“People look for the same things in a city that they look for in a company: energy, amenities, inclusiveness and a sense of fun. Talented and creative people want to be where the action is and where the interaction is. That is where they find unique life experiences – and that's where their ideas stand the chance of coming to fruition.”

Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class¹

Individuals are also looking for other things --, opportunities to work, play and live and a sense of place, belonging, continuity, and history and a short commute.

However, as a society we must take a much broader view. We must find ways to be more efficient and effective in how we use the environmental resources of air, water land and energy as well as human and economic capital. We must look to improved downtowns, centers, and cores, and corridors, especially, as one of our most important tools in this effort.

Why Good Cores Are Hard to Find – or Create?

Almost no one denies the value of cores or argues against using them cores as an organizing element of cities and regions. Yet, there are many reasons why good cores are hard to find. They range from ignorance of the value of cores and of how to create them to fear of higher densities, congestion, strangers and “the new”.

One argument (cited by Schneider²) is that support of new or revitalized cores outside of downtowns threatens existing  downtowns. Thirty years ago when systems of cores were being proposed in major regions, this view produced opposition or at least apathy to support of centers outside of downtown Toronto and other regions. It is also continues to be a factor in resistance to new centers near smaller cities.

• see New Orleans Land-Use Planning Districts 

• see Minneapolis Downtown Planning Districts 

Although new outlying cores compete with central downtowns and small, freestanding towns, it may still be advantageous to plan and support the building of such cores. Aggressive support of older centers combined with careful planning of new centers could allow both to benefit and reduce conflict and sprawl. Not encouraging uses to combine in mixed-use cores will most likely cause their functions to scatter in single-use locations. It would far better to guide activities into rational, mixed-use groups than to see such scattered sprawl of single-use development.

Another criticism made by Jack Lessinger (quoted by Schneider²) is that a pattern of scattered growth over time is better than one planned to be compact and efficient and built at one time. His point is that the former is more flexible and amenable to change and is less likely to become obsolete than an area developed fully in a short period of time. Lessinger’s point was made forty years ago. Experience since that time provides many examples of the renovation and even total redevelopment of shopping centers and the areas around them to meet changing conditions. Moreover, there is no special reason why cores must be totally built at one time, as Lessinger assumes.

Problems of obsolescence  would be considerably diminished by creating mixed-use cores. Experience shows the very fact of mixed-use enhances the ability of a core to regenerate and even improve itself over time. Thousands of downtowns and many older cores (for example, at 80 years, Country Club Plaza, in Kansas City, and, at 500 years, the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul, demonstrate this very well).

Two sets of problems are more serious. One is that the benefits of well-planned, rational cores are not sufficiently well recognized to support the building of cores on an individual basis as a system-wide regional policy. The second is that this is difficult and how to do it this is not well known.

Schneider² cites a number of significant, specific problems. He describes them in two categories: technical and political-fiscal.

Technical issues include the following:

• How to define the appropriate size and mix of functions:
  • How to determine the appropriate number and location of centers
  • Where to get the data needed to develop policies and plans
  • What planning procedures to follow
•  What to do to about specific problems:
  • Land speculation in areas designated as cores
  • Encouraging development in core areas and discouraging it outside of these areas
  • Channeling transportation investments to serve designated cores
• Developing entities to manage development and operation of cores
• Dealing with air quality and other environmental issues possibly associated with cores

Some of these problems could be avoided by not micromanaging the number, character and location of cores too closely or precisely. It may be better to establish supportive policies by treating specific issues with goals and criteria that provide a framework for dealing with problems and provides for more innovation and negotiation to operate widely in location and other planning areas.

Political-fiscal problems such as the following may be more difficult to resolve:

• Resolving the perceived threat to downtown and other centers or cores

• Resolving community resistance to higher densities represented in cores

• Reducing municipal competition for centers. Techniques being explored include agreements between communities to negotiate locations, taxation and other issues and to establish by achieving tax base sharing 

The Minneapolis-St. Paul region is one of few with a “revenue sharing” program that makes it easier reduce problems of competition for taxes in creating centers. (link to relevant document)

• Preventing speculation in land from pricing housing, public facilities and other supporting uses out of the market 

Other issues that could be added to Schneider’s list include:

• Premature development: Avoid development of core-area land to inappropriate use before markets for desired core uses to develop

• Public commitment: Getting commitment and timely performance in developing public components of cores, such as transportation, open space, public facilities, etc

see Toronto Core Planning 

• Getting amenities, public, historic, cultural features: Assuring quality public amenities and images including historic, cultural, recreational and similar features

Few new cores will be lucky to have historic features like this to memorialize and enrich their character or culture. But they should take advantage of those they have.

• Housing: Developing supporting core housing for a broad range of population and income groups

• Institutional support: Creating institutional structures to support pro-core policies and programs at state and regional levels

• Multiple skills, resources: Getting commitment, involvement of wide range of skills and resources involved in developing mixed-use developments.

Breaking Through Problems of the Past

Rather than surrendering to difficulty we need to concentrate on overcoming problems by developing basic institutions, policies and  legislation and more effective and skillful planning and  management skills.

The ULI (Urban Land Institute) is a major source of information about in planning, implementing and managing core and multi-use center areas and projects. This is one of their many publications. But much more must be done in both the public and private sectors if core building and improvement is to occur on both large and small project scales.

We must avoid creating needless obstacles by avoiding micro-managing the locations, functions and design of cores, particularly at the regional level. A combination of education, incentives, controls and market forces should be able to accomplish most of what is needed to implement a cores, corridor or “Polycentric City” (see The Polycentric City) strategy, either individually or system-wide. So long as basic environmental and access/transportation concerns are met, much flexibility should be allowed in the number, design and location of cores.

Moreover, to be realistic and encourage initiative, it should not be necessary or expected that all development be located in designated cores locations. Market and political factors/forces should be given room to work.

 
Rather, the main goal is to substantially increase the number and quality of cores – not 100 percent perfect conformance to a plan. The objective should be to permit the largest possible proportion of the population to live and work in areas where they can enjoy the greatest access to opportunity at the lowest economic, environmental and human cost.  The perfect should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good. The more apparent that values of cores become, the easier they will be to create and the more their quality will improve.

The range of problems is very wide. It starts with a substantial lack of understanding of the concept and its benefits. Even many smaller mixed-use projects miss the point. All too often they are built to take advantage of the growing popularity of the concept to get public approval with little effort to achieve true mixed use. Many constraints, such as taxation methods, jurisdictional competition, compartmentalized markets, zoning restrictions, fragmented responsibilities for planning and infrastructure, and balkanized land ownership, are major obstacles to success. Some of these problems are discussed in sources cited in the pages on management and implementation.

Factors demanding action

Factors that should make it easier to achieve some of on the recommendations made here include:

• Continued rapid and extensive growth of cities and regions. (For example, even the relatively slow growing Chicago Region is expected to grow by two million in the next 35 years) Growth is being fueled by both in immigration and internal migration as well as natural increase. This is creating a market for new or improved centers in many regions and in the outlying sections of existing regions. The latter is creating a demand for new retail, institutional and public development both in older downtowns and centers as well in totally new locations. This growth provides opportunities to renew older centers, making them more intense and compact, to upgrade access and parking, to enrich their mix of uses and activities, to provide more amenities and to improve or build new facilities for pedestrians.

More data indicating a huge need to compact and better organize growth is supplied by the Data supplied by the U. S. Census: tells us the following:   The U.S. population is growing by about 3.2 million people each year. (Much of this growth will be from immigration of persons accustomed to urban living who could be expected to be seeking core-type environments.

• Building and improvement of transit and rail services and systems are creating many potential locations for new and improved cores at station locations. Just as they did in the 1920's, savvy transit suppliers are using some of their resources to encourage core-like development in these locations.

• The aging and obsolescence of many existing centers and the recognition of the need for them to be revitalized. Both the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers  as well as many environmental groups are concerned and are developing proposals to deal with these problems. This recognition is generating more unified support for programs to deal with them than has existed for over thirty years. It is also producing projects that illustrate their advantages and show how revitalization can occur.

• The more widespread acceptance of the need for “smart growth” policies and program. Smart growth concerns are leading many to see their value in efforts to address many of these concerns -- conservation, housing, cultural, energy savings health, obesity, etc. The strong possibility that awareness of the many concerns that cores can help address – conservation, housing, desire for an urban culture, energy savings, health, need for “walking” environments, etc. – Hopefully, This understanding will become so pronounced that pressure will build to find pro-core policies and solutions. Hopefully, this will lead to pro-core policies at the national as well as state and regional levels.

The urgency of the need to conserve energy, in particular, will soon become far better understood. Matthew R. Simmons³, for one, provides information that should jar us into this understanding. He says that most recent and current projections of the strain on oil supplies, the height of future prices and how soon both will be felt greatly underestimate all three. To continue to be able to meet the demand for oil, Simmons sees the need for prices to possibly exceed $200 a barrel. This factor, alone, could provide irresistible pressure to conserve energy that could only be met through exploiting every possible alternative energy source  in combination with pro-core strategies of the type advocated here.

• The increased knowledge and sophistication of professionals, the general public and decision-makers about what needs to be done to create better, more efficient and livable cities. This is where progress must start.

• Demographics that support centrally located housing, cultural, recreational and cultural activity

Clearly, the only way we can address these problems is for us to be far smarter and more motivated than we are in embracing and implementing an effective pro-cores strategy.  We should adopt and inaugurate a massive program of core and corridor development now!.

See links listed above for more information and comment and examples.