Community Meeting Notes: Placemaking in the urban core

As part of its strategic planning process WPF held twelve facilitated meetings, involving nearly 150 civic leaders, practitioners, public officials, and subject-matter experts in areas related to our grantmaking.

The following are notes taken at a meeting held on October 6, 2011 to discuss placemaking in the urban core.

Individuals participated with the understanding that they were speaking without attribution, so their names are intentionally omitted from these notes.

Meeting Purpose and Questions

Public amenities, such as parks, trails, recreation facilities, plazas and public spaces, and public art, contribute significantly to placemaking efforts that seek to improve and reanimate spaces as community focal points and help to attract residents and new investment in communities. Believing that vibrant spaces enhance the overall attractiveness and competitiveness of the city, the Foundation has supported both city agencies and nonprofit organizations to develop and improve management of public spaces.  The private sector also has as important role in incorporating amenities and facilities for public use in private development proposals.

We invited representatives of nonprofit organizations working actively in public space to discuss the following questions: What is the motivation of nonprofit organizations and the private sector to engage in public space development and management?  What are the best roles for nonprofits and the private sector in public space development, operation, and programming?  What are some of the risks and trade-offs that need to be considered when non-governmental entities and the private sector are charged with developing, operating, and maintaining public space and public amenities (e.g., ensuring the achievement of government’s public purposes and policy goals).

More fundamentally, where geographically in the urban core do the best opportunities exist to catalyze “model” public-private partnerships? What are some of the financial, regulatory, governmental, cultural, political, and community challenges that might limit public-private partnerships?

What are the potential opportunities to create revenue/income streams in public spaces that would help defray the costs of operating, programming, and maintaining them?

What kind of investment is needed now to lead to these kinds of long-term outcomes and what specifically can the Foundation do to support innovation in public space development, programming and maintenance?

Major Points from the Discussion

Motivation for nonprofits and public sector to work together in public space:  necessity, there are not enough resources to invest so creativity and flexibility is needed; self-interest, especially for institutions with adjacent public space. Public space and trails can be backdrop for economic development and jobs; but open space is not always a benefit, so good public space needs a critical mass of people, improvements, and management.

Specific examples:

• Franklin Square. Public land, privately managed with fee-paying concessions—a new model that is working or a unique case?  Need was clear for 30 years, but a catalyst was required for real action and collaboration between sectors. A critical mass and surrounding economic value already existed.
• Penn. The University made an initial investment in bookstore and hotel that demonstrated market potential for parking lots surrounding campus.  Developers now pay Penn in order to invest there. Penn is long-term guarantor of value.
• Pittsburgh. Restored waterfront buildings, converted vacant space to open space, used champions in the private sector and benefitted from the Clean Water Act.
• Manayunk.  Can now earn funds through parking fees and events, but needed subsidy to get started 20 years ago.
• Camden.  Has open spaces that are renovated, cleaned, and enjoyed, but not profitable to maintain.Camden needs taxes to support public space, but tax base is too poor.
• DIY. Do It Yourself model from creative sector access to space may be relevant; the old model based on occupying and animating space is not easy to do anymore.

There are no mechanisms on how to go from start to implementation, and often impediments instead.  Very large or very small projects sometimes proceed, but the large majority is constrained by regulation and unwillingness to try something new.  There is a need to balance respect for legitimate regulation without stifling creativity.

Guidance to WPF

Provide risk capital. Support risk taking, as there is not as much risk money available. Help provide vision to catalyze available resources and communicate a vision of what can be.  Figure out how to monetize projects – there are lots of beneficiaries, but no income.

Provide leadership and be proactive. Use the power of our credibility and provide vision, direction, and leadership for the region. Grants provide the tipping point and credential, a seal of approval that informs the choices of others. Re-granting around strategic initiatives, as with DVRPC and trails, offers powerful credential of investment to draw out other ideas, potentially a more nimble and collaborative operator that could be applied to artistic and geographic spaces. Important to announce regional investments and catalyze others—don’t be shy.

Convene/support organizations. Take a proactive stance in convening grantees in subject area, allow interaction and work towards bigger picture. Help grantees work around blinders to see beyond focus on small projects or neighborhoods.  Award success, not just politics and geography, like state decisions. Bring together people who create success--randomness of convening doesn’t happen easily and naturally.

Model  successful practices.  Process on waterfront raised the bar and demanded notice; visibility and game-changing nature of the civic visioning process helped planning generally and other riverfronts specifically, (e.g. the Schuylkill). Signature stuff matters and lifts all boats, raises the bar for investment. Do the big and small at the same time--Race Street Pier is a combination of small scale and incredible quality. The Fringe Festival Building and an art piece on bridge (DRPA willing) could get Philadelphia on the news as the world’s best cultural place.

Support innovation entrepreneurship.  There are no business school case studies for high quality implementation, so find the people who will get things done.  Draw out and exploit the Do It Yourself underground culture in the city through awards and other incentives—they are not organizations that would come to WPF. Reward success—in private and public sector (Office of Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy). Consider funding individuals (like Knight Arts Challenge). Instill confidence in citizens disenfranchised by the public sector.