Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

May 1, 2006 By Dan Levine, Master’s Student Department of City & Regional Planning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Acknowledgments This report would not have been possible without the insights provided by the following 11 interview respondents who generously shared their time and perspectives with me: •

Diane Catotti, member of the Durham City Council;

•

John Compton, Executive Director of the Historic Preservation Society of Durham;

•

Alan DeLisle, Director of Durham’s Office of Economic & Employment Development;

•

William Kalkhof, President of Downtown Durham, Inc.;

•

Thomas Niemann, Managing Partner of Blue Devil Ventures;

•

Sandy Ogburn, former member of the Durham City Council (1987-1995);

•

Andrew Rothschild, founder of Scientific Properties;

•

John Schelp, President of the Old West Durham Neighborhood Association;

•

Caleb Southern, downtown Durham resident;

•

John Warasila, founding Principal of Alliance Architecture; and

•

Sara Young, Senior Planner with the Durham City/County Planning Department.

Thanks also to Professor William Rohe of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Department of City & Regional Planning, to whom this report was submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for his Central City Revitalization course.

Table of Contents Section

Page

ES

Executive Summary

i

I.

Introduction

1

II.

A Brief History of Downtown Durham Tobacco Roots: The Early Years The Boom Years: 1900-1949 Days of Decline and Misguided Renewal: 1950-1979 Signs of Life: 1980-1998 A New Era for Downtown: 1999 to Today

5 5 7 10 14 19

III.

Downtown Durham Today: The Climate for Revitalization An Era of Active Public and Private Sector Investment Downtown Challenges Facing Downtown Durham Present Regulatory and Policy Framework

25 26 31 33

IV.

Key Factors Behind Current Revitalization Efforts The Public Sector Public-Private Partnerships Other Key Organizations The Private Sector

38 38 40 43 47

V.

Lessons Learned from Revitalization Revitalization Takes Time and Can Move Too Fast Quality is Key in Downtown and Elsewhere The Public Sector Has a Major Role to Play

48 48 49 49

VI.

Future Outlook for Downtown Durham A Vision for Downtown Durham Reasons for Optimism Reasons for Concern A Realistic Assessment of Downtown

51 51 52 53 56

VII.

Recommendations Public-Private Partnerships and Business Improvement Districts Key Issues for the Public Sector to Consider Cross-Cutting Issues for Everyone to Consider

57 57 58 61

VIII. Final Thoughts

65

Executive Summary This report analyzes ongoing revitalization efforts in downtown Durham, North Carolina from both a historical and contemporary perspective. It presents information collected through research in past and present downtown revitalization planning documents and other sources, as well as through interviews with eleven individuals with a firsthand understanding of ongoing revitalization efforts. The intent of this report is to provide the reader with the context within which today’s revitalization efforts are taking place, as well as analysis of key issues that should be considered as attempts to revitalize Durham’s downtown continue. According to all interview respondents, downtown revitalization is important for the whole community of Durham.1 In specific, downtown is important for at least four reasons: 1) it is the cultural and symbolic center of the city, and has the potential to bring a wide range of citizens together; 2) the health of downtown impacts the health and image of the city as a whole, and thus disinvestment and decay downtown are problematic; 3) downtown’s tax base is currently lower than it should be, and increases in tax revenues will benefit the whole city; 4) downtown has a rich history, including its architectural inventory. There is also a wide body of literature that supports the idea that relatively dense downtowns are more sustainable—in terms of environmental and public health impacts, preservation of farmland, cost effectiveness of public infrastructure and service provision, and other areas—than are other patterns of development. Today downtown Durham is in the midst of a period of significant interest and investment, the likes of which have not been seen in decades. This renewed interest in downtown Durham mirrors a national pattern, in which downtowns across the United States have reemerged as centers for growth after a decades-long exodus from city cores to suburban areas. Downtown was the undisputed cultural and economic hub of Durham from the time of the city’s mid-19th century founding to about 1950. However, from 1950 until quite recently, downtown Durham was stuck in a spiral of decline. Despite multiple attempts to revive it—and sometimes because of such efforts, in the case of urban renewal programs that leveled entire blocks— downtown Durham continued to decline as suburban residences and retail centers sprung up in 1

For the purposes of this report, downtown Durham is defined as the geographic area encompassed by the Durham Freeway on the south, Dillard Street on the east, Seminary and Geer Streets on the north, and Duke Street and Buchanan Boulevard to the west (a map is provided in the report’s next section). Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

i

every direction. Even as the population of Durham County grew rapidly with each passing decade, downtown remained moribund. By the mid-1970s, even the city’s own elected officials seemed resigned to downtown’s grim fate. In the early- and mid-1980s, some level of renewed interest in downtown led to notable public and private sector projects such as the adaptive reuse of a tobacco warehouse complex into retail stores and offices, as well as the renovation of the Carolina Theatre. The momentum behind downtown revitalization soon faded, and largely remained stalled until the mid-1990s when the city—against the will of its voters—decided to finance a new stadium for its longtime minor league baseball team, the Durham Bulls. The Durham Bulls Athletic Park helped lure renewed interest in downtown. The opening of the West Village apartments in 2000 both helped pave the way for and signaled the arrival of a new wave of downtown investment. By the time the massive American Tobacco adaptive use project was occupied by its first tenants, the momentum behind revitalization of downtown Durham was clear. At last, after roughly 50 years of decline and sputtering attempts at revitalization, downtown appears to hold a bright future. In addition to describing the history of revitalization efforts downtown from the 1950s to the present day (see Section II. A Brief History of Downtown Durham), this report: examines the key factors behind the current climate for revitalization; describes lessons learned from revitalization, as shared by interview respondents; explores the future outlook for downtown Durham; and makes a series of recommendations for consideration by Durham’s leaders, in order to make the most out of ongoing revitalization efforts. Each of these topics is summarized below, but readers should consult the corresponding sections of this report for more thorough coverage of each area. Section III. Downtown Durham Today: The Climate for Revitalization details the heavy level of interest and investment in downtown Durham at present. It also outlines some of the most significant challenges facing downtown Durham, and points out that underlying challenges (e.g., crime and public education) that impact the community as a whole have relevance to downtown as well. Finally, the section describes the current regulatory and policy framework as it relates to ongoing downtown revitalization efforts. Section IV. Key Factors Behind Current Revitalization Efforts singles out some of the driving forces behind ongoing revitalization efforts. Among the key factors are: the role

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

ii

played by the public sector, from financial incentives and infrastructure projects to using the bully pulpit to promote downtown; public-private partnerships to redevelop vacant and underutilized buildings and land downtown; a rich mix of local non-profit organizations that have encouraged downtown revitalization, with Downtown Durham Inc. deserving special mention; and private sector investors recognizing the existing market for downtown projects. Section V. Lessons Learned from Revitalization focuses on the most important lessons shared by interview respondents based on their experience with past and present revitalization efforts. The key lessons respondents suggested were: downtown revitalization takes time and requires patience on the part of all stakeholders; particularly because revitalization occurs over multiple years, high quality projects are key; and the public sector has played a significant role and must continue to be involved for downtown revitalization to occur, especially if such efforts are to benefit all of Durham. Section VI. Future Outlook for Downtown Durham looks ahead to the future of downtown and provides an assessment of the range of potential outcomes that continued revitalization may bring about. It notes that the future vision for downtown, as shared by interview respondents, includes many worthy objectives. There are reasons for optimism about Durham achieving these objectives, such as downtown’s rich collection of architecture and unique sense of place. However, Durham also faces a variety of challenges to ongoing revitalization of downtown, such as the level of distress present in some of the neighborhoods surrounding downtown. Section VII. Recommendations presents a series of ideas for consideration by Durham’s public and private sector leaders, as well as other interested individuals and organizations. One recommendation is that additional attention be paid to assessing the appropriate means of engaging in public-private partnerships. Such partnerships are the defining feature of today’s revitalization efforts and must be monitored closely to ensure that an appropriate balance is being maintained between public and private interests. Also, leaders should consider what, if any, additional strategies should be put in place today to help ensure productive public-private partnerships in the future, since political support for heavy public investment of the sort that has taken place recently may well dwindle over time.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

iii

The report makes several recommendations aimed specifically at the public sector. These recommendations, in abbreviated form, are as follows: ! Continue to ensure that public investments are directed toward projects that are sure deals, rather than committing funds to iffy projects. ! Consider whether the existing 50 percent property tax abatement program should be continued in its current form, or altered to limit its availability. ! Carefully study whether new parking facilities are needed around downtown before investing. ! Consider adopting more flexible approaches to regulation of downtown development. Form-based codes are one direction in which other cities are moving. ! Better track downtown revitalization data, with a focus on returns on public investment. ! Create a unified public sector vision for downtown through development and administration of consistent policies. ! Address looming issues, such as the prospect of gentrification in adjoining neighborhoods and the lack of affordable housing in downtown itself, sooner rather than later. ! Adopt an inclusionary zoning policy that mixes mandates with incentives, in order to ensure that housing developments will include a mix of units. ! Evaluate the successes and remaining challenges noted in the Downtown Durham Master Plan and consider updating it within a few years. ! Consider the broad spectrum of issues that indirectly relate to downtown revitalization, such as a sprawling pattern of commercial and residential growth in outlying areas of the city and county, challenges faced by the educational system, and more. ! Carefully consider the public sector’s relationship with Downtown Durham Inc. to assess whether there are any conflicts of interest and whether the public sector should appropriate money to the organization in the future. ! Recognize that existing businesses and residents are essential components of continued revitalization efforts. ! Consider establishing a citizens advisory committee that has a specific focus on downtown issues. ! Recognize that carrots in the form of incentives to draw investment downtown must be matched with sticks in the form of regulations elsewhere in Durham. ! Continue to set aside funding for future investment in downtown. ! Consider whether current incentives programs are sufficient to attract new construction projects, since the main focus of revitalization thus far has been on adaptive reuse. ! Partner with the private sector to develop city- and county-owned land, such as surface parking lots and airspace over decks, that is not currently at its highest use.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

iv

! Continue to focus on infrastructure investment, enhancing policing, and providing other core governmental services to downtown. Also, do not downplay the importance of maintenance and upkeep. ! Consider establishing a “one-stop” development branch of city and county government that has a street-level presence downtown, but do not pursue such a strategy unless the evidence clearly supports its usefulness. ! Work to hire and retain the best staff possible. Although the public sector has a key role in downtown revitalization, stakeholders from the private sector and the non-profit sector also play an important role. The following issues demand attention from multiple sectors: ! Ensure that downtown continues to have a champion that promotes it. ! Increase the number and variety of events hosted downtown. Events are among the biggest reason people throughout Durham County and the region visit downtown, and the more people that visit the better. ! Continue to publicize downtown’s success stories and widely promote its rich collection of events, activities, and cultural resources. ! Get businesses involved in addressing the difficult social issues that all of Durham faces. ! Extend the “museum without walls” concept proposed in the Parrish Street revitalization plan to all of downtown and to surrounding neighborhoods of historical importance. ! Consider expanding the boundaries targeted by Downtown Durham Inc., in order to bring attention to areas surrounding downtown, or create a similar group for surrounding areas. ! Identify ways to balance investment in downtown with the need to improve surrounding neighborhoods, but do so without losing the momentum behind downtown revitalization. ! Stay attuned to the scale and historic nature of downtown, and protect these crucial elements of revitalization’s ongoing success. ! Conduct concerted business recruitment efforts, as well as careful planning, for the area of downtown that lies inside the Loop. ! Encourage a wide range of stakeholders to participate in downtown revitalization planning and decision-making. ! Increase attention to ensuring that downtown caters to a diverse mix of people, especially in terms of class and race. ! Do not neglect the pioneers of downtown revitalization, such as small business owners and artists who came downtown before it became popular. ! Open up a communitywide dialogue about race. ! Recognize that process matters, in addition to short-term outcomes. ! Believe in the potential for downtown revitalization.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

v

The author hopes that this report is useful both as a fairly comprehensive source of information on past and present revitalization efforts in downtown Durham and as a source of ideas for consideration by Durham’s leaders as they assess how to make downtown an asset for the whole community. Feedback is welcome and may be directed to [email protected].

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

vi

I. Introduction This report analyzes downtown Durham, North Carolina’s ongoing revitalization efforts from multiple perspectives. First, it presents a brief history of Durham, with an emphasis on mid- to late-20th century attempts to revitalize the city’s core, in order to provide context for present day revitalization efforts. Second, the report summarizes current revitalization activities and identifies factors that contribute to the high level of interest in downtown. Third, the report identifies some key lessons from prior and ongoing attempts at revitalization. Fourth, it presents the future outlook for downtown by suggesting different elements of a vision for downtown, as well as barriers and facilitators to achieving this vision. Finally, the report presents a series of recommendations focused on how to seize the momentum behind ongoing revitalization efforts. The information presented in this report comes primarily from interviews with key players/observers of downtown revitalization (listed on the inside cover); downtown planning documents and related reports; and media accounts of past and present revitalization activities. Due to the nature of the data collected for this report—mostly qualitative, not quantitative—the perspectives presented in the pages that follow are open to interpretation. The author has attempted to present the material neutrally and objectively, but recognizes that readers may draw their own conclusions. The author hopes the report will serve as a rich source of information on past and present efforts at downtown revitalization, and in filling this role will generate discussion about how to ensure that continued revitalization efforts benefit Durham as a whole. Before continuing, it is necessary to specify downtown’s geographic boundaries. This report uses the boundaries identified in the recent Downtown Durham Master Plan, which defines downtown as the area enclosed by the Durham Freeway to the south, Dillard Street to the east, Seminary and Geer Streets to the north, and Duke Street and Buchanan Boulevard to the west. This area is essentially the city’s central business district, since it does not contain the surrounding neighborhoods that are largely residential. Note that the boundaries used here are similar but not identical to the city’s Downtown Design Overlay district, as administered by the City/County Planning Department. See the aerial photo and map on the following page to better understand the boundaries used for this report.1

1

The aerial photo was produced using a Google Earth image as the base, while the map is available at http://www.downtowndurham.com/Getting_Around.25.0.html. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

1

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

2

Another question that must be addressed before continuing is: Why is it important to revitalize downtown Durham? Although respondents expressed their belief in the need to focus attention and resources on downtown, they acknowledged that downtown’s role has changed over the years. As Bill Kalkhof put it, “downtown will never be the one center of town again.” Still, Kalkhof and other respondents emphasized that downtown deserves special attention. In general, they offered variations on four arguments in support of revitalization. These arguments are as follows: 1) Downtown is the cultural and symbolic center of the city, and has the potential to encourage a wide range of citizens to interact. o According to John Schelp, downtown is the city’s “heart and soul and has always been.” Caleb Southern added that downtown is “everybody’s neighborhood.” 2) The health and image of downtown impacts the health and image of the city as a whole, and thus disinvestment and decay downtown are problematic for all of Durham. o Sandy Ogburn said, “If your downtown deteriorates…your community begins to fail.” John Compton added, “any community without a heart and soul cannot thrive.” 3) Downtown’s tax base is currently lower than it should be, and increases in tax revenues can be used to benefit the whole city. o Diane Catotti explained that Durham must “revitalize its center’s tax base.” Likewise, John Warasila added, “the reality is the city currently does not have enough funds” to address its needs and downtown’s tax base is a “crucial” revenue source that could be increased greatly. 4) Downtown has a rich history, including its impressive architectural inventory. o Tom Niemann noted the intrinsic value of “preserving historic buildings.” Similarly, Sara Young explained that the “incredible” historic architecture separates Durham from many other cities undergoing revitalization. In addition, although not mentioned directly by interview respondents, there is a significant body of literature that supports the idea that urban centers are more sustainable—in terms of environmental and public health impacts, preservation of farmland and other open space, cost effectiveness of public infrastructure and service provision, and various other areas—than are other patterns of development. A detailed examination of the sustainability argument for downtown revitalization is beyond the scope of this report, but such an argument represents another reason for Durham’s leaders to invest in its downtown.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

3

This report is divided into eight sections, including the introduction. The remaining sections are as follows: •

Section II., A Brief History of Downtown Durham, describes the history of downtown Durham, with an emphasis on past attempts at revitalization.

•

Section III., Downtown Durham Today: The Climate for Revitalization, describes the present state of downtown with a focus on current revitalization projects, and provides an overview of the policy framework within which revitalization is taking place.

•

Section IV., Key Factors Behind Current Revitalization Efforts, highlights some of the driving forces behind ongoing revitalization efforts.

•

Section V., Lessons Learned from Revitalization, focuses on a few important lessons learned from past and present revitalization efforts, according to interview respondents.

•

Section VI., Future Outlook for Downtown Durham, looks ahead to the future of downtown, and provides an assessment of the potential contributing factors and barriers to seeking a revitalized downtown that benefits the whole community.

•

Section VII., Recommendations, presents a series of ideas for consideration by Durham’s leaders and interested citizens.

•

Section VIII., Final Thoughts, offers just that.

The author welcomes feedback on this report; he may be contacted at [email protected].

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

4

II. A Brief History of Downtown Durham This section of the report reviews the history of downtown Durham, in order to establish the context within which present day revitalization efforts occur. As the subsections below demonstrate, downtown Durham’s history is not unlike that of numerous downtowns across the United States. An initial period of steady growth and expansion downtown was followed by a precipitous decline beginning in the mid-20th century, while a resurgence of interest and investment in downtown has slowly built up over time and has reached a faster pace in recent years. Although downtown Durham’s experience has paralleled that of urban centers across the nation, its history is unique and must be studied to understand ongoing revitalization efforts. Tobacco Roots: The Early Years In the present day, a small train station and the imposing facades of numerous warehouses stand as reminders of Durham’s past. Today the City of Durham is best known as home to one of the world’s premier academic institutions, Duke University, as well as to Research Triangle Park (RTP), which is located just outside the city limits and is one of the state’s primary economic engines. However, the economic dominance of Duke University and RTP is a relatively recent phenomenon. Durham’s historical roots are much deeper. In fact, while the growing city now covers just under 100 square miles, modern day Durham began in the mid-19th century with a four acre parcel of land, from which sprang a train station and a tobacco boom town.2 The strip of land that now comprises Interstate 85 just north of downtown served as a major Native American trade route—the Great Indian Trading Path—during the 17th century.3 Native American tribes engaged in both subsistence farming and trade in the area. White settlers first permanently settled what is now Durham by scattering some homes and mills—e.g., the mill at West Point on the Eno River—across the land in the first half of the 18th century, but the area did not see a significant amount of growth until much later. In the decades between the

2

As of 2003, Durham’s city limits covered 98.2 square miles (see http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/ finance/cafr_03/xi.pdf). 3 Joel Kostyu and Frank Kostyu, Durham: A Pictorial History. Durham, NC: Kindred Press, 1992, p18. Also, see http://www.tradingpath.org/content/view/33/28/ for more information on the trading path. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

5

Revolutionary War and the Civil War, several large plantations that depended upon slave labor were established not far from what is now downtown. 4 The exact date of the formation of the City of Durham is disputed, but historians agree that by April of 1853 (and likely some years earlier) the United States government had opened a post office in the area. Just a few years prior, in 1849, Dr. Bartlett Durham had offered four acres of land to the North Carolina Railroad Company for use as the site of a new train station roughly halfway between Hillsborough and Raleigh. The company named the station Durham in gratitude to Dr. Durham for his land contribution. Their level of gratitude was elevated by the fact that a nearby merchant had previously refused to extend the same courtesy, fearing that the trains would scare his customers’ horses and thus destroy his business.5 The Durham station, located in what is now downtown, soon stimulated commercial and residential growth, and the town was formally incorporated on April 10, 1869.6 Just four years earlier, in April of 1865, Durham had earned its permanent place in American history, when Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered to Union General William T. Sherman at Bennett Place, a homestead a few miles west of downtown. The terms of the agreement, which included one of the largest troop surrenders of the Civil War, helped Durham and the state as a whole to avoid the widespread destruction that accompanied many of Sherman’s military victories. Furthermore, it was during the surrender talks that Union and Confederate troops were exposed to the “brightleaf” variety of tobacco that soon came to dominate Durham’s economy and spur its growth into one of North Carolina’s major cities.7 Yet in 1865 Durham had a population of only about 100 people.

4

See http://dcvb.durham.nc.us/secondary/history.php for additional details. Kostyu and Kostyu, p8 and http://dcvb.durham.nc.us/secondary/history.php. 6 Kostyu and Kostyu, p8. Durham had originally been incorporated prior to this date, but like many southern towns was reincorporated after the Civil War. Inset graphic is from an 1865 postcard of the surrender talks. The postcard image can be found in the online archives at http://www.durhamcountylibrary.org/photoarch/ and was provided courtesy of Durham County Library, Durham, NC. 7 See http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/bennett/bennett.htm for more information about Bennett Place surrender and http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/duke/empire.htm for brightleaf tobacco-related information. 5

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

6

When the Union and Confederate soldiers who had raided local tobacco barns during surrender talks returned to their native homes, they spread the word about the unique taste and quality of Durham’s tobacco.8 In the years following the Civil War, Durham’s rate of growth increased dramatically, primarily due to nationwide demand for its tobacco. By the 1870s, “the town had become the country’s foremost tobacco manufacturing center.”9 Between 1870 and 1880, Durham’s population swelled from 200 people to over 2,000 people, and tobacco warehouses and manufacturing facilities came to dominate the city’s growing economy (and skyline).10 As the tobacco industry flourished, so did banks, insurance companies, and related enterprises. For instance, textile mills—the other main industry in the first half of Durham’s history—came about due to tobacco’s dominance. Cotton bags were needed to package the golden leaf, so tobacco owners invested in mills that soon diversified into other product lines, such as sheets, hosiery, and denim. 11 Another important event that would affect Durham for years to come was the relocation of Trinity College (Duke University’s predecessor) to the city in 1892.12 The Boom Years: 1900-1949 Durham continued to grow at the dawn of the 20th century. In 1910, the city added the North Carolina College for Negroes, which is now North Carolina Central University. The 8

Kostyu and Kostyu, p27. Catherine Bishir and Lawrence Early, eds. Early Twentieth-Century Suburbs in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: Archaeology and Historic Preservation Section, Division of Archives and History, NC Department of Cultural Resources, 1985, p39. 10 Tobacco advertisement and factory engraving (from 1877 and 1895, respectively) from the online archives at http://www.durhamcountylibrary.org/photoarch/, courtesy of Durham County Library, Durham, NC. 11 See http://www.preservationdurham.org/Neighborhoods/History2.htm; and Kostyu and Kostyu, p46. 12 Wise, Jim. Durham: A Bull City Story. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002, p98. 9

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

7

college’s foundation indicates the thriving African-American community in Durham from early on in its history, but also provides a reminder of the long history of segregation in the city, as in other towns across the country.13 African-Americans had a strong presence in Durham at this time in large part due to their role in the tobacco trade. By the 1910s, Durham’s importance as a major hub of economic activity in North Carolina, especially for the tobacco industry, was wellestablished. Downtown was the center of this activity. The thriving tobacco markets located downtown not only spurred further industrial, commercial, and residential growth, but even drew prominent entertainers to the area. Blues musicians like the Reverend Gary Davis and Blind Boy Fuller played often in Durham, earning good money from local residents and from out of town farmers drawn to town by the tobacco markets.14 Coinciding with the bustling downtown scene, the early 20th century marked the beginning of Durham’s suburbanization, as residential neighborhoods were built on the outskirts of the city, primarily along streetcar lines to accommodate workers who could find no room downtown, or who found the crowded conditions disagreeable.15 These streetcar suburbs housed both upper and lower class families, and featured a mix of housing types. Durham continued to expand in population and in economic terms—led by the same industries that had dominated for decades and spurred by domestic and foreign demand for tobacco and textiles, especially post-World War I—with each passing year. By the 1920s and 1930s, although Durham was still a tobacco and textile town, public works projects and private development had begun to alter downtown, including the creation of several tall buildings that still feature prominently in the skyline (for example, the Hill building,

13

See http://www.preservationdurham.org/Neighborhoods/History3.htm. See http://facstaff.unca.edu/sinclair/piedmontblues/Default.htm and http://cattailmusic.com/BluesHistory/ BluesRoots/piedDelta.html. 15 The above photo is of Main Street in 1910 and can be found in the online archives at http://www.durham countylibrary.org/photoarch/, courtesy of Durham County Library, Durham, NC. Notice the streetcar tracks down the center of the road. 14

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

8

which for years housed Central Carolina Bank and now houses SunTrust bank).16 The rest of downtown remained dominated primarily by tobacco and textile manufacturing and warehousing facilities, as well as by a wide variety of merchants and service industries that developed around this economic hub.17 Residential growth in the first part of the 1900s had been located both downtown and in a ring close to downtown, with a division between whites and blacks (the latter

group largely located to the east and south of downtown, including in the Hayti neighborhood). By the end of the 1920s, the suburbs began to push further out from downtown. Even the Great Depression, though felt in Durham, did not affect the community to the extent that it affected many other cities due to relatively inelastic demand for tobacco and textiles. Thus, Durham continued to grow. As private automobiles became more and more common, upper class suburbs such as Forest Hills and Hope Valley were established a few miles from downtown largely without reliance on public transportation lines.18 Though segregation persisted for decades to come and race relations were by no means ideal, Durham was considered progressive for its time. Unlike in most southern cities—and in most cities across the United States—during the early part of the 20th century black-owned businesses thrived in Durham and in some areas even coexisted with white-owned businesses. Most notably, downtown’s Parrish Street, which was also a busy commercial district for white 16

See http://www.preservationdurham.org/Neighborhoods/History5.htm and Roberts, et al., p348. The inset photo is of the Five Points district and surrounding area, circa 1920, and can be accessed online at http://www.durhamcountylibrary.org/photoarch/. It is provided courtesy of Durham County Library, Durham, NC. 18 Claudia Roberts, et al. The Durham Architectural and Historical Inventory. Durham, NC: City of Durham, 1982, p7; and Bishir and Early, p44. 17

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

9

business owners, became nationally known as the “Black Wall Street.” Parrish Street housed the first black-owned insurance company in the nation, North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company, which remains in Durham today. The Mechanics and Farmers Bank, another nationally known black-owned business, was also located on Parrish Street, along with a variety of smaller businesses. The Black Wall Street garnered significant national attention, and even renowned black intellectual W.E.B. DuBois visited and studied Durham, writing about the businesses on Parrish Street and in the nearby Hayti neighborhood.19 In short, downtown Durham and its surrounding neighborhoods were the geographic, economic, and cultural center of the city throughout the first half of the 20th century. But this era of downtown’s dominance was soon to end. Days of Decline and Misguided Renewal: 1950 to 1979 By the mid-20th century, like downtowns across the country, downtown Durham was beginning to suffer, with the manufacturing and retail bases declining and businesses and residents moving to the suburbs.20 As local newspaper columnist and historian Jim Wise writes, “The post-war age set off a nationwide desertion of inner cities for suburbia, and a dynamic in Durham’s civic life that carries on more than half a century later.”21 Fueled by Federal housing and highway policies that gave preference to suburban development, as well as consumer interest in the post-World War II “American dream” of living in single-family houses in quiet (and often segregated and automobile-dependent) neighborhoods, downtowns across the country began to slowly disintegrate. Durham’s downtown was no exception. Downtown Durham’s decline accelerated in the mid 1950s, as outdoor strip malls were built in several locations on the edge of the city, drawing consumers away from downtown retail locations. Construction of the first shopping center in Durham, Forest Hills, began in 1955 to the south of downtown, and it was soon followed by other shopping centers to the east and north of downtown. As retail and industry began to decline precipitously downtown, Durham’s leaders

19

City of Durham. Office of Economic and Employment Development. “A New Era on Parrish Street.” Durham, NC: August 2, 2004, p7. Hayti, to the south and east of the central business district, was a residential and commercial hub of the African-American community at this time and for decades to come. 20 Julian Tarrant. “A Downtown Development Plan.” Durham, NC: Downtown Development Association and the Durham City Council: November 9, 1960, p4. 21 Wise. Durham: A Bull City Story, p124. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

10

sought potential solutions. By the late 1950s, Durham’s public and private sector leaders had recognized the increasingly dire situation downtown and began to engage in formal planning efforts to revitalize the area. In 1957, the Durham Revitalization Foundation and the Downtown Merchants’ Association commissioned a Planning Department report called The Outlook for Durham, which documented downtown’s recent decline.22 Two subsequent reports, Revitalization Proposal for the Central Business District by the Planning Department and Report No. 1 by the Downtown Development Association, were produced in 1958 and provided additional insight into the condition of downtown. In late 1960, Richmond, Virginia planning consultant Julian Tarrant released A Downtown Development Plan, which he presented to the Downtown Development Association and the City Council. Tarrant emphasized that despite downtown’s recent struggles it remained “the hub of most of the major activities that hold the city together, and its importance to the community at large should not be minimized.”23 Tarrant also noted the significant tax value (and potential value) of downtown land, a theme that continues to play a central role in present day discussions about revitalization. However, the enduring legacy of Tarrant’s plan was its support for the already planned construction of the Durham Freeway and its recommendation that the city create a one-way downtown Loop. Both projects necessitated large-scale land acquisition and demolition of existing buildings. Tarrant’s plan was predicated largely on the idea that Durham needed to ease traffic congestion around downtown. He stated that a “high percentage of this traffic volume is through-traffic which has no business in the CBD” and explained that the Freeway, the Loop, and other street additions and modifications would allow cars to bypass downtown.24 The city soon began to embark on the land clearing and road construction projects advocated by Tarrant, though it ignored some of his specific suggestions, such as demolishing the historic buildings 22

Yonah Freemark, “Durham: Urban Renewal’s Legacy” website at http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Eysf4/durham/ hist.html. 23 Tarrant, p1. The inset picture is of Union Station in 1949, prior to its destruction during urban renewal, and is provided courtesy of Durham County Library, Durham, NC. See http://www.durhamcountylibrary.org/photoarch/. 24 Tarrant, p8. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

11

that now house the Carolina Theatre, the Arts Council and the Armory. The city also decided not to act on one of the plan’s central ideas, which was to convert much of the central business district into a pedestrian mall; Tarrant noted that certain areas should be “given over exclusively to the pedestrian, and all vehicular movement should be eliminated if possible.”25 Given that the pedestrian mall experiment was pursued with little success in dozens of cities across the country, including neighboring Raleigh, it appears fortunate Durham did not pursue this part of the plan. In part based on the recommendations of the various reports mentioned above, the city pursued an aggressive program of urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s.26 The urban renewal program took advantage of Federal funds provided through provisions in the Housing Act of 1949, and was intended to address the perceived need for more roads, parking, and other building projects around downtown, as suggested by Tarrant and others. Durham’s urban renewal efforts, though not without some success in terms of attracting several large businesses and investing in new government buildings, resulted in a significant net loss to downtown. Yonah Freemark describes the demolition of “hundreds of businesses… to clear the way—using the powers of eminent domain—for new buildings and infrastructure... [D]owntown businesses were either shut down or moved to suburban shopping centers.”27 Jim Wise explains that the urban renewal program was a “debacle,” noting that the “destroy-in-order-to-save” effort demolished many historic buildings and culminated in the construction of the “one-way Loop that served more as a moat than thoroughfare.”28 In addition to destroying scores of buildings, clearing large swaths of land in downtown and nearby neighborhoods like Hayti, and displacing business owners and residents

25

Tarrant, p13. Interestingly, Tarrant wrote that urban renewal funds would surely be considered to carry out his plan, but warned that such funds would not likely be available for projects inside the central business district itself, since this district did not include “substantially dilapidated areas” (p35). The picture below is of an anti-urban renewal protest march in the 1960s, with a recently cleared lot in the background, and is provided courtesy of the Durham County Library. Access it through the online archives at http://www.durhamcountylibrary.org/photoarch/. 27 Freemark. 28 Wise. Durham: A Bull City Story, p137. After years of planning and site preparation, construction of the Loop began in 1971 and concluded in 1975. 26

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

12

in these areas, the urban renewal program aided the development of several barracks-style public housing projects that served to concentrate poverty in neighborhoods near downtown. By the beginning of the 1970s, downtown was in serious trouble, and urban renewal’s legacy was apparent in the form of vacant lots and public distrust, rather than in the hoped-for “renewal” of the city. As if the impact on downtown of the city’s failed urban renewal efforts were not devastating enough, they were compounded by other social and economic factors. Among the multitude of factors affecting downtown were the growth of the Research Triangle Park as an employment center (several miles southeast of downtown and outside of the city’s taxing authority) and the further increase in retail competition, including the emergence of indoor shopping malls. For example, Northgate Shopping Center, which was originally built in 1960 as an outdoor shopping area located a couple of miles north of downtown, was converted into an indoor mall in 1973 and was the first such development in the city. Two years later, South Square mall was built a few miles south of downtown.29 These malls served as a one-two punch damaging downtown retail, and along with other suburban shopping centers drew major department stores away from downtown. Continued expansion of residential and employment options outside of downtown, facilitated by the ease with which residents could travel by automobile, further diminished downtown’s status. By the 1970s, downtown Durham was in a tailspin, lacking for jobs, businesses, residents, and visitors. As Jim Wise writes of the era, “By the time the Loop was done and the new city hall, by the time downtown was declared an official historic district, there were relatively few people around to notice or care… and the refrain ‘I never go downtown’ was becoming virtually a Bull City motto.”30 The tobacco and textile industries had moved many of their operations out of downtown and into other areas of the state, retail stores had followed residents to suburban locations, and urban renewal had contributed to a significantly smaller and more fragmented downtown. Even the Durham Bulls baseball team, which had played nearly every season since 1913, folded in 1972. 31

29

Freemark. South Square mall folded several years ago, in part due to competition from the recently built Southpoint mall (located near RTP), and has been replaced by a series of big box retail outlets. 30 Wise, Durham: A Bull City Story, p143. The textbox that appears to the right contains a quote found on Freemark’s website, which cites a 1977 article in the Durham Morning Herald. 31 See http://www.durhambulls.com/team/history.html. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

13

In 1974, a new plan for downtown redevelopment was announced. This plan, the Downtown Durham Revitalization Plan 1974/2000, was commissioned by the private sector through the auspices of the Downtown Revitalization Foundation. The plan detailed numerous small-scale and large-scale improvements deemed necessary to revitalize downtown, including construction of a new transportation center, a convention center, a pedestrian plaza, additional parking decks, road improvements, new retail areas, office buildings, and hotels.32 In addition to the fact that the 1974 plan included many elements that have reappeared in subsequent plans for downtown, it is notable that the plan emphasized a high degree of

Everyone knows that downtown is not sage It’s full of muggers and thieves and crooks. I like the mall cuz it’s all indoors And its got that modern look. Let the tumbleweed take over the street, And the downtown will crumble and fall. I only shop at chain stores—let’s go to the mall. -Georgeann Eubanks, Durham Businesswoman, 1977

public-private partnership as the key to implementation; the expected cost of plan implementation would have involved roughly one dollar of public sector spending for every two dollars spent by the private sector. The city did not believe this level of expenditure was warranted and did not adopt the plan. Freemark explains that “it is not surprising that the city chose not to follow through on the goals” of the plan, given the lack of success of the 1960 plan and the large expenditures that enacting the 1974 plan would have required.33 In retrospect, the end of the 1970s did include one significant development from the perspective of revitalization. In an effort to lay the groundwork for future revitalization of downtown, the city achieved the designation of most of downtown as a federally-recognized Historic District in 1977, in part due to the efforts of the non-profit Historic Preservation Society of Durham, which had formed a few years earlier. Signs of Life: 1980 to 1998 The 1980s began on a positive note for Durham, with the Durham Bulls brought back to Durham Athletic Park (DAP) under new ownership in April, 1980. Then-owner Miles Wolff explained that he “rolled the dice” on the risky project, given the prior failure of the Bulls and 32

Chris Warren. “Downtown Durham Revitalization Efforts: 1989-2005.” Unpublished class paper. Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: April 27, 2005, p7. 33 Freemark. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

14

the dilapidated condition of the ballpark. However, by season’s end the Bulls had exceeded even optimistic attendance predictions, drawing over 2,500 fans per game. Attendance was helped in no small part by beer sales that were allowed for the first time in years by new liquor-by-thedrink laws; Wolff noted that a local paper had voted the Bulls the “Best Bar in Town.”34 Around the same time, various steps were taken to revitalize downtown, with an emphasis on preserving and capitalizing upon the city’s historic architecture. Although these revitalization efforts were not as plentiful as today’s, they did have a significant and long-term impact on downtown. In late 1981, private developers completed a major adaptive reuse project, converting two large former tobacco warehouses at the intersection of Gregson and Main Streets into a mixed use development. The Brightleaf Square project combined first floor retail and restaurants with second floor offices.35 A year later, 90 condominiums opened in the Bullington Warehouse on North Duke Street, representing the first major residential project undertaken downtown in decades.36 Also in 1982, the public sector stepped up its investment in downtown revitalization when the city’s voters approved a $10.5 million bond to support construction of a civic center through a public-private partnership between the city, the county, and a private developer. The Durham Civic Center did not open until 1989 but its groundbreaking sent a positive message to investors. Despite significant investment downtown during the early 1980s, most observers still agreed that the overall health of downtown was declining. For instance, the 1982 Economic Development Strategy for Durham noted that economic activity continued to decrease downtown, especially in the retail sector. The report explained that “Downtown Durham, once the retail center for the entire county, has experienced a serious decline in such activity… A number of downtown buildings stand completely or partially vacant.”37 The report also described a broadly held “negative image of downtown” and a “lack of extensive activity after 34

Bryan Strickland, “… Bullish on Durham.” The Herald-Sun, 8 April 2002, D4. See http://www.historicbrightleaf.com/history/index.html. 36 See http://www.abcddurham.com/content/livecontent.htm. Inset photo from author’s own collection. 37 City of Durham. Department of Planning and Community Development. “Economic Development Strategy for Durham.” Durham, NC: October 4, 1982, p14. 35

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

15

5:00 p.m.,” as well as “real and perceived lack of security.” 38 Still, for the first time in years, major projects were underway downtown. In 1988, the Durham Centre office tower opened across the street from the Civic Center site, with help from an $11 million city-financed parking deck. Around this time, the city also provided funding to rehabilitate the Royal Center for the Arts and the Carolina Theatre, in the same landmark complex of buildings along Morgan Street as the Civic Center. By the late 1980s, the pace of investment downtown was quickening, yet city leaders worried that this investment was taking place without an overarching plan to guide it. In 1989, after several years of planning, the city released the Downtown Durham

Revitalization Plan and the Downtown Durham Historic District Preservation Plan. Both documents were initiated by a mix of private and public sector leaders but coordinated by the Planning Department. Significantly, the process of creating these documents included multiple opportunities for community input, which was a departure from previous plans for downtown.39 The two plans were meant to function in tandem, in order to revitalize downtown by adding housing, diversifying transportation options, capturing a greater share of the retail market, building new offices, and more, while preserving the city’s architecture and history. In retrospect, one of the most significant elements of the 1989 plans was there insistence that a market existed for rental housing downtown, including in converted tobacco warehouses such as the Liggett and Myers complex. The plans also provided a coherent argument detailing the negatives associated with the downtown Loop and the Durham Freeway, in terms of their impact 38

“Economic Development Strategy for Durham,” p34. The inset photos are of the Carolina Theatre, first, in 1949, courtesy of the Durham Public Library, Durham, NC (see http://www.durhamcountylibrary.org/photoarch/) and, second, in the present day from the author’s own collection. 39 Development Concepts, Inc., et al. “Downtown Durham Master Plan.” Durham, NC: 1999, p22. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

16

on pedestrian and automobile traffic. Also, the plans advocated for public-private partnerships, façade grants, greater use of historic tax credits, and other tools and strategies to encourage downtown revitalization. Additional elements of the 1989 plans that reappeared in later plans and still bear relevance today include: an emphasis on creating distinct districts downtown; the need for Downtown Durham is experiencing a renaissance. Construction projects abound, bringing new activity and people to downtown. Numerous old buildings are being either rehabilitated for new uses or eyed as sites for new buildings. -Downtown Durham Historic District Preservation Plan of 1989

improved signage and enhanced appearance features throughout downtown; an emphasis on creating mixed income housing; the need for improved parking; the suggestion that a “Downtown Development Corporation” be created to encourage and oversee revitalization; the recommendation that a

Durham Central Park be created near the DAP; and the desire to turn downtown into an aroundthe-clock hub of activity. The plan also urged the redevelopment of the American Tobacco campus on Blackwell Street through a public-private partnership.40 As the 1980s came to a close and the 1990s began, downtown appeared to face an uncertain future. The public sector had just completed two large-scale plans for downtown and had made a significant financial commitment in the area for the first time in years, while several major public and private developments had been completed. However, the momentum generated by these projects was short-lived. In fact, in 1990, downtown boosters suffered a serious setback when voters rejected a bond referendum that would have provided city money to subsidize redevelopment of American Tobacco.41 The project would have brought the Museum of Life and Science to the complex, among with tenants such as Duke University and what was then known as Glaxo pharmaceuticals (now GlaxoSmithKline).42 Also, despite the success of isolated projects like Brightleaf Square and the Carolina Theatre restoration, the retail exodus from downtown continued throughout this period. One of the last remaining large retailers, Woolworth’s, closed its doors for good in 1993, and many smaller businesses followed suit. The same year, Downtown Durham Inc. was created and its President, Bill Kalkhof, was quoted as 40

Warren, pp10-16. Freemark. 42 Alan Scher Zagier, “Durham’s finally got one on base.” The News & Observer, 6 April 1998, A1. 41

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

17

saying: “What we are looking at for downtown is for it to become a center for the arts and entertainment. We would be foolish to compete with the shopping malls.”43 Thus, by the early 1990s, it appeared that retail downtown was in its last throes, and few people were optimistic about the overall future of downtown. Yet hope remained for downtown. The Durham Bulls, who had managed to continue drawing fans year after year upon their return to action in 1980, became the center of attention yet again at the end of the 1980s. Bolstered by the hit 1987 movie Bull Durham, the Bulls’ popularity reached new peaks. Miles Wolff decided to sell the team and was prepared to transfer ownership to Jim Goodmon, owner of media company Capitol Broadcasting. Mr. Goodmon planned to move the Bulls from increasingly dilapidated DAP to a new stadium to be built in a central location between Durham and Raleigh, to take advantage of the two growing population centers. However, Durham’s City Council intervened in an effort to prevent the move. In 1989, the City Council approved a plan to build a new stadium downtown, but the County Commissioners nixed it, instead sending the plan to the voters via a referendum.44 The referendum was held in early 1990 and failed by a 59 to 41 percent margin. The failure of the referendum hinged upon a combination of factors, including the city’s tremendous needs in education and other areas that were seen as more important than subsidizing a new stadium, and because Jim Goodmon himself took out a newspaper advertisement opposing the plan and explaining his effort to move the team closer to Raleigh. Interestingly, the same day that the ballpark referendum failed, the developer interested in American Tobacco (located across Blackwell Street from the proposed ballpark site) changed his mind, as his plan depended partly on city-funded parking nearby as part of the ballpark proposal. Jim Goodmon bought the Bulls soon thereafter and forged ahead with plans to move the team. He soon encountered opposition in Wake County and agreed to stay in Durham if a new ballpark was built.45

43

Linda Brown Douglas, “Selling downtown.” The News & Observer, 9 October 1994, F1. Strickland. The inset picture is of the main entrance to the DAP and is from the author’s own collection. 45 Ronnie Glassberg, “Figure once derided as city’s nemesis is hailed as its hero.” Herald-Sun, 29 March 2000, A1. 44

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

18

In mid-1992, under the leadership of Councilman Charles Grubb, who was defeated in the next election, a deal was brokered—this time using financing not subject to a public vote—to provide $11.3 million in city funds to subsidize construction of a new Durham Bulls Athletic Park (DBAP). Although it faced significant resistance prior to and during construction, the DBAP—designed by the same firm that built Camden Yards in Baltimore—opened to rave reviews in 1995. The public sector stadium investment—which ended up totaling more than $16 million in initial costs, with an additional $1.7 million for a 1998 expansion—soon paid dividends for the city when, in 1996, Goodmon announced plans to build the 80,000 square foot Diamond View office building just beyond the DBAP’s right field wall. The $9 million Diamond View building opened its doors in 1998, the same year the Bulls moved up from an A-level to AAA-level minor league affiliate.46 Another significant investment downtown during this time period was the new YMCA facility that opened in 1997. The $7 million building totaled approximately 50,000 square feet and was sited near Durham Central Park at the intersection of Foster and Morgan Streets.47 A New Era for Downtown: 1999 to Today The year 1999 was a banner one for downtown revitalization in Durham, and represents the beginning of a new era of accelerated private and public sector investment downtown. In this year, the Downtown Durham Master Plan was created based on the initiative of the City of Durham (particularly the Office of Economic and Employment Development) and Downtown Durham Inc., in order to help provide a unified vision for ongoing revitalization efforts, as the 1989 plans had been.48 A consulting firm carried out the work of writing the master plan, and the process included a series of steps designed to incorporate public input: individual interviews, focus groups, surveys, and more. The end result was a document that provided a fairly 46

Glassberg, with additional information from interview respondents. Inset picture is from the author’s own photos. See http://www.durham-nc.com/pdf/tourmap_walk.pdf. 48 Downtown Durham Inc.’s president, Bill Kalkhof, noted in 1998 that “It’s important that it not be a Downtown Durham Inc. plan or a city administration plan. It’s more likely to achieve success if it is the community’s vision.” Quoted in Kelly Woo, “Whereto, downtown Durham?,” The News & Observer, 11 July 1998, B4. 47

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

19

comprehensive treatment of revitalization needs, framed through two general categories: 1) “physical elements,” such as land use, traffic, and urban design; 2) “organizational elements,” such as events, promotions, and coordination. Broad goals for downtown described in the plan include but are not limited to: converting Main Street and the Loop from one-way to

both vehicles and pedestrians; providing

Present-day Downtown Durham no longer reflects the Downtown Durham of yesteryear… The new Downtown Durham has yet to hit full stride. But make no mistake about it, Downtown is alive and well.

better linkages between the center of

-Downtown Durham Master Plan, 1999

two-way traffic; providing better northsouth connectivity through downtown for

downtown and Brightleaf Square and other portions of downtown; utilizing American Tobacco through adaptive reuse; turning Durham Central Park into a key resource; and connecting downtown to surrounding neighborhoods.49 It is beyond the scope of this report to summarize the entire Downtown Durham Master Plan, but some notable components of the plan besides those mentioned above include: •

Its advocacy of creating a mix of uses downtown, from retail to office to residential to entertainment, as well as capitalizing on downtown’s continued role as the hub of city and county government functions;

•

Its call for a multi-modal transportation center to coordinate bus, taxi, and rail options (including possible commuter light rail) through one downtown complex;

•

Its interest in preserving downtown’s historic architecture, scale, and sense of place;

•

Its focus on improving pedestrian access downtown, in part by reducing traffic carrying capacity by revising major components of the one-way dominated street network that had downtown since at least the days of the Loop;

•

Its conception of distinct districts that should both stand on their own and be part of a larger, unified downtown;

•

Its contention that the market for housing and business opportunities—especially in the office, tourism, and entertainment sectors—in downtown Durham was going to expand significantly in the years to come;

•

Its view that the market for retail stores downtown exists but is limited in magnitude;

•

Its emphasis on the need for public sector investments in infrastructure creation and maintenance, as well as the need for continued public-private partnerships; and

49

Development Concepts Inc., et al., pp7-11. The complete plan is available online at http://www.ci.durham. nc.us/departments/eed/plan.cfm Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

20

•

Its recognition that physical elements alone will not revitalize downtown, and that activities designed to promote downtown, program events, coordinate efforts, and address real and perceived safety needs are also essential.

The creation of the 1999 plan represented a recommitment on the part of the city to downtown Durham, even though it offered many similar ideas as the 1989 plans. The new plan reiterated the belief that “Downtown Durham is a quality of life asset for the entire community, bringing unique spaces, recreation, excitement, history, social opportunities and cultural resources to all Durham residents.”50 In total, the new plan estimated that full implementation would require approximately one billion dollars of combined private and public sector investment over about 20 years, with the public sector covering about 20 percent of the costs.51 A new master plan was not the only indicator of increased interest in downtown as the turn of the century approached. There also were more tangible signs. In 1999, Jim Goodmon purchased an option on American Tobacco, marking yet another interesting twist in his relationship with downtown Durham, and signaling his commitment to continue to invest in the area adjacent to the DBAP. The same year featured the completion of the City Place redevelopment on Washington Street adjacent to the DAP. City Place had been the former site of a city garage and fire training facility, People are beginning to understand that downtowns make communities unique. Suburbia is the same everywhere. You can be in it and not know where you are.

and was converted into office space that

-Ted Abernathy, Durham’s former economic development manager, 2000

firm, and the Board of Elections.52 Early

currently houses businesses such as a yoga studio, a record company, an architecture in 2000, even more visible evidence of the

renewed interest in downtown surfaced when Blue Devil Ventures completed a major residential adaptive reuse project. The West Village apartments, located in a portion of the Liggett and Myers warehouse complex along North Duke Street, and between Main Street and Fernway Avenue (just south of the Bullington Warehouse condominiums), marked a new level of investment downtown.

50

Development Concepts, Inc., et al., p55. Quote in textbox to the left comes from Richard Stradling, “Downtown turns the page,” The Chapel Hill News, 22 June 2000, B1. 51 Development Concepts, Inc., et al., p126. 52 See http://www.zapolskirudd.com/projects/allproperties/cityplace/cityplace.html. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

21

West Village was notable both for its size—more than 240 loft-style rental units and 36,000 square feet of office/retail space spread across five buildings at a cost of roughly $36 million—and for the fact that it was built despite serious skepticism about its potential.53 Brian Davis, one of the managing partners who developed the project, noted when West Village opened that “Everyone told us it would never work” because there was no perceived market for residential property downtown.54 (In fact, the demand for downtown residential units currently exceeds supply, so West Village was several years ahead of the curve in anticipating this untapped demand.) When West Village was announced in 1996, only 180 people lived downtown, and the project almost single-handedly raised the number of downtown residents to 560 in the year 2000.55 Furthermore, the scale of the project represented a strong vote of confidence in downtown. Downtown Durham Inc.’s Bill Kalkhof hailed the significance of project at the time, saying succinctly, “This is a mega deal.”56 Notably, though the project received substantial financing support from federal government programs, it did not directly use local public sector funds (though it did qualify for a 50 percent reduction in property taxes due to its status as a historic landmark).57 Finally, it is worth pointing out that the plans to build West Village were announced in 1996 after being dreamt up years prior, financing was secured in 1998, and the project was not completely finished for three more years. 58 This is indicative of the fact that revitalization efforts often take years to bear fruit. While West Village was the largest of the early redevelopment projects completed during the most recent era of revitalization downtown, various other projects were completed around the same time. For instance, Measurement, Inc., a locally-based educational testing company, 53

See http://www.bluedevilventures.com/westvillage.html. Also, see http://www.downtowndurham.com/assets/ FlashMap/revitalizationhighlights.html. 54 Rah Bickley, “Lofty aspirations fly in Durham.” The News & Observer, 29 July 2000, B1. The inset picture of West Village is from the author’s own collection. 55 Downtown Durham Inc., “Revitalizing Downtown Durham” PowerPoint presentation. 56 Jamie Paton, “West Village attracts leases.” The Herald-Sun, 23 February 2000, B1. 57 Paul Bonner, “City, West Village forging incentives plan.” The Herald-Sun, 2 December 2004, C1. 58 Elizabeth Wellington, “New take on downtown Durham.” The News & Observer, 16 March 1999, B1. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

22

expanded its downtown offices near the DAP, while the Triangle Biotechnology Center opened in a renovated building nearby.59 However, far and away the most notable of the revitalization projects completed after West Village was American Tobacco, the potential jewel in downtown Durham’s crown that had been poised to happen multiple times and had never materialized. Vacant since 1987, when the cigarette factory closed its doors for good, the physical transformation of the American Tobacco campus began in earnest in early 2002. However, the official groundbreaking for the project was not until June 2003, ten months after a final agreement was reached on the details of a public-private partnership between the local government and the developers.60 By mid-2004, the first tenants moved into their new offices and American Tobacco was officially vacant no more.61 The project was completed through a partnership that involved $43 million in city and county government funding for two parking decks, as well as public support from state and federal historic tax credits. Backers of the project justified the high level of public

Downtown is everybody’s neighborhood. We have to be committed to rehab, restore and resurrect it, because we allowed it to deteriorate. -Howard Clement, City Councilman, quoted in 2002.

subsidy by framing American Tobacco as a major catalyst that would lead to other private investment downtown. Reflecting the view of many of its supporters, Ted Conner of the Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce wrote at the time that American Tobacco “will show that Durham has the resolve to address challenging issues. Furthermore, American Tobacco will be a magnet for other economic and community development projects throughout Durham. American Tobacco will be a defining symbol of Durham’s strength.”62 Because of the level of subsidy provided the project, the developers did not seek historic district property tax deferrals for which they otherwise would have been eligible. In total, upon completion of American Tobacco’s two-phase renovation, the private sector is expected to have invested roughly $200 million in the project.

59

John Atkins and Willie Covington, “It’s time to close American Tobacco deal.” The Herald-Sun, 2 June 2002, A13. Above quote originally appeared in J. Andrew Curliss, “Downtown fares well in budget.” The News & Observer, 24 May 2002, A1. 60 See the project timeline at http://www.americantobaccohistoricdistrict.com/news.asp. 61 “Life returning to American Tobacco,” The Herald-Sun, 28 June 2004, A8. 62 Ted Conner, “Next step in downtown renaissance.” The Herald-Sun, 4 August 2002, A13. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

23

The completion of the first phase of the American Tobacco project served as an affirmation of the ongoing public and private sector interest in revitalizing downtown Durham. From the time that the first phase of the American Tobacco renovation began to the present day, interest in downtown revitalization has continued to grow. The following section of this report brings the downtown revitalization story to the present day.63

63

Inset picture is of the south entrance to the American Tobacco campus and is from the author’s own collection. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

24

III. Downtown Durham Today: The Climate for Revitalization This section of the report provides an overview of demographic data and other key aspects affecting downtown Durham today, in order to provide additional context for the revitalization efforts underway. With a population of over 200,000 in the city limits as of 2005, Durham is the fourth largest municipality in North Carolina. The city’s population has grown Durham’s Vital Statistics Population: 242,527 county (204,767 in the city, including roughly 700 downtown) Demographics: 50.4% white (45.5% city); 39.1% black (43.8% city); 10.5% other (10.7% city); 33 median age in years (31 city, 38 downtown) Area: 299 square miles (98.2 city) Property tax rate: 0.809 per $100 valuation county and an additional 0.583 per $100 city

rapidly over the past two decades, including growth rates of 35 percent and 37 percent in the 1980s and 1990s, respectively; the city increased from 100,535 residents in 1980 to 187,035 by 2000. Annexation was one factor in the population growth during this period, as the geographic size of the city increased from 42 to 98 square miles between 1980 and 2000. Because of the expansion of the city’s borders, population density actually decreased during this time period, though it has increased slightly since 1990. Durham’s population is expected to continue to increase rapidly throughout the next few decades, with a projected average annual increase of about 1.25 percent countywide, which will put additional pressure on the public sector to effectively accommodate the growth.64 It is important to emphasize that downtown is neither the population nor employment center of Durham, although it is geographically central. Downtown is home to only 0.3 percent of the city’s population and, although downtown contains roughly 13 percent of the city’s jobs, the employers based in Research Triangle Park (RTP) and Duke University provide far more jobs. However, both RTP and Duke University are located in property tax exempt districts (the former due to a special tax-free district and the latter due to its non-profit, educational status).65 The lack of property tax revenues from these areas increases the importance of downtown Durham, which currently features over 13,000 workers and has an assessed property tax base of 64

City of Durham. City/County Planning Department, “Durham Comprehensive Plan,” Durham, NC: February 28, 2005, pp17-6 to 17-10. 65 “Durham Comprehensive Plan,” pp17-14 to 17-16. Also, see http://www.durham-nc.com/secondary/faq/ faq_gen.php. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

25

approximately $269 million; as recently as 2002, these figures were 11,285 workers and $230 million.66 Also, Durham’s county and city governments are two of downtown’s biggest employers but are exempt from property taxes. An Era of Active Public and Private Sector Investment Downtown Downtown is currently in the midst of a period of rapid revitalization that is unparalleled in the last 50 years. The sheer number and variety of public and private sector projects actively underway or recently completed demonstrates the extent of ongoing revitalization efforts. A sampling of significant projects is as follows: •

In March 2005, construction began on a two-year Downtown Street Improvement Plan that is being carried out by the city’s Public Works Department. It is expected to cost more than $10 million and will involve large-scale street improvements, such as realignment of key north-south routes to ease traffic flow, as well as conversion of Main Street from one-way to two-way; sidewalk widening and other enhancements, including improvements to street lighting and landscaping; a greater focus on pedestrians and bicyclists; and the renovation of multiple public plazas.67

•

In Fall 2004, Brightleaf Square completed a $3 million renovation to upgrade and reconfigure its retail space and central courtyard. The project was the first significant update to the site since its original renovation more than 20 years prior.68

•

Greenfire Development has renovated the historic Baldwin and Kress buildings— located inside the downtown Loop along West Main Street—and converted them into residential units for rental and sale, respectively.69 Though the projects are both relatively small (only a couple dozen units combined), they are notable for their central location and high visibility in downtown.

•

Another residential project under construction downtown is The Eleanor, a condominium project that is located on Rigsbee Street inside

66

Downtown Durham Inc., “Revitalizing Downtown Durham.” Ginny Skalski, “Paving the way.” The Herald-Sun, 9 March 2005, A1. Also, see http://www.durhamnc.gov/ departments/works/downtown_improvements.cfm for additional details and graphics. 68 See http://www.downtowndurham.com/assets/FlashMap/revitalizationhighlights.html. 69 Jeff Zimmer, “Developer eyes revitalized downtown.” The Herald-Sun, 23 March 2006, C1. Also, see http://www.greenfiredevelopment.com/properties/index.html. Inset photo is from the author’s own collection. 67

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

26

the Loop and across the street from the Post Office. As is increasingly common with smaller scale downtown residential projects, the condominiums at The Eleanor will be sold as ready-to-finish “shells” that can be completed based on buyers’ specifications. •

Construction is underway on Durham Central Park, which is located nearby the DAP on both sides of Foster Street near the intersection with Corporation Street. The idea for Durham Central Park was pushed to the forefront by two neighborhood residents, who approached the city and Downtown Durham Inc. with the idea in 1994. The park development effort is spearheaded by a non-profit organization dedicated to developing and overseeing the park. Most of the funds being used for the project are from private sources. Upon completion, the park will include a permanent home for the existing Durham Farmers Market, an amphitheater, a greenway trail, and other features.70

•

Largely for the purpose of creating a wayfinding program that helps visitors navigate downtown, the city has created six distinct districts within downtown, each with their own name, logo, and signage. These districts were proposed by a joint city Office of Economic and Employment Development-Downtown Durham Inc. panel.71 Once complete, the program will increase the ease of navigation downtown for pedestrians and vehicular traffic alike.72

•

Phase two of the American Tobacco project is easily the largest project underway, in terms of size and total investment. Whereas phase one focused on office and a limited number of retail/restaurant establishments, phase two plans to add 62 high-end residential

70

See http://www.durhamcentralpark.net/index.html. The site rendering pictured here can be accessed at http://www.durhamcentralpark.net/park.html, while the photo is from the author’s own collection. 71 Ronnie Glassberg, “Local panel wants to clarify six specific downtown areas.” The Herald-Sun, 15 February 2001, B1. 72 The six downtown districts are: the Brightleaf District around Brightleaf Square; the Warehouse District around West Village; the Central Park District around the park of the same name and the DAP; the City Center District around the Civic Center and the Post Office; the Government Services District around City Hall and the public library; and the American Tobacco District around the project of the same name and the DBAP. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

27

units (both sale and rental), as well as more office and retail space. This phase of the project targets the oldest, most historic section of the warehouse complex, which is the section nearest the downtown Loop.73 In addition to the larger scale projects noted above, various other initiatives have also taken place. For instance, recent additions to downtown’s restaurant and bar scene have occurred, especially around the Brightleaf Square area near the intersection of Gregson and Main Streets. Some projects have occurred inside the downtown Loop, but this area has thus far seen less activity than other areas of downtown. Notably, most businesses downtown are one-of-a-kind local establishments, rather than regional or national chains. Although large projects like American Tobacco, along with their high profile tenants, have gotten much of the publicity surrounding downtown revitalization, they represent a relatively small fraction of the businesses present downtown. According to Downtown Durham Inc., downtown currently has 232 professional services establishments (law, architecture, bail bonds, barbers, non-profit organizations, and more); 57 retail-oriented businesses (ranging from bookstores to auto services to antiques sales); and 36 restaurants (ranging from fast food to upscale dining). Key Downtown Indicators over the Past Ten Years74 Category Year 1996 Year 2000 # Residential units ~ 112 ~ 350 # Residents ~ 180 ~ 560 # Employees ~ 8,000 ~ 10,000 Amount of office space ~ 1.4 million ft2 ~ 2 million ft2

Year 2005 ~ 470 ~ 700 ~ 13,000 ~ 2.7 million ft2

In addition to the public and private sector-led projects already underway downtown, numerous other projects are in the planning stages and are at least reasonably likely to occur. Among the projects that are expected to commence in the near future are the following: •

The historic Woolworth department store site, which was home to early sit-ins during the civil rights movement, is expected to be redeveloped into a mix of uses. The original building was demolished by the city out of necessity and sold to a private developer.75

•

The city is currently evaluating a bid from Streuver Bros. Eccles & Rouse in response to a city-led request for proposals to redevelop the DAP and surrounding land parcels. Streuver Bros., a nationally-known firm that is handling phase two of American Tobacco, has proposed a mix of retail, office, and residential uses on the site, along with a

73

See http://www.downtowndurham.com/assets/ResidentialFlashMap/residentialproperties.html. All figures are close estimates obtained from Downtown Durham Inc., “Revitalizing Downtown Durham.” 75 See http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/project004.cfm. 74

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

28

revamped ballpark that would play host to North Carolina Central University’s baseball team and community events.76 The city has set aside $4 million in recently voterapproved bond money for the project, but the developer has requested additional funds.77 •

Blue Devil Ventures is finalizing plans to construct phase two of the West Village project, directly across Main Street from phase one. West Village II is expected to add 375 units of rental housing, 164,000 square feet of office/lab space, and 58,000 square feet of retail space. By the time phase two is completed, at an estimated cost of $148 million (including a likely $6.5 million in city incentives and streetscape improvements), West Village I and II are expected to be larger than both phases of American Tobacco.78

•

Twenty-two units of condominiums are planned at the corner of North Mangum and Seminary Streets, roughly one block north of the downtown Loop. Each of the units has been reserved by prospective buyers. The project is notable both because it will be new construction rather than rehabilitation, and because the site is located in area that has not previously gotten significant attention in terms of private sector revitalization.

•

The Renaissance at Durham Centre is a projected $80 million high-rise condominium project that, if built, will bring a 14-story residential (and groundfloor retail) building to match the existing Durham Centre office building located across Morgan Street from the Carolina Theatre. The new tower, like its predecessor, would make use of the air space above one of the city’s largest parking garages.79

•

Greenfire Development recently acquired two buildings along West Main Street that are next to projects it is currently developing, indicating their intent to continue to invest in downtown (and their concern about vacant buildings located near their Baldwin and Kress projects).80

•

Plans are in the works for a series of Parrish Street Historic District projects, to be built on the site of the area formerly known as the Black Wall Street. The redevelopment effort is being led by a coalition of business, government, and non-profit leaders, as well as private citizens, which is known as the Parrish Street Advocacy Group. One of the plans for the street calls for a “museum without walls” to interpret the district’s rich history, and to serve as a tourism attraction.81

76

Ray Gronberg, “City gets $11M bid to modify ballpark.” The Herald-Sun, 16 March 2006, D1. Michael Biesecker, “Old ballpark catches NCCU eyes.” The News & Observer, 18 February 2006, B1. 78 See http://www.bluedevilventures.com/westvillage.html. Also, see http://www.downtowndurham.com/assets/ FlashMap/revitalizationhighlights.html. 79 See http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/project07.cfm. Also, see http://www.therenaissancedurham.com/ and http://www.downtowndurham.com/assets/FlashMap/revitalizationhighlights.html. Inset photo is of the existing Durham Centre and the city parking deck upon which it sits, and is from the author’s own collection. 80 Zimmer, “Developer eyes revitalized downtown.” 81 Jim Wise, “Group to capitalize on history.” The News & Observer, 23 April 2005, A1. Also, see http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/pdf/parrish_street.pdf. 77

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

29

•

The Triangle Biotechnology Center at Venable is a planned adaptive reuse project that seeks to convert warehouses into laboratories and offices. The site is located at the southeastern edge of downtown near the intersection of South Roxboro and Pettigrew Streets. The project will feature approximately 110,000 square feet of space designed to capitalize on the region’s thriving biotechnology industry, most of which is currently based in Research Triangle Park.82

In addition to the office/retail and residential projects listed above, several new restaurants are expected to open in various locations downtown within the next few months.83 In addition to providing incentives to private sector-led projects, the public sector also continues to make a significant level of direct investment in downtown, such as the following projects that are expected to soon break ground: •

A new county courthouse building is planned just south of the current detention center, which is located at the intersection of South Mangum and Pettigrew Streets. The project will create around 229,000 square feet of space and 1,000 parking spaces, and will require a public investment of roughly $92 million from bonds. Also, a Human Services Complex of approximately 243,000 square feet and 450 parking spaces will be built at an estimated cost of $78 million. Both projects are expected to open by 2011.

•

The Durham Center for Senior Life (using $5 million in county bond money and another $1.5 million in private funds) and a downtown police station/crime lab are expected to open within about two years, and will enhance service provision downtown.84

•

At a projected cost of $31 million, a public-private partnership will construct a 2,800 seat Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC) to be located near the intersection of Pettigrew and Mangum Streets. The groundbreaking for the theater is scheduled for Fall 2006, with the grand opening expected in Spring 2008.85

Finally, despite considerable uncertainty surrounding the future of the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) commuter rail line planned to link downtown Durham with other areas of the city, RTP, and Raleigh, the city is moving ahead with plans to build a multi-modal transportation center at a cost of roughly $15 million. 86 The city station, to be located near West Village II, will house the central bus terminal and taxi services. A planned station for use by Amtrak and the possible TTA commuter line is expected to open close by. 82

See http://www.scientificproperties.com/properties/venable.html. “The Barbecue Joint is coming to downtown Durham.” The Herald-Sun, 11 January 2006, C1. Also, Besha Rodell, “Neighborhood restaurants on the rise.” The Independent, 22 March 2006, 39. 84 Downtown Durham Inc., “Revitalizing Downtown Durham.” 85 See http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/dpac/ for construction schedule details and artist renderings. 86 See http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/project10.cfm. For more information on the continuing trouble in obtaining funding for the light rail project, see Gregory Phillips, “TTA awaits rail data response.” The Herald-Sun, 23 March 2006, D1. 83

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

30

Challenges Facing Downtown Durham Although private and public investment in the area is currently strong, downtown continues to face a number of significant challenges, many of which reflect communitywide concerns. Based on the interviews conducted for this report, as well as analysis of relevant documents, local media coverage, and quantitative data, some of the most significant challenges facing the city as a whole include: •

A high rate of poverty (15 percent of individuals below the poverty line versus 12.4 percent nationally) and low rate of homeownership (48.9 percent versus 66.2 percent).87

•

A public school system that continues to struggle in terms of student achievement, staff turnover, parent satisfaction, and other key indicators of performance.

•

Neighborhoods that are heavily segregated by race and class.

•

A negative image among residents of surrounding communities, and among Durham’s own residents, including particularly negative perceptions of downtown. A recent city survey found that only 25 percent of Durham’s residents were satisfied with the city’s overall image.88

•

Citizen dissatisfaction with the city’s maintenance of streets/other infrastructure and traffic flow. In the years ahead, citizens want more emphasis on these issues and on improving the quality of policing.89

•

A high crime rate with crime concentrated in certain neighborhoods, including several neighborhoods near downtown. Importantly, the perception of crime among city residents is significantly higher for downtown than for other areas of the city.90

•

A recent history that has been filled with controversy involving elected and appointed officials. Among elected officials, squabbles have erupted between black and white politicians, such as the well-documented racial division on the School Board, and ethical violations in officials’ private and public lives have hurt the city’s reputation. Similar concerns have affected appointed officials, such as members of the Durham Housing Authority, which has undergone multiple Federal investigations.91

•

Serious ethical and leadership lapses among city staff, including past city managers and department heads. For instance, past City Manager Marcia Conner’s hiring of a consulting firm with which she had connections through a no-bid process, among other questionable dealings, led to her forced resignation.92 Numerous examples of poor management and illegal practices have occurred in recent years, leading City Councilman

87

U.S. Census Bureau. American FactFinder. Durham demographic overview available at http://www.census.gov/. ETC Institute, “2005 DirectionFinder Survey: Final Report.” January 2006, p2. 89 ETC Institute, p1. 90 ETC Institute, p2 and p6. 91 Listen to the report at http://www.ibiblio.org/wunc_archives/news/index.php?p=253 for more information. 92 See http://www.wral.com/news/1766652/detail.html. 88

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

31

Eugene Brown to declare in 2003 that, “Unfortunately, throughout our state, Durham city government is becoming known more for its scandals than for its ability to govern.”93 Compounding the challenges noted above is the fact that some of the most significant social problems Durham faces are unevenly distributed geographically, creating pockets of the city that are under particular distress. For instance, the U.S. Census 2000 maps shown below depict the percentage of individuals in poverty and the homeownership rate across the city; both poverty and rental property are concentrated near downtown. Percent Individuals in Poverty

Percent Owner-Occupancy

Even the above maps do not adequately show the level of spatial segregation faced by the city, especially in terms of class and race. An examination of block group level data from Census 2000 more fully reveals the extent of the problem. For instance, the average median household income in Durham’s poorest five blocks is $9,441, with a low of $4,545 in one block. Meanwhile, the wealthiest five blocks have an average median household income of $102,544, with a high of $162,716 in one block. In the poorest five blocks, whites make up 53 percent of the population, as opposed to 82 percent in the wealthiest five blocks. Meanwhile, the poverty rate varies from one percent or less in many Census blocks to over 40 percent in other Census blocks. Similarly, in terms of housing, some areas of the city have below 15 percent owneroccupancy rates, while other areas have owner-occupancy rates of 90 percent and above. Likewise, vacant properties, which are often breeding grounds for crime, are concentrated in

93

See http://www.ncsu.edu/news/dailyclips/0803/080103.htm. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

32

particular neighborhoods, including several areas in and around downtown. Vacancy rates exceed 15 percent in some areas of the city. 94 Crime is also concentrated in certain neighborhoods; often those neighborhoods that are the most segregated by race and income. The effect is that some neighborhoods, which include areas close to downtown, are truly dangerous and the perception of the city as a whole a high crime area plagues even safe neighborhoods. For instance, downtown is relatively safe, yet its reputation does not match reality.95 A 2000 survey by the Durham Convention and Visitor’s Bureau found that only 40 percent of Durham residents said they felt safe when downtown.96 In a 2003 newspaper column, Jim Wise offered an alternative view of downtown safety. He wrote: “Conventional wisdom holds that if you venture into downtown Durham after dark, you’ll get mugged. This, of course, is nonsense. There’s nobody down there to mug you.”97 In summary, the challenges that Durham faces—real and perceived—are all relevant to the revitalization efforts taking place downtown, especially if downtown hopes to attract the broadest possible range of individuals to live and work there. Present Regulatory and Policy Framework A variety of policies and programs exist that are intended to encourage investment by the private sector in downtown Durham. One of the most important tools that impacts revitalization in downtown Durham is the availability of federal and state historic tax credits, which cover 40 percent (20 percent each for federal and state) of the eligible costs of rehabilitating a designated historic site. For example, the first phase of West Village was made possible in large part due to the availability of these credits. According to developer Tom Niemann, the credits were “extremely important” to West Village’s first phase and also are a necessary component of the

94

Assembled from data available at http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/planning/pdf/demographics.pdf. The presence of the county jail towering over a prominent location downtown—across Mangum Street from the DBAP—does not help downtown’s image. Inset picture from the author’s own photos. 96 William Kalkhof, “Image doesn’t match reality in downtown.” The Herald-Sun, 10 August 2000, A14. 97 Jim Wise, “Culture Crawl a good reason to visit downtown.” The Herald-Sun, 21 November 2003, D4. 95

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

33

project’s second phase.98 Local tax incentives are also available to those investing in downtown. Specifically, renovation projects designated as historic landmarks by the city’s Historic Preservation Commission are eligible for the Durham Historic Landmark Property Tax Deferral program. As occurs in other jurisdictions across North Carolina, historic rehabilitation projects that qualify based on local guidelines are eligible to have their property taxes cut in half for the duration of their existence. The local government also provides direct grants and related support to encourage downtown investment. Most notably, a Downtown Revitalization Fund was established in fiscal year 2000-01 that sets aside 1 cent of the tax rate from all city property tax revenues.99 These funds can be tapped to support infrastructure projects, such as the city’s American Tobacco parking deck, or other projects that benefit downtown. The fact that the fund receives property tax revenues from across the city, and not just from downtown, is significant. This distinction separates Durham’s program from more typical tax increment finance (TIF) district approaches that set aside revenues solely based on expected increases in the valuation of property in a designated area. In total, Durham’s Downtown Revitalization Fund is equivalent to approximately 1.8 percent of the city’s budget appropriations in fiscal year 2005-06. Separate city funding sources are available beyond the Downtown Revitalization Fund. Downtown Durham Inc. administers a grant program on behalf of the city, which provides a dollar-for-dollar match up to $1,900 for façade improvements or repairs downtown or in a few other designated areas of the city near downtown.100 Also, the city administers an Economic Development Investment Fund, which provides up to three percent of the cost of any qualified 98

Anne Krishnan, “Plans for West Village II on track.” The Herald-Sun, 22 February 2005, A1. Inset photo is of part of the future West Village II and is from the author’s own collection. 99 Technically speaking the fund receives income from two areas: the incremental growth in property taxes related to the American Tobacco project and the difference between this incremental amount and whatever rate would make the combined total equal 1 cent on the city’s property tax rate. In the current budget, this is a rate of 0.9 cents of the tax rate because of $180,550 in incremental gains from American Tobacco. The fund also earns revenue from the American Tobacco parking garage. See http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/bms/05-06budget/V-32.pdf for a more detailed explanation. 100 See http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/facade_grants.cfm. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

34

capital expansion investment, as well as an additional three percent for projects that create at least 10 jobs, with money doled out over a ten year period provided all conditions are met; the program is available citywide. There is also a relatively new Merchandise-Based Business Incentive Program that provides support to qualified businesses within the downtown Loop and in several other areas of the city (but not covering all of downtown). The program provides up to $7,500 in dollar-for-dollar matching funds to support interior improvements to business, such as equipment or displays. Additional economic development incentives are available citywide, including incentives based on the number of jobs created by a new business or business expansion.101 Finally, the city offers substantially reduced impact fees for projects located downtown, with these fees typically less than one-fifth the amount of the fees levied for comparable projects elsewhere in the city.102 In addition to directly funding downtown improvements, the city offers two significant loan programs to stimulate investment. The Downtown and Commercial Revitalization Loans allow qualified investors to sell the city as much as 40 percent of the debt financing they have obtained from a commercial bank (up to $250,000); the city will then loan the same amount back to the investor at two percent below the prime rate. This program is only available downtown and in a select few areas near downtown. Opportunity loans are available to small business startups that are located within the designated Economic Development Zone, including downtown and many other parts of the city. These loans allow businesses to receive up to 30 percent of a total loan (up to $50,000) at the prime rate with interest only payments for two years or more.103 The city and county governments have provided millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements for projects that directly or indirectly benefit downtown projects. For example, in terms of direct infrastructure

101

See http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/pdf/business_incentive_policy.pdf for more detail on the above programs and information on other available incentives. 102 See http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/inspections/documents/fees_impact.pdf for detailed information on possible impact fees for different areas of the city. 103 See http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/loans.cfm. Inset picture is of infrastructure improvements on S. Corcoran Street and is from the author’s own collection. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

35

support of development efforts, the American Tobacco deal would have almost certainly fallen apart were it not for city and county funding of two large parking decks. Other forms of infrastructure improvement, such as general streetscape enhancements on existing roads, serve to indirectly support downtown development projects. In addition, the city oversees several thousand parking spaces in downtown, which are managed by Central Parking, a private company with whom the city has a contract. There are roughly 3,000 public spaces spread across four parking decks and several surface lots, most of which are rented on an hourly or monthly basis, in addition to more than 500 free on-street spaces.104 The role of the City/County Planning Department in providing regulatory standards for downtown is another area where the local government has an obvious impact on revitalization efforts. The basic zoning that covers downtown includes a variety of designations that are set forth in the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which took effect on January 1, 2006 and replaced separate zoning and subdivision ordinances. Most of downtown is zoned Central Business District (CBD), which generally allows for a wide range of land uses and site and building designs. The CBD designation “is intended to encourage intense development and pedestrian activity through a mixture of uses appropriate to the downtown area.” However, some parts of downtown are zoned with the following, somewhat more restrictive, designations: Residential Urban Multifamily (RU-M); Industrial Light (IL); Office and Institutional (OI); and Commercial General (CG).105 It is beyond the scope of this report to provide extensive detail on these zoning standards or the rest of the planning guidelines applicable to downtown, but two key components are as follows: •

A Historic District Overlay covers the area inside the downtown Loop and some land east of the Loop, and sets standards in these areas that go beyond those established for the rest of downtown. These standards are overseen by the Durham Historic Preservation Commission, which advises the City Council and fills a quasi-judicial role.106

•

Special design guidelines also apply to the rest of downtown, outside the historic district, in order to protect its unique history, architecture, and sense of place.107 A Design District Review Team examines site plans within three Downtown Design Overlay districts that surround the historic district, in order to ensure compliance. The Team includes eight individuals, with a mix of city employees from key departments and

104

See http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/general/parking.cfm. See http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/planning/pdf/udo_04.pdf. 106 See http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/planning/zoneord/Section5/561.cfm. 107 See http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/planning/zoneord/section5/54.cfm. 105

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

36

citizens.108 The design guidelines make specific reference to helping to “facilitate the goals for the Downtown Durham Master Plan,” where downtown is a “quality of life asset for the whole community.”109 The downtown guidelines include numerous specifics considerations related to architecture, site design, landscape, and streetscape. Finally, in terms of City/County Planning Department oversight, the above guidelines are all intended to fit with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Plan was adopted in February 2005 and seeks to establish long-range planning that will match what “citizens want our community to be in the future—how it will look, how it will work and how it will preserve what is special, while accommodating the growth we anticipate.”110 The Plan includes chapters devoted to historic preservation, housing, land use, public safety, schools, parks and recreation, and other areas. There is no specific chapter or subsection on downtown. Given that it is intended as an overarching plan for all of Durham, and given the existence of the Downtown Durham Master Plan, the lack of emphasis on downtown in the Comprehensive Plan appears reasonable. A final piece of the context within which downtown revitalization takes place is the separate downtown police district that was created in February 2001. District 5 was created in order to provide a unified police unit that focuses on downtown, and to emphasize bicycle patrols that increase officers’ visibility and interaction with citizens. The prior system for policing downtown drew upon two overlapping districts that had limited numbers of officers assigned to the downtown beat. Downtown Durham Inc. advocated for the district’s creation for several years, and upon its creation purchased 15 bicycles (at a cost of $1,200 apiece) for the officers. Downtown Durham Inc. also played a role in securing the location for the District 5 headquarters, which is expected to be built soon on Rigsbee Street. One of the primary reasons for the district’s creation was to overcome the pervasive image, as noted earlier, that downtown is unsafe. In fact, about one year after the district debuted, police captain Terry Mangum said, “Downtown had this reputation of being an unsafe place… we’ve been trying to dispel that impression.” At the time of the district’s creation, there was some public outcry that the new 108

See http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/planning/ddrt.cfm. Note that the three districts become increasingly more restrictive in terms of building heights and other standards as they move away from the historic district and toward adjacent neighborhoods. For instance, heights are limited to the lesser of 300 feet or 20 stories in DDO-1 and the lesser of 80 feet or 6 stories in DDO-2. Similarly, DDO-1 specifies a residential density of between 12 and 100 units per acre, while DDO-2 allows between 8 and 16 units per acre. With limited exceptions, the more restrictive DDO-3 lies outside of downtown as its boundaries are defined in this report. 109 City of Durham. City/County Planning Department. “Durham Design Guidelines.” Durham, NC: December 6, 2005, p1-2. See the document for a detailed list of applicable guidelines 110 “Durham Comprehensive Plan,” p1-1. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

37

district would be counterproductive and take police away from neighborhoods surrounding downtown. It remains unclear what the exact effects of the new district have been on law enforcement in other areas of the city, but the public outcry seems to have dissipated, aside from the more general desire for increased policing that pre-dates the formation of District 5.111

111

Aisling Swift, “Downtown patrol improves Durham’s image.” The News & Observer, 10 June 2002, B1. Also, “Downtown police unit will aid revitalization.” The Herald-Sun, 14 March 1999, A16. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

38

IV. Key Factors Behind Current Revitalization Efforts This section of the report builds upon the descriptive information provided in preceding sections to analyze some of the main factors associated with downtown Durham’s ongoing revitalization. Significant factors range from the national trend of a resurgence of interest in urban life to various localized efforts at revitalization specific to Durham. In terms of the nationwide interest in urban living, it is beyond the scope of this report to elaborate in detail regarding the factors that explain this fact, but it is worth noting that the trend is certainly playing out in Durham at present. Multiple interview respondents confirmed the importance of this trend, explaining that what is happening downtown is due in large part to market forces. In fact, Andy Rothschild noted that Durham is between “a half decade and a decade behind” other cities in terms of its emphasis on downtown and is only recently catching up.112 Now that the market for urban revitalization has become well recognized in Durham, the private sector has increasingly stepped in to meet the demand. As shown throughout this report, evidence of greater private investment in downtown Durham is abundant, and the rising price of real estate downtown is one sign. From 2003 to 2005, the average rental cost of a square foot of office space downtown rose from $14.39 to $16.92, an increase of more than 10 percent. The sale price of buildings downtown also has increased dramatically over the past few years.113 The Public Sector An essential factor that is often downplayed in accounts of downtown revitalization is the role of the public sector. As earlier sections of this report make clear, the public sector has been involved in efforts to revitalize downtown Durham for decades, and many of these initiatives have paid dividends in terms of rejuvenating downtown. Although some interview respondents stated that the public sector played little role in revitalization until very recently, the substantial investment in projects like the Civic Center, the Carolina Theatre, and the DBAP indicate that this characterization is not accurate. Still, it is true that public sector commitment to downtown Durham has increased dramatically over the last several years. The important role played by the public sector is demonstrated by the existing regulatory and policy framework detailed in the previous section of this report. The availability of public 112 113

Personal communication, March 15, 2006. Jim Wise, “Investors recognize value of downtown.” Durham News, 24 December 2005, A1. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

39

sector funding and other forms of support for downtown projects continues to be a major catalyst for revitalization. According to interview respondents, the most effective public sector strategies for catalyzing revitalization include: •

Funding for infrastructure creation, improvement, and maintenance downtown. Specific examples cited by respondents included parking garages, streets, sidewalks, plazas, and more. This category was mentioned by almost all respondents, and several respondents explained that it was the most important role for the public sector in terms of encouraging private investment in revitalization. Most respondents thought Durham had made major strides in this area in recent years, but also pointed out that ongoing upkeep is a key need that has too often been neglected.

•

The development oversight and approval process, ranging from zoning ordinances to building permits to implementation of design guidelines. Respondents frequently referred to the need to continue to improve city regulations, and to ensure that skilled staff are retained to implement these regulations. In general, respondents agreed that the best system would be one that is flexible enough to accommodate unique circumstances yet remains consistent and fair overall.

•

The availability of federal and state historic tax credits, as well as a wide range of local programs designed to attract development to downtown. Local programs designed to spur revitalization that were praised by respondents included loans, economic development incentives, grants, tax deferrals, and more. Two respondents expressed their view that small incentives, such as façade grants, had relatively little impact.

•

Increased visibility by District 5 police officers. Several respondents emphasized the need for more policing downtown, in order to overcome real and perceived crime so as to put downtown visitors at ease.

In addition to the topics listed above, one or more respondents discussed the importance of the public sector encouraging revitalization by: “preaching and supporting” downtown; ensuring that decisions fit within the framework of the master plan and other coherent visions of how downtown development should occur; investing in public transit; and avoiding policies and other decisions that promote “sprawl” in other parts of Durham. Multiple respondents also referred to the essential role played by public-private partnerships. Public-Private Partnerships As in numerous other cities, public-private partnerships have existed in Durham for decades, although they have taken different forms at different times. For example, Tarrant’s 1960 A Downtown Development Plan attempted to delineate public and private responsibilities— it emphasized the need for effective public sector involvement in areas such as the provision of

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

40

infrastructure and regulatory tools, and called for “private interests” to take the lead on other aspects of revitalization—and recommended that a “permanent Downtown Association” should be created to “assume the role of supporter, pusher, and watch dog” while implementing “a coordinated program of private activities.”114 Furthermore, the plan noted that some projects, such as a proposed development of the Parrish Street district, were natural fits for “combining public and private values.”115 A similar argument was used to justify the urban renewal program that changed the downtown landscape in the 1950s and 1960s, with public assembly of land parcels intended to result in private development of the sites. As in most cities, the recent focus of public-private partnerships in Durham has been on projects that are intended for economic development purposes.116 Public-private partnerships in Durham over the past several years have been closely coordinated with private developers from the outset and have attempted to avoid needless investment by the public sector. For instance, when he was Durham’s city manager in the late 1990s, Lamont Ewell emphasized the public sector’s move away from urban renewal-style investment in the hope that private investment would follow. He explained the city’s philosophy toward subsidizing private sector development by saying, “The city will not get involved in things on speculation. It’s all predicated on that.”117 Today the public sector continues to follow this approach to partnerships, with an emphasis on supporting projects that will happen, rather than those that may happen. Still, identifying the appropriate public sector role in terms of partnering with the private sector is not simple. Careful attention must be paid to ensure that the public sector is a willing partner in downtown development without allowing private interests to dominate the agenda (after all, there is a reason that the public sector is listed first in the phrase “public-private partnerships”). The proper balance of private and public interests is difficult to achieve—such a balance is “very delicate, an art,” as Alan DeLisle describes it—but can be made possible by ensuring that key public sector values like transparency, accountability, and citizen input are taken into account

114

Tarrant, p33. This role sounds remarkably similar to that played by DDI today, although the plan did not suggest providing public funding to the organization. 115 Tarrant, p34. 116 Mary Beth Corrigan, et al. “Ten Principles for Successful Public/Private Partnerships.” Washington, D.C.: ULIThe Urban Land Institute, 2005, iv. 117 J. Andrew Curliss, “Downtown plan near debut.” The News & Observer, 28 March 2000, A1. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

41

during all aspects of partnership.118 In short, since the days of urban renewal, Durham has made great strides in these areas but more work remains. Effective public-private partnerships cannot be sustained over the long-term without political support for such efforts. Indeed, political support has been an essential factor in Durham’s revitalization efforts, in particular from members of the City Council. According to Behind every successful campaign of this kind [downtown revitalization] are enlightened, energetic elected and business leaders who push the vision publicly and also do the gritty, behindthe-scenes spadework. -Editorial in The News & Observer, 1999

interview respondents, the level of support from elected officials for revitalization has varied significantly over the years, but has played a key role in advocating and authorizing the sort of public-private partnerships that have catalyzed Durham’s

ongoing revitalization. In recent years, including the time period around when the public subsidy for the American Tobacco project was being discussed, numerous local elected officials have emphasized the importance of downtown to the community as a whole. For instance, Mayor Bill Bell’s February 7, 2005 “State of the City” address devoted a substantial amount of text to what he termed “downtown Durham’s rejuvenation.”119 Similarly, several former mayors publicly supported a recent $110 million bond package that included funds dedicated to revitalization by writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper.120 Also, direct support for public-private partnerships in the form of the incentives and other policies described previously are made available with the blessing of elected officials. Still, one private sector respondent said that the city needs to increase its pursuit of public-private partnerships; he said such partnerships are “positive today but not nearly as aggressively positive as they could be.” Of course, political support in the form of policies and praise from elected officials does not always reflect widespread citizen support. In the past, political support has at times extended beyond what it appeared the public would support. For example, as described earlier in this report, the DBAP financing deal was rejected when proposed to voters as a bond referendum. In retrospect, the DBAP project appears to have been instrumental in sparking future private investment downtown, but it was by no means a popularly supported project at the time. Such 118

Personal communication, March 13, 2006. Bill Bell, “The state of the city: Crime and the economy,” The Herald-Sun, February 13, 2005, A13. Quote in the text box comes from “Finally, out of the loop.” The News & Observer, 6 October 1999, A18. 120 Wib Gulley, et al. “Former mayors support the $110 million bonds,” The Herald-Sun, 3 November 2005, A6. 119

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

42

examples raise a tricky question as to the proper line between strong leadership and ignoring the will of the people. Such questions continue to be valid today. In fact, a 2005 poll by The News & Observer found that 49 percent of Durham residents believed “the city spends too much effort and money on downtown.”121 At minimum such poll results suggest that city leaders must do a better job at educating citizens as to why revitalizing downtown serves the public interest. Other Key Organizations Local governments and private developers are not the only key players in downtown revitalization. Support for revitalization also can be generated by a wide range of groups that are interested in pursuing particular policies or programs. Most notably, Downtown Durham Inc. (DDI) has played a major role in revitalization, in part through garnering both private sector and public sector support for downtown. Since its inception in 1993, and under the leadership of its only president, Bill Kalkhof, DDI has tried to focus the city’s attention on downtown.122 Although the organization is not without critics, who contend that it caters mainly to large business interests and pays too little attention to the interests of small businesses and ordinary citizens, it is clear that DDI has helped to facilitate (and in many cases spearhead) numerous initiatives to attract businesses and residents to downtown. DDI has also successfully advocated for improved government services in downtown, including public works and policing. DDI is a 501(c)6 non-profit organization that was originally formed through a publicprivate partnership and continues to carry the banner for such partnerships. DDI was founded with $50,000 in start-up money from private donors and the same amount in matching funds from the public sector, in order to get the organization off the ground. Early in its existence, DDI emphasized a primary goal of attracting jobs to downtown, with less emphasis on other issues. In 1993, Bill Kalkhof said, “If there are jobs, the other problems—most notably crime— will take care of themselves.”123 Over the years, DDI has expanded its view of what issues to emphasize, including advocating for the recently created downtown police district and helping to raise awareness of residential opportunities downtown. Currently DDI’s formal mission is to: “Create an environment for private development in Downtown Durham by focusing our efforts 121

Richard Stradling, “Poll casts wary eye on downtown push.” The News & Observer, 2 March 2005, A1. Bob Williams, “Bull City booster Kalkhof named to head new Downtown Durham,” The News & Observer, 25 February 1993, C6. 123 Williams. 122

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

43

in five main project areas: Economic Development; Parking; Appearance; Safety; Promotion.”124 DDI public and private funding to carry out its objective of having its staff “serve as a catalyst for downtown revitalization.”125 More broadly, Bill Kalkhof characterizes DDI’s focus as “making and keeping downtown a community priority.”126 As evidence of the organization’s effectiveness in carrying out its agenda, the Downtown Durham Master Plan came about in large part due to DDI’s advocacy and included many of the specific ideas that DDI desired. In 2005, DDI’s leading sources of funding—all donating at least $5,000—included Capitol Broadcasting (owned by American Tobacco developer Jim Goodmon), SunTrust (which occupies downtown’s most visible skyscraper), Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse (leading phase two of the American Tobacco rehabilitation), and three other large businesses, along with the city and county governments. The city is historically DDI’s largest sponsor, and has provided $134,027 per year in general operating support for each of the past three years, in addition to funding the façade grant program and other special projects administered by DDI.127 Dozens of other organizations and individuals provided contributions to DDI during 2005.128 Not surprisingly, given DDI’s mission and its proven clout, the roll of donors reads like a who’s who list of major players in the downtown revitalization scene. DDI’s Board of Directors features equally prominent names, including representatives of large businesses, developers, and architects who work downtown, as well as representatives of the media, the arts community, Duke University and North Carolina Central University, the Self-Help Credit Union, the Chamber of Commerce, Durham Central Park, the city, and the county. Notably, only one board member is listed as an unaffiliated downtown resident, Caleb Southern, and he is active with the Arts & Business Coalition of Downtown, as well as the Planning Commission.129 The composition of the board is one of the reasons behind the contention from critics that DDI is too focused on corporate interests and large-scale projects, at the expense of other strategies for revitalizing downtown. For example, neighborhood activist John Schelp describes 124

See http://www.downtowndurham.com/About_DDI.3.0.html. See the April 11, 1999 guest column by John Mallard and William Kalkhof, entitled “Downtown Durham’s next phase,” on page A17 of The Herald-Sun for examples of DDI’s priorities that made their way into the plan. 126 Personal communication, March 3, 2006. 127 City of Durham. Budget and Management Services. Personal communication with budget staff, April 18, 2006. The additional funds provided to DDI by the City of Durham have averaged $9,258 over the past three years, and have been used primarily for façade grants. 128 See http://www.downtowndurham.com/fileadmin/ddi/pdf/DDIAnnualReport2005.pdf. 129 See http://www.downtowndurham.com/DDI_Board.9.0.html. 125

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

44

DDI and the city’s “love affair” with large, corporate-led redevelopment projects like American Tobacco. He contrasts the city’s significant public investment in infrastructure and incentives to support projects like American Tobacco with the relative lack of investment inside the downtown Loop. In fairness, Bill Kalkhof has explained that DDI’s strategy is to utilize the momentum generated from projects like American Tobacco and West Village to generate a “critical mass” of interest in downtown that will extend to the area inside the Loop, especially once the city’s initial infrastructure improvements to the area are complete.130 Critics also argue that DDI is too narrowly focused on downtown without paying attention to surrounding neighborhoods and other commercial districts in Durham. For example, Schelp contrasts the investment in big projects downtown with the recently announced neighborhood revitalization fund that makes a total of $250,000 per year available to eligible projects in designated areas near downtown.131 Schelp has also voiced concerns over past DDI attempts to recruit businesses located in other parts of the city whose leases are running out to move to downtown, characterizing such efforts as “cannibalizing existing Durham businesses.”132 Critics also describe what they believe to be a conflict of interest between DDI receiving public funding and its role in advocating for new programs and services downtown. Although DDI is not alone in terms of being a non-profit that receives public sector support and advocates for issues it cares about, DDI does appear to wield a significant amount of influence with business leaders and elected officials. Whether DDI’s high level of influence is deemed problematic or a sign of its effectiveness as an organization is open to debate, but regardless criticisms such as those listed above warrant serious consideration. At minimum, it would seem wise for DDI to add several downtown/nearby neighborhood residents and community activists to their board, in order to broaden the range of perspectives (and to counter criticism that it caters to large corporate interests). Advocates of affordable housing, community development, education, or other such issues would also appear to be good additions to the board. Likewise, additional representation from Durham’s small business community would seem a wise strategy.

130

Personal communication, March 3, 2006. Also, see Bill Kalkhof, “Signs of life stirring inside ‘the Loop.’” The Herald-Sun, 9 May 2004, A11. 131 Personal communication, March 17, 2006. Also, see City of Durham press release, “City of Durham Begins Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization Process.” Durham, NC: February 3, 2006. 132 John Schelp, “American Tobacco gets lion’s share of subsidies.” The Herald-Sun, 19 June 2005, A11. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

45

Although no other group has played as central a role in downtown revitalization as DDI, Durham contains a rich mix of organizations that are actively involved in ongoing revitalization efforts. For instance, the Historic Preservation Society of Durham (HPSD) has been in existence since 1974 and has been a leader in getting others to recognize the benefits of capitalizing on the city’s historic architecture. HPSD has played a number of roles in terms of downtown revitalization over the past few decades, including that of advocate and educator. The Durham Arts Council has also been around for decades— originally founded in 1954 under a different name—and promotes the arts by offering a wide variety of classes and events programming for the public, as well as direct grants to artists, from its location in a prominent city-owned building in the heart of downtown.133 Much more recently, in 2003, the Arts and Business Coalition of Downtown (ABCD), was established to “promote the creation of an economically diverse and culturally vibrant community in downtown Durham in which to work and live.”134 One of ABCD’s roles is to promote the interests of small businesses, artists, and residents in and near downtown, and it was an important voice in leading public opposition to the city’s original plans for the Durham Performing Arts Center.135 Another group that has emerged recently is Durham Central Park, Inc., the group overseeing development of the park by the same name near the DAP through a partnership with the city’s Parks and Recreation Department. In addition to the advocacy-type groups described above, downtown revitalization has been affected significantly by the location of the non-profit Center for Community Self-Help’s headquarters in downtown Durham. The Center for Community Self-Help, along with the Self-Help Credit Union and its other affiliates, is a nationally recognized organization focused on community development through enabling 133

See http://www.durhamarts.org/aboutus.html, which is the source of the inset Arts Council photo to the left. From ABCD’s mission statement, which is available at http://www.abcddurham.com/aboutabcd.htm. 135 The city substantially revised its original plans in the face of public outcry. Inset photo at the bottom right of the page is of the Bull City Business Center and is from the author’s own collection. 134

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

46

underserved populations to access financing for business and residential purposes. In addition to serving as a financing resource to individuals in Durham, Self-Help has invested heavily in downtown real estate, including ownership and rehabilitation of multiple buildings downtown that it has turned into affordable office space targeted toward non-profit organizations.136 The Bull City Business Center, pictured on the previous page, is one such project and houses DDI, among other tenants.137 The Private Sector Finally, sustained downtown revitalization is not possible without the independent involvement of the private sector. Though the public sector can help spark revitalization through public-private partnerships, leadership, oversight, and direct investment in downtown infrastructure and other projects, these efforts can only go so far without private investment. For instance, the public sector’s success in downtown Durham in the 1980s (Carolina Theatre, etc.) stalled when the investment did not lead to widespread private investment. The public investment paid some short-term dividends and helped set the stage for present day private sector investment, but the increased private sector participant in downtown development is the key difference today. In the words of Caleb Southern, despite the important role of the public sector it is the private sector that “ultimately will make or break downtown.”138 Nonetheless, it is worth reiterating that much of the private investment downtown, especially for the largest and most visible projects, would not have occurred without public sector support in the form of tax credits, infrastructure investment, and other incentives.

136

See http://www.self-help.org/aboutus/index.asp. See http://www.businessleader.com/bl/may96/dreams2.html. 138 Personal communication, March 15, 2006. 137

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

47

V. Lessons Learned from Revitalization This section of the report identifies the key lessons learned from past and present downtown revitalization efforts in Durham, with an emphasis on the views of interview respondents. This section builds on the broader view of factors that have shaped downtown revitalization in Durham, as described in the previous section of this report. Revitalization Takes Time and Can Move Too Fast One of the primary lessons upon which most respondents agreed was that downtown revitalization occurs over many years. For instance, Bill Kalkhof frequently refers to revitalization as “a journey” rather than “an event.” This is a theme that he has emphasized since the beginning of his tenure with DDI. Even during his first year on the job, Kalkhof urged observers to have patience, saying that visible signs of progress might not be apparent for several years.139 Similarly, Andy Rothschild said one of the biggest lessons he had learned is that revitalization is “harder than it looks and takes longer than you’ve planned for.” Other individuals who were interviewed for this report agreed that a long-term approach is needed. For instance, respondents pointed out that the investment in facilities like the Carolina Theatre and the DBAP took time to generate momentum. In recent years, momentum has built more swiftly, in part because the cumulative total of investments recently reached what some respondents referred to as “critical mass” or “a tipping point” that has triggered accelerated interest in downtown. Despite the momentum, most respondents agreed that downtown still needs a champion to keep downtown “front and center” in the minds of elected officials, city staff, developers, and ordinary citizens alike. In addition to emphasizing that revitalization takes time and requires consistent focus and patience, several respondents said that rapid redevelopment is not necessarily a desirable goal. As John Compton explained, downtown revitalization can harm itself if it occurs too quickly, and the ideal is to continually move forward but not “evolve too fast.” Another respondent expressed similar views, and said he prefers “growth with deeper roots,” which he believes is more sustainable in the long-run. Likewise, although he was generally satisfied with downtown’s progress, Caleb Southern warned that he has seen some evidence of revitalization

139

Williams. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

48

efforts “trying to go from zero to gentrification in two seconds flat.” Southern seeks a “more organic, gradual” grassroots process that revitalizes downtown largely through small businesses that fit with Durham’s distinct history and culture. Quality is Key in Downtown and Elsewhere Expressing some similar views to those described above, in terms of the need to avoid excessively swift revitalization, several respondents emphasized the need for focusing on quality. For example, John Warasila characterized downtown as a “scarce resource” that must be used wisely. He urged public and private sector leaders to “be flexible and let the market help define” what projects should be pursued, but also to “demand excellence” in the projects they pursue. Similarly, John Compton noted that low quality projects contribute to a loss of character and a diminishment to downtown’s sense of place. Some respondents also made the connection between downtown revitalization and the sorts of development taking place in other parts of Durham. Referring to the unchecked suburban growth pattern outside of the established neighborhoods near downtown, one respondent said, “The manner in which we have developed has made it much harder to revitalize downtown.” Another respondent was more specific, noting that “If you make it easy to build big new subdivisions far from downtown, that is not positive for downtown.” In other words, quality development is needed throughout the region, not just in the center of the city. Quality development can be initiated by representatives of the private sector but public sector involvement is critical, especially in terms of establishing appropriate guidelines for growth and then seeing to it that such guidelines are followed. The Public Sector Has a Major Role to Play As prior sections of this report have explained, the public sector has played a significant role in downtown revitalization efforts for many years. Respondents agreed that the public sector should continue to actively seek the rejuvenation of downtown Durham, and offered various opinions as to particular means of pursuing this agenda. All respondents agreed that providing and maintaining infrastructure like streets, sidewalks and parking spaces was an essential responsibility of the public sector. Respondents also agreed that the public sector, especially elected officials, should help to promote downtown by educating citizens about its importance to the whole community. A few respondents pointed out that many citizens continue

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

49

to have a poor view of downtown, and cited awareness as a key means of overcoming these negative perceptions. Respondents also agreed that provision of quality services, from education to policing to keeping the streets clean, is an essential role of the public sector. Some respondents added that they had learned that consistent and fair regulations, implemented by well-trained public administrators, were the best tool to encourage growth downtown. There was more disagreement among respondents in terms of how much direct investment the public sector should make in downtown. All respondents believed that incentives and other policies encouraging downtown development were acceptable, but some supported more large-scale project subsidies whereas other believed subsidies should be primarily in the form of small business incentives. In addition, a few respondents suggested that the public sector’s primary role should be overseeing development and making sure that it occurs in a coordinated manner that makes room for public input. Finally, multiple respondents noted that the public sector must be open and accountable to its citizens, since it has tended to run into problems when it has strayed from these values.140

140

Inset photo is off infrastructure improvements inside the downtown Loop and is from the author’s own collection. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

50

VI. Future Outlook for Downtown Durham As Section III of this report—Downtown Durham Today: The Climate for Revitalization—made clear, there is a large amount of ongoing investment in downtown from both the public and private sectors. The effects of this investment have already been significant, in terms of increases in the amount of tax revenue, the number of workers and residents inhabiting downtown, and other indicators. Even more visible signs of downtown revitalization include the changes that have occurred as formerly vacant buildings have been brought back to life. But what does the future have in store for downtown Durham? This section of the report assesses the prospects for downtown revitalization in Durham in the years ahead, with an eye toward both facilitating factors and barriers that downtown may face. A Vision for Downtown Durham Before examining specific reasons for optimism or concern regarding future revitalization efforts in downtown Durham, it is worth describing the interview respondents’ hopes for the area. Though there was not one unified vision for downtown, there were no major conflicts among the individual visions that respondents shared. Among the items that respondents repeatedly said they would consider indications of a successful downtown were: •

Activity on the streets and sidewalks at all hours of the day and on every day of the week. o Diane Catotti explained her vision by saying, “In the broadest sense, it would be an active, well populated, vibrant downtown.”

•

Buildings that contain a mix of retail, restaurants, offices, residences, and other uses. o There should be a mix of local businesses and regional or national businesses.

•

Businesses that cater to residents of downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, as well as businesses that attract people from across the city and region. o John Warasila wants downtown to be “a fun place to be… a center for innovation.”

•

A wide range of jobs for people with different levels of education and sets of skills.

•

A system of streets easily navigated by cars and a network of sidewalks easily navigated by pedestrians.

•

Increased tax revenue that makes downtown a major asset to the city as a whole.

•

A better image for downtown and, in turn, a more positive image for Durham overall.

•

A diverse racial and socioeconomic mix, in terms of who lives downtown, who works there, and who visits it.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

51

•

Improved quality of life for all citizens in and around downtown, including a reduction in the unemployment and poverty rates of adjacent neighborhoods. o Tom Niemann says of Durham, “It can’t become a world class city if we don’t take care of those that are the least fortunate.”

•

The presence of creative class individuals, including artists. o Alan DeLisle described a need to not lose sight of “the arts community that [helps] make Durham a special place.”

•

Residential options that appeal to people of all different ages, and to singles, couples, and families with children alike.

•

A wide range of housing types at different price points, including both affordable housing and luxury units.

•

Quality architecture that emphasizes adaptive reuse where possible.

•

A revitalization process that is influenced by citizen input and that seeks to benefit the community as a whole.

•

Improved transit options, including local services like the Durham Area Transit Authority buses and services aimed at connecting downtown with regional destinations.

The comments presented above are in line with many of the themes laid out in the Downtown Durham Master Plan. Respondents were generally complimentary toward this document, saying it helped lay out a shared community vision for downtown. However, some respondents indicated that the plan would soon need an update to keep it relevant, given the pace of redevelopment since it was completed in 1999.141 Reasons for Optimism Observers of downtown revitalization efforts in Durham have many reasons to believe that a vision similar to that described above and in the Downtown Durham Master Plan is achievable. Without going into detail regarding the potential for each aspect of this vision to

141

Inset picture is off Bay 5 of American Tobacco, and is from the author’s own collection. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

52

materialize, some of the general reasons for optimism regarding downtown’s revitalization include the following: •

Downtown has a distinct sense of place and a rich history.

•

Downtown includes many assets that will help to drive further revitalization, from the library to the Carolina Theatre to the DBAP to American Tobacco to West Village to the numerous city and county government offices.

•

There are multiple successful non-profit organizations that operate out of downtown, and help fulfill a role that complements that of the public and private sector. Such groups range from the Center for Community Self-Help to the Arts Center to Durham Central Park to Urban Ministries (a shelter that provides meals and other services).

•

Though not without some continued opposition, Downtown Durham Inc. has established itself as a leader that continues to successfully advocate for downtown.

•

The current City Council has put downtown on its agenda and appears committed to continuing to support revitalization. Likewise, city services—from public works to policing—have improved downtown.

•

A diverse range of events take place downtown and draw people to Durham from across the region, including CenterFest, Bimbe Cultural Arts Festival, World Beer Festival, FullFrame Documentary Film Festival, and more.

•

Unlike some cities’ downtowns, Durham’s has room to grow in terms of existing vacant buildings and lots scattered around downtown.

•

The private sector has shown a great deal of interest in downtown, and thus far their investments have revealed significant demand for downtown living and working.

•

Downtown is currently undergoing a period of public and private investment that has not been seen in decades, and the partnerships between the public and private sectors appear to be benefiting both parties and generating results.

There are surely many other reasons for optimism in addition to those listed above, but these items provide a sense of the range of positive aspects upon which Durham has to build. Of course, as the section below explains, there are also reasons for concern, and some of these issues represent the flipside of the reasons for optimism detailed here. Reasons for Concern Although there is significant momentum behind continued downtown revitalization that is in line with much of the vision articulated above, Durham continues to face numerous challenges. Among the challenges standing in the way of downtown revitalization that achieves the vision described above and in the Downtown Durham Master Plan are the following:

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

53

•

Support for revitalization from elected officials may dissipate as the composition of the City Council changes over time, especially if citizens do not become convinced that downtown revitalization is important to the city as a whole.

•

Downtown has few remaining options for large-scale adaptive reuse projects, as the existing stock of historic architecture that remains vacant or underutilized is mostly in smaller buildings and sites.

•

Thus far most of the action downtown has been in the area of adaptive reuse rather than new construction, and even the supply of usable small buildings is not endless. There appears to be demand for new construction downtown, but such projects are unproven.

•

The presence of vacant lots downtown represents an opportunity in the sense of developable land, but also poses a significant challenge. Many vacant lots are concentrated in areas that have been depressed for years and are riskier for investors.

•

The Durham Freeway and the Loop remain significant physical and psychological barriers that contribute to what one respondent described as a “disjointed” downtown.

•

Several neighborhoods adjacent to and nearby downtown feature a housing stock that is in dilapidated condition and face a multitude of social challenges—poverty, crime, and unemployment to name a few. Thus far, revitalization efforts led by the city, private sector, and non-profit groups have not adequately addressed nearby neighborhood needs, despite their impact on downtown.142

•

As downtown continues to grow, there will likely be pressure on surrounding neighborhoods in the form of gentrification. It will be to Durham’s advantage to attempt to restore and improve dilapidated neighborhoods yet at the same time to avoid the displacement of low-income households that often accompanies such efforts.

•

Artists have set up residences and studios in downtown, in large part due to the low rents charged by the owners of many older buildings. As market demand for downtown real estate continues to grow, artists and other residents/businesses downtown will encounter difficulty affording to stay downtown. John Schelp notes that downtown is already “transitioning from starving artists to upscale apartments and luxury condominiums.”

•

The current residential projects underway downtown are aimed at a fairly wealthy segment of the population. The creation of affordable housing—to low-income and middle class households alike—has not been part of ongoing revitalization efforts, which puts downtown in jeopardy of becoming one-dimensional in its residential sector. As

142

For more details on adjacent neighborhoods, see the recently completed economic assessment of the Northeast Central Durham/Old Five Points and Fayetteville Street Corridor areas at http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/ eed/pdf/rkg_study.pdf. Inset photo is off a vacant lot near the DBAP and is from the author’s own collection. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

54

Alan DeLisle said, “There will need to be a conscious effort by the private and public sector to maintain affordability.” •

As downtown real estate continues to grow more valuable, speculation on the part of property owners will likely occur. Proponents of revitalization will need to figure out how to contend with this speculation, whether by seeking compromise or by simply hoping the real estate “bubble will pop” before long, as one respondent predicted.

•

Although there have been signs of major changes inside the Loop, the area along Main Street and nearby areas is “still moribund,” as one respondent described it. Most of the public and private investment thus far has gone toward other sections of downtown. Given the historical and geographical importance of the area inside the Loop, this situation must change for revitalization to be considered a success.143

•

One of the most significant players in downtown revitalization, Downtown Durham Inc. has been described by some observers as a “good old boys network” that influences downtown with “a pretty big club,” in terms of its connections to the private sector and to city government. Of course, having a sometimes controversial organization at the helm of revitalization efforts is not necessarily unusual or bad.

•

The outlook for the retail sector remains a concern for many interested in downtown revitalization. For instance, longstanding downtown merchant Richard Morgan said, “I have my doubts about retail until we get a lot more people living downtown.”144

•

The question of whether the Triangle Transit Authority will succeed in bringing commuter rail to the region remains unanswered. Although the possible rail expansion is not required for downtown to thrive, it would certainly be a positive factor.

•

The public sector has a mixed track record in terms of running an open and accountable operation. One respondent stated that city and county staff operate in “an environment driven by fear,” and that this poses a challenge to attracting and retaining the best staff.

•

Beyond downtown itself, Durham faces many challenging issues, including a public school system in need of improvement, and relatively high crime and poverty rates. These sorts of overarching issues have a strong impact on downtown’s potential. Finally, the public and private sectors have not always sought or heeded the input of

ordinary citizens. Ultimately, it is the citizens themselves who have the most at stake during efforts at downtown revitalization, and their continued input and support is critical. 143 144

Inset photo is off a plaza redevelopment project inside the downtown Loop. Zimmer “Upward bound downtown.” Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

55

A Realistic Assessment of Downtown Where do all of the above considerations leave us? First of all, investment by the public sector and private sector, and the political support of citizens themselves, can help drive revitalization, but the market itself will have a tremendous impact on downtown’s future. The qualitative nature of the research utilized for this report does not lend itself to speculation about the future market for downtown, but common sense indicates that even if long-term interest in downtown occurs, there are limits to its growth. Although some interview respondents envisioned downtown reasserting itself as the heart and soul of Durham, they remained realistic about the overall role that downtown could play. Bill Kalkhof explained that downtown could one day be considered a success even though it “will never be the one center of town again.”145 His comments echo a view he articulated six years prior, when he said, “I think downtown will be one of the significant districts in Durham, just like RTP and South Square are and Southpoint mall will be.”146 In this day and age, continuing to reestablish downtown as one of Durham’s primary assets and a place worth visiting would indeed represent an accomplishment in itself, even if downtown never again becomes the focal point it once was. Also, unlike other areas of Durham, downtown’s rich history and status as the governmental (and emerging entertainment) center of the city means the cultural importance of downtown remains significant and is positioned to increase in the future.

145 146

Personal communication, March 3, 2006 Richard Stradling, “Downtown turns the page.” The Chapel Hill News, 22 June 2000, B1. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

56

VII. Recommendations This section of the report presents a series of recommendations for current and future downtown revitalization efforts. It is important for the reader to understand that these recommendations come in part from respondents’ views, but they are largely the opinion of the author based on his analysis of the information presented throughout the rest of this report. Also, the recommendations are not intended as a “how-to” guide to achieving the complex goals inherent in any revitalization effort. Rather, they are intended to raise awareness of the range of important issues that deserve further consideration by Durham’s leaders—in the public and private sectors—and by the public at-large. Public-Private Partnerships and Business Improvement Districts Public-private partnerships are perhaps the defining feature of Durham’s ongoing downtown revitalization efforts. Such partnerships deserve special attention because, as a recent report by the Urban Land Institute suggests, in the future “partnerships between public and private entities will become increasingly permanent and comprehensive in nature.”147 The role of public-private partnerships will continue to be essential to downtown Durham’s revitalization, but exactly how such partnerships will evolve is less clear. Depending largely on political factors, the degree to which Durham continues its recent practice of providing large-scale support to downtown projects through infrastructure and other subsidies may well decline. If so, the public sector will need to identify other means of asserting its voice as to how private projects should unfold while at the same time keeping its processes from becoming overly cumbersome for private investors. Creating new incentives programs—or providing additional support to existing programs to expand their reach—is one possible strategy along these lines. Also, the city must continue to work to ensure that public-private partnerships are conducted as part of a transparent process that involves other stakeholders, including ordinary citizens. In addition, the city should review the effectiveness of such partnerships on a regular basis to ensure that its objectives are being met. Such an approach will help to ensure that revitalization does not become—or appear to become—dominated by private interests.148

147

Corrigan, et al., vi. For more details on how to ensure that Durham utilizes best practices in its public-private partnerships, see Corrigan, et al., “Ten Principles for Successful Public/Private Partnerships.” 148

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

57

As the public sector decides what sort of support to provide private projects downtown, one issue that will surely resurface is whether to create a business improvement district (BID). BIDs are districts where property owners consent to self-impose a higher tax rate in exchange for the excess money being channeled into projects of direct benefit to the area. For instance, funds may be used to pay for more frequent street sweeping or additional safety patrols. DDI has advocated for the creation of a BID in the past—including during a 2003 guided trip to Richmond, Virginia for city leaders to see one in action—and it seems likely that the idea will resurface in the future.149 Whether such a proposal would get the necessary support from downtown property owners is uncertain, and it would certainly raise concerns over equity, especially for small businesses that may not have the profit margin to afford additional taxes. Also, proponents of such a plan would need to find a way to contend with the fact that the city and county own a significant amount of tax-exempt land downtown so would theoretically be able to benefit from the BID without contributing to it. Reflecting upon the future role of public-private partnerships and the possibility of instituting a BID are two of the main issues facing downtown Durham today. Other important issues to address are detailed below, and are grouped by the stakeholder group they target—the public sector or all sectors. Key Issues for the Public Sector to Consider Some recommendations relate to issues affecting downtown revitalization that are particularly pertinent to the public sector, given the crucial role it plays in overseeing and guiding redevelopment of downtown. These recommendations have been loosely divided into three areas—efficiency, equity, and effectiveness—and are presented below. Efficiency One of the universal goals of the public sector is too obtain the best results possible given limited resources. Thus, it would be wise to consider the recommendations listed below. 149

Ben Evans, “Durham reps eye downtown Richmond.” The Herald-Sun, 16 October 2003. B1. Inset photo is of one of several government buildings located in the heart of downtown, and comes from the author’s own collection. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

58

! Ensure that public investments are directed toward projects that are relatively sure deals, rather than committing funds to projects that may not occur. The public sector has largely followed this model in recent years, and it should continue to increase the returns on its investment by requiring a greater private-public fund match as revitalization momentum builds. ! Consider whether the existing 50 percent property tax abatement program should be continued in its current form, or whether criteria should be adjusted (consistent with state law) to limit the incentive’s use to projects that truly require it to get off the ground. Otherwise, the city risks jeopardizing its long-term fiscal health by allowing some of its most valuable properties to pay reduced taxes in perpetuity. ! Pause before bowing to pressure to build new parking lots. In particular, consider implementing creative solutions that limit the need for heavy investment in new parking decks. For example, consider a tiered-pricing scheme that creates cost breaks for customers to park on upper decks or in other undesirable spaces, thus freeing street-level spaces. Similarly, on-street parking should be metered or timed to encourage turnover. ! Consider adopting more flexible approaches to regulation of downtown development that focuses on key priorities without constricting creativity on the part of the private sector. Form-based codes are one option that municipalities across the nation are considering. ! Better track data on downtown revitalization, with a focus on the returns on public sector investments in terms of property tax revenues, quality of life improvements, and more. Finally, the public sector must develop a unified vision for downtown through development and administration of consistent policies. The fact that differences exist between the boundaries and plans for downtown as laid out in the Downtown Durham Master Plan and those contained in Planning Department documents indicates that more must be done in terms of consistency. Equity In addition to spending resources wisely, the public sector has an obligation to consider issues of fairness, including making sure that its investments benefit all parts of the community. Therefore, the public sector should: ! Seize the current momentum behind revitalizing downtown to get ahead of the curve in addressing looming issues, such as the prospect of gentrification in adjoining neighborhoods and the lack of affordable housing in downtown itself. It will only become more difficult to address such issues in the future, if they are put on the back burner until they become unavoidable. ! Put in place an inclusionary zoning policy that mixes mandates with incentives, in order to ensure that housing developments include a mix of units. Currently, the residential market in downtown Durham is expensive and most of the new units on the horizon will be even less affordable. A narrow residential market hurts downtown.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

59

! Evaluate the successes and remaining challenges noted in the Downtown Durham Master Plan and consider updating it within a few years, in order to ensure that a unified vision for downtown is carried forward as the pace of revitalization continues to accelerate. ! Consider the broad spectrum of issues that relate to downtown revitalization indirectly, such as a sprawling pattern of commercial and residential growth in outlying areas of the city and county, challenges faced by the educational system, crime prevention, and more. Although far easier said than done, making progress in areas such as these will make downtown a more attractive area in which to invest and in which to live. ! Carefully consider the public sector’s relationship with Downtown Durham Inc., with a focus on the role the organization plays in advocating for increased public sector investment in downtown, to assess whether there are conflicts of interest or whether such a role is appropriate given the lack of public agencies that focus solely on downtown. ! Recognize that existing businesses and residents are essential to continued revitalization efforts, and that the changing market will likely result in pressure that could force some to relocate. Some of this pressure is natural and cannot be avoided, but the public sector should try to retain as many of downtown’s indigenous businesses/residents as possible. Finally, the city should consider establishing a citizens’ advisory committee with a specific focus on downtown issues, in order to increase citizen oversight and involvement in the downtown revitalization process. Such a committee could help serve as a conduit between the public atlarge and the government, and could raise new issues for the public sector to consider. Effectiveness Ultimately, the attention paid by the public sector to efficiency and equity must be matched by an ability to achieve results. Among the considerations that may help in this regard are the following: ! Recognize that carrots in the form of incentives to draw investment downtown must be matched with sticks in the form of regulations elsewhere in Durham, in order to guide growth toward infill projects and other projects that help sustain downtown and surrounding areas. ! Continue to set aside funding for future investment in downtown, in terms of capital improvements, incentives funds, and any other funding expected to be needed. ! Consider whether current incentives programs are sufficient to attract new construction, in addition to the sorts of adaptive reuse projects that have thus far been downtown’s bread and butter. As attractive sites for adaptive reuse are utilized, the city must work with the private sector to ensure that investment continues in other parts of downtown, especially in long-vacant areas of town such as those cleared during urban renewal. ! Partner with the private sector to develop city- and county-owned land, such as surface parking lots and airspace over decks that are not currently at their highest use. Also,

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

60

when structuring these deals, be sure to leverage land transfers and development rights to achieve goals such as the provision of affordable housing. ! Continue to focus on building infrastructure, enhancing policing, and providing other core governmental services to downtown. In the process, do not downplay the importance of maintenance and upkeep, which can help improve downtown’s appearance and ensure that public investments do not deteriorate quickly. ! Consider establishing a “one-stop” development branch of city and county government that has a street-level presence downtown, but do not pursue such a strategy unless the evidence clearly supports its usefulness. As one interview respondent bluntly put it, “being on the street is overrated.” Lastly, the public sector can be most effective by hiring and retaining the best staff possible. Obviously this is easier said than done, but is an essential aspect of improving the climate within which downtown revitalization occurs. Respondents repeatedly noted that one of the keys to making private investment attractive is to employ empowered staff who work within a system that is predictable and fair. Strong leadership from elected officials down to frontline staff is needed to continue to improve the government’s image and its day-to-day functioning. Cross-Cutting Issues for Everyone to Consider The public sector has a central role in encouraging and guiding downtown revitalization, but various stakeholders from the private sector and the non-profit sector also play an important role related to revitalization efforts. The issues below demand attention from multiple sectors: Promotion An important part of downtown revitalization efforts is making sure that the whole community is aware of them. Thus, efforts should be made by the private and public sector to: ! Ensure that downtown continues to have a champion that promotes it. Downtown Durham Inc. has fulfilled this role for more than a decade, and the fact that it is outside the public sector insulates it from the changing policy priorities of elected officials. ! Increase the number and variety of events hosted downtown. Special events are among the biggest reason people throughout Durham County and the region visit downtown, and the more people that visit the better. In general terms, both the public and private sectors have an important role to play in continuing to publicize downtown’s success stories and widely promote its rich collection of events, activities, and cultural resources. This is especially true due to downtown Durham’s ongoing image problem among its own citizens and citizens of neighboring communities. Over time,

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

61

promotional efforts will create a positive image of downtown and will reinforce why downtown matters to the community as whole. Connections with Other Areas Downtown does not exist in a vacuum. Conditions in surrounding neighborhoods, as well as underlying issues like education and poverty, have an immediate and long-term impact on downtown. Stakeholders should consider the following recommendations: ! Hone in on the difficult social issues that all of Durham faces, and get businesses involved in addressing them. As one respondent said, Durham should invest in solving these issues “as though we actually believed in our future.” Such investment should be led by the public sector but must involve resources from the private sector as well—in terms of money, but also in terms of political support. ! Extend the “museum without walls” concept proposed in the Parrish Street revitalization plan to all of downtown and to surrounding neighborhoods of historical importance, in order to link different districts together. The City of Asheville’s Urban Trail is a model for Durham to consider, in terms of how it was organized, funded, designed, and built.150 ! Consider expanding the boundaries targeted by Downtown Durham Inc., in order to bring attention to areas surrounding downtown, or establish a similar group that promotes surrounding areas. Related to the final point above, a key consideration for Durham’s future is how to better balance investment in downtown with the need to improve surrounding neighborhoods, and to do this without losing focused momentum downtown. Local businessman Larry Hester emphasized this issue when stating, “There needs to be some balanced discussion about downtown versus the rest of the city.” Of course, many backers of downtown revitalization view it as essential to improving surrounding neighborhoods and the city as a whole. According to local developer Michael Lemanksi, “I see the investment in downtown… as an investment in Durham.”151 Still, separate investment is needed in the neighborhoods nearby downtown. As Diane Catotti explained, investing in neighborhoods is considered by many to be “less appealing or not sexy,” but is essential to the health of the community as a whole and downtown in particular. For instance, the ongoing HOPE VI redevelopment in North East Central Durham, although it has faced many setbacks, holds significant promise to revitalize a distressed neighborhood.152

150

See http://www.ashevillearts.com/index.php/72 for details on Asheville’s Urban Trail. Both Hester and Lemanski are quoted from Zimmer, “Upward bound downtown.” 152 See http://www.durhamhopevi.com/default.asp for more details on the HOPE VI plan and progress. 151

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

62

Attention to Detail Durham is still benefiting from the quality of the architecture around the turn of the 20th century, and likewise is still struggling to overcome instances of poor planning and design in the 1950s and beyond. Choices made in the process of revitalizing a downtown do matter, and must be carefully considered, as they often have a long-term impact. Thus, Durham should be sure to: ! Stay attuned to the scale and historic nature of downtown, and protect these crucial elements of revitalization’s ongoing success. In other words, downtown’s architectural and cultural integrity help to create a unique area with a distinct sense of place. Both private and public sector leaders would be wise to maintain this sense of place. ! Conduct concerted recruitment efforts, as well as careful planning, for the area of downtown that lies inside the Loop. This part of town is key to the city’s history and, as important, is essential to linking together other districts to form a walkable community. Without a revitalized core, downtown will remain a series of “disjointed” districts that are navigated primarily by automobile (or not at all). ! Encourage a wide range of stakeholders to participate in planning and decision-making, in order to minimize the risk of making poor choices or overlooking alternative options. In short, downtown revitalization demands a focus on quality. As John Warasila put it, “make sure everything that gets done gets done really well.” Such attention to detail will benefit downtown in the short-run and well into the future. Diversity of People and Perspectives Throughout history, one of the distinguishing characteristics of urban areas has been their diversity relative to other areas. A diverse mix of people and perspectives is a strength for downtowns—in terms of culture, economic development, and more—and Durham’s leaders should consider the following strategies: ! Increase attention to ensuring that downtown caters to a diverse mix of people, especially in terms of class and race. A multi-dimensional downtown will help to increase its vibrancy, and will help insulate against changing markets over time. ! Do not neglect the pioneers of downtown revitalizations; that is, small business owners, artists, and others who have been downtown since before it was en vogue. ! Create a communitywide dialogue about race, an issue that—unlike class—was rarely mentioned by interview respondents yet is central to Durham’s politics and culture. This is not to say that race relations in Durham are poor, but rather that Durham is one of the more diverse communities in the state and should capitalize on this diversity. ! Recognize that process matters. It is important for revitalization leaders, no matter what sector they work in, to pay attention to process and not just outcomes. Open processes

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

63

that solicit community input help to increase communitywide buy-in, and tend to produce better though out plans. The latest plan for the Durham Performing Arts Center demonstrates the power of community involvement. Finally, Durham must believe in the potential for downtown revitalization. In late 2005, Andy Rothschild wrote that one of the main barriers to continued revitalization of downtown Durham is one of adopting a positive mind-set. After asking rhetorically what the biggest challenge is facing downtown Durham’s revitalization, he answered, “I think the key is simply our attitude, our outlook, our self-image as a community… we are currently reaching a new stage in our civic development where confidence in our ability to lead the pack will serve us better than a timeworn, come-from-behind mentality.”153

153

Andy Rothschild, “Believe in downtown Durham.” City Lights, the newsletter of Downtown Durham Inc. Durham, NC: Fall/Winter 2005, p1. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

64

VIII. Final Thoughts Downtown matters. It always has. Throughout Durham’s history, downtown has played a central role as a hub of economic activity, culture, and government. It continues to play an equally important role in helping to form Durham’s identity as a community. Due to a combination of market forces, substantial public investment, increasing private interest, and other factors, Durham faces a genuine opportunity to revitalize downtown in a way that will benefit all of Durham. Much of the infrastructure—physical, historical, political, and psychological—exists for this type of revitalization to occur, but challenges remain. A vibrant, unique downtown that serves and appeals to a wide variety of people will not happen by accident. Concerted and coordinated effort is required to achieve such a vision for downtown. Yet it is important to remember that attempts at revitalization in downtown Durham have been underway for decades. Like any complex process, revitalization often occurs incrementally, and as such requires patience and persistence to achieve results. That is, lasting change takes place over a long period of time. Although revitalization efforts have accelerated substantially within the last several years, continued interest in downtown must be sustained with strong leadership from the private and public sectors, and from the public at-large. The public sector must play a leading role in facilitating the creation of a sustained, shared vision for downtown, if downtown is to once again become the focal point of the community. In particular, strong leadership is needed to ensure that downtown becomes a place where a wide range of people live, work, and play… a place that is everybody’s neighborhood.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

65

Bibliography “Brightleaf Square History.” http://www.historicbrightleaf.com/history/index.html, last accessed April 2006. “Bulls History.” http://www.durhambulls.com/team/history.html, last accessed April 2006. “Downtown police unit will aid revitalization.” The Herald-Sun, 14 March 1999, A16. “East Coast Piedmont Blues.” http://facstaff.unca.edu/sinclair/piedmontblues/Default.htm, last accessed March 2006. “Finally, out of the loop.” The News & Observer, 6 October 1999, A18. “Life returning to American Tobacco.” The Herald-Sun, 28 June 2004, A8. “The Barbecue Joint is coming to downtown Durham.” The Herald-Sun, 11 January 2006, C1. “West Village: Durham, North Carolina.” Blue Devil Ventures website. http://www.bluedevilventures.com/westvillage.html, last accessed April 2006. Ainslie, Scott. “BluesRoots Teacher’s Study Guide.” http://cattailmusic.com/ BluesHistory/BluesRoots/piedDelta.html, last accessed March 2006. Atkins, John, and Willie Covington. “It’s time to close American Tobacco deal.” The HeraldSun, 2 June 2002, A13. Bell, Bill. “The state of the city: crime and the economy.” The Herald-Sun, 13 February 2005, A13. Bickley, Rah. “Lofty aspirations fly in Durham.” The News & Observer, 29 July 2000, B1. Biesecker, Michael. “Old ballpark catches NCCU eyes.” The News & Observer, 18 February 2006, B1. Bishir, Catherine, and Lawrence Early, eds. Early Twentieth-Century Suburbs in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: Archaeology and Historic Preservation Section, Division of Archives and History, NC Department of Cultural Resources, 1985. Bonner, Paul. “City, West Village forging incentives plan.” The Herald-Sun, 2 December 2004, C1. Catotti, Diane. Member of the Durham City Council. Personal interview, April 3, 2006. City of Durham. Budget and Management Services. Personal communication with budget staff, April 18, 2006. City of Durham. “City of Durham Begins Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization Process.” Press Release. Durham, NC: February 3, 2006.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

City of Durham. City/County Planning Department. “Durham Design Guidelines.” Durham, NC: December 6, 2005. City of Durham. City/County Planning Department. “Population profile: Durham County and the City of Durham.” Durham, NC: February 2005. City of Durham. Department of Planning and Community Development. “Economic Development Strategy for Durham.” Durham, NC: October 4, 1982. City of Durham. Office of Economic and Employment Development website, various pages. http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/, last accessed April 2006. City of Durham. Office of Economic and Employment Development. “A New Era on Parrish Street.” Durham, NC: August 2, 2004. Compton, John. Executive Director of the Historic Preservation Society of Durham. Personal Interview, March 16, 2006. Conner, Ted. “Next step in downtown renaissance.” The Herald-Sun, 4 August 2002, A13. Corrigan, Mary Beth, et al. “Ten Principles for Successful Public/Private Partnerships.” Washington, D.C.: ULI-The Urban Land Institute, 2005. Curliss, J. Andrew. “Downtown fares well in budget.” The News & Observer, 24 May 2002, A1. Curliss, J. Andrew. “Downtown plan near debut.” The News & Observer, 28 March 2000, A1. DeLisle, Alan. Director of Durham’s Office of Economic & Employment Development. Personal interview, March 13, 2006. Development Concepts, Inc., et al. “Downtown Durham Master Plan.” Durham, NC: 1999. Available at http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/eed/plan.cfm Downtown Durham Inc. website, various pages. http://www.downtowndurham.com/, last accessed April 2006. Downtown Durham Inc., “Revitalizing Downtown Durham.” PowerPoint presentation. Durham Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, “History at a Glance.” http://dcvb.durham.nc.us/ secondary/history.php, last accessed April 2006. ETC Institute. “2005 DirectionFinder Survey: Final Report.” January 2006. Evans, Ben. “Durham reps eye downtown Richmond.” The Herald-Sun, 16 October 2003, B1. Freemark, Yonah. “Durham: Urban Renewal’s Legacy.” http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Eysf4/ durham/hist.html, last accessed March 2006. Glassberg, Ronnie. “Local panel wants to clarify six specific downtown areas.” The Herald-Sun, 15 February 2001, B1. Gronberg, Ray. “City gets $11M bid to modify ballpark.” The Herald-Sun, 16 March 2006, D1. Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

Gulley, Wib, et al. “Former mayors support the $110 million bonds.” The Herald-Sun, 3 November 2005, A6. Historic Preservation Society of Durham, “Durham Neighborhoods.” http://www.preservationdurham.org/places/nhoods.html, last accessed on April 2006. Kalkhof, William. “Image doesn’t match reality in downtown.” The Herald-Sun, 10 August 2000, A14. Kalkhof, William. “Signs of life stirring inside ‘the Loop.’” The Herald-Sun, 9 May 2004, A11. Kalkhof, William. President of Downtown Durham, Inc. Personal interview, March 3, 2006. Kostyu, Joel, and F. Kostyu. Durham: A Pictorial History. Durham, NC: Kindred Press, 1992. Krishnan, Anne. “Plans for West Village II on track.” The Herald-Sun, 22 February 2005, A1. Lewis, Julia. “Durham city manager leaves meeting in tears after scrutiny over recommendation.” WRAL.com News. http://www.wral.com/news/1766652/detail.html, last accessed April 2006. Niemann, Thomas. Managing Partner of Blue Devil Ventures. Personal interview, March 17, 2006. Ogburn, Sandy. Former member of the Durham City Council. Personal interview, March 15, 2006. Paton, Jamie. “West Village attracts leases.” The Herald-Sun, 23 February 2000, B1. Phillips, Gregory. “TTA awaits rail data response.” The Herald-Sun, 23 March 2006, D1. Roberts, Claudia, et al., The Durham Architectural and Historical Inventory. Durham, NC: City of Durham, 1982. Rodell, Besha. “Neighborhood restaurants on the rise.” The Independent, 22 March 2006, 39. Rothschild, Andrew. Founder of Scientific Properties. Personal interview, March 15, 2006. Rothschild, Andy. “Believe in downtown Durham.” City Lights, the newsletter of Downtown Durham Inc. Durham, NC: Fall/Winter 2005. Schelp, John. “American Tobacco gets lion’s share of subsidies.” The Herald-Sun, 19 June 2005, A11. Schelp, John. President of the Old West Durham Neighborhood Association. Personal interview, March 17, 2006. Skalski, Ginny. “Paving the way.” The Herald-Sun, 9 March 2005, A1. Southern, Caleb. Downtown Durham resident. Personal interview, March 15, 2006. Stradling, Richard. “Downtown turns the page.” The Chapel Hill News, 22 June 2000, B1.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future

Stradling, Richard. “Poll casts wary eye on downtown push.” The News & Observer, 2 March 2005, A1. Strickland, Bryan. “Baseball had failed here before and, in 1979, both the DAP and minor league baseball were in poor shape. People thought it was a dumb idea, but Miles Wolff still was… Bullish on Durham.” The Herald-Sun, 8 April 2002, D4. Swift, Aisling. “Downtown patrol improves Durham’s image.” The News & Observer, 10 June 2002, B1. Tarrant, Julian. “A Downtown Development Plan.” Durham, NC: Downtown Development Association and the Durham City Council: November 9, 1960. U.S. Census Bureau. American FactFinder. http://www.census.gov/, last accessed April 2006. Warasila, John. Founding Principal of Alliance Architecture. Personal interview, March 15, 2006. Warren, Chris. “Downtown Durham Revitalization Efforts: 1989-2005.” Unpublished class paper. Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: April 27, 2005. Wellington, Elizabeth. “New take on downtown Durham.” The News & Observer, 16 March 1999, B1. Williams, Bob. “Bull City booster Kalkhof named to head new Downtown Durham.” The News & Observer, 25 February 1993, C6. Wise, Jim. “Culture Crawl a good reason to visit downtown.” The Herald-Sun, 21 November 2003, D4. Wise, Jim. “Group to capitalize on history.” The News & Observer, 23 April 2005, A1. Wise, Jim. “Investors recognize value of downtown.” Durham News, 24 December 2005, A1. Wise, Jim. Durham: A Bull City Story. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Woo, Kelly. “Whereto, downtown Durham?” The News & Observer, 11 July 1998, B4. Young, Sara. Senior Planner with the Durham City/County Planning Department. Personal interview, March 16, 2006. Zagier, Alan. “Durham’s finally got one on base.” The News & Observer, 6 April 1998, A1. Zimmer, Jeff. “Developer eyes revitalized downtown.” The Herald-Sun, 23 March 2006, C1. Zimmer, Jeff. “Upward bound downtown.” The Herald-Sun, 18 September 2005, A1.

Revitalizing Downtown Durham: Building on the Past, Forging the Future