2 E.F. Schumacher. 1973. Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered. New York City: Harper and Row. p. 46.
3 Schumacher. p. 148.
| The Downtown Master Plan |
|---|
With the realization that growth must have some controls, many communities have established restraints on growth, some even limiting the population size of their community. The following three examples illustrate other recent legislation: (1) in 1986 San Francisco put the most radical limits yet seen on the physical growth of the downtown area, based on the assumption that slow, controlled growth, subject to a rigorous review process, is preferable to rapid, unrestrained growth; (2) in California, the passage by the voters in the late 1970's of "Proposition 13" effectively illustrated that residents no longer felt that growth should be supported through their tax dollars, and this legislation severely reduced the responsibility of property owners to pay for public infrastructure costs for new private developments; (3) new federal environmental legislation made it mandatory for municipalities to determine the impact of growth on the environment, and "environmental impact statements" which describe the social, physical and economic impacts a proposed building project will have on its surrounding environment must now be submitted for any project where federal funds are used.
When looking for indicators of urban health, certainly growth is one factor that should be considered. However, there are problems in using such an indicator. As E.F Schumacher wrote in his book Small Is Beautiful, Economics As If People Mattered:
A small minority of economists is at present beginning to question how much further growth will be possible,... but even they cannot get away from the purely quantitative growth concept. Instead of insisting on the primacy of qualitative distinctions, they simply substitute non-growth for growth, that is to say, one emptiness for another.2Schumacher goes on to say:
In a sense, everyone believes in growth, and rightly so, because growth is an essential feature of life. The whole point, however, is to give to the idea of growth a qualitative determination; for there are many things that ought to be growing and many things that ought to be diminishing.3How can a downtown find goals other than physical growth (more stores, more parking) or economic growth (more sales, greater taxes)? If cities are to rely on more than growth as a yardstick of health, other goals need to be found. Perhaps, as Schumacher suggests, growth in the qualitative aspect is worth considering. Perhaps the downtown does not need to be bigger or richer, maybe it just needs to be better.
How can "better" be recognized and evaluated. How can "better" be shown to local elected officials? This can be done by objectifying qualitative goals. For instance, a goal may be established of "a more vibrant downtown with more people." This qualitative goal may be evaluated quantitatively by counting the number of pedestrians on sidewalks. If evaluated in a systematic way over time, this simple criterion may represent well more important factors not easily lending themselves to straightforward analysis. Other qualitative goals may be similarly be selected, and then evaluated through more straightforward measures. Below are listed some examples.
| Goal | Measure |
|---|---|
| Sense of community loyalty | % residents working in city |
| Increase interaction | No. of residents shopping downtown |
| Improve business mix | No. of preferred businesses |
1 David Morris. 1982. The New City-States. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Local Self-Reliance. p. 36.
2 E.F. Schumacher. 1973. Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered. New York City: Harper and Row. p. 46.
3 Schumacher. p. 148.
Suggested other pages... The Downtown Master Plan