The reactions to our latest downtowns list has been interesting — and telling, because they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of "placemaking."
The strongest reactions concern our list of the most disappointing mid-sized city downtowns in California. First, let me say congratulations to the folks in San Bernardino and Redding. Although we still think those downtowns are awful, at least people in those cities reacted with "We've got great plans" (San Bernardino), or "It's better than it used to be" (Redding). When we named Fresno the worst big-city downtown in California earlier this year, we detected not a squeak of protest from anyone.
In Chico, whose downtown we ranked third, we were heros, sort of. Check out the Dog's Breakfast blog and comments, and the Bullfight blog and comments. In Redding, the reaction was a bit different, as is evident in this Record Searchlight column and the comments.
What's telling is that some people see our list as a ranking of "the city's" efforts — as in, the plans and execution of the people running City Hall. This is where the misunderstanding lies.
The work of elected and appointed municipal officials is only one factor in the success or distress of a downtown. Planning, public investment and government leadership are important. But just as important are property owners who are willing to invest, developers with long-term vision, merchants who take a few chances, and hardworking community organizations that have their own pride of ownership. Without all of these pieces, a downtown will suffer to some extent, no matter how well City Hall is doing its job.
And if you think we were hard on some cities, check out Sacramento Bee columnist Marcos Breton's Sunday piece on downtown Sacramento, which he calls a "caldron of neglect." Yes, Breton blames City Hall. But he also points the finger at slumlords and apathetic parents.
- Paul Shigley
