Early in the process, the scoping exercise would identify potential projects that might be initiated for “early wins” to build confidence in the project. These could be small actions that demonstrate governmental commitment. It is important to also inspire confidence that the visioning and planning process is not just another paper exercise—that it represents a serious commitment to change. Some of these “early wins” might occur early in the planning process to signal the intention and commitment of the government to deliver and dispel mistrust and skepticism. Such “early wins” analysis might include:
- Agreement on criteria for projects, including factors such as generating employment, reducing poverty, improving housing conditions, enhancing the tax base, building community capacity, and so on
- Identification of potential early projects that can produce positive results
- Identification of potential sources of public, private, and community capital that might be accessed to support the planning process and early project stages.
While every urban regeneration should include a set of policies and actions, aiming at simultaneous revitalization of social, economic, environmental, and physical conditions of the distressed urban areas, leading the process with “flagship projects” is usually a good strategy to demonstrate public sector’s commitment. Flagship projects lead the process with physical improvements and usually act as a catalyst for the regeneration process, paving the path for private-sector investments. Physical regeneration includes physical enhancement of buildings, lands and sites, and public spaces, and provision of infrastructure. While every urban regeneration should include a set of policies and actions that aims at the simultaneous revitalization of social, economic, environmental, and physical conditions of the distressed urban areas, leading the process with “flagship projects” is usually a good strategy to demonstrate the public sector’s commitment. Flagship projects lead the process with physical improvements and usually act as a catalyst for the regeneration process, paving the way for private sector investments. Physical regeneration includes physical enhancement of buildings, lands and sites, public spaces, and provision of infrastructure.
Leading the regeneration process with a physical approach has several benefits, including providing a flagship project that signals to the market the government’s intention to invest and change a certain area, reducing the project’s cost to the private sector by cleaning up contaminated sites, reassembling fragmented parcels of land or providing certain infrastructure, and acting as a catalyst for private sector investments. In the regeneration of Cheonggyecheon’s stream, the government paid for a large up-front investment to remove the elevated highway and to clear up the stream. In return, the private sector compensated for the expenses with a major investment in the urban land along the stream, contributing to the regeneration of the downtown area (see chapter 8)
The Anacostia River in Washington, DC, has long represented a dividing line in the District of Columbia, symbolized by the stark segregation of the city based on race and class. The communities “East of the River” are largely African-American and house some of the poorest neighborhoods in the United States—although this represents only a partial and biased view of these vibrant communities. Nonetheless, in the cognitive map of Washington, DC, the Anacostia River has been seen in stark contrast to the Potomac River along the city’s most famous monuments and the affluent Georgetown area.
Against this backdrop, when Anthony A. Williams was elected mayor in 1999, the district was in receivershipa, and was administered by a federally appointed control board. The powers to run the city were transferred from the control board back to the mayor upon his election. Mayor Williams understood the power and importance of transforming the Anacostia River from a symbol of division in the city to a unifying force that had the potential to bring regeneration to its neighborhoods and environmental restoration to its river and open spaces. He vowed to put the Anacostia River back on the map so that it was no longer ignored or willfully neglected.
In the year 2000, the mayor initiated the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative and enlisted the support of the federal government through the signing of a memorandum of understanding that codified a unique district-federal partnership. It was expected to result in the historic transfer of hundreds of acres of federal land to the district, over US$2 billion of investment, the relocation of a major federal agency to the waterfront with over 7,000 employees, and numerous other community investments.
This remarkable transformation is now seen as a natural evolution of the city’s growth. However, at the outset, it was rightfully met with much skepticism. Past efforts to revitalize the Anacostia waterfront were not successful and had faltered for many political, market, and funding reasons. The mayor had to demonstrate that this was not just another planning exercise—even as his administration initiated one of the largest and most ambitious master planning efforts in the history of the city, covering over 2,800 acres, 7 miles of river, and numerous communities on its borders. The mayor understood that one could not simply create plans and hope that the planning process alone would convince people of the seriousness of intent to affect change. Rather, plans had to be coupled with projects to provide evidence and give tangible proof that the envisioned urban transformation could become a reality.
The direction the mayor gave to his cabinet was to use any opportunity to fund projects along the waterfront. His idea was to show that the planning process was a reality and that the administration, like the community, was impatient for change.
The first expression of this philosophy was a rapid “charrette process” (see chapter 2) that was organized in the Near Southeast neighborhood of the waterfront where there was a high concentration of public housing. The weekend-long planning process resulted in the consensus that the existing public housing needed to be replaced with a vibrant mixed-income housing community connected to the waterfront with public spaces, quality housing, and—crucially—that every unit of public housing would be replaced on a one-to-one basis. The rapid planning process paved the way for the mayor to apply for a federal Hope VI grant to fund this ambitious project.b The grant was awarded based on the federal-district partnership that had been established through the memorandum of understanding, as well as the credibility of the planning process that gained consensus in the Near Southeast community.
The grant award occurred while the larger Anacostia Waterfront Initiative and master plan was underway. It was hugely powerful in demonstrating the sincerity of the mayor and the credibility of the planning process. In addition, it gave hope that genuine change was imminent after years of neglect and decline.
The lesson from the Anacostia initiative was that large-scale transformation must be thoughtfully planned and opportunistically executed. It cannot be a neat sequential process. Rather, it is a dynamic process of change with a constant interplay and integration of plans and projects.
a The city had outspent its budgets and the city finances were in jeopardy. Therefore, the U.S. Congress appointed a five-member body in 1995 to oversee the district’s finances. This body was called the District of Columbia Financial Control Board, and the board had the power to override decisions by Washington’s mayor and city council.
b Hope VI is a policy of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and aims to redevelop the most problematic public housing projects in the country into mixed-income livable communities.
