The Need for More Study on Downtowns

There is a need to develop new models and effective strategies which deal directly with downtown revitalization. One of the major problems with developing such models and strategies is the lack of relevant research--research that would define the components of a good downtown model--research which looks at which revitalization efforts have been effective, how they were effective, and the level of their effectiveness. Without such research there is no way to conclude whether revitalization programs accomplish what they is intended. Although research in others fields, such as medicine and science, is well-funded and in continuing, urban research leaves much to be desired.

A primary problem is that a there is no generally-accepted model to serve as a base for analysis. Such a model for analysis has not been developed because important components are missing, including a method for evaluation. The question that must be answered is, What criteria should be used when attempting to evaluate the "health" of a downtown? This was discussed in a thought-provoking article by Kent Robertson:

Most studies and policies that relate to the city core address themselves to the question of viability, health, vitality or some other term conveying the desired well-being of the downtown. However, few of these efforts have directly confronted the question of what criteria are to be included in the definition of health and how they can be measured. In other words, although terms such as stability, viability, and healthiness are used to describe the desired state of [downtowns], there has been little attempt to provide precise interpretations of these terms.

The question remains: Viability compared to what? Viability makes a difference if one is judging the current state of a downtown against: the same downtown many years ago; the surrounding... area; other downtowns within the same region; or downtowns of a similar ilk across the country. Viability judgements would undoubtedly incorporate aspects of all of these comparisons...1

The problem is there is a lack of knowledge when it comes to downtown revitalization. There is no comprehensive theory of downtowns. There is data available; in fact, there is a lot of data available. But it is not data of adequate quality, for "Urban phenomena doesn't lend itself to systematic study and quantification."2 In fact, there is little systematic, empirical evidence of downtown trends. Most studies either take a case study approach or look at many cities at one point in time, but there are very few studies that have looked at downtowns over time.

There is also no standard "yardstick" for evaluating whether a downtown has improved or declined over time. Most such analysis relies on the intuition of planners or city officials, and is highly subject to bias. So the question arises, What should be used to evaluate revitalization efforts, either past or proposed? How can the relative health of one downtown be compared to another.

1 Kent A. Robertson. 1985. "Designing Downtown Redevelopment Policy: The Problem of Knowledge.Ó Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. Volume 2.
2 Ian Bracken. 1981. Urban Planning Methods: Research and Policy Analysis. New York: Methuen. p. 102.
Suggested other pages...
Revitalization Strategies Review of Revitalization Strategies
Tyler Study of Downtowns Bibliography On Downtowns