Cities 58 (2016) 97–106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Planning for retail resilience: Comparing Edmonton and Portland

Fujie Rao, Robert J. Summers ⁎
University of Alberta, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, 1-23 ESB University of Alberta, T5N1W1 Edmonton, AB, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Commercial retail areas within cities have traditionally not only satisfied the demands for various goods and
Received 5 August 2014 services, but have also contributed to elements of community sustainability and livability as a form of public
Received in revised form 21 April 2016 good. Since the end of World War II, innovations in retail formats have occurred as retailers seek to maximize
Accepted 1 May 2016
their financial efficiency. However, this often has consequences for community sustainability and livability.
Available online xxxx
This research employs resilience theory to examine how cities have coped with retail innovations through a com-
Keywords:
parative case study of Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) and Portland (Oregon, USA). Through historical document re-
Retail resilience view and interviews with senior planners in both cities, it is found that adaptive retail management which
Community sustainability emphasize principles over visions, which feature an active, informed, and highly organized public and a polycentric
Urban planning planning system encouraging planning diversity and consensus building can contribute to more resilient retail
Edmonton outcomes that preserve a broader range of retail and public functions.
Portland © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction metropolitan areas,1 Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) and Portland

From the early 20th century to the end of World War II, retail devel-
opment in most North American cities consisted of a retail hierarchy in-
volving a vibrant downtown, commercial streets located in streetcar
suburbs, and a distribution of small neighbourhood stores (Alexander
& Akehurst, 1999; Architectural Forum, 1943). A wave of post war inno-
vations in retail form as well as influences from the emergence of ratio-
nal comprehensive planning resulted in the rise of indoor shopping
malls and large format grocery retailers (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, &
Speck, 2010; Gruen & Smith, 1960; Guy, 2007; Kramer et al., 2008;
Thomas & Bromley, 2003). The planned retail hierarchy that emerged
to control retail form and distribution during this period sought to
reflect the transition to a ‘modern’ auto based society with an emphasis
on an efficient distribution of retail centres based upon central place
theory. (Dennis, Marsland, & Cockett, 2002; Gibbs, 2012; Hodge &
Gordon, 2013; Kramer et al., 2008). In line with rational comprehensive
planning rooted in the hierarchical distribution theories of Christaller
(1933), Lösch (1940), and Berry & Garrison (1958), the notion was
that this new hierarchy would represent an ideal urban distribution of
retail locations that would be longstanding in the new automobile era
(Abbott, 1983; Architectural Forum, 1943; Duany et al., 2010; Gibbs,
2012; Hodge & Gordon, 2013; Moses, 1970).
In time, this pre-defined, spatially distributed, hierarchy of specific
retail formats was challenged by the rise of new retail formats, market
developments, urban decay, and significant shifts in planning
approaches. This comparative case study examines how two
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: robert.summers@ualberta.ca (R.J. Summers).
(Oregon, USA), have coped with these changes since WWII. It does so
through developing and employing the concept of retail resilience and
its relevance to community sustainability at a metropolitan scale.
The research involved the collection and analysis of related planning
and policy documents, council meeting minutes, and print news media.
Additionally, fifteen semi-structured interviews were carried out with
planners and councillors who were instrumentally involved in the plan-
ning process during the periods investigated. Site visits to key locations
were also made. A qualitative analysis of this material employing both
open and axial coding in an explanation building framework was
employed (Yin, 2014). It should be noted here that the phrase “retail
planning system” is used here to refer to all processes and stakeholders
affecting planning decisions, not only the formal planning agencies
within cities.
The primary goal for this research is to explore how a retail planning
system can influence retail resilience. In the paper, the concept of retail
resilience is reviewed and further defined, with specific focus on the
roles of retail functions and retail formats. This is followed by a compar-
ative case study on Edmonton and Portland, reviewing the post-WWII
retail development and planning history in both cities, and identifies
how they have reacted to the major violations of their retail plans. The
1
Unless particularly explained, the term “metropolitan” used in this research is not
intended to include rural area. In Canada and USA, the term “Census Metropolitan Area”
includes both urban and rural areas. Though the boundary between urban and rural areas
was ambiguously interpreted by different methods, it was suggested that the “Population
Center” defined by Statistics Canada and the administrative boundary of Metro (the re-
gional government headquartered in Portland, OR, USA) delineated acceptable urban
areas within the Census Metropolitan Areas of both case cities.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.002
0264-2751/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
98 F. Rao, R.J. Summers / Cities 58 (2016) 97–106
major differences of the two retail planning systems and their impact on
retail reliance are then presented.
2. The concept of retail resilience
In his seminal work on ecosystem resilience, Holling (1973) concep-
tualizes resilience as the ability of systems to absorb changes and still
persist through adaptation. He contrasts it with the concept of stability
which emphasizes the ability of a system to return to its previous state
after disturbances. Since Hollings original work, resilience has increas-
ingly been recognized as a key element of sustainability (Folke, 2006;
Holling, 2001; Scheffer, Carpenter, Foley, Folke, & Walker, 2001).
While Holling's work focused on natural systems, the notion of
stability as a goal has also been critiqued in the social sciences as uncer-
tainty, risks, adaptation and complexity can be regarded as fundamental
elements of society (Giddens, 2009; Ostrom, 2005; Harvey, 1973; Beck,
1992; Tuan, 1979). In response, the concept of resilience was adapted to
the social sciences, first in relation to resource management (Adger,
2000; Folke, 2006; Holling, 2001; Lu & Stead, 2013), then to natural di-
sasters (Allan & Bryant, 2011; Campanella, 2006; Goldstein, 2012), and
then to managing socio-economic crises and generating sustainability
(Lang, 2012; Martin, 2012; Raco & Street, 2012; Young, 2011). In this
latter group, Martin (2012) emphasized the notion of adaptive resilience,
emphasizing the ability of complex systems to anticipate or recognize
shocks and to intentionally adapt or reorganize.
In recent years, the concept of retail resilience has been developed
(Dobson, 2015; Barata-Salgueiro & Erkip, 2014; Fernandes & Chamusca,
2014; Kärrholm, Nylund, & Prieto de la, 2014). It has been defined as
“the ability of different types of retailing at different scales to adapt to
changes, crises or shocks that challenge the system's equilibrium, without
failing to perform its functions in a sustainable way” (Fernandes &
Chamusca, 2014, p. 2).
2.1. Retail functions
To employ the above definition, it is necessary to understand the
functions of retail within a city. Kärrholm et al. (2014) seeks to capture
a spectrum of retail functions in noting that retail areas must not only
“respond sustainably to the needs, wants and desires of different users,
consumers and investors”, but also “be part of a structure enabling resilient
everyday life”. It could be said that well-functioning retail systems
include both the private exchange function of facilitating economic
exchanges of goods and services in an efficient manner, and the public
good function of contributing to a number of collective priorities
(Dobson, 2015). These include contributing to neighbourhood sustain-
ability, generating a unique sense of place, ensuring access to goods
and services for a diverse population, and supporting environmentally
sustainable and healthier lifestyles (Duany et al., 2010; Francis,
Giles-Corti, Wood, & Knuiman, 2012; Giddings, Charlton, & Horne,
2011; Greenburg, 2012; Jacobs, 1961; Kirby, 2008; Miles & Song,
2009; Sandercock & Dovey, 2007; Zukin, 2010). This does not suggest
that every retail outlet must support all of these functions, rather that
the entire retail system within a region should address these factors in
a manner consistent with societal goals.
2.2. Innovations in retail format
The latter half of the 20th century presented a series of innovations
in retail formats (Gibbs, 2012; Guy, 2007; Jones & Doucet, 2000; Kotin
& Peiser, 1997; Kramer et al., 2008; Levy, 2011; Marston & Modarres,
2001). The first, discussed in the introduction above, was the post war
development of large supermarkets and regional and neighbourhood
shopping centres. At the time, planners saw the widespread adoption
of the automobile and the proliferation of indoor malls as the “new
normal” and the new ideal planned retail hierarchy as an adaptation
into a new stable form of development. Changes in retail form
continued, however, with the rise of large format (big box) retail stores
along arterial roadways, strip malls as neighbourhood centres, power
centre2 agglomerations, lifestyle centres,3 and others. These changes
involved streamlining the logistical processes for retailers, and the
massive retail agglomerations in power and lifestyle centres became
attractive to consumers with access to automobiles.
2.3. Innovations in planning
Innovations in planning approaches also took place during this peri-
od. New planning ideals arose in many cities to challenge the post war
planned retail hierarchies. These included Transit Oriented Develop-
ment (TOD), Smart Growth, New Urbanism, Complete Streets, and
others (Baker & Wood, 2010; Deitrick & Ellis, 2004; Duany et al., 2010;
Fernandes & Chamusca, 2014; Grant, 2002; Hall, 2002; Lowe, 2005;
Ratner & Goetz, 2013; Tsou & Cheng, 2013). These were built upon a
greater awareness of the public good functions of retail outlets than pre-
vious approaches to planning. They promote greater density around
TOD stations, the reintegration of uses (mixed use development), and
more complete streets and neighbourhoods integrating corner stores
(for example) back into the urban fabric.
There were also changes in the approach to planning with the move
towards greater levels of public involvement (Abbott, 1997; Innes,
2004; Innes & Booher, 2004; Murtagh, 2004; Porter, 1997; Robinson,
Shaw, & Davidson, 2005). First such efforts were focused on residential
developments, but engagement became increasingly important in com-
mercial shopping developments with the notion that effective coopera-
tion between stakeholders with vastly different interests could lead to
better retail development (Frieden & Sagalyn, 1991; Dawson & Lord,
1985). Later, it will be seen that this transition was an important factor
in the rise of resilience in one of the cases introduced.
3. Case comparison
Edmonton and Portland were selected as cases for this research as
both cities are prominent in the post-WWII retail planning history of
North America. Prior to the 1980s, Edmonton was a leading North
American city to embrace modern rational comprehensive planning in
adopting a strong comprehensive plan emphasizing a planned retail hi-
erarchy (Smith, 1995, Smith, 1991). Portland has built up its reputation
as a leading city in areas of sustainable retail development and urban
planning (Abbott, 1983, 1997). It is worth noting that beginning in the
1980s, the retail planning of Portland was similar to the hierarchical
model developed decades earlier in Edmonton, however as will be
shown in the paper, differences in the two cases have led to different
outcomes.
3.1. Case profiles
The City of Edmonton (Population: 812,201; Land Area: 684.37 km2)
retains roughly 70% of the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA, Population:
1,159,869; Land Area: 9426.73 km2) (Statistics Canada, 2013) (see
Table 1). In 2008, the Capital Region Board (a regional NPO consisting
of 24 municipalities that cover the Edmonton-CMA), was established
by the provincial government of Alberta. The City of Edmonton has all
of the authority over zoning and development approval within their
boundaries and the vast majority of major retail developments are with-
in its boundaries.
2
Power Centres are retail agglomerations, typically of detached stores sharing parking
lots with more than 23,000 m2 of gross leasable space and most often containing multiple
bog box retailers.
3
Lifestyle centres are commercial or mixed use shopping centres that provide leisure
amenities targeted towards upscale consumers. They typically consist of mid-sized upper
scale chain stores.
 F. Rao, R.J. Summers / Cities 58 (2016) 97–106
Table 1
The population and land area of Edmonton and Portland.
Range Edmonton Portland
Population City 812,201 585,845
Metropolitan 1,159,869 2,289,800
City/Metropolitan 70% 26%
Land area City 684.37 376.6
Metropolitan 9426.73 17,310
As the largest and also the central city in the metropolitan area, the
city of Portland has a land of 376.6 km2 and a population of 585,845
(City of Portland, 2013). The metropolitan area of Portland (Portland-
Vancouver-Hillsboro Metropolitan Area) covers a land area of
17,310 km2, and has a population of 2,289,800, much of which falls
under the regional government known as Metro, established in 1978.
Metro makes up of 25 municipalities with a land area of 1209.52 km2
and a population of around 1.5 million (Oregon Secretary of State,
2013). Planning governance is a shared responsibility with zoning
power held by the municipal governments in the Region, but many
key funding powers, such as the funding for public transit, controlled
by the Regional government. None of the municipalities in the Edmon-
ton or Portland cases levy sales taxes.
3.2. Edmonton: seeking a stable ideal
In 1949, when Edmonton was experiencing rapid growth precipitat-
ed by the discovery of oil, the City recruited planners from England and
introduced official urban planning. Strong economic growth and the
open prairie geography provided ideal conditions for the new planning
department to enact the rational principles that dominated planning at
the time. In the 1950s, planners developed an “ideal” planned retail hi-
erarchy which became prominent in many of the community level plans
in the 1950s, and in 1967, the first comprehensive General Plan for the
City of Edmonton (City of Edmonton, 1967) outlined the entire planned
hierarchy and distribution of retail development. These plans were root-
ed in the ideal retail distributions outlined by Berry & Garrison (1958)
rooted in the work of Christaller (1933). They also drew from the
Fig. 1. Edmonton General Plan 1967: anticipated commercial development Source: City of Edmonton, 1967 Note: scale added by author.
99
Athens Charter drafted by Le Corbusier (1943) from the work initially
completed by the Congrès International d'Architecture Moderne in
1933 which emphases a rigorous segregation between different land
uses including between commercial uses and residential uses.
The retail hierarchy was to consist of a central business district, re-
gional shopping centers, district shopping centers, and neighborhood
shopping centers (Fig. 1). There was recognition of existing retail devel-
opments with pre-war strip commercial developments, but no new de-
velopments of this sort were permitted. Planners envisioned this
hierarchy both in terms of the private exchange function and to provide
public good functions with centres acting as places of community inter-
action: “A variety of land uses should be integrated with new shopping cen-
ter designs. These uses may include cultural, park and recreation,
educational, governmental and residential as well as other facilities which
can be sited harmoniously and compactly together in the same unit for
economy and convenience. This should improve the viability of the center
and provide the neighborhood or community with a more clearly defined
focus or center for a wide variety of community functions” (City of
Edmonton, 1967, Section “Principles for Commercial Development”).
In other words, they sought to maintain a resilient multi-function retail
system that provided both the market exchange functions and the pub-
lic good functions that the previous retailing system had done, but to do
so more efficiently.
To achieve these broader functions, detailed development regula-
tions were developed and enforced through the land use bylaw. Howev-
er, it was not long before the comprehensive plan faced its first
challenge. With the rise of public consultation and engagement in plan-
ning, planners in Edmonton began to see many of the planned public
good functions be discarded, as one interviewee explained:
“In those days though, I mean Edmonton has had a very, a very much
reputation of being very utilitarian, very practical, which means cheap
and ugly. As long as, you know, the lights work and the heating goes up,
and you get in, well that's fine.”
Multiple interviewees identified this utilitarian attitude as negative-
ly impacting decisions at the time. In discussing the plans for a shopping
center emphasizing mixed transportation options, one and many other
progressive ideas that never materialized, one respondent noted:
“It was an idea to build a separate bus route with walking trails through
the communities that was only for public transportation. (…) All the people
100 F. Rao, R.J. Summers / Cities 58 (2016) 97–106
in Edmonton or in the oil patch mostly, just said: ‘Oh, to hell with this sys-
tem!’ So the whole concept was lost.”
Interviewees also noted that utilitarian arguments were also put
forth by city economists. As a result, public investment and standards
fell short of what was needed to fulfill the retail public good functions
envisioned by planners and the shopping centres prioritized commer-
cial enterprises and a utilitarian focus on accessibility for automobile
oriented customers.
Soon after this, market forces presented unanticipated challenges to
the planned retail hierarchy. The urban core saw significant decay in the
1970s as new shopping mall developments were constructed in subur-
ban locations and existing character buildings in the downtown were
dismantled and rebuilt into modern towers which pushed the smaller
shops out of the area (Kuban, 2005; Parnell, Semotuk, & Swain, 1974).
In response to these changes and in support of the planned retail hierar-
chy, the city began investing in the downtown core in the 1970s with
the development of new enclosed shopping centres (Mason, 1977;
Bernard & Lyne, 1989). This met with limited success and while decay
slowed, the downtown began to lose primacy in the retail hierarchy of
the City.
In 1973, the first major retail challenge to the planned retail hier-
archy came when developers put forth a proposal for West Edmon-
ton Mall (WEM), a very large mall on the outskirts of the City. The
City planning department recommended that the rezoning for the
mall not be approved, as it significantly violated the General Plan
and the West Jasper Place Plan. In their report to council, it was
noted that the mall would jeopardize the sustainability of the
planned town centre development for the area (Callingwood) as
well as the entire concept of municipal planning in Edmonton (City
of Edmonton, 1973; Edmonton Journal, 1973; Smith, 1991). Further-
more, it was opposed by regional communities who felt it would
have a negative impact on their communities. City council, less in-
clined to support strong planning measures than previous councils,
approved the rezoning (Leo, 1995). A review of the council meeting
minutes and media coverage indicates that there was very little, if
any, public opposition to the rezoning.
In 1981, Phase I of the mall was built, and two years later Phase II
was completed. It was emblematic of the rising malls at the time
which blurred the boundary between consumption, culture, entertain-
ment and even sense of place (Crawford, 1992). The developer then ap-
plied for a rezoning to build a third phase which would more than
double the size of the mall. A market impact report, undertaken by
Urbanics Consultants (1983) on behalf of the city noted that the mall's
expansion would threaten the role of downtown as the central shop-
ping district and negatively impact the sustainability of existing and
planned shopping centres throughout the region. City council, however,
supported the rezoning. Once Phase III was fully constructed in 1985,
the mall (Gross Leasable Area: more than 3 million ft2) significantly
exceeded the limits (Gross Leasable Area: 1 million ft2) of the largest
suburban ‘regional centre’ included in the planned retail hierarchy.
WEM achieved spectacular success in capturing local retail markets
drawing from existing retail centres and the downtown core
(Fairbairn, 1991; Hopkins, 1990; Johnson, 1991).
After the development of WEM, the planning departments persisted
in supporting the planned retail hierarchy and were slow to adapt to the
impact of WEM. The 1982–1989 Municipal Development Plan retained
the identical vision of the 1967 Plan for the planned retail hierarchy
with no recognition of WEM (City of Edmonton, 1982). In 1983, the
Summerlea Area Structure Plan was crafted, which officially designated
WEM as a town center, even though it was much larger in size than the
higher order classification of ‘regional centre’ (City of Edmonton, 1983).
The 1990–1998 Plan recognized WEM as a ‘regional centre’ (City of
Edmonton, 1990), but continued to emphasize the basic retail hierarchy
developed prior to the 1967 Plan with downtown retaining its primacy
and regional centres such as WEM being presented as secondary retail
nodes despite WEM having become the de facto primary retailing,
entertainment and social location within the city boundary (Fairbairn,
1991; Johnson, 1991; Smith, 1991).
Through the 1980s and 90s, the retail hierarchy saw further viola-
tions as the City saw significant arterial big box development, much
of it formally opposed by the planning department, but permitted by
council. Small strip malls also proliferated. As concluded by four of
the interviewees who were in the planning department or on munic-
ipal council at the time, the planners and municipal planning docu-
ments had lost much of their effective authority with council.
Interview respondents, meeting minute reviews, and a media review
indicate that the public remained largely disinterested in decisions
regarding retail developments. In 1998 came the approval for
South Edmonton Common (SEC, the largest open air retail centre in
North America at the time at 320 ac), once again, this occurred in
contravention of the existing statutory planning documents, without
support of the planning department and without any significant
public opposition. A review of media reporting on the development
of both WEM and SEC demonstrate mostly enthusiasm for the “excit-
ing new retail options” coming to Edmonton, with only one editorial
article in 2003 identifying concerns regarding the development
(Simons, 2003).
It is suggested that there was a de facto collapse of active retail
planning in the 1980′s, demonstrated by the fact that retail planning
was no longer addressed in any significant way in the 1998 compre-
hensive city Plan (City of Edmonton, 1998a, 1998b). With developers
driving decision making and planners having little meaningful influ-
ence, public good functions such as walkability, urban design, envi-
ronmental sustainability, widespread public accessibility, and
supporting neighbourhood sustainability were no longer factors for
the development of new retail sites (Simons, 2003). Edmonton had
shifted from being a pioneer in modern master planning to a city
that embraced neoliberal planning practices.
One exception to the ongoing urban decay in the core of Edmon-
ton during this period of time was a community-led revitalization of
Whyte Avenue. Local retailers and residents progressively organised
the Old Strathcona Foundation in 1974. They collaboratively chal-
lenged the planning department, landowners, and developers, all of
whom advocated redeveloping the traditional (and decayed) com-
mercial strip of Whyte Avenue by increasing traffic flow and building
mall based developments (in line with the planned retail hierarchy)
(City of Edmonton, 2007, 1998b). These advocates fought to retain
and revitalize the pre WWII retail format and their efforts led to it be-
coming one of Edmonton's premier retail and entertainment districts
at present.
As noted by one interviewee, “The council and the owners of the land,
generally speaking, did not support it [preserving the retail form and char-
acter of Whyte Avenue]. But they were overwhelmed by the will of the peo-
ple in that area, whom have always been different, always different. And the
group called the Old Strathcona Foundation that was formed to promote
that.”
In retrospect, the retail planning system in Edmonton could be de-
scribed as lacking resilience as it was unable to adapt to retain a diversi-
ty of functions (public and private) when confronted with retail formats
and development pressures. As a result, the city shifted from a pre-
WWII period where a balance of retail functions were provided, to one
where the private exchange function of retail was prioritized and public
space functions were largely abandoned. Edmonton became home to
the largest shopping mall in the world at one point and the largest
power centre in North America. It saw increased urban decay and the
rise of food deserts in the city along with the loss of other public good
functions provided by earlier retail forms (Smoyer-Tomic, Spence, &
Amrhein, 2006). This was due, in part, to the rigid, and eventually brit-
tle, nature of the planning system which was unable to resist or redirect
these developments into locations or forms that would have been more
effective at retaining the public good functions of retailing. It could be
concluded that the City of Edmonton went from being a leading pioneer
 F. Rao, R.J. Summers / Cities 58 (2016) 97–106
of modernist powerful retail planning in the 1960s to being a free mar-
ket neoliberal haven for retail developments in less than 10 years. The
one exception all of this was Whyte Avenue where an engaged diversity
of individuals and local NGOs worked to preserve such a balance. As will
be seen in Portland, a more robust and flexible system including the ex-
istence of an engaged public, can result in adaptive processes that result
in an improved balance between the market and public functions of re-
tail developments.
Caption: The Princess Theatre on Whyte was preserved by local NGO
groups because advocates felt its contribution to street life was important
despite its failure at the time as a for profit venture.
3.3. Portland: adaptive management
During the time when rational comprehensive planning was
expanding across North America, the City of Portland had a formal plan-
ning department, but carried out much of their larger scale planning
through special committees led by Robert Moses who consulted for
the City. The work of Moses in New York was admired by the city coun-
cils who sought to bring modernization to Portland including freeway
development and urban renewal (Abbott, 1983; City of Portland,
1943). The city, however, experienced stagnant economic conditions
through the 1940s and 1950s, limiting the process of modernization
and as such, retaining much of the pre-WWII development, including
the inner city street-based retail system.
In 1960, the first significant retail development outside of down-
town, the Lloyd Center shopping mall, was built. While there was no
comprehensive plan at the time that dealt with retail developments,
the mall was in-line with the mall based freeway-proximate form of de-
velopment promoted by the Planning department. However, around
this time, Portland started to break its links to Robert Moses due to
growing discontent with Moses' approaches elsewhere (including the
protest movement led by Jane Jacobs) and an influx of well-educated
outsiders who migrated to Portland as part of the growth of an electron-
ics based industry. The tensions between the ideas of Moses and the
new residents stimulated the rise of several younger politicians and ac-
tivists with progressive ideals in planning and development (Abbott,
1983). This led to a rich and diverse grassroots movement of activists
concerned with the downtown, with issues of urban growth and
change, and with the revitalization of businesses.
This shift was reflected in the 1972 Downtown Plan crafted through
a process of enthusiastic public participation supported by both the mu-
nicipal and state governments. In it, automobiles were tagged as being
“noisy, smelly, and dangerous” (City of Portland, 1972, Pg. 33). It had a
strong focus on retail planning and prioritized pedestrian-friendly retail
developments that provide both convenience goods (such as groceries)
for downtown residents and comparison goods to attract consumers
from throughout the region. It also sought to strengthen the sense of
downtown identity and to stimulate the building of a pleasurable
101
human environment (City of Portland, 1972). The Association for
Portland Progress (which evolved into the Portland Business Alliance)
played a key role in implementing the downtown plan in the early
1970s.
Metro was established in 1978, and was given the responsibility to
manage the new Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and regional coordina-
tion of land use planning. Simultaneously, the grassroots advocacy
movement that began in the 1960s became increasingly formalized
through the 1970s and a variety of highly organized and powerful plan-
ning focused NGOs formed. For instance, 1000 Friends of Oregon was
formed in 1975 in opposition to transportation plans that sought to
build new bypasses (Abbott, 1983, 1997; Richmond, 1997). A period
of fierce debates and conflicts on planning issues at all scales began in
the 1970s. These occurred in neighborhood meetings, council meetings,
public hearings, and even the court. One interviewee very familiar with
the system noted:
“The battles are legendary. You go to the court. People live with their
lawyer. And there is even a legal system to settle these conflicts. It is very
used. Everybody learns over time to game in the system. So you game in
the game.”
Thus, by 1995, when the the 2040 Growth Concept Plan was adopted
Portland's planning system included an polycentric coalition of NGOs,
numerous engaged and active municipal governments, and an over-
arching regional government (and an active State government. The
Growth Concept Plan became the primary comprehensive planning
document for the metropolitan area. Similar to the 1967 Plan of Edmon-
ton, it delineated a retail hierarchy consisting of a central city, regional
centers, town centers, main streets, corridors, and station communities
(Fig. 2). Also similar to the 1967 plan of Edmonton, the pluralistic func-
tions of retail developments including many public good functions were
well recognised.
Unanticipated challenges to the plan began to occur soon after it
was developed. Many planned Transit-Oriented Stations failed to
achieve their development expectations (Miles & Song, 2009; Song,
2005; Song & Knaap, 2004), whereas new retail development ap-
peared in unexpected locations. In 2005, a new lifestyle centre,
Bridgeport Village (BV) was built in an area previously zoned as an
“employment area” in the municipalities of Tualatin and Tigard.
The area had four planned town centers nearby, and thus the un-
planned development challenged the planned retail hierarchy. Ne-
gotiations between municipalities, residents, and NGOs led to the
rezoning which permitted BV to be developed (Tims, 2003, 2007).
As a result of the negotiations in the rezoning process, BV was held
to a high standard of design including better finishing materials, bet-
ter pedestrian access and flow (walkability), hidden parking, and an
attractive streetscape façade. The planners for Metro accepted this
shift as a reasonable, though significant, adaptation of their plan de-
veloped only a few years earlier.
“Now Metro wants to designate it. … A group like Metro has gone out
and identified it. What they largely do is recognise what actually happened
on the ground. And so what happened as that's developed, actually more of
regional center than town center.”
Cascade Station was planned to be a large, dense, mixed use TOD
station next to the International Airport of Portland. However, no de-
velopment was initiated within three years of the station opening in
2001 in part, according to the analysis of the Portland Development
Commission (PDC, a public-private joint venture), because there
was little developer interest in building the form of TOD that the
site had been planned for. There was however demand for big box,
power centre style developments. In response, Metro worked with
the PDC, private developers, and active citizen groups to allow a
more “market friendly” development at the site. Big box retail devel-
opment was permitted, but with strong urban design guidelines
(City of Portland, 2005). The development retained many elements
of an effective TOD including contiguous stores that were well ser-
viced by sidewalks. Additionally, small stores were developed
102 F. Rao, R.J. Summers / Cities 58 (2016) 97–106

Fig. 2. 2040 Growth Concept Plan Developed in 1995. Source: City of Portland, 2009.

along the park block, with storefronts facing both the parking area other words, on streets like Mississippi Avenue, one of the key factors
and the LRT station. Though the project did not fully achieve the orig- attracting small retailers was the affordable rent of the historical
inal TOD mixed use design outlined in the original plans with a large buildings.
residential population, it integrated urban design and sustainability
principles to a much greater level than most power centers in
North America thus achieving a better balance between market ex-
change functions and public good functions. Indeed, a headline in
the Oregonian newspaper noted that “Portland's Cascade Station of-
fers a lesson in flexible thinking on development” (Griffen, 2010).
It was not only large developments that challenged plans, as a num-
ber of clusters of small, mostly independent retailers, began to emerge
as successful market areas in the early 2000s. One such case is Mississip-
pi Avenue, which was seriously decayed when the 2040 Growth Con-
cept Plan was developed. The Plan did not designate it as a main
street, and planned for a new TOD development just to the west. One
of the municipal planners interviewed noted that these areas not only
were off of planned TOD sites, but they were not in line with the
planned density and form for redevelopment, however, it was the
older buildings that allowed them to develop as they did. “When you
get into the heart of city itself, the heart of downtown, whether it is dense
development, office buildings and so on, in my view, this is a rationale for
a number of those controls [mixed land use, TOD, etc.], but if you impose Caption: A typical main street in Portland demonstrating smaller scale
those controls on Mississippi, on Alberta [another inner city main street in buildings with storefront retail.
the city of Portland], It wouldn't happen. It couldn't emerge, simply because As these streets outside of the downtown core were emerging as
it carries with the cost at a very expensive entry level to participate.”. In successfully revitalized retail areas, the PDC recognized that many of
 F. Rao, R.J. Summers / Cities 58 (2016) 97–106
the sustainable development principles outlined in their plans, such as
mixed land use with high density were not present. PDC adapted its
sustainable development strategies to the unexpected rise of streets
such as Mississippi Avenue, rather than emphasizing the planned TOD
station areas nearby. Planners with expertise in urban design were
recruited by the PDC to assist local retailers in achieving positive
urban amenities (e.g. attractive storefronts and outdoor patios on public
sidewalk) while increasing the attractiveness of their businesses.
Subsidies were offered to address the costs of certain municipal licences
(e.g. sewage and drainage fees) for independent retailers, as a means to
divert their investment on beautifying storefronts in diverse styles. Also,
as explained by R9, these subsidies were provided to retailers based
upon broad principles of good urban planning and not solely the
“broken windows” approach of seeking to erase the worst decay.
“People wanted to pick up the worst building and fix it. And that's usu-
ally owned by the worst owner. He is not going to do anything for a while.
So you don't start with him. (…) They don't have the vision to do it. So usu-
ally the best people to start with are the ‘owner users’-people who have a
retail store and build (it) in their own (properties) [owner-users], because
they understand.”(R9).
Incrementally, the consensus on good urban planning grew and
more local retailers with the awareness were attracted to the area. As
a result, Mississippi Avenue became one of the trendiest main streets
in Portland.
In 2009, Metro published the “States of Centers” report as a means to
stimulate public discussions on how to cope and adapt to developments
that challenge the 2040 Growth Concept Plan. The report refined the
initial conceptualizations of shopping centres to better reflect new re-
tailing forms and approaches. It emphasizes urban design elements
and the promotion of multimodal transportation as key elements of a
“good” centre and discards previous notions of defining specific
“acceptable” size categories and retail capture areas.
In conclusion, the retail system of Portland has been demonstrated
to be resilient because the breadth of public good and private exchange
retail functions were maintained over time. The planning system
adapted plans and infrastructure to align with market initiatives, but it
also forced changes to the plans of developers in their efforts to bring
in proposed developments that initially did not adequately contribute
to the provision of the public good functions of retail. Significant retail
transformation occurred within the metropolitan region including the
decline of the existing downtown shopping centres, urban decay in
some commercial streets, and the rise of new forms of retail; however,
the public good functions relating to sustainable development, good
urban design, walkability, and accessibility were retained as the system
evolved.
4. Discussion
From the 1950s through to the 1970s, Edmonton had a well-staffed
and influential planning department, a comprehensive plan which fo-
cused on balancing public good functions of retailing with the retail ex-
change function, few regional planning issues to complicate the
implementation of plans, and few physical barriers to development. In
contrast, the metropolitan area of Portland consisted of multiple adja-
cent municipalities, it was experiencing a conflict in planning philoso-
phies between those who held the ambitious modernization views of
Moses versus those whose views aligned more with Jane Jacobs, it did
not have a comprehensive plan for the region until quite late, and it
lacked a strong centralized planning department.
Despite the initial advantages Edmonton seemed to have, Portland
appears to have developed a much more functional, balanced, and sus-
tainable retail system of development. In retrospect, the planning sys-
tem in Portland was able to employ a system of adaptive management
to cope with market changes while broadly preserving retail functions
across the region. The Edmonton situation was more rigid being rooted
in a specific rational vision for the city, and when the planning system
103
was unable to sustain the initial ideal plan, retail planning collapsed
and much of the public space function of retailing was lost.
A number of related factors contributed to the process of adaptive
management that emerged in Portland's system and not in Edmonton's.
These are shown in Fig. 3. First, Edmonton's planning system through
this period of time was heavily rooted in the rational comprehensive
planning approach which specified a detailed vision of the city in its
first comprehensive plan. In Fig. 3, this puts them in the upper half of
the diagram. Planners sought to champion this vision and defend it
when faced with challenges. Portland's planning system and subse-
quent planning documents were influenced by its 1972 downtown
plan which focused on principles as opposed to a specific singular vision
for the future. This principle-focused incremental approach allowed
planners in Portland to be more adaptable than those in Edmonton.
They were rigid in enforcing their core principles, but flexible on
elements of form and distribution provided that key principles were
respected. Edmonton planners were unwavering on form and distribu-
tion leading to collapse of the planning system when faced with market
innovations and political shifts.
Second, the planning system in the Portland case was polycentric in
two ways, the rise of an active and engaged public who developed pow-
erful NGOs, and the large number of influential municipal governments
in the region. Similar polycentralism did not exist in Edmonton where
the planning system included a small number of significant actors (pri-
marily developers, the planning department, and the city council). This
is discussed further below.
An informed and engaged public emerged in Portland in the 1960s
and then coalesced into powerful formal organizations in the 1970s.
These groups were a powerful force pushing for the public good aspects
of retail developments. In Edmonton, the public remained mostly apa-
thetic to the private retail developments being proposed. When retail
innovations and proposed developments were advanced in Edmonton
in ways that did not fit the detailed retail hierarchy, they encountered
rigid opposition from the City of Edmonton's municipal planning office,
but little opposition from the public. As can be seen above, this very
centralized system of planning was brittle and collapsed in the face of
development pressure. In similar situations, Portland's commitment to
the public good functions of retail locations were bolstered and often
enforced by public NGOs through political action, lawsuits and other
mechanisms. This polycentric system of support was further bolstered
by a system of municipal governments, a state government that was
very active in planning, a very active municipal development commis-
sion, and the later involvement of the regional government all of
whom held one another to task on shared principles for retail
developments(Abbott, Adler, & Howe, 2003, Abbott, 1997, 1983; Leo,
1998; Lang & Hornburg, 1997). There was a depth of interested and in-
formed stakeholders supporting the public good functions of retailing in
the planning system in Portland. No one shift in power (such as a
change of a single municipal council) could result in a massive shift in
the approach to planning.
Thus, Edmonton found itself in the upper left quadrant of Fig. 3
above during the period where it was facing significant retail innova-
tions and related development pressures, while Portland could be said
to be in the lower right quadrant.
5. Conclusion
This research explored and conceptualized retail resilience to
examine two case studies that demonstrate very different approaches
to retail planning with divergent outcomes. With Portland considered
to be one of the leading regions in terms of North American planning
(Hagerman, 2007; Song & Knaap, 2004; Wheeler, 2003), it might
seem logical to hypothesize that its well-developed retail system was
the outcome of powerful planning department and well established
local and regional plans. However, as was shown through the paper, it
is instead the outcome of adaptive retail planning rooted in a principle
104
centred incremental approach that identified the broad range of retail
functions as important, and a polycentric system of planning that bol-
ster the retention and influence of those principles.
Edmonton, in comparison, did have a powerful planning department
and well developed ‘utopian’ comprehensive plan for a long period. Its
planning department was at the forefront of retail planning in the
1950s (Climenhaga, 1997) and its initial plans for a retail hierarchy
included an emphasis on the balance of the private and public good
functions of retail development. However, the centralized and compre-
hensively focused retail planning system proved brittle when it encoun-
tered new retail formats and new development pressures and lost any
influence. As a result, Edmonton's retailing system became dominated
by market actors pursuing economic efficiency. In Edmonton one excep-
tion to this exists, Whyte Avenue provides one case of very active citizen
involvement regarding retail developments. It almost acts as a small
example of “Portland”.
Thus, it can be concluded that retail resilience leading to the
preservation of the public good functions discussed in this paper is a
function of polycentric systems where there are multiple active stake-
holders who prioritize collective public good priorities along with pri-
vate interests, and that allow for adaptation through principle centred
incremental approaches to addressing innovations and development
pressures. Relating this back to Holling (1973), there are parallels as
he notes that complex systems tend to be resilient, whereas simplistic
systems tend to be prone to collapse. In these case studies, Edmonton's
system was simple, concentrated, and rigid, whereas Portland's was
adaptable, polycentric, and complex.
These findings could assist both researchers and practitioners to
understand the mechanism of retail planning that stimulate resilient
retail outcomes. More studies are required to test and improve the use
of resilience theory in retail planning studies. It is suggested that future
research should be undertaken in other cities both within and outside of
North America to identify how alternative approaches to retail planning
have addressed the challenges of changing retail form.
References
Abbott, C. (1983). Portland: Planning, Politics, and Growth in a Twentieth-century City. Lin-
coln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Abbott, C. (1997). The Portland region: Where city and suburbs talk to each other-
and often agree. Housing Policy Debate, 8(1), 11–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10511482.1997.9521245.
Abbott, C., Adler, S., & Howe, D. (2003). A quiet counterrevolution in land use regulation:
The origins and impact of Oregon's measure 7. Housing Policy Debate, 14(3), 383–425.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2003.9521481.
F. Rao, R.J. Summers / Cities 58 (2016) 97–106
Fig. 3. Factors affecting retail planning.
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human
Geography, 24(3), 347–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465.
Alexander, N., & Akehurst, G. (Eds.). (1999). The Emergence of Modern Retailing
(pp. 1750–1950). Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
Allan, P., & Bryant, M. (2011). Resilience as a framework for urbanism and recovery.
Journal of Landscape Architecture, 6(2), 34–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18626033.
2011.9723453.
Architectural Forum (1943, Augustt). Planning with you. Architectural Forum
(pp. 63–80).
Baker, R., & Wood, S. (2010). Towards robust development of retail planning policy:
Maintaining the viability and vitality of main street shopping precincts.
Geographical Research, 48(1), 65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2009.
00622.x.
Barata-Salgueiro, T., & Erkip, F. (2014). Retail planning and urban resilience: An
introduction to the special issue. Cities, 36, 107–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2013.01.007.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Tran.). London: Sage.
Berry, B. J. L., & Garrison, W. L. (1958). Recent developments of central place theory.
Papers in Regional Science, 4(1), 107–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5597.
1958.tb01625.x.
Bernard, F., & Lyne, P. (1989). Downtown Inc: How America Rebuilds Cities. Cambridge, Ma:
MIT Press.
Campanella, T. J. (2006). Urban resilience and the recovery of New Orleans. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 72(2), 141–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01944360608976734.
Christaller, W. (1933). Die zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland. Jena: Gustav Fischer (Trans-
lated (in part), by Charlisle W. Baskin, as Central Places in Southern Germany. Pren-
tice Hall 1966).
City of Edmonton (1967). Edmonton General Plan. Edmonton, AB: City of Edmonton.
City of Edmonton (1973). RG-8, A92–103, Council Minutes, 1973. (Retrieved from the City
of Edmonton Archives).
City of Edmonton (1982). General Municipal Plan. Edmonton, AB: City of Edmonton.
City of Edmonton (1983). Summerlea Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan. Edmonton, AB:
City of Edmonton.
City of Edmonton (1990). General Municipal Plan. Edmonton, AB: City of Edmonton.
City of Edmonton (1998a). Municipal Development Plan. Edmonton, AB: City of Edmonton.
City of Edmonton (1998b). Strathcona Area Redevelopment Plan. Edmonton, AB: City of
Edmonton.
City of Edmonton (2007). Business Revitalization Zones Handbook: A Guide for Edmonton
BRZs. Edmonton, AB: City of Edmonton.
City of Portland (1943). Portland Improvement. New York, NY: Moses. R (Retrieved from
http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2009/09/30/1254339381-
portland_improvement_-_robert_moses_1943.pdf on Mar 22, 2015).
City of Portland (1972). Planning Guidelines: Portland Downtown Plan. Portland, OR: City of
Portland.
City of Portland (2005). Amendments to the Cascade Station/Portland International Center
Plan District. Portland, OR: The City of Portland.
City of Portland (2009). Metro 2040 Growth Concept. Portland, OR: City of Portland.
City of Portland (2013). 2010 Census Data for Portland Neighborhoods. Portland, OR: City of
Portland (Retrieved from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/56897).
Climenhaga, D. J. (1997). The Death and Life of Regional Planning in the Calgary Area. Na-
tional Library of Canada (Master dissertation). Retrieved from, (0–612–22132-6).
Crawford, M. (1992). The world in a shopping mall. In Mc. Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a
Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. New York: Hill and
Wang.
Dawson, J., & Lord, D. (1985). Shopping Centre Development. Milton Park, Oxon: Routledge.
 F. Rao, R.J. Summers / Cities 58 (2016) 97–106
Deitrick, S., & Ellis, C. (2004). New urbanism in the inner city: A case study of Pittsburgh.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), 426–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/01944360408976392.
Dennis, C., Marsland, D., & Cockett, T. (2002). Central place practice: Shopping centre at-
tractiveness measures, hinterland boundaries and the UK retail hierarchy. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 9(4), 185–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0969-
6989(01)00021–2.
Dobson, J. (2015). Britain's town centres: From resilience to transition. Journal of Urban
Regeneration and Renewal, 8(4), 347–355.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2010). Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the
Decline of the American Dream. New York, NY: North Point Press.
Edmonton Journal (1973, November 24). Shopping Center Facing Roadblock. Edmonton
Journal (Retrieved from The City of Edmonton Archives).
Fairbairn, K. J. (1991). West Edmonton Mall: Entrepreneurial innovation and consumer
response. The Canadian Geographer, 35(3), 261–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1541-0064.1991.tb01100.x.
Fernandes, J. R., & Chamusca, P. (2014). Urban policies, planning and retail resilience.
Cities, 36, 170–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.11.006.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems
analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating sense of community:
The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 401–409. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002.
Frieden, B. J., & Sagalyn, L. B. (1991). Downtown, Inc.: How America rebuilds cities. Cam-
bridge: MIT Press.
Gibbs, R. (2012). Principles of Urban Retail Planning and Development. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology (6th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Giddings, B., Charlton, J., & Horne, M. (2011). Public squares in European city centres.
Urban Design International, 16(3), 202–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/udi.2011.6.
Goldstein, B. E. (2012). Collaborative Resilience (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Grant, J. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with
implementing a planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association,
68(1), 71–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360208977192.
Greenburg, K. (2012). Walking Home: The Life and Lessons of a City Builder. Toronto, ON:
Vintage Canada.
Griffen, A. (2010, May 18). Portland's Cascade Station offers a Lesson in Flexible Thinking on
Development. The Oregonian.
Gruen, V., & Smith, L. (1960). Shopping Town USA. NY: Rheinhold.
Guy, C. (2007). Planning for Retail Development: A Critical View of the British Experience.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hagerman, C. (2007). Shaping neighborhoods and nature: Urban political ecologies of
urban waterfront transformations in Portland, Oregon. Cities, 24(4), 285–297.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2006.12.003.
Hall, P. (2002). Urban and Regional Planning (4th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. London, UK: Edward Arnold Ltd.
Hodge, G., & Gordon, D. (2013). Planning Canadian Communities: An Introduction to the
Principles, Practice, and Participants (6th ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson College Indigenous.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, 4, 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social
systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.
Hopkins, J. S. P. (1990). West Edmonton Mall: Landscape of myths and elsewhereness.
Canadian Geographer, 34(1), 2–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1990.
tb01064.x.
Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1),
5–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042315.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st
century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1464935042000293170.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Random
House, Inc.
Johnson, D. (1991). Structural features of West Edmonton Mall. The Canadian Geographer,
35(3), 249–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1991.tb01099.x.
Jones, K., & Doucet, M. (2000). Big-box retailing and the urban retail structure: The case of
the Toronto area. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 7(4), 233–247. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(00)00021–7.
Kärrholm, M., Nylund, K., & Prieto de la Fuente, P. (2014). Spatial resilience and urban
planning: Addressing the interdependence of urban retail areas. Cities, 36, 121–130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.012.
Kirby, A. (2008). The production of private space and its implications for urban social rela-
tions. Political Geography, 27(1), 74–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.06.010.
Kotin, A., & Peiser, R. (1997). Public-private joint ventures for high volume retailers: Who
benefits? Urban Studies, 34(12), 1971–1986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0042098975178.
Kramer, A., et al. (2008). Retail Development, ULI Development Handbook Series (4th eds.).
Washington, DC: ULI-Urban Land Institute.
Kuban, R. (2005). Edmonton's Urban Village: The Community League Movement. Edmonton,
AB: The University of Alberta Press.
Lang, T. (2012). How do cities and regions adapt to socio-economic crisis? Towards an in-
stitutionalist approach to urban and regional resilience. Raumforschung und
Raumordnung, 70(4), 285–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13147-012-0170-2.
Lang, R. E., & Hornburg, S. P. (1997). Planning Portland style: Pitfalls and possibilities.
Housing Policy Debate, 8(1), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.1997.
9521244.
105
Le Corbusier (1943). La Charte d'Athenes translated from the French by Anthony Eardley.
From Le Corbusier's The Athens Charter. New York, NY: Grossman 1973.
Leo, C. (1995). Global change and local politics: Economic decline and the local regime in
Edmonton. Journal of Urban Affairs, 17(3), 277–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9906.1995.tb00348.x.
Leo, C. (1998). Regional growth management regime: The case of Portland, Oregon. Journal
of Urban Affairs, 20(4), 363–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.1998.tb00428.x.
Levy, J. (2011). Contemporary Urban Planning. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lösch, A. (1940). The Economics of location (tran. By W.H. Woglom and W.R. Stolper in
1954). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lowe, M. (2005). The regional shopping centre in the inner city: A study of retail-led
urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(3), 449–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00420980500035139.
Lu, P., & Stead, D. (2013). Understanding the notion of resilience in spatial planning: A
case study of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Cities, 35, 200–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cities.2013.06.001.
Marston, S., & Modarres, A. (2001). Flexible retailing: Gap Inc. and the multiple spaces of
shopping in the United States. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93(1),
83–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00184.
Martin, R. (2012). Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks.
Journal of Economic Geography, 12(1), 1–32.
Masson, J. K. (1977). Edmonton: The unsettled issues of expansion, governmental reform and
provincial economic diversification. Paper presented at the proceedings of the annual
meeting of the Western Political Science Association. Phoenix, AR: The Western Polit-
ical Science Association.
Miles, R., & Song, Y. (2009). Good” neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon: Focus on both so-
cial and physical environments. Journal of Urban Affairs, 31(4), 491–509. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2009.00457.x.
Moses, R. (1970). Public Works: A Dangerous Trade. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Murtagh, B. (2004). Collaboration, equality and land-use planning. Planning Theory &
Practice, 5(4), 453–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293198.
Oregon Secretary of State (2013). Oregon Blue Book: Metro. Retrieved from http://www.
bluebook.state.or.us/local/other/other02.htm (on July 9, 2014)
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Parnell, M., Semotuk, V., & Swain, J. (1974). Everyperson's Guide to Neighborhood Defense
or Rape of the Block. Edmonton, AB: The Edmonton Social Planning Council.
Porter, M. E. (1997). New strategies for inner-city economic development. Economic
Development Quarterly, 11(1), 11–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124249701100102.
Raco, M., & Street, E. (2012). Resilience planning, economic change and the politics of
post-recession development in London and Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 49(5),
1065–1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098011415716.
Ratner, K. a., & Goetz, A. R. (2013). The reshaping of land use and urban form in Denver
through transit-oriented development. Cities, 30, 31–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2012.08.007.
Richmond, H. R. (1997). Comment on Carl Abbott's “The Portland region: Where city and
suburbs talk to each other-and often agree. Housing Policy Debate, 8(1), 53–64. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.1997.9521246.
Robinson, F., Shaw, K., & Davidson, G. (2005). “On the side of the angels”: Community in-
volvement in the governance of neighbourhood renewal. Local Economy, 20(1),
13–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0269094042000313584.
Sandercock, L., & Dovey, K. (2007). Pleasure, politics, and the “public interest”:
Melbourne's riverscape revitalization. Journal of the American Planning Association,
68(2), 151–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360208976262.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C., & Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in
ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35098000.
Simons, P. (2003, November 11). South Edmonton common typifies city's reluctance to
plan development. Edmonton Journal, B11 (Retrieved from The City of Edmonton
Archives).
Smith, P. J. (1995). Planning for residential growth since the 1940s. In B. Hesketh, &
F. Swyripa (Eds.), Edmonton: The Life of a city (pp. 243–255). Edmonton:
NeWest.
Smith, P. J. (1991). Coping with mega-mall development: An urban planning perspective
on West Edmonton Mall. The Canadian Geographer, 35(3), 295–305. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1541-0064.1991.tb01104.x.
Smoyer-Tomic, K., Spence, J., & Amrhein, C. (2006). Food deserts in the prairies? Super-
market accessibility and neighborhood need in Edmonton, Canada. The Professional
Geographer, 58, 307–326.
Song, Y. (2005). Smart growth and urban development pattern: A comparative study.
International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 239–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0160017604273854.
Song, Y., & Knaap, G. -J. (2004). Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the war on
sprawl? Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 210–225. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/01944360408976371.
Statistics Canada (2013). Census Profile 2011: Edmonton. Retrieved from http://www12.
statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/search-recherche/frm_res.cfm?
Lang=E&TABID=1&G=1&Geo1=PR&Code1=01&Geo2=0&Code2=0&SearchType=
Begins&SearchText=edmonton&PR=01
Thomas, C. J., & Bromley, R. D. F. (2003). Retail revitalization and small town centres: The
contribution of shopping linkages. Applied Geography, 23, 47–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0143-6228(02)00068–1.
Tims, D. (2003, August 30). Deal Ends Standoff Over Bridgeport Shopping Hub. The Orego-
nian (Retrieved from NewsLibrary.com on April 7, 2016).
Tims, D. (2007 July 19). Bridgeport Village shakes up ‘regional centers’ idea. The Oregonian,
B05 (Retrieved from NewsLibrary.com on April 7, 2016).
106 F. Rao, R.J. Summers / Cities 58 (2016) 97–106
Tsou, K., & Cheng, H. (2013). The effect of multiple urban network structures on retail
patterns-A case study in Taipei, Taiwan. Cities, 32, 13–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cities.2013.02.003.
Tuan, Y. (1979). Landscapes of Fear. New York, NY.: Pantheon Books.
Urbanics Consultants (1983). West Edmonton Mall impact study. Vancouver: Presented for
the City of Edmonton Planning Department.
Wheeler, S. (2003). The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: Implications for
sustainability planning. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and
Sustainability, 8(3), 317–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830306656.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research : Design and methods. Los Angeles: SAGE (5th ed.).
Young, R. F. (2011). Planting the living city: Best practices in planning green
infrastructure-results from major U.S. cities. Journal of the American Planning Associa-
tion, 77(4), 368–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.616996.
Zukin, S. (2010). Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.