information technology. Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 165-185. 138
Graham, S. (1999) Global Grids of Glass: On Global Cities, Telecommunications and Planetary Urban Networks. Urban Studies, 36(5-6), 929-949. Graham, M. (2009) Neogeography and the Palimpsests of Place: Web 2.0 and the construction of a virtual earth. Tijidsschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101(4), 422-436. Hall, T. & Hubbard, P. (1996) The entrepreneurial city: new urban politics, new urban geographies? Progress in Human Geography 20(2), 153-174. Hall, P. (1966) The World Cities. Heinemann, London. Harvey, D. (1989) From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Annaler -71 B (1), 3-17. Hunker, H.L. (2000) Columbus, Ohio A Personal Geography. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Jessop, B. & Sum, N. (2000) An Entrepreneurial City in Action: Hong Kong‘s Emerging strategies in and for (Inter)Urban Competition. Urban Studies, 37(12), 2287-22313. Kavaratzis, M. (2007) City Marketing: The Past, the Present and Some Unresolved Issues. Geography Compass, 1(3), 695-712. Kavaratzis, M & Ashworth, G. (2005) City Branding: An Effective Assertion of Identity or a transitory marketing trick? Tijidsschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(5), 506 -514. Kavaratzis, M & Ashworth, G. (2007) Partnerships in coffeeshops, canals and commerce: Marketing the city of Amsterdam. Cities, 24(1), 16-25. Kern, S. (2003) The Culture of time and Space 1880-1918. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kotkin, J. (2001) The new geography: how the digital revolution is reshaping the American landscape. New York, NY: Random House Inc. Lai, K.P. (2009) New Spatial Logics in Global Cities Research: Networks, Flows and New Political Spaces. Geography Compass, 3(3), 997-1012. LaFayette, B. (2011) Identifying High-Output Industries in the Columbus MSA Economy. Columbus Chamber of Commerce. Report released February 7, 2011. Longworth, R. (2008) Caught in the Middle: America’s Heartland in the Age of Globalism. New York, NY: Bloomsbury USA. Markusen, A. (1996) Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography, 72(3), 293-313.
139
Markusen, A. & Shrock G. (2006) The Distinctive City: Divergent Patterns in Growth, Hierarchy and Specialsation. Urban Studies, 43(8), 1301-1323. Markusen, A. and Shrock G. (2009). Consumption-Driven Urban Development. Urban Geography, 30(4), 344-367. Massey, D. (1994) A Global Sense of Place. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. McCarthy, J. (2002) Entertainment-led Regeneration: the Case of Detroit. Cities, 19(2), 105-111. Miller, H.J. (2010) The data avalanche is here. Shouldn‘t we be digging? Journal of Regional Science (50th Anniversary Issue), 50, 181-201. Nationwide Realty Investors. (2006) The Arena District: A Neighborhood 170 Years in the Making. Columbus, OH: Nationwide Realty Investors, Ltd. Nationwide Reality Investors. (2009) Arena District Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.ArenaDistrict.com. Accessed 10 March, 2010. Ng, M.K. & Hills, P. (2003) World cities or great cities? A comparative study of five Asian metropolises. Cities, 20(3), 151-165. Ohio Department of Development (ODOD). (2010) International Corporate Investment in Ohio Operations. Columbus, OH: Policy Research and Strategic Planning Office. Ohio Department of Development (ODOD). (2010) Ohio Exports 2009 Origin of Movement Series. Columbus, OH: Policy Research and Strategic Planning Office. Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness. London: Routledge. Robertson, K. A. (1995).Downtown redevelopment strategies in the United States an end-of-the- century assessment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(4), 429-437. Rodrigue, J. (2010) Inland Ports and Freight Regionalization in North America [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://people.hofstra.edu/jean- paul_rodrigue/jpr_conferences.html Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City. Princeton, NJ:. Princeton University Press. Sheppard, E. (2002) The spaces and times of globalization: place, scale, networks, and positionality. Economic Geography, 78(3), 307-330. Storper, M. & Scott, A.J. (2009) Rethinking human capital, creativity and urban growth. Journal of Economic Geography 9, 147-167. Storper, M. and Venables, A. (2004) Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 351-370. Taylor, P., Walker, D.,Catalino,G., & Hoyler,M. (2002) Cities, 19(4), 231-241.
140
Taylor, P. (2005) Leading World Cities: Empirical Evaluations of Urban Nodes in Multiple Networks. Urban Studies, 42(9), 1593-1608. Teaford, J. (1993) Cities of the Heartland. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Tuan, Y.F. (1977) Space and Place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wainwright, J. & Barnes, T.J. (2009) Nature, economy, and the space-place distinction. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27, 966-986. Ward, K. (2007) ―Creating a Personality for Downtown‖: Business Improvement Districts in Milwaukee. Urban Geography, 28(8), 781-808. Ward, S. (1998) Selling Places: the marketing and promotion of towns and cities, 1850-2000. London: Routledge. Warf, B. (2008) Time-space compression: historical geographies. London: Routledge. Warf, B. & S. Arias (eds.) (2009) The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London/New York: Routledge. Warf, B. & Sui, D.Z. (2010) From GIS to neogeography: Ontological implications and theories of truth. Annals of GIS, 16(4), 1-13. Wilson, D. & Wouters, J. (2003) Spatiality and growth discourse: The restructuring of America‘s rust belt cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(2), 123-38. Zimmerman, J. (2008) From brew town to cool town: Neoliberalism and the creative city development strategy in Milwaukee. Cities, 25, 230-242.
141
Appendix A: Additional Tables
Table 22. Major Companies in the Columbus Region
Company Fortune 1000 Rank Presence in Columbus Abbott Laboratories 75 Significant operations Abercrombie & Fitch 651 Headquarters ADT Security Services Foreign-owned Significant operations Aetna 63 Significant operations Alliance Data Systems 847 Significant operations American Electric Power 172 Headquarters Anheuser-Busch Foreign-owned Significant operations Ashland 280 Significant operations Big Lots 436 Headquarters Bob Evans Farms 916 Headquarters BoehringerIngelheimRoxane Foreign-owned Significant operations Boeing 28 Significant operations Cardinal Health 17 Headquarters Cardington Yutaka Technologies Foreign-owned Significant operations Discover Financial Services 286 Significant operations Emerson Electric 117 Significant operations Farmers Group Foreign-owned Significant operations Fifth Third Bancorp 248 Significant operations Greif 673 Headquarters Hexion Specialty Chemicals / Momentive 513 / 802 Headquarters Performance Materials (merged in 2010) Honda of America Foreign-owned Significant operations Huntington Bancshares 597 Headquarters ING Life Insurance & Annuity Foreign-owned Significant operations JP Morgan Chase 9 Significant operations Limited Brands 269 Headquarters McGraw-Hill 363 Significant operations Medco Health Solutions 35 Significant operations Mettler-Toledo International 921 Headquarters Nationwide 118 Headquarters Owens Corning 432 Significant operations Pacer International 986 Headquarters Pepsi Bottling 174 Significant operations PPG Industries 190 Significant operations Retail Ventures 972 Headquarters Safelite Foreign-owned Significant operations 142 continued
Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. 617 Headquarters Stanley Electric Foreign-owned Significant operations State Farm Insurance 34 Significant operations Teleperformance USA Foreign-owned Significant operations Time Warner Cable 131 Significant operations TS Trim Industries Foreign-owned Significant operations United Parcel Service 43 Significant operations Worthington Industries 704 Headquarters Source: Forbes Magazine, 2010; Columbus Business First Book of Lists
143
Table 23. Columbus MSA High Output Industries Source: LaFayette, Bill. (2011).Columbus Chamber of Commerce. Identifying High-Output Industries in the Columbus MSA Economy. Total NAICS Industry (mil) MSA U.S. LQ 5-yr CAGR Difference Red = Underperforming relative to national Pct of Pct of 2000- 2003- 2005- average 2010 tot tot 2010 CAGR 10 10 10
92,103.3 100.00 100.00 - - Total output 66 % % 1.000 0.0126 0.0044 0.0042 0.0032 Construction 2373 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction 228.990 0.25% 0.22% 1.115 0.0115 0.0058 0.0346 0.0442 Manufacturing: Food and Beverage 3115 - - - Dairy Product Manufacturing 413.068 0.45% 0.14% 3.178 0.0131 0.0046 0.0256 0.0362 3121 Beverage Manufacturing 330.830 0.36% 0.17% 2.169 0.0346 0.0187 0.0018 0.0137 Manufacturing: Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 3253 Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural - - - Chemical Manufacturing 58.117 0.06% 0.06% 1.045 0.0038 0.0113 0.0413 0.0042 Manufacturing: Nonmetallic Mineral Products - - 3271 Clay Product and Refractory Manufacturing 29.902 0.03% 0.02% 1.456 -0.0795 0.0207 0.0359 0.0243 - - 3272 Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing 134.549 0.15% 0.05% 2.761 -0.0553 0.0484 0.0446 0.0097 - - - 3274 Lime and Gypsum Product Manufacturing 18.284 0.02% 0.01% 1.990 -0.0763 0.0415 0.0529 0.0006 - - - 3279 Other Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 131.304 0.14% 0.04% 3.347 -0.0417 0.0474 0.0595 0.0102 Manufacturing: Primary Metals 3315 Foundries 86.927 0.09% 0.08% 1.160 -0.0511 - 0.0870 0.0776 continued 144
0.0557 Manufacturing: Fabricated Metal Products 3321 Forging and Stamping 53.292 0.06% 0.06% 1.034 0.0122 0.0356 0.0443 0.0495 3322 Cutlery and Handtool Manufacturing 29.319 0.03% 0.02% 1.315 -0.0386 0.0177 0.0240 0.0473 - 3324 Boiler, Tank, and Shipping Container Manufacturing 140.023 0.15% 0.07% 2.317 0.0303 0.0072 0.0046 0.0124 3325 Hardware Manufacturing 21.376 0.02% 0.02% 1.513 -0.0089 0.0833 0.0592 0.0507 Coating, Engraving, Heat Treating, and Allied - 3328 Activities 91.048 0.10% 0.06% 1.549 -0.0164 0.0130 0.0032 0.0123 Manufacturing: Machinery 3334 Ventilation, Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing 201.241 0.22% 0.08% 2.794 0.0389 0.0101 0.0381 0.0542 - - - 3339 Other General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing 194.197 0.21% 0.17% 1.216 -0.0273 0.0104 0.0202 0.0266 Manufacturing: Electrical Equipment, Appliances, and Components - - - 3351 Electric Lighting Equipment Manufacturing 44.767 0.05% 0.04% 1.353 -0.1248 0.0401 0.0611 0.1019 3352 Household Appliance Manufacturing 84.821 0.09% 0.05% 1.842 0.0074 0.0122 0.0127 0.0203 3359 Other Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing 109.921 0.12% 0.11% 1.130 0.0404 0.0188 0.0254 0.0174 Manufacturing: Transportation Equipment 3361 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 525.441 0.57% 0.15% 3.803 0.0058 0.0452 0.0677 0.0709 3362 Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing 127.897 0.14% 0.06% 2.375 -0.0179 0.0066 0.0231 0.0358 3369 Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 88.733 0.10% 0.03% 3.333 0.2108 0.1150 0.1474 0.1740 Wholesale Trade 4234 Professional and Commercial Equipment and 1,112.49 Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 7 1.21% 0.83% 1.450 0.0274 0.0313 0.0250 0.0123 - - - 4241 Paper and Paper Product Merchant Wholesalers 115.045 0.12% 0.11% 1.092 -0.0267 0.0115 0.0212 0.0130 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant 4242 Wholesalers 445.581 0.48% 0.31% 1.577 0.1235 0.0350 0.0801 0.1048 4248 Beer, Wine, and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers 147.976 0.16% 0.15% 1.048 0.0581 0.0107 0.0019 0.0111 4251 Wholesale Electronic Markets and Agents and 1,040.85 1.13% 1.02% 1.112 0.0601 - 0.0209 0.0133
145
Brokers 4 0.0064 Transportation and Warehousing 4812 Nonscheduled Air Transportation 304.769 0.33% 0.04% 7.780 0.0884 0.1063 0.0446 0.0528 1,030.32 4841 General Freight Trucking 5 1.12% 0.57% 1.958 0.0300 0.0201 0.0110 0.0338 4885 Freight Transportation Arrangement 225.155 0.24% 0.13% 1.934 -0.0077 0.0007 0.0146 0.0015 4889 Other Support Activities for Transportation 18.321 0.02% 0.01% 1.608 -0.0210 0.0565 0.0272 0.0082 4921 Couriers and Express Delivery Services 434.732 0.47% 0.29% 1.623 0.0009 0.0142 0.0048 0.0156 4931 Warehousing and Storage 960.089 1.04% 0.30% 3.434 0.0370 0.0424 0.0495 0.0099 Information Newspaper, Periodical, Book, and Directory - - 5111 Publishers 454.030 0.49% 0.46% 1.066 -0.0576 0.0341 0.0064 0.0125 1,535.55 5191 Other Information Services 6 1.67% 0.22% 7.742 0.2464 0.1175 0.1153 0.1811 Finance and Insurance 5211 - Monetary Authorities-Central Bank 65.591 0.07% 0.04% 1.657 0.0717 0.0556 0.0063 0.0111 1,995.44 5222 Nondepository Credit Intermediation 9 2.17% 0.96% 2.268 -0.0267 0.0014 0.0163 0.0161 1,387.58 5223 Activities Related to Credit Intermediation 6 1.51% 0.35% 4.282 0.0639 0.1255 0.0770 0.1004 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 5,021.69 - - - 5313 Activities Related to Real Estate 1 5.45% 4.90% 1.113 0.0370 0.0329 0.0385 0.0147 - 5321 Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing 408.475 0.44% 0.37% 1.204 0.0131 0.0143 0.0086 0.0065 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 5414 Specialized Design Services 136.252 0.15% 0.08% 1.779 0.0150 0.0704 0.1225 0.0437 3,391.87 5415 Computer Systems Design and Related Services 4 3.68% 1.75% 2.108 0.0656 0.0158 0.0152 0.0276 5418 Advertising, Public Relations, and Related Services 359.437 0.39% 0.36% 1.084 0.0010 0.0218 0.0100 0.0185 Management of Companies and Enterprises 2,706.81 - - 5511 Management of Companies and Enterprises 5 2.94% 1.84% 1.599 0.0082 0.0332 0.0041 0.0028
146
Administrative and Support and Waste Management Services 5611 Office Administrative Services 586.108 0.64% 0.34% 1.861 0.0678 0.0770 0.0365 0.0133 1,196.92 5613 Employment Services 9 1.30% 0.87% 1.488 0.0104 0.0189 0.0178 0.0374 - 5614 Business Support Services 482.652 0.52% 0.33% 1.596 0.0437 0.0090 0.0145 0.0114 - 5619 Other Support Services 175.208 0.19% 0.12% 1.533 0.0386 0.0004 0.0055 0.0321 Healthcare and Social Assistance 6215 Medical and Diagnostic Laboratories 165.556 0.18% 0.14% 1.295 0.0466 0.0148 0.0277 0.0238 6216 Home Health Care Services 485.997 0.53% 0.33% 1.584 0.1044 0.0323 0.0562 0.0406 6232 Residential Mental Retardation, Mental Health and - Substance Abuse Facilities 146.640 0.16% 0.13% 1.184 0.0133 0.0039 0.0000 0.0062 6242 Community Food and Housing, and Emergency and - - Other Relief Services 50.273 0.05% 0.05% 1.121 0.0122 0.0020 0.0023 0.0041 6244 Child Day Care Services 184.689 0.20% 0.17% 1.192 0.0343 0.0144 0.0224 0.0326 Repair and Maintenance 8112 Electronic & Precision Equipment Repair and - - Maintenance 43.388 0.05% 0.04% 1.316 -0.0842 0.0026 0.0522 0.0327 Government 4,201.24 - - GVS State Government 5 4.56% 2.36% 1.930 0.0118 0.0032 0.0004 0.0051
POTENTIALLY EMERGING INDUSTRIES Industries with below-average output but positive trend
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 2123 Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying 53.372 0.06% 0.08% 0.700 0.0490 0.0103 0.0340 0.0845 Utilities Electric Power Generation, Transmission and 1,068.01 2211 Distribution 1 1.16% 1.41% 0.822 0.0366 0.1277 0.0166 0.0177 2212 Natural Gas Distribution 334.120 0.36% 0.38% 0.956 0.0571 0.0739 0.0182 0.0246 Construction
147
2361 Residential Building Construction 252.545 0.27% 0.33% 0.837 -0.0966 0.0046 0.0051 0.0372 2362 Nonresidential Building Construction 484.098 0.53% 0.58% 0.911 0.0505 0.0075 0.0252 0.0640 - 2371 Utility System Construction 289.231 0.31% 0.31% 1.014 0.0407 0.0073 0.0171 0.0306 Manufacturing: Plastics and Rubber Products 3262 Rubber Product Manufacturing 59.445 0.06% 0.09% 0.727 -0.0138 0.0402 0.0548 0.0480 Manufacturing: Fabricated Metal Products - - 3323 Architectural and Structural Metals Manufacturing 164.009 0.18% 0.20% 0.896 0.0074 0.0334 0.0218 0.0256 3326 Spring and Wire Product Manufacturing 19.127 0.02% 0.02% 0.848 0.0051 0.0410 0.0363 0.0569 Wholesale Trade 4233 Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers 97.518 0.11% 0.15% 0.716 -0.0071 0.0163 0.0324 0.0494 Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant 4236 Wholesalers 292.686 0.32% 0.36% 0.880 0.0084 0.0229 0.0291 0.0104 4237 Hardware, and Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 183.904 0.20% 0.20% 1.018 0.0127 0.0028 0.0223 0.0166 4239 Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 170.051 0.18% 0.20% 0.924 0.0166 0.0136 0.0116 0.0199 Transportation and Warehousing 4881 Support Activities for Air Transportation 81.518 0.09% 0.09% 0.961 0.1091 0.0435 0.0583 0.0931 4884 Support Activities for Road Transportation 26.782 0.03% 0.04% 0.810 0.0640 0.0125 0.0422 0.0554 Educational Services 6111 Elementary and Secondary Schools 221.326 0.24% 0.24% 0.984 0.0834 0.0625 0.0711 0.0735 6112 Junior Colleges 16.577 0.02% 0.02% 0.916 0.2580 0.1826 0.2567 0.2767 Business Schools and Computer and Management 6114 Training 37.333 0.04% 0.04% 0.971 0.0341 0.0358 0.0669 0.0685 - - 6115 Technical and Trade Schools 29.219 0.03% 0.05% 0.649 0.0682 0.0349 0.0186 0.0618 6116 Other Schools and Instruction 40.167 0.04% 0.06% 0.730 0.0341 0.0103 0.0107 0.0318 - 6117 Educational Support Services 33.974 0.04% 0.04% 0.864 0.0724 0.0007 0.0210 0.0263
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
148
- 7131 Amusement Parks and Arcades 51.012 0.06% 0.06% 0.974 0.0252 0.0152 0.0384 0.0129 Source: LaFayette, Bill. (2011).Columbus Chamber of Commerce. Identifying High-Output Industries in the Columbus MSA Economy.
149
Table 24. Columbus Downtown Tapestry Descriptions
Metro Renters Demographic Young, educated singles just beginning their professional careers in some of the largest US cities such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The median age of 33.6 years is younger than the US median of 37 years. Approximately 30 percent are in their 20s; 14 percent are in their early 30s. This younger population is also more diverse than the US population; 11.5 percent of the residents are Asian. Socioeconomic The median household income is $56,311 and rising. Approximately 60 percent of employed residents work in professional and management occupations, most in the service industry sector. One of Tapestry Segmentation‘s most educated markets, more than one in four Metro Renters residents aged 25 years or older holds a graduate degree; one in three has earned a bachelor‘s degree. More than 80 percent of these residents have attended college; 17 percent are still enrolled in undergraduate or graduate school. Residential Approximately 90 percent of the housing is apartments; 37 percent in high-rise buildings. Median home value in these neighborhoods is $270,583 Preferences Active Metro Renters residents work out regularly at clubs, play tennis and volleyball, practice yoga, ski, and jog. They take advantage of their urban milieu; they go dancing, visit museums, attend classical or rock concerts, go to karaoke nights and the movies, and eat out. Painting and drawing are favorite hobbies. Social Security Set Demographic Four in ten householders are aged 65 years or older; the median age is 46.4 years. Most of them live alone. Somewhat ethnically diverse. Half of the residents are white and one-third are black and 18 percent are Hispanic. Socioeconomic Their median household income is $16,805; their median net worth is $10,814. Unemployment is high among the younger residents who are still part of the labor force. Eight percent of households rely on public assistance; 16 percent receive Supplemental Security Income. The service industry provides more than half of the jobs held by these employed residents. 150
Residential Located in large US cities, these communities are dispersed among business districts and around city parks. Most Social Security Set residents rent apartments in low-rent, high-rise buildings; a few elderly residents opt to live in congregate housing. Owner-occupied houses in these neighborhoods have a median value of $111,801. Preferences They shop at discount stores but prefer grocery stores close to home. Many depend on Medicare or Medicaid to pay their health care costs. They bank in person and pay cash when they shop. Many purchase renter‘s insurance. Most households subscribe to cable television; residents enjoy their daytime and prime time TV. They watch game shows, a variety of sports, and entertainment news shows. City Commons Demographic Single-parent families or singles who live alone comprise most of these very young households. With a median age of 24.6 years, City Commons is one of Tapestry Segmentation‘s youngest segments. The average household size of 2.8 is higher than the national average. Since 2000, population in these areas has declined at 0.4 percent per year. These neighborhoods are not ethnically diverse; 81 percent of the population is black. Socioeconomic Thirty-one percent of the residents who work are employed in service occupations (twice the national level). Nineteen percent of the households are on public assistance; 13 percent receive Supplemental Social Security income. Overall, more than 60 percent of the residents aged 25 years and older have graduated from high school. Six percent hold a bachelor‘s or graduate degree; 27 percent have attended college. Because they have limited employment options, more residents work part-time than full-time. Unemployment is at 30 percent, the highest rate among the Tapestry segments, and almost three times that of the national level. The median household income is $16,830, and the median net worth is $9,958. Residential City Commons neighborhoods are found in large metropolitan areas, mainly in the South and Midwest. More than three-fourths of the households rent. Sixty-three percent rent apartments in multiunit buildings, primarily with fewer than 20 units. One- fourth of the housing is single-family dwellings. The median home value is $67,943. Typical of a young renters‘ market, these residents are movers; nearly 151
50 percent have relocated within the last five years. Preferences City Commons residents buy baby and children‘s products, food, and clothing most frequently. They shop primarily at discount stores and occasionally at department stores. Most families enjoy eating at fast-food restaurants several times a month. For exercise, they take their children to nearby city parks and playgrounds.
City Dimensions Demographic Most of these residents are young, with a median age of 29.2 years. Households are a mix of types; most are singles who live alone (31 percent), married-couple families (30 percent), and single- parent families (23 percent). Ethnic diversity is high. Nearly half of the residents are white and one- fourth are black; however, higher-than-average proportions of other race populations are also represented. Three in ten residents are of Hispanic origin. Socioeconomic The median household income is $28,963; the median net worth is $12,275. Ten percent of the households receive Supplemental Security Income; 11 percent receive public assistance. Employed residents work full-time or part-time, primarily in the service, manufacturing, and retail trade industry sectors. At 20 percent, unemployment is high. Overall, 65 percent of residents aged 25 years and older have graduated from high school; 9 percent hold a bachelor‘s or graduate degree. Residential Although City Dimensions neighborhoods have a mix of housing types, more than half of the residents rent apartments in multiunit buildings. Most of the real estate is older; approximately 70 percent of the housing units were built before 1960; 42 percent are pre-1940 structures. Average gross rent in these older buildings is 17 percent below the US average. Housing types are split between single-family homes and apartments in two- to four-unit buildings. The median home value for owner-occupied dwellings is $76,641. Preferences City Dimensions residents watch cable TV often, preferring movies and news programs to documentaries. Most households own more than one television set. They also like gaming systems. Residents are big-time sports fans and loyal team supporters; this is a top market for buying and wearing sports team clothes. Retirement Communities Demographic 152
This older market has a median age of 52.6 years. One-third of the residents and 44 percent of householders are aged 65 years or older. Twenty- three percent of the population and 31 percent of householders are aged 75 years or older. Most of the residents are white. Socioeconomic The median household income for Retirement Communities is $49,174, slightly below the US median, but the median net worth of $99,494 is much higher than the US value. Nearly half of the households earn income from interest, dividends, and rental properties; 45 percent receive Social Security benefits; and 26 percent receive retirement income. Most of those still working are employed in white-collar occupations. Retirement Communities residents are an educated group: 14 percent of the residents aged 25 years and older hold a graduate degree, 35 percent have a bachelor‘s degree, and more than 60 percent have attended college. Residential Fifty-seven percent of the households live in multiunit buildings; however, 34 percent of the housing is single-family structures, and 8 percent is townhouses. The home ownership rate is 54 percent; the median home value is $183,328. Preferences With more time to spend on leisure activities and hobbies, residents play musical instruments, paint or draw, work crosswords, play bingo, or attend adult education classes. They also visit museums, attend the theater, go dancing, practice yoga, go canoeing, and play golf. They will travel to gamble in Atlantic City or to visit Disney World. They attend sports events such as golf tournaments, tennis matches, and baseball games. They spend time with their grandchildren and spoil them with toys. Inner-City Tenants Demographic Inner City Tenants residents are a microcosm of urban diversity; their population is represented primarily by white, black, and Hispanic cultures. Three in ten residents are Hispanic. This multicultural market is younger than average, with a median age of 27.8 years. The household composition also reflects their youth. Household types are mixed; 34 percent are singles, 28 percent are married-couple families, 21 percent are single parents, and 10 percent share housing. Socioeconomic The median household income is $34,041; the median net worth is $11,250. Because few own their homes, most of their net worth comes from savings. Eighty-three percent earn income from wages and 153
salaries; 7 percent receive public assistance. More than 45 percent of the population aged 25 and older has attended college; 5 percent hold a graduate or professional degree. Earning a college degree is at the forefront of their goals, so many work part- and full-time to fund their college education. Approximately half of the employed residents work in white-collar occupations. This market has twice the national level of residents who work in the accommodation/food services industry. Residential These neighborhoods are located primarily in the South and West. Most Inner City Tenants residents rent economical apartments in mid- or high-rise buildings. One-fifth of the housing is owner- occupied, and the median home value is $103,092. Most of the housing units were built in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. For their average commute to work of 25 minutes, many residents drive their vehicle or depend on other modes of transportation. Preferences With their busy lifestyle, Inner City Tenants residents frequently eat at fast-food restaurants and shop for groceries at nearby stores such as Albertson‘s. They prefer easy-to-prepare frozen and canned foods. Internet access at home is not typical in this market, but those who have no access at home will surf the Internet at school or at the library. Playing games and checking e-mail are typical online activities. Households have recently bought video game systems and baby items such as food, products, furniture, and equipment. They prefer to shop at Target and Walgreens. Source: ESRI Tapestry Segmentation Reference Guide, 2011
154
Table 25. Arena District and Short North Facebook Place Pages
Page People Check_Ins Address Columbus Blue Jackets 44371 0 200 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus Blue Jackets 14803 0 200 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus Clippers 10891 4 330 Huntington Park Lane Halloween Columbus 1521 0 350 N. High St. Columbus Italian Festival 2862 0 168 E Lincoln St. 325 John H. McConnell Cassidy Turley Columbus 14 0 Blvd. bd's Mongolian Grill - Columbus Arena 2593 336 295 Macroni Blvd Stonewall Columbus 2002 14 1160 N High St Homage Columbus 200 41 17 E. Brickel St. Columbus Blue Jackets 2644 0 200 W. Nationwide Blvd. Roche Bobois Columbus 307 0 858 N High St Hyatt Regency Columbus 37 623 350 N High St Columbus Blue Jackets Foundation 1334 0 200 W. Nationwide Blvd. Nationwide Arena 425 4433 200 W. Nationwide Blvd. Brigade Columbus 270 1 607 N. High St. Columbus Eyeworks 153 0 25 W. Hubbard Ave. Columbus Children's Theatre 1997 27 512 Park St. Three Dog Bakery 767 28 611 N. High Street Columbus Food Scene 297 0 277 W Nationwide Blvd snaGGitz 139 0 970 N High Street Oxygen Health and Fitness 816 133 970 N High Street Crown Plaza Columbus 126 10 33 E Nationwide Blvd Short North Tatoo 723 41 1042 N. High St Short North Arts District 8672 0 717 N High St Short North Piece of Cake 1141 11 772 N High St Short North Fitness 102 1 1137 N High St Jeni's Splendid Ice Creams 156 466 714 N High St La Fogata Grill Short North 304 15 790 N High St Experience Columbus 3818 0 277 W Nationwide Blvd Park Street Patio 2091 387 533 Park St Park Street Complex 1266 0 533 Park St The Social 3819 3 527 Park St Park Street Cantina 3648 34 491 N Park St Big Bang Columbus 1844 5 401 N Front St Bar Louie 52 736 504 Park St 155
North Market 224 1157 59 Spruce St Goodale Park 50 320 120 W Goodale St Greater Convention Center 159 1888 400 N High St Union Café 3581 2057 782 N High St Haiku Restaurant 58 445 800 N High St Mac's Café 175 533 693 N High St Surly Girl Saloon 1570 555 1126 N. High St Bodega 114 875 1044 N High St Barley's Brewing Company 953 368 467 N High St O'Shaughnessy's Public House 541 248 401 N Front St Nationwide Insurance 189 284 1 Nationwide Plaza Betty's Fine Food & Spirits 706 516 680 N High St
156