Ucin 1123542011

Conceptual Model for Economically Viable Urban Riverfront
Revitalization in the United States
A thesis submitted to
Division of Research and Advanced Studies

of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
School of Planning
College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning
20th July 2005
By
Deepali Tumbde
B.Arch. Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology. 2003.
Thesis Committee
Chair: Michael Romanos, Ph.D.
Member: Carla Chifos, Ph.D.
Reader: Patricia Z. Timm, Ph.D.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude towards Dr. Romanos for his
invaluable and constant guidance through out the project, Dr. Chifos for sharing her
views and ideas about the progress of my research and Dr. Timm for providing opinions
and resources for the study.
I also want to thank Andrea for her time and patience in reading and editing my thesis.
My parents, grandma, brother and Jayant have supported me morally throughout the
research; I can not be grateful enough for this, without them this project would not have
materialized. They provided me distant but consistent support through out the thesis.
Last but not the least I would like to thank my friends Nitin, Ruchit and Surabhi for being
patient listeners through the research and writing phase of my thesis.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Economic development in urban areas of cities is closely linked with revival of
downtown. A majority of cities are located at the riverfront and therefore revitalization of
riverfronts become essential part of any city’s redevelopment process. Abandoned and
degenerating riverfronts were a menace to any development and the overall image of the
city; hence it is an important issue for prosperity and progress of the city. This thesis
presents a conceptual model for economically viable urban riverfront revitalization in the
United States. In order to derive the model, the study reviews literature to understand the
history, need and issues related with riverfront revitalization. This also helps to establish
a relationship between revival of riverfronts and economic development. Six cities are
studied as cases for successful urban riverfront revitalization initiatives to obtain a list of
common as well as unique characteristic of such projects. The study of various goals and
objectives set by the cities, the strategies used to attain the objectives and the major
players involved has contributed substantially towards development of the model.
The case studies reveal the importance of government initiative to trigger private
investment and create awareness of riverfront revitalization among the citizens.
Partnership of public and private sectors is crucial to materialize the goals of enormous
scale at riverfront. The landuses show a mix of residential, recreational, institutional,
commercial, and retail activities. Improved access through development of walkways,
roads and bridges attracts more people to riverfront and make retail, entertainment and
eateries economically viable. Anchor activities like aquariums, museums and convention
centers are built to provide more opportunities to people of diverse age groups and
2
interests. The impacts of these strategies have been huge in terms of increase in number
of businesses at riverfront and livability of the downtown. These strategies derived from
the case studies and review of literature laid the guidelines of model for urban riverfront
revitalization.
This model could be used as a guideline for any riverfront redevelopment project to
ensure the economic success. Apart from other tangible benefits, the overall quality of
life is enhanced for the citizens with new opportunities for recreation and enjoyment. The
cultural and historic importance of the riverfront has been refurbished. The riverfronts
now provide with a vibrant and energetic ambience.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 2
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 7
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT....................................................................................... 11
2.1. Research Questions........................................................................................... 12
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 13
3.1. Objectives ......................................................................................................... 13
3.2. Literature Review.............................................................................................. 13
3.3. Case Studies ...................................................................................................... 14
3.3.1. Criteria for Selection of Case Studies....................................................... 15
4. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 18
4.1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 18
4.2. Need for Riverfront Revitalization ................................................................... 18
4.2.1. History of Riverfronts ............................................................................... 18
4.2.2. Revitalization of Riverfronts..................................................................... 20
4.2.3. Issues Related to Riverfront Revitalization .............................................. 21
Environmental Quality.......................................................................................... 23
Financial Assistance.............................................................................................. 25
Urban Design and Planning .................................................................................. 26
Historic Preservation............................................................................................. 28
Government Participation ..................................................................................... 29
Tourism ................................................................................................................. 31
4.3. Riverfront Revitalization and Economic Development.................................... 31
5. CASE STUDIES....................................................................................................... 35
5.1. Chattanooga ...................................................................................................... 35
5.1.1. Introduction............................................................................................... 35
5.1.2. Brief History ............................................................................................. 35
5.1.3. Plan ........................................................................................................... 36
5.1.4. Implementation ......................................................................................... 38
5.1.5. Influence of the Plan ................................................................................. 39
5.2. Columbus .......................................................................................................... 40
5.2.1. Introduction............................................................................................... 40
5.2.2. Brief History ............................................................................................. 41
5.2.3. Plan ........................................................................................................... 42
5.2.4. Implementation ......................................................................................... 42
5.3. Louisville .......................................................................................................... 45
5.3.1. Introduction............................................................................................... 45
5.3.2. Brief History ............................................................................................. 46
5.3.3. Plan and Implementation .......................................................................... 47
5.4. Pittsburgh .......................................................................................................... 50
5.4.1. Introduction............................................................................................... 50
4
5.4.2. Brief History ............................................................................................. 50
5.4.3. Plan ........................................................................................................... 51
5.4.4. Implementation ......................................................................................... 54
5.5. Portland ............................................................................................................. 56
5.5.1. Introduction............................................................................................... 56
5.5.2. Brief History ............................................................................................. 56
5.5.3. Plan and Implementation .......................................................................... 57
5.6. Saint Paul .......................................................................................................... 60
5.6.1. Introduction............................................................................................... 60
5.6.2. Brief History ............................................................................................. 60
5.6.3. Plan ........................................................................................................... 61
5.6.4. Implementation ......................................................................................... 62
6. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................. 65
6.1. Objectives for Riverfront Revitalization Plans ................................................. 65
6.2. Organizations for Provoking Redevelopment................................................... 66
6.3. Strategies for Riverfront Revitalization ............................................................ 68
6.4. Economic Impacts of Riverfront Revitalization in Case Studies...................... 73
6.5. Findings............................................................................................................. 75
7. MODEL FOR URBAN RIVERFRONT REVITALIZATION ................................ 78
8. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................... 82
9. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 84
5
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Chattanooga Riverfront Parkway ................................................................ 37

Figure 2: Improved Transportation Plan for Enhanced Accessibility .............................. 39
Figure 3: No Accessibility to River in Downtown Columbus.......................................... 41
Figure 4: Riverfront Corridor Boundary Plan................................................................... 43
Figure 5: Improved Access to Scioto and Olentangy Rivers............................................ 44
Figure 6: The Scioto Riverfront, the Setting for Civic Heart of Columbus...................... 44
Figure 7: Polluted Ohio River in Louisville ..................................................................... 46
Figure 8: Riverfront Biking and Jogging Trails................................................................ 47
Figure 9: Children’s Play Areas at Ohio Riverfront ......................................................... 49
Figure 10: Central District Project Map............................................................................ 54
Figure 11: The Pittsburgh Technology Center has Created Open Space Along the River
for Both Employees and the Public .................................................................................. 55
Figure 12: Predevelopment of the South Waterfront Redevelopment Project Site. ......... 57
Figure 13: Conceptual Landuse Plan Shows a Mixture of Uses....................................... 58
Figure 14: Public Gathering Areas and Walkways at the Riverfront. .............................. 59
Figure 15: Conceptual Landuse Plan for Riverfront......................................................... 62
TABLES
Table 1: Case Studies…………………………………………………………………….72
Table 2: Summary of Strategies of Riverfront Revitalization Case studies…………….....75
6
1. INTRODUCTION
Economic development in the United States in the 1920s and 30s was a function of state
or federal government. Policies and programs were developed by the federal or state
governments. Departments were created at the federal and state level to address economic
development. The US Chamber of Commerce was established as early as 1912 and
currently there are 3,000 state and local chambers associated with it (US Chamber of
Commerce 2005). The Regional Economics Division was established in the Office of
Business Economics in 1964 and was responsible for measuring and analyzing regional
economic activity which influence important policy making decisions (US National
Archives and Records Administration 2005).
This approach to economic development did not involve many local agencies that could
contribute constructively towards the policy and program making process and its
implementation. During late 1960s and early 70s, some self- motivated local government
agencies and citizen groups came together and worked towards community development
in their cities. This was the period when central cities had started declining all over the
United States. Employment opportunities and businesses were moving out into the
suburban areas. These groups were enthusiastic about bringing change but they were
short of funds to bring about any drastic improvement in the deteriorating condition of
their cities or communities. The state government or the local government then
participated in the development process as financer or as guarantor. In most cases the
government helped in making the major ventures to propel investment from private
developers. Development or enhancement of existing infrastructure, environmental clean
7
ups and financial aid to the businesses establishing in downtowns were some of the
contributions. It is essential for government to realize that the investments made in the
redevelopment project may not produce desired monetary returns very soon. Since there
is a huge public demand and welfare involved with such projects it becomes
indispensable for the government to participate and assist in the revitalization projects
(Callies and Guth 2002).
Redevelopment activities gained momentum all over United States in the 1960s and 70s.
Cities planned strategies to improve their economic status and prosper in terms of
employment and quality of life for citizens. Along with the central city revitalization,
older cities that developed at waterfronts had an additional asset to build upon. Cities that
had turned their backs to the waterfront now began realizing the potential of water and as
a propeller for economic activities and overall downtown improvements. Famous
examples of such projects are the Inner Harbor Baltimore, Boston’s Waterfront
Development and the San Antonio’s Riverwalk project. These projects were highly
successful in generating economic activities and drawing people to the waterfront. They
set an example for other waterfront cities to engage in waterfront revitalization activities.
Chattanooga, Pittsburgh, and San Diego formed the second tier of cities to redevelop and
improve their waterfronts. Building of stadiums, aquariums, museums and convention
centers became a trend in waterfront redevelopment plans. Government incentives helped
private developers come forward and contribute to the process.
8
Land shares different types of edges with water. Cities at ocean shores, lakes and
riverfronts were born because of economic activities at the waterfronts. Inland riverfronts
were explored in the middle to late nineteenth century due to their proximity to navigable
waters (Leroy, Groves and Dollin 1999). Since then rivers have always been an integral
part of the nation's history by providing opportunities for commerce, routes for
exploration, inspiration for ideas and culture, means of recreation, and sources of
drinking water, thus their redevelopment was a crucial task.
This thesis is aims to provide a thorough study of some of the strategies implemented for
riverfront revitalization projects in the United States that led to economic prosperity, and
to suggest a conceptual model to guide the selection of economic development tools and
strategies that could be adopted for future riverfront development plans. There are many
redevelopment features that are common to all types of waterfronts, but this study deals
only with riverfronts in order to take a more focused approach.
The first chapter provides an overview of the thesis and presents a general idea about
riverfront revitalization. The second chapter, titled Problem Statement, presents the
problem statement and justifies the need for this study and its importance in the field of
planning. It presents research questions, whose answers eventually lead toward the
achievement of the objectives of this thesis. The third chapter, Methodology, explains the
process adopted to achieve the objectives of the study mentioned in Chapter Two. It
provides a step-by-step description of how the research was conducted and the resources
required. The fourth chapter, Literature Review, explains the history of riverfront
9
revitalization to develop an understanding of the evolution process of riverfronts and the
need for redevelopment of riverfronts in United States. It discusses the issues relating to
riverfront restoration based upon the literature reviewed. The last section in this chapter
demonstrates the relation between economic development and riverfront revitalization.
Chapter Five, Case Studies, determines the various models used by cities to overcome the
issues relating to riverfront redevelopment and to bring about economic development.
The study of different approaches adopted by selected cities is included in this chapter.
Analysis and Findings, Chapter Six, analyzes the case studies on the basis of pre-
determined criteria. The final chapter states conclusions from the analysis and presents
the model for riverfront revitalization. It is followed by references used in the study.
10
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
The role of riverfronts in the development of American cities cannot be denied at any
point in time. Riverfront cities were the first to be explored and developed. “. . . (t)he
growth of our communities has been at the mouth of navigable rivers, on bays, at key
points along rivers and waterways, or on ocean” (Wrenn 1983, 7). After the establishment
of ports and harbors in cities like New York, Boston, and Savannah, along the ocean
shore, the inland waterways were explored through rivers. These routes were then used
for trade and travel (Wrenn 1983, 19). Thus the cities of Pittsburgh, St. Louis and
Cincinnati became the major inland ports. The economy of these cities thrived on the
businesses linked with the river and led to the establishment of commercial centers
triggered by the industrial activities. Wharves, taverns, storage buildings and other
structures were built to fulfill the demands for storage and loading/unloading of goods on
the ships and barges.
The development of railroads triggered economic growth due to faster transportation and
increased access to areas lacking the waterway transport system. The development of
expressways further added to the neglect of riverfronts. “As commerce increased, the
requirements for storage and movement grew, and port cities actually cut off their
inhabitants from access to the water’s edge with vast warehouses, rail spurs, wharves, and
arterials that provided for the distribution of goods” (Torre 1989, 6). This led to the
dereliction of the land and the riverfronts were left unused or underused. With the loss of
any physical necessity to remain at the riverfront, the businesses and industries relocated
to areas with better infrastructure, maintenance and image. This worsened the problem at
11
riverfronts. Many cities identified the problem of deteriorating riverfronts in the mid
twentieth century as a bane to the cities economic health and devised plans to alleviate
the situation for a better image and use of the riverfront.
Revitalization of urban riverfronts is critically important for cities as they are a major
natural asset that needs to be attended to for the growth of economic activities on the
riverfront. Different cities have implemented various economic development strategies to
achieve an economically viable riverfront. The tools used by the cities to achieve
economic viability form the major area of study for this thesis. Identification and
usefulness of the tools implemented by the cities will guide the development of a
conceptual model and the selection of economic development tools and strategies that
could be adopted in future riverfront development plans.
2.1. Research Questions
This thesis intends to answer the following questions:
What are the components of the economic development strategies used in successful
riverfront redevelopment plans?
What are the positive changes that occurred because of the strategies used for riverfront
revitalization plans?
12
3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the procedure by which the thesis proceeds. It is aimed at providing
an elaborate picture of how the study was carried out. It covers a brief description of each
chapter and how gathering data and analysis was accomplished.
3.1. Objectives
The objective of this thesis is to learn what incidences brought about the realization of the
importance of the riverfront and its revitalization. It focuses on approaches taken by cities
to redevelop their riverfronts and compares the strategies adopted. This study presents a
set of guidelines for the strategies to be adopted while developing an economically viable
riverfront redevelopment plan. The guidelines were determined from case studies of
economically successful riverfront development plans. The study presents the impacts of
the economic development strategies adopted for riverfront revitalization. The impacts
were studied on the basis of new commercial, residential, and institutional development
that occurred after the implementation of the riverfront redevelopment plan.
3.2. Literature Review
The review of literature on the revitalization of riverfronts and its contribution to
economic development of a city forms the basis of discussion of issues relating to
riverfronts. The literature review provides a platform for carrying out the case studies. It
builds up an understanding of the relationship between the objectives and strategies
adopted for riverfront revival. The sources for the literature review are journals,
13
magazines, books, conference proceedings and web resources, included under the
following headings:
• Need for riverfront revitalization
• Issues related to riverfronts’ revitalization
• Riverfront revitalization and economic development
3.3. Case Studies
The thesis is based primarily on findings from the urban riverfront revitalization case
studies. The second major task is the study of cities that have undergone a process of
riverfront revitalization and produced successful redevelopment plans for their riverfronts
that were otherwise in a state of neglect. This study was done in the following manner:
1. Compared cities with tools and strategies adopted for riverfront revitalization on
the basis of size of the city measured by its current population.
2. Selected six American riverfront cities with redevelopment plans.
3. Analyzed the strategies implemented on the basis of their description in riverfront
redevelopment plan.
4. Presented a menu of strategies and tools.
This study offers an assessed set of strategies and tools that have been effective in
riverfront redevelopment plans. These aspects were used to draw conclusions regarding
their contribution towards the economic development of riverfronts. The economic
development benefits were qualitatively assessed in terms of:
• New commercial development;
14
• New residential development; and
• New institutional development.
The case studies mostly provide with a sequence of events but no evaluation is done for
the cases in consideration. It throws light on the dynamics of change at the riverfront and
related activities that are a result of revitalization at riverfront.
3.3.1. Criteria for Selection of Case Studies
The common issues and parameters obtained after the literature review provide the basis
for the analysis of case studies. The studies were developed from available literature on
the riverfront plans in case studies in books and other sources. These studies helped in
determining the extent to which the parameters derived in the literature review are
actually addressed in practice.
The selection of cities was done on the basis of availability of case studies on the
riverfront redevelopment plans. The success of the plans was accepted on the basis of the
studies and references available from the books. The cities selected for the case studies
were:
1. Chattanooga
2. Pittsburgh
3. St. Paul
4. Louisville
5. Portland
6. Columbus
15
These studies were selected based on the following criteria:
• The aim of this thesis is to study the strategies and tools adopted for urban
riverfronts, therefore all cities chosen for study are located at riverfronts in
urban areas.
• Since the conceptual model is intended to be developed for the North
American riverfront cities, the examples chosen for study are in North
America.
• Cities with programs and plans adopted for redevelopment of their
riverfront were selected.
• Availability of study material and literature on selected case studies was a
major criterion in finalizing the case studies.
• The final selection included cities of different sizes so that commonalities
derived from the study could be generalized to a certain degree.
This initial phase of case studies of six riverfronts chosen from the United States help
develop a broader understanding about issues relating to riverfront revitalization. These
studies bring forward a greater number of tools and strategies. The riverfront
revitalization plans of these case studies were used to identify the strategies applied to
achieve the aspired objectives at the riverfront. The list of the tools implemented to
achieve the desired results for economic viability of the plans was prepared. These cases
were then studied on the basis of the following outline:
1. Description of the riverfront development plan
2. Brief history relating to the development (need and background)
16
3. Goals and objectives of the plan
4. Planning tools used to achieve the objectives/ Financing
5. Implementation of the plan
6. Assessment of development impacts: economic and other
This study produced an assessed set of strategies and tools that have been effective in
riverfront redevelopment plans. These aspects were then used to draw conclusions
regarding their contribution towards the economic development of riverfronts. The
common characteristics of each study and its contribution toward the economic
development lay the conceptual model to guide future riverfront development initiatives
and ensure the economic viability of the same.
17
4. LITERATURE REVIEW
4.1. Introduction
This section on literature review provides an insight into the history of riverfronts in the
United States. It helps to understand the evolution of riverfronts with the changing nature
of functions and uses. The literature review helps to determine the issues related to the
riverfronts that have been addressed by different cities in an attempt to achieve a
successful riverfront development. It establishes the relationship between economic
development and riverfront revitalization. The conclusions from this section help in the
study of the cities that are used as examples to lay the conceptual model at the end of the
study.
Riverfronts serve as a connection between the city’s history and natural environment, and
earn appreciation from residents and tourists during daily leisure activities or celebrations
and events (Carmichael and McCann 2004). For economic viability, the riverfront
redevelopment plan should be a part of city’s larger economic and physical structure.
4.2. Need for Riverfront Revitalization

4.2.1. History of Riverfronts
Traditionally the growth of riverfronts has been incoherent and incremental, without a
comprehensive thought about the development decisions (Wrenn 1983, 9). The
development of ports was primarily dependent upon safety and suitability of cargo
handling where a wooden jetty was constructed and ships were anchored. The settlement
of people was in close proximity to the edge of water, and street patterns and buildings
18
developed along the banks. Industrial growth led to the building of warehouses, factories,
and docks near the ports and moved settlements further away from the water. Ports
became thriving centers of cities, accelerating growth of support businesses that provided
service and supplies for the offices and space for merchants and the shipping trade
(Wrenn 1983, 10).
The development of railroads near riverfront warehouses led to an increase in the filling
of water to obtain more land to lay tracks for the railway wagons. This development
detached the center city from the water's edge. Further, the development of highways
along the water’s edge congested the riverfront, making it almost inaccessible to the
public. The popularity of highways, because of speed and convenience, led to major
decline in the water transport-based industry, and related businesses and support activities
became obsolete. Huge buildings at riverfronts that served as warehouses and factories
became derelict and were subsequently demolished. Withdrawal, contraction or shifts in
cargo handling and related activities were matched by a parallel dereliction. Typically,
public access was denied and newer buildings were oriented to face away from the rivers
and their banks (White et al 1993, foreword).
Like the character of the riverfront, the functions of the riverfront have undergone many
changes. All riverfronts have an individual character associated with them even though
they go through some common stages of development. Fishing, ship building, boat repair
yards, mills and manufacturing plants, grain silos, concrete terminals, coal and salt piles,
waste water treatment plants, tank farms and similar activities were placed at the
19
riverfronts, which many regarded as deleterious and unpleasant (White et al 1993, 25).
These activities were dominant, and recreation at the riverfront formed a secondary
function. “The riverfront virtually became a ghost area- a deserted, inaccessible,
depressing reminder of better days” (Wrenn 1983, 12).
4.2.2. Revitalization of Riverfronts
Efforts to revitalize riverfronts started in the later half of the twentieth century when
cities realized that riverfronts could be an asset to the image of the city and downtown
areas. Riverfronts use water as an asset to attract people, therefore the associated
amenities can be a catalyst for inner city regeneration (White et al 1993, foreword). The
urban renewal programs after World War II led to the public interest in riverfront
redevelopment with focus on the downtown core. Also, revitalization of the riverfront can
be considered a response to dynamics resulting from the change in uses, functions and
requirements of riverfronts.
Cities all over the world are now realizing the importance of riverfronts and taking
measures to improve them (Salvesen 1997). Most of the largest cities in the United
States, 69 out of 75, are located near a body of water, providing planners with
opportunities for redevelopment (Gaffen 2004, 1). Riverfront revitalization plans that
were successful to some extent include San Antonio, Memphis, St. Paul, Atlanta,
Montreal, Detroit and Pittsburgh. These redevelopment plans focused on different issues
relating to riverfront. The economy of cities shifted from industrial based businesses and
jobs to a service economy and there were no more factories and related activities at the
20
riverfront (Souers and Otto 2005, 1). Awareness of the natural environment along the
river and preservation of its ecosystem and resources has increased the public demand for
revitalization processes. Outdoor recreation is becoming popular among people, and
riverfront parks are one of the favorite locations for such activities. Such a center of
activity acts as a magnet for businesses in downtown areas near riverfronts.
The preservation of historic buildings that are mainly located in the riverfront area of the
cities, the earliest and first settled place in the city, has also proved to be a catalyst in
revival and renovation of structures and adjacent sites at the riverfront (Gaffen 2004).
The revitalization of riverfronts requires effort to determine the most demanding and
essential issue to invest time, money and resources. The following section provides
popular areas of interests relating to waterfront revitalization that need to be addressed
while developing a plan.
4.2.3. Issues Related to Riverfront Revitalization
“The amount and extent of downtown urban waterfront restoration projects are obvious
illustrations of the growing appreciation for urban values. These may be characterized as:
a diverse population; concentrated development and integration of land uses; a mix of old
and new architecture; walkability; plentiful public transportation; and a distinct energy
and strong sense of place” (Gaffen 2004). The attraction of urban rivers is not new—
cities have been revitalizing downtown riverfronts over the past 20 or so years (Souers
and Otto 2005). Planners, politicians and people became involved when economic growth
and urban renewal became the agenda for city governments after World War II (Stephen
21
and Fagence 2000). They realized the importance of waterfront revitalization for
enhancement of quality of life.
Attracting residents and outsiders to riverfronts by improving the area, providing housing
and other recreational activities was considered one of the major tasks for the waterfront
renewal process (Carmichael and McCann 2004). Taking advantage of proximity to
riverfront, the central business district was also impacted and heritage buildings were
improved and reused for business and other purposes at the riverfront as well as in the
CBD.
The magnanimous task of revitalizing a deteriorating and neglected riverfront required
enthusiastic and keen involvement of the local government. It was essential to encourage
the private sector to get involved in the redevelopment activity. Public-private partnership
formed the backbone of many successful riverfront revival plans. Diversity of activities
and uses at the riverfront ensured participation of different categories of people, from
businessmen to environmentalists and large groups to individuals. Combination of
commercial, residential, recreational and institutional activities assisted in maintaining a
year round crowd at the riverfront.
This three-pronged approach to waterfront revitalization - conventional commercial
retailing, heritage appreciation, and leisure activity - provides a more broadly based real
estate rationale with increased returns being likely, as the three distinct consumer groups
(shoppers, conservationists and recreationists) intermix to take advantage of facilities and
22
amenities which cater to the interests of each group (Carmichael and McCann 2004). A
mixture of these interests in the same waterfront scheme contributes significantly to the
creation of competitive advantage.
The revitalization process for riverfronts was mainly based on one or several interests
which were to be resolved during the process. The approaches can be understood in these
broad categories:
• Environmental quality
• Financial assistance
• Government participation
• Urban design and planning
• Historic preservation
• Tourism
A brief description of these issues is given in the following pages. The issues have been
discussed in the literature and highlighted by various authors. A majority of cities have
addressed and focused on one or more of these issues and based their riverfront
revitalization plans on them.
Environmental Quality
The progress of water-based transport and water dependent activities led to deterioration
of water quality due to discharge of waste from factories and other commercial
establishments at the riverfront. The obnoxious smell became a symbol of open sewers
23
(Wrenn 1983, 14). Water transport, railroads, and processing plants led to air and noise
pollution. Industrial riverfronts contributed towards the destruction of fish habitats and
rare flora because of improper disposal techniques. Oil and gas discharges from ships
accumulated and shorelines became littered with debris. The inland waterways were
affected severely because of cumulative collection of waste from one port city to another.
In the late 1960s and 70s, new standards for pollution control led to the awareness of the
problems of deteriorating riverfronts, and the implementation of controls significantly
helped to improve the environmental quality. This gave way to new aspects riverfront
redevelopment. Recreational and entertainment activities could be planned for public use.
The full potential of the riverfront site is realized only if it is managed and planned
properly. Pleasant ecologically balanced systems should replace unsightly smells, toxic
chemicals and floating scum (White et al 1993, 269). The improved water quality allows
many uses at riverfronts: establishment of recreational activities, marine and aquatic
wildlife habitats, aquariums, parks and others. These in turn generate supporting retail
and entertainment.
The presence of toxic contents in the former industrial sites is a major challenge in
addressing environmental issues (Gaffen 2004). The contaminants need to be removed
before any kind of redevelopment work is done at the site. Another problem is the
flooding of the river, which has to be accounted for before planning any activity or
building at the riverfront.
24
Financial Assistance
Riverfront redevelopment was not a preferred choice of various government and private
agencies involved in urban renewal processes of cities (White et al 1993, foreword). The
redevelopment of riverfronts required huge amounts of funds to bring about a drastic and
widespread change in the pattern of use and the image of the riverfront. Public financing
was necessary to raise demand by providing the basic amenities land and infrastructure.
“Huge capital costs for land acquisition, site clearance and infrastructure are incurred
years before significant private investment begins” (Gordon 1997, 244). This was a huge
task because of the unavailability of adequate funds by most of the local governments.
Public financing can be used to leverage loans, grants or equity funds from other sources
(Wrenn 1983, 67).
The different tools for financing a public project can be in the form of direct debt from
private market at affordable and low interest rates. This kind of loan also benefits the
government and allows for a great degree of control over the project. Loan guarantees by
local governments can also encourage private lenders to provide the money to developers
by reducing risks. Taxation policies like tax abatements, tax incentives, special tax
districts and tax increment financing are the four methods used by the cities to facilitate
riverfront development projects (Wrenn 1983, 68). The famous Union Warf development
in Boston was achieved by granting concessions to developers like long term tax breaks
and altering existing programs for easier development (Wrenn 1983, 127).
25
For example, the local government in Toronto invested about $27.5 million in the
Harborfront development to attract an investment of $200 million, out of the $27.5, $20
million was spent on roads, sewers, services and other basic requirements of development
(Wrenn 1983, 110).
Urban Design and Planning
After the cleaning and restoration of riverfronts, it is necessary to focus on the future of
the riverfront including deciding the character of the riverfront and functions that would
be essential to make it vibrant and economically viable. Issues of accessibility and public
interests come in to the picture while discussing the uses and activities attached with the
riverfront. An increase in the number of shade trees and street furniture is essential for a
pedestrian friendly walkway and access road (Geddes 2004).
Designing of all the small details of signage and other pedestrian-scale design guidelines
maintain the style of the pathways and buildings (Souers and Otto 2005, 1). Shops,
restaurants, eateries and other activities attract people and cater to the general needs of
the people visiting the riverfront. Easy, safe, and affordable public access is critical to
any good riverfront plan. Access via foot, bike, public transit, or boat should be available
to all, and the river should be visually accessible as well as physically accessible (Souers
and Otto 2005, 1).
Urban design and planning addresses the land use pattern as well as possible uses for
waterfronts.
26
• Recreational- New activities in the presence of urban amenities like sitting
areas, cafes, picnic shades and a combination of green and paved areas will
help attract crowds during evenings and weekends. The feeling of safety is
essential to ensure the influx of visitors at the riverfront. Activities like
jogging, strolling, hiking and biking require special arrangements. Other river
related activities like fishing and rowing will lure participants as well as
spectators. These activities will make the downtown and the riverfront an
interesting and safe place to live and work. Riverwalks are famous
recreational amenities used by all ages of people to carry out walking,
jogging, skating and strolling. Along with the outdoor activities, indoor sports
can be planned in order to address seasonal issues. Other activities like
festivals, cultural gatherings and programs are essential to attract masses to
the riverfront. Such programs and fests have been used by various cities to
bring people to the riverfront.
• Commercial- Nearby restaurants, shops, and residences support park activities
and, in turn, benefit from increased traffic. Parks attract development and can
serve as a catalyst for the area around them.
• Institutional- Famous waterfront projects have a strong participation of
different institutions. Aquariums and museums have remained a popular
choice to be established at riverfronts.
• Residential- Housing forms a major part of all riverfront revitalization projects
as it establishes a 24-hour relation between the people and the site. A variety
of housing should be offered to attain the full potential of catering to the
27
market needs of young and single people to elderly and empty nesters. The
riverfront provides a scenic and attractive site for housing development. The
value associated with housing also increases along with the other recreational
activities and amenities available at the riverfront.
A strong mix of activities has been suggested not only for riverfront redevelopment
projects but also for other waterfronts in the United States and Canada. The Inner Harbor
in Baltimore, Charleston Navy Yard in Boston and the Harborfront in Toronto are famous
examples of waterfront projects with successful implementation of mixed-use
development plans (Wrenn 1983, 123). In San Antonio, River Walk's European Style
cafes, shops, bars, and restaurants make an economic engine for the city, annually
drawing more than 7 million visitors who spend almost $800 million (Harte 2003). A
unique tranquility combined with prosperous business and plentiful amusement places the
River Walk in the forefront of urban U.S. riverfront projects. It provides a large number
of services-recreational, economic, and aesthetic-encouraging stewardship from a diverse
group of San Antonio people (Harte 2003).
Historic Preservation
Many American cities first developed on the waterfront, and therefore most of the old
and historically significant buildings of the city are located at or near the water's edge.
Most building uses were industrial, military, shipping terminals or commercial, and trade
centers (Wrenn 1983, 30). The age and location of the building play a major role in
deciding upon the current use they can be put to. Adaptive reuse of historical structures is
28
a very popular trend in restoration. This technique helps in refurbishing the structure in a
profitable manner and the constant use ensures regular maintenance.
Tax advantages were offered to developers by the Economic Tax Recovery Act of 1981
for rehabilitation and recycling of buildings in the Charleston Navy Yard in Boston. The
restoration of historic structures at Laclede’s Landing in St. Louis was carried out by
grants offered by the federal government under the National Register of Historic Places
(Wrenn 1983, 139). The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of cultural
resources that are selected for preservation and it provides the developers of historic
buildings with grants for restoration purposes (National Register of Historic Places 2005).
The major factor of concern in such revitalization is the ownership and historic
designation of the historic resource (Wrenn 1983, 30). Since most buildings and their
intended use have become obsolete, adaptive reuse is a promising alternative for
restoration.
Government Participation
The assistance provided by the federal, state and local governments could be in the form
of direct financial assistance or in terms of incentives or other indirect forms of help,
which include making land available for development and the level of complexity of
procedures involved in getting a plan approved from the government. The public sector
can increase the demand for space and help the private developer in land assembly. The
ease of overcoming the bureaucratic processes encourages the private developers and
29
financers to invest their time and money in a public development project. The program
also must be flexible enough to evolve in response to the needs both of current
communities and those that will exist ten to 20 years in the future. Uncovering those
needs could be a challenge. Another challenge involves dealing with the surprisingly
different and often confusing regulations that apply to waterfront developments, as
opposed to inland projects (Gaffen 2004). Waterfront planning involves a distinct set of
regulations governed by specific regulatory agencies. Planners must be able to
comprehend and apply various directives to their particular projects.
Development of policies regarding the riverfront assists in laying the guidelines for
development and provides clarity to the developer as to what are acceptable types of
development. During the planning process the politicians, developers, planners and
community groups should be involved (Carmichael and McCann 2004). To obtain
information about broader issues, participants from different groups must be contacted
such as the Rotary Club, sporting clubs (including those with focused interests), open-
space advocates, visual and performing arts organizations, business associations,
adjoining neighborhood associations, and area schools.
Well worked out programs and discussions involving the private sector usually lead to
better connection between the agencies and government (Carmichael and McCann 2004).
Public involvement helps common people connect to the procedure and understand the
necessity of such redevelopment projects. Government can make the land available by
30
applying various tools such as eminent domain, ground leases, inverse lease back, land
banking, land exchange and relocation assistance.
Tourism
The magic of water attracts not only the city residents but also outside visitors to the city
and its riverfront. They prove to be an asset to the city’s economic health. Hotels, motels,
restaurants and specialty stores develop in the areas around riverfront thus adding to the
income of the local government. The popularity of waterfronts as any other asset or
monument in a city should be considered an important aspect to create a market demand.
Increasing the attendant facilities and accommodation contributes to the popularity of
waterfronts.
Rejuvenated riverfronts are becoming magnets for tourists around the world. The issues
regarding this deal with satisfying the needs of residents and allow the flow of tourists
naturally. The major problem is keeping the balance between the number of visitors and
maintenance of the beauty and efficiency of the riverfront facilities.
4.3. Riverfront Revitalization and Economic Development
Riverfront revitalization projects have proven to be a popular and successful economic
development strategy in numerous cities. Many of these projects have been implemented
in medium-sized cities as a means for developing regional tourism and bringing people
back into long neglected urban areas. They create “new” developable areas. Their
programs vary widely; some developments are just parks, while others have included
31
commercial developments, public attractions or convention facilities. Overall, these
projects have had highly beneficial economic impacts, especially in attracting new
commercial and residential development in the immediate area of the improvements.
More importantly, they have improved the quality of life for local citizens, which
translates into economic benefits.
After decades of neglect, the riverfronts of cities across North America are becoming
focal points of new development and catalysts for downtown and citywide revitalization.
They have brought new businesses and development into blighted or abandoned
downtowns, retained existing businesses, boosted the tourism sector and created new
centers for civic life and interaction.
The revitalization of riverfronts leads to treatment of acres of land that were regarded as
brownfields before the redevelopment. Such efforts require huge amounts of money and
resources, which can be gathered only if the project is recognized and initiated by the
government. These brownfield sites enjoy the view of the river and are close to the
central business district, which proves to be of great advantage for different development
opportunities along the riverfront. After restoration the sites can be used as an open,
landscaped space for cultural events and different conventions in the city. Such activities
invite a huge crowd to the riverfront and help bring people closer to it.
Hotels are built at the riverfront to take advantage of view and proximity to the historic
district. Building good hotels encourages tourism and also broadens the tax base of the
32
city. If the infrastructure is well established to handle the floating population generated
because of the riverfront revival then this activity can prove highly beneficial for the local
economy because of the spin off activities generated because of tourism. Restaurants,
specialty shops, cafes, ice cream parlors and food courts are the major spin off activities
that are generated and thrive because of the population visiting the riverfront and nearby
redeveloped areas.
All successful riverfront projects require an anchor to draw crowds and act as a center,
for constantly visiting people. Aquariums, museums, stadiums, convention centers, and
art and entertainment facilities are some of the most commonly found anchor occupants
of the riverfront. These activities are usually meant for all age groups of people. Certain
river related activities, depending upon the nature of the river, can house some water
related recreational facilities like fishing and canoeing.
High-end residential neighborhoods have been a profitable investment for developers and
serve a major purpose as they create a 24-hour riverfront. Condominiums and apartments
are more popular than bungalows because of the affordability factor. Proximity to
workplaces in downtown and other facilities, along with the river views, attract people to
stay in residential units constructed at the riverfront.
With all these activities and people at the riverfront, the establishment of retail activities
is triggered near such locations. They generate a good tax base and serve the amenities
required at the riverfront. Building of office space and business set-ups at the riverfront
33
create a site for people to come during the daytime. Corporations like redeveloped and
upgraded riverfront sites because they also add to the image of their firm.
Infrastructure development including roads, water and sewers, and environmentally
sound sites, is an essential and crucial part of redevelopment projects and also requires
major investments and government initiatives to attract private developers.
34
5. CASE STUDIES
As mentioned in the methodology chapter case studies have been selected to learn from
the successful riverfront revitalization plans. This chapter is intended to present the plans,
objectives and strategies of the six cities and to develop the matrix for the riverfront
revitalization model. Each case study starts with a brief introduction of the city and its
location, and then discusses the event that brought about awareness of the need for
riverfront revitalization, which is followed by the plan for redevelopment of the
riverfront.
5.1. Chattanooga
5.1.1. Introduction
Chattanooga is the 4th largest city in the state of Tennessee. It is located in southeast
Tennessee near the border of Georgia at the banks of the Tennessee River. The city has
received national recognition for the resurgence of its beautiful downtown and
revitalization of its riverfront (City of Chattanooga 2004). According to the US Census
Bureau, the population of the city in the year 2000 was 155,554.
5.1.2. Brief History

Chattanooga was an industrial city with abandoned factories, a deteriorating downtown
and a neglected riverfront. A five-lane high-speed highway was built in 1965 which
proved to be barrier between the city and its riverfront (Chattanooga Waterfront
Overview, 2004). The outdated factories and the siphoning of manufacturing jobs to other
countries or locations had left the city and its riverfront in a state of dejection (Project for
Public Spaces 2004). The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Act helped
35
improve the environmental quality at the riverfront but the economic and social health
remained degenerated.
After more than two decades of downtown decline and disinvestments, Chattanooga
made a firm commitment to reconnect its downtown to the Tennessee River as the
keystone of its revitalization efforts in the mid 1980s. A citizen committee called
Chattanooga Venture was formed to address the city's economic problems through
planning. In 1984 they started a community planning process called "Vision 2000." A
citizen group Moccasin Bend Task Force was working towards awareness of the
Tennessee River as a public asset (Chattanooga Waterfront Overview 2004). A nonprofit
corporation was created to coordinate redevelopment projects along the riverfront and
downtown. Thus, the River City Company, later renamed River Valley Partners, was
formed to raise funds for and participate in the development of the renewal project.
Formally organized in 1986 as a private, not-for-profit corporation, River Valley Partners
was to drive the master planning process and fuel a public /private collaboration. This
helped make people aware of the problems at the riverfront and also encouraged
contributions from private developers. With significant public input, the Tennessee
Riverpark Master Plan was developed to guide public and private investment along the
waterfront (Chattanooga Waterfront Overview 2004).
5.1.3. Plan
The discussions were focused on dual notions of public access and quality development
along the riverfront. The Tennessee Riverpark Master Plan was published in 1985 with an
36
estimated cost of $750 million for mixed-use development, enhancement and
conservation along 22 miles of the Tennessee River corridor (Chattanooga Area Chamber
Figure 1: Chattanooga Riverfront Parkway
Source: Chattanooga Waterfront Overview 2004
of Commerce 2004). New development projects resulted in, among other things, the
expansion of the Tennessee Aquarium and Hunter Museum, the reconstruction of the
Riverfront Parkway, and an expansion of Coolidge Park. Chattanooga further improved
connectivity between disparate portions of the downtown by eliminating concrete barriers
and improving walkways and roadways. For example, the traditionally isolated Hunter
Museum was reconnected to the downtown through innovative transportation efforts like
the First Street “incline” project. Increased accessibility now allows both the casual
stroller and the driver to arrive at the heart of the downtown easily (Chattanooga Area
Chamber of Commerce 2004).
37
5.1.4. Implementation
The plans started materializing in the 1990s. The Tennessee Aquarium opened in 1992,
the Chattanooga Visitors Center in 1993, the Creative Discovery Museum in 1995, and
the IMAX 3D Theater in 1996 (Project for Urban Spaces 2004). The opening of the
aquarium on May 1, 1992, altered the city’s course forever (Chattanooga Area Chamber
of Commerce 2004). It was the world’s largest freshwater aquarium (Chattanooga Area
Chamber of Commerce 2004). It drastically changed the physical face of the downtown
and the riverfront and proved to be an anchor for the early development of the Tennessee
Riverpark. After years of stagnation and civic in-fighting, the city was full of potential to
accomplish the task of revitalization.
Private enterprise was rekindled by the government efforts of revival at the riverfront.
Big River Grill and Brewing Works, a homegrown brewpub, established itself as the
anchor tenant in the historic downtown trolley barns, and became the flagship of what has
grown to be a national chain. Carmike Cinemas opened a seven-screen multiplex cinema,
their first venture into a downtown area in years. The Riverset Apartments opened as the
first downtown housing built in more than a decade, with all 41 of the units being leased
before the complex opened (Project for Urban Spaces 2004). The renovated Walnut
Street Bridge opened as a pedestrian-only bridge in 1993 as well. Directly across the river
from all of this activity, Coolidge Park, featuring a vintage carousel, opened in 1999,
spawning a retail renaissance on the north shore. And on the south end of town, the
convention center was expanded a block away from a new conference center and hotel
(Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce 2004).
38
Figure 2: Improved Transportation Plan for Enhanced Accessibility
Source: Chattanooga Waterfront Overview 2004
In 2001, the Tennessee Department of Transportation transferred the highway to the city
of Chattanooga. It was reconfigured and the existing highway was converted to a
riverfront parkway. This was a milestone in the revitalization of the riverfront, which the
city envisioned in the mid-1980s. Tourist numbers have grown, as have the numbers of
communities from around the globe sending delegations to study Chattanooga's success.
The list literally runs from A to Z, with delegations coming from Austin, Texas, and the
Republic of Zimbabwe (Project for Urban Spaces 2004).
5.1.5. Influence of the Plan

Chattanooga’s revitalized downtown area has become a benchmark of quality for central
business districts across the nation as well as riverfront development. Today the
downtown district has become a model of quality, economic vitality and synergy for the
whole community. The area continues to get very high marks for their sustainable
39
development, improved air quality, and balanced environmental and economic progress
(Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce 2004).
The planning and decision-making process related to redevelopment is an ongoing,
coordinated process that involves the private and public sectors. It is a long-term effort
that requires a central point of management and coordination. Collectively,
Chattanooga’s private and public sectors, working together, have restored the downtown
as a viable economic center. They are luring people back into the central core - restoring
the economic heartbeat - expanding commercial, governmental, professional, residential,
tourism, and entertainment opportunities for the entire metro area - and connecting the
city with its precious river resource (Tuscaloosa Chamber of Commerce 2002, 1).
Chattanooga has strengthened community pride, expanded a positive, exciting image for
their entire community, and realized that downtown is the common turf of the
community.
5.2. Columbus
5.2.1. Introduction
Columbus, situated at the banks of the Scioto and Olentangy Rivers, is the capital city of
the state of Ohio. It is located in the central region of the state. The City of Columbus’
2000 population was 711,470, making it the largest city in Ohio and the 15th largest city
in the nation (City of Columbus Website 2004).
40
The riverfront at the Scioto River was mostly occupied by vacant buildings or those that
had no relation with the river. Approximately 145 acres of new development area have
been identified in four major locations along the corridor to replace underutilized,
industrial, and vacant lands which detract from the riverfront environment (Riverfront
Commons Corporation 1998, 1). The Riverfront Commons Corporation (RCC)
recognized the problem. RCC is a 13-member board, non-profit organization, funded by
the city and with additional contributions from the Greater Columbus Arts Council and
the Ohio State University (Riverfront Commons Corporation 1998, 3). With an effort to
improve the riverfront, the RCC developed a Columbus Riverfront Vision Plan. Many
people in Columbus have informed and inspired the Columbus riverfront vision plan
under the leadership of Riverfront Commons Corporation (RCC). The process of
developing the plan began with the riverfront forums in 1996 and continued in 1997 with
interviews and a series of public open houses.
In 1996, the RCC sponsored three riverfront forums: one in the Northern area, one in the
Central area, and one in the Southern area of the river corridor. The forums, which were
well attended, generated enthusiasm for the vision plan, provided initial comments, and
began to form a riverfront constituency. Subsequently, the RCC issued a request for
proposals from selected Sasaki Associates, Myers-Schmalenberger, Moddy Nolan and
Burgess & Niple to accomplish this work.
41
Figure 3: No Accessibility to River in Downtown Columbus
Source: Riverfront Commons Corporation 1998, 32.
5.2.3. Plan
The Columbus Riverfront Vision Plan was a complex undertaking and required
substantial cooperation between the public and private sectors and between various
branches and levels of government to succeed (Riverfront Commons Corporation 1998,
6). The plan provides a framework for redeveloping the river corridor in the coming
decades. It envisioned almost 600 acres of additional parks, which created a total of 1300
acres of connected open space along the river corridor. The open space corridor
complements urban development and neighborhoods along the corridor. As a continuous
corridor, the river links together residential neighborhoods, institutional campuses, and
the civic heart of downtown.
The major tasks determined by the corporation for the successful implementation of the
plan were:
42
• Funding capital costs of public amenities
• Facilitating private investment
• Funding ongoing operations and maintenance of public environment
(Riverfront Commons Corporation 1998, 7).
Figure 4: Riverfront Corridor Boundary Plan
Objectives of the plan included:
• Improvement of the river to contribute to the image of Columbus
• Development at the riverfront so that the river could be a connector
between activities and places
• Development of mixed use and mixed income areas
• Improvement of the accessibility of river for diverse communities
• Protection and enhancement of the riparian environment, which is a
special asset to the city (Riverfront Commons Corporation 1998, 3).
43
Figure 5: Improved Access to Scioto and Olentangy Rivers
The public and private roles were distinctly defined in the plan. The public role included
recruitment of a private development partner, project coordination, land assembly, parks
development, construction of basic land-development infrastructure including bridges,
and the rebuilding of Whittier Boulevard and main utility lines (Riverfront Commons
Corporation 1998, 76).
Figure 6: The Scioto Riverfront, the Setting for Civic Heart of Columbus.
44
The private sector role included detailed planning and development programming, project
debt and equity financing, and development and marketing (sales and leasing) of finished
land bays, and vertical product (houses, apartments, office, stores) (Riverfront Commons
Corporation 1998, 77). The public sector therefore was a catalyst, laying the foundation
for the private development to be feasible. Without this critical public role, the Whittier
peninsula site was difficult to develop because of the high costs of assembly, parks, and
infrastructure. The private role was played by a developer, or by multiple developers
working in accordance with the plan. The public sector sponsors of the plan selected a
single master developer who served as land developer and either developed the “vertical”
product or sold parcels to sub-developers for the development of houses, offices and
stores.

The Columbus riverfront on Scioto River has become the civic heart of downtown with
interlinked activities. The downtown central business districts overlook the river and
open spaces create an ambience where people come and relax during holidays. It is a
great place for recreation and historic importance. The riverfront site is no more deserted
and neglected.
5.3. Louisville
5.3.1. Introduction
Louisville, according to the “Metro Louisville,” is the sixteenth largest city in the United
States with a population of 256,231(US Bureau of Census 2000). It is situated on the
banks of the Ohio River.
45
In Louisville, the Ohio River had been cut-off from the city for decades. Highway
construction, particularly an elevated freeway, high-speed roads, railroads, and semi-
abandoned industrial land rendered the river both inaccessible and invisible. The
waterfront was not a popular site for community residents and buildings along the
riverfront were constructed without considering the ecological needs of the river or its
aesthetic value.
Figure 7: Polluted Ohio River in Louisville
Source: Alden 2004.
The realization of the importance of the river and its ecosystem to the city led to the
development of a plan for the Ohio River. To begin the process of developing a plan to
reconnect downtown Louisville to the Ohio River, community and state leaders formed
the Waterfront Development Corporation (WDC) in 1986 (Louisville Development
Corporation 2004). The WDC convened thirteen forums to engage the public in the early
stages of redeveloping Louisville’s downtown riverfront. Through these forums, the
community emphasized its desire to reclaim the riverfront by creating an open space that
46
would be accessible to the public and would create amenities to draw people to the river.
The Waterfront Development Corporation established, coordinated and implemented the
Louisville waterfront revival plan.
5.3.3. Plan and Implementation

The state, county, and municipal governments agreed to delegate waterfront development
to a single-purpose not-for profit corporation. This allowed the corporation to focus on
long-term issues of planning, development, and maintenance while political leaders
focused on their shorter-term goals of getting re-elected. Citizen participation in planning
also played a key role in the park’s success. Staff of the City of Louisville and the
Waterfront Development Corporation made hundreds of presentations and held regular
public discussions on the way to creating a plan.
Figure 8: Riverfront Biking and Jogging Trails
Source: Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation 2004
The goal was to transform the waterfront into a vibrant, active area that would be not
only a public park, but also an economic development tool for attracting new business
and residential development. 55 acres of parkland on the Ohio River was created in Phase
47
I of Louisville’s Waterfront Park at the cost of $58 million (Louisville Development
Corporation 2004). The land had historically been used for industrial and transportation-
related activities and was bordered by an elevated interstate highway and rail yards. In
the 1970s, CB-radio users referred to Louisville as "Junk City" due to the abundance of
junk and scrap yards in the riverfront area (Louisville Development Corporation 2004).
The entire 72 acres had to be remediated and the list of contaminants was vast, found
primarily in the soil but also in some groundwater contamination, as the project faced the
challenge of being located in a flood plain (City of Belleville 2004). The unpredictable
nature of the river had to be taken into account when determining how to develop the
land.

The park has hosted 1.4 million visitors per year since its dedication in 1999, and its
design has been recognized both nationally and internationally, winning a number of
prestigious awards. The park connects downtown Louisville upstream to a wharf and
festival plaza, the Great Lawn, a boat harbor, and a children’s play area (Louisville
Development Corporation 2004). Another 30 acres of parkland directly east of the
existing 55-acre first phase was added in Phase II. One of the most unusual features of
the park expansion was the Big Four Walkway – an abandoned railroad bridge that
connects Kentucky with Indiana, to be converted for use by hikers, joggers, and cyclists
and linked to a regional pathway network (Louisville Development Corporation 2004).
48
Figure 9: Children’s Play Areas at Ohio Riverfront
Source: Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation 2004
According to the report Exploration of the Economic Impact of Louisville’s Waterfront
Park by Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation published in winter 2005, in
1986, before the WDC was created, there were 18 businesses in the Waterfront
neighborhood, employing 350 people. Now there are more than 23 businesses employing
5,300 people. The Waterfront Park has been an impetus for several new visitor
attractions in the area, including the $39 million Louisville Slugger Field, which features
13,000 seats, 22,000 square feet of restaurant/retail space and a historic façade. An
estimated 1.25 million people visit Waterfront Park each year for concerts, fireworks
shows, festivals, and general recreational uses. The minor league baseball stadium has
brought in an estimated 668,000 people per year in the two seasons it has been open.
Parents bring their children to the play area all day long (Louisville Waterfront
Development Corporation 2005). Teenagers come down to take their prom and
49
graduation photos. People walk, run, bike, play Frisbee and fly kites. Waterfront Park has
become the central civic space that Louisville had long lacked. The park is also filled
with events, about 120 a year. There are boat shows, festivals, free concerts, weddings
and others.
5.4. Pittsburgh
5.4.1. Introduction
Established in 1758, Pittsburgh is one of the older cities in United States with a current
population of 369,879 (City of Pittsburgh 2004 and US Census Bureau 2000). It is
located at the confluence of three rivers, the Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio River, in
south western Pennsylvania.

th
In the 19 century, Pittsburgh led the world’s production of iron, glass and steel because
of the power of water. Factories shared the flat river land with railroads and barge docks,
turning raw materials to finished goods (Pittsburgh City Council 1997, 1). The shift in the
regional economy away from the river-oriented basic industry has left long stretches of
riverfront abandoned, underused and environmentally compromised (Pittsburgh City
Council 1997, 2). Pittsburgh’s industrial demise has led to serious effects on the city and
its riverfront.
Revived riverfronts offer a promising return on capital to investors. Tourism,
employment and growth increases are noticeable in the cities. New recreation
opportunities and an awareness of the natural aspects of river life develop for the
residents of the community (Pittsburgh City Council 1997, 3). The task force involved in
50
the revitalization efforts for Pittsburgh’s riverfront, a private nonprofit organization
funded primarily by Pittsburgh foundations such as the Howard Heinz Endowment and
R.K. Mellon Foundation, was the entity charged with envisioning and implementing the
plan for Three Rivers Park (Kozloff 2002, 1). The production of this plan was sponsored
by Architrave, the Pittsburgh Foundation for Architecture, with funds provided by the
Howard Heinz Endowments and the Richard King Mellon Foundation. The plan drew
heavily from the advice and ideas of an advisory committee, comprised of Friends of the
Riverfront, the Urban Land Institute, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, the Rails-
to- Trails Conservancy, the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation and the American
Institute of Architects. They joined with representatives from Pittsburgh’s public sector,
lending institutions, the corporate community, philanthropic groups and neighborhood
and environmental organizations to transfer sound planning and design practices into
lasting investment.
5.4.3. Plan
To create a vision and master plan for future riverfront development, the Riverlife Task
Force hosted community meetings and public forums and brought together the wishes of
school children, the wisdom of seniors and the multiple talents of world-class designers,
planners, engineers and architects (Riverlife Task Force 2004). The riverfront was
envisioned as a riverfront that supports and connects all aspects of urban life (housing,
recreation, commerce, industry, transportation) requiring both public and private effort.
Before a community can achieve such cooperation and investment, all the players
involved must first articulate a shared vision. This was achieved through an open process:
discussion between neighborhood and environmental groups, the development and design
51
community, and various government agencies and departments (Pittsburgh City Council
1997, 7).
The Riverlife Task Force forged a Vision Plan and a core strategy to create the “Three
Rivers Park” a sweeping riverfront of real and proposed public space, winding from the
West End Bridge on the Ohio to the Tenth Street Bridge on the Monongahela and the
Sixteenth Street Bridge on the Allegheny. Riverfront Development Principles included:
• Creating interconnected linear waterfront development with broad public
access by encouraging the use of the riverfront greenway as a daily commuter
path and recreational amenity, demonstrating the connection between
accesses, greenway development and market demand and creating a coherent,
visually pleasing order to the water’s edge.
• Creating synergy between office, retail, residential and recreational use of key
waterfront sites by selecting the most imaginative development concepts and
architectural designs, establishing the riverfront as a front door to the city and
enhancing real value and competitive market advantages for private
developers.
• Protecting and enhancing the natural riverfront environment by documenting
the ecological state of our riverfronts to preserve this environmentally diverse,
natural habitat and eliminating inappropriate uses and practices from the
rivers’ edge.
• Reclaiming Pittsburgh’s identity as one of the world’s great river cities by
raising public expectations of what the city’s riverfront offers and attracting
52
people, investment and the best aspects of urban living to the waterfront
(Pittsburgh City Council 1997, 3).
The Task Force outlined a strategy to implement the Vision Plan by adopting a $3.2
million operating budget over four years. The generous support of a Development
Committee and foundations and businesses contributed more than 85% of the budget.
The progress underway is also fueled by public and private investments approaching $1
billion, supporting public and private development projects on all three rivers. The City
of Pittsburgh’s Riverfront Development Plan is a comprehensive strategy for the
evolution of riverfront land. Pittsburgh is committed to capitalizing on its greatest asset
by adding the value that good design, thoughtful land use and public access brings to
development. The city must insure that development along the rivers’ edge enhances,
preserves and celebrates the image as a ‘river city’. The objectives for this plan relate
directly to that goal of ensuring the highest possible quality for both building
development and the treatment of the river’s edge illustrating the city’s expectations for
riverfront development, and therefore guiding private and public development, and
providing a level of consistency in the treatment of the riverfront that cuts across all
properties (Pittsburgh City Council 1997, 4).
As a way to create some continuity for policy and for riverfront character, the 36 miles of
riverfront have been divided into a series of “Districts.” These areas shared common
elements of topography, character, use and relationship to the river. Each of the four
53
Riverfront Districts had a series of land use and design policies and access and recreation
goals (Pittsburgh City Council 1997, 5).
The following steps were taken to implement the plan.
1. The plan was reviewed by City Council and adopted by the Pittsburgh Planning
Commission.
2. The design and land use policies for each district were used as the review criteria by
the Department of City Planning staff, which was site-specific review for all riverfront
projects.
3. Trail development was coordinated with its neighboring housing, commercial and
industrial development. The trail plan outlines the priority sequence of trail development.
The trail segments were completed first, with trail amenities developed and implemented
second. Those amenities include signage, benches, trailheads, trash receptacles and
landscaping.
The Riverfront Plan was used in conjunction with other planning documents that
impacted the riverfronts, including the Downtown Plan and the Public Art Plan for
Pittsburgh.

With the riverfront now available as the newest address in the city, nearly a dozen
projects are underway or in the planning stages. Housing was primarily focused in the
community districts, but some mixed-use industrial district projects included housing.
54
Figure 10: Central District Project Map
Source: Pittsburgh City Council 1998, 36.
Figure 11: The Pittsburgh Technology Center has Created Open Space Along the River for Both
Employees and the Public
Source: Pittsburgh City Council 1998, 54.
55
The Pittsburgh riverfront development plan uses two innovative financing mechanisms,
the Pittsburgh Development Fund and use of tax increment financing that made land
acquisitions easier and possible. These financing tools, along with a range of loans, bond
issues, state and federal matching programs, and other funding sources, give the City of
Pittsburgh a pivotal development role: identifying important land assets and attracting
new investment (Pittsburgh City Council 1997, 16).
5.5. Portland
5.5.1. Introduction
The City of Portland is located in the northwestern corner of the state of Oregon. The
Willamette River flows through the heart of the city. The population of Portland is
529,121 (US Bureau of Census 2000).

Portland is a of river city but in the late 1970s its downtown did not connect to the
riverfront. The city’s edge along the riverfront was filled with parking lots and blank
building walls. Much of the site was originally a wetland. Twentieth century industrial
uses on the site included the Lincoln Steam Plant and the Portland Lumber Company.
The site was filled over time with industrial debris and other materials, including a
significant layer of sawdust generated from operations of the steam plant and lumber
company. Portland has little downtown housing, which is an essential element for making
it a 24-hour successful riverfront. The historic district is one of the most beautiful
districts in the country but was suffered with deserted streets. Many retailers had left the
area, leaving empty buildings and an increased crime rate (Center for Brownfields
Initiative 2005).
56
Figure 12: Predevelopment of the South Waterfront Redevelopment Project Site.
Source: Center for Brownfields Initiative 2005
5.5.3. Plan and Implementation

The South Waterfront Redevelopment Project, which encompasses the area known as
RiverPlace, including South Waterfront Park, was completed by Portland Development
Corporation (PDC) in 1999. A total of 73 acres of vacant and underutilized riverfront
land were added to the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Area in 1978, thereby
assigning PDC the charge of redeveloping the area. Since that time, PDC has invested
over $20 million in over 30 acres of public open space, recreation, and transportation
infrastructure, and leveraged $95 million in private redevelopment in 16 acres of premier
residential, office and retail uses (Center for Brownfields Initiative 2005).
The main objectives of the redevelopment plan were to strengthen the connection
between the city core and the waterfront to increase the attractiveness of the area for
visitors by introducing more restaurants, shops, and cultural festivals and to convert the
parking lots and the garage doors into more interactive and enticing environment. Active
streets aimed to draw people towards the parks at the riverfront thus housing was
57
developed to ensure street vitality and attract retailers. The preservation of historic
buildings created a vibrant streetscape and increased tourism activity.
Figure 13: Conceptual Landuse Plan Shows a Mixture of Uses.
Source: Bureau of Planning, Portland 1999.

Today the site includes 480 residential units, both owner occupied (190 units) and rental
(290 units), 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, a 74-room hotel, an athletic club, 26,500
58
sq. ft. of retail and restaurant, an 83-slip marina, public breakwater, and 34 acres of
public park, streets and open space (Center for Brownfields Initiative 2005).
Redevelopment of the area provided dramatic benefits to Portland residents, most visibly
by reclaiming the waterfront for public access and recreation. Economic benefits include
an increased property tax base, and new, quality jobs. The RiverPlace area has become a
popular stop for visitors to the city and is home to many seeking an urban residence in
close proximity to Central City jobs. The project benefits the environment with improved
public safety due to the soil capping and development of contaminated industrial land, by
Figure 14: Public Gathering Areas and Walkways at the Riverfront.
Source: Hall 2004.

improved water quality due to river bank stabilization, and improved air quality due to
removal of contaminated piles of fill and sawdust materials. Through the collaborative
efforts of PDC and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the South
Waterfront Redevelopment Area has become a model for effectively addressing the
environmental problems of unproductive land through redevelopment to achieve a wide
range of long-term public goals space (Center for Brownfields Initiative 2005).
59
5.6. Saint Paul
5.6.1. Introduction
Saint Paul is the capital city of Minnesota and is one of the twin cities in the Saint Paul-
Minneapolis metropolitan region (City of Saint Paul 2004). It is located on the banks of
the Mississippi river. The population of the city is 287,151, according to the US Census
of 2000.

Since the 19th century, the Mississippi Riverfront has been relatively isolated from
downtown Saint Paul, because it was an industrial and transportation corridor and the
river was treated as a back door (Riverfront Corporation 2004). Industrial uses and
development seriously polluted the river in the area during the early industrial age, and
indigenous landscapes were affected and isolated from natural systems. The City of St.
Paul struggled in the 1970’s and 80’s with its downtown’s abandoned lots and storefronts
and blighted riverside.
The last two decades have seen powerful revitalization effort in the city. “The return of
businesses to the downtown area coupled with environmental cleanup and preservation
efforts have begun to create an urban waterfront bursting with energy and beauty”
(American Rivers 2004). Revitalization at the riverfront was sparked in 1994 in order to
link St. Paul to the Mississippi River (Broeker 1997) when newly-elected Mayor Norm
Coleman began promoting the concept that the Mississippi River is the backbone of St.
Paul and that the community needed to incorporate the river into a framework for
revitalizing the city (Bellefuil 1999).
60
5.6.3. Plan
The Riverfront Development Corporation worked to transform St. Paul into a thriving
urban community on the Mississippi (American Rivers 2004). In addition to encouraging
investment and well-designed development in the area, the non-profit organization
emphasized restoring natural environments as a means of attracting businesses and
citizens to the waterfront. Great River Greening is a nonprofit organization that led the
Big Rivers Partnership (American Rivers, 2004). To ensure the vision is achieved, the
Riverfront Corporation and its principal partners – the City of Saint Paul, the Saint Paul Port
Authority and Capital City Partnership – have made a formal long-term commitment to work
together on the city’s redevelopment as embodied in the Framework. Saint Paul Economic
Development Partners included the Capital City Partnership, the Saint Paul Area
Chamber of Commerce, the City of Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic
Development, the Saint Paul Port Authority, and Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation.
Theses economic partners guided the revitalization work in the downtown and riverfront.
The plan was aimed at creating a system of interconnected urban villages in the river
valley and a vibrant downtown where people would want to live, work and play. The plan
also recognized the intricate and delicate interdependence of economic, community and
environmental issues (Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation 2004). It was formulated in a
manner to build upon Saint Paul's unique amenities and existing strengths of natural,
social, cultural, historic, architectural and economic. It also provided a guide for mutually
supportive and integrated private, public and community projects.
61
The complete plan has been divided with reference to different contexts for the
redevelopment of the riverfront. Over time, industrial uses, roads, levees and railroads led
to alteration of the natural environment and masked the connections between the city and
river. The functioning of the city’s ecosystem with reference to the river was studied. It
was not meant to discourage any future development but to address to the issue of
imbalance and make efforts to mitigate the negative impacts of the built environment on
the river ecosystem (Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation 2004).
Figure 15: Conceptual Landuse Plan for Riverfront
Source: Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation 1997.
62
To help guide public and leverage private investment, the City got help from the
independent nonprofit Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation 10 years ago. Every year the
City contributes staff to fund one of its programs, the Saint Paul on the Mississippi
Design Center, which directed the community process that created the award-winning
Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework. Five major public investments
have opened up enormous development opportunities on the downtown riverfront:
• The floodwall on the West Side ($21 million)
• The Wabasha Street Bridge ($35 million)
• Harriet Island Regional Park ($27 million)
• The relocation and reconstruction of Shepard Road away from the river ($42
million)
• The investment of State grants to clean up contamination on various riverfront
sites ($14 million) (City of Saint Paul 2004, 3).

The funding of the projects was carried out by following a development framework
intended to provide a level of confidence that will foster and guide reinvestment. The
following four key principles underpin the implementation of the vision:
• Foster an integrated approach
• Ensure stewardship
• Provide clear policy direction while maintaining flexibility
• Invest strategically (Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation 2004).
63
The revitalization efforts in St. Paul show that these environmental goals are not
exclusive of economic ones. The city has experienced a remarkable increase in business
and social opportunities as revitalization efforts improve the downtown riverfront.
64
6. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This chapter analyzes the objectives of the case study cities and strategies devised to
attain them. The impact of each development strategy on the overall success of the plan is
discussed in this chapter. The findings from the six case studies of urban riverfront
development are discussed, presenting the commonalities as well as the unique features
of all the plans studied. The Findings section also presents aspects of waterfront
development plans found during the review of literature that are relevant to the riverfront
redevelopment.
6.1. Objectives for Riverfront Revitalization Plans
The objectives of riverfront redevelopment plans include a variety of aspects for different
cities. Since the major problem of riverfronts was the stigma of derelict, abandoned and
contaminated sites, cities like Saint Paul, Portland, and Pittsburgh took the initiative of an
environmental clean up program as the first step in the process of redeveloping their
riverfronts. Chattanooga, one of the most polluted cities in late 1960s, resolved to clean
its air and water to comply with the EPA’s clean air and water regulations. This brought
about an awareness of cleaner environment at the riverfront and triggered other
revitalization activities.
Many riverfronts were disconnected from the city because railroads and highways were
built for transportation or floodwalls were built to protect the city against the floods in the
river. Linking the riverfront with the central business district or other recreation areas in
the cities was considered important in order to encourage people to visit the riverfront.
65
Chattanooga focused on reconnecting its downtown with the riverfront in its
redevelopment plan. The City of Columbus planned the revitalization of its riverfront
corridor by linking the residential, institutional and civic heart of downtown with the
riverfront. Accessibility to public was identified as an important aspect for revitalization
of Louisville’s riverfront. Portland and Pittsburgh also emphasized linking the riverfront
with other aspects of urban life, thus strengthening the connection.
Louisville stressed the creation of parks, open spaces and recreational activities at the
riverfront for the public. Other plans have not mentioned it in their objectives but the
efforts to create green activity areas near riverfront with trails and picnic areas has been
discussed in plans for Columbus, Portland and Pittsburgh. These initiatives help cities
develop an awareness of the natural aspects of the river.
6.2. Organizations for Provoking Redevelopment
The materializing of initiatives taken by the cities was possible because of public, non-
profit organizations. Riverfront redevelopment has never been the first choice of private
developers because of the large-scale projects requiring huge investments with delayed
and uncertain returns compared to other real estate projects. Development agencies in the
respective cities played a major role in bringing together all resources. These resources
include federal grants and permits, state and local government sources of funds and
assistance, private monies from developers and investors and citizen groups to instigate
awareness about the importance of the project.
66
The case studies prove that enthusiastic and spirited, public and/or non-profit
development agencies working with the city ascertain the timely and coordinated
processing of a riverfront revitalization project. The contributions from such agencies
have been beyond the scope of any solely public or private agency because of lack of
funds or lack of interest in public projects. The development and success of public-
private partnership was mainly because of these agencies or corporations working as a
link between the city and developers.
The various public, non-profit agencies working on the riverfront revitalization in cases
under study are:
The Chattanooga Venture and Moccasin Bend Task Force worked to develop the project
for revitalization of Tennessee riverfront in Chattanooga.
River Valley Partners was formed in Columbus, which brought together two other
organizations, the Greater Columbus Arts Council and the Ohio State University, to work
for the cause of redevelopment at the Scioto and Olentangy rivers, Waterfront
Development Corporation, formed by the community and state leaders, worked towards
revitalization on the Ohio River.
In Pittsburgh, big organizations like the Howard Heinz Endowment and RK Mellon
Foundation worked together when the Riverlife Task Force took steps to bond these
private initiative with that of the city of Pittsburgh.
In the cities of Portland and Saint Paul, the city developed the Portland Development
commission and the Riverfront Development Corporation respectively.
67
These corporations and agencies, although owned by the city, were focused towards the
revitalization activities and making the interaction easier and simpler for private
developers. All were not-for-profit working towards the cause of revitalization of
riverfront.
6.3. Strategies for Riverfront Revitalization
The strategies planned for redevelopment of riverfronts in the cases under study focused
on different issues, but there were certain common features in all the plans regardless of
the objectives. The commonalities from the six cities have been discussed in this section.
The scale of projects for revitalization of riverfront is huge and requires proper
distribution of roles and responsibilities in order to ensure the smooth and systematic
completion of the project. The most important part of any riverfront revitalization project
is identifying duties of public and private agencies. Chattanooga and Columbus have
clearly defined roles for the public and private sector. The enormous scale of the projects
also implies a large amount of financial investment required by the public and private
sectors. All the case studies emphasize the significance of infrastructure development by
public sector in order to encourage private developers to invest in the project.
Development of existing waterlines, sewers, roads and walkways at the redevelopment
sites are essential before any further development phase can be implemented.
The main objective of riverfront plans is to connect civic heart in downtown to the
riverfront. Reconnecting to the river means removal of all existing barriers like highways
68
and flood walls, or finding an alternative for reconfiguring such construction that does
not disrupt the normal flow of traffic or allow the river to flood. Public accessibility was
enhanced by the Vision 2000 plan for the Chattanooga riverfront redevelopment after the
highway was reconfigured and converted to a parkway. It consists of green and open
spaces for public activity and gives a more vibrant character to the otherwise monotonous
and dead highway. Walkways and roadways leading to the riverfront have been improved
and enhanced in Pittsburgh, Portland, Columbus, and Chattanooga. Disparate places have
been interconnected through walkways that facilitate movement within the various
recreational and entertaining activities at the riverfront as well as the civic heart of
downtown.
Environmentally polluted and derelict sites were characteristic reminisces of industrial
riverfronts. Therefore in order to plan any activity for the public, environmental clean up
was the top priority among the strategies planned for redevelopment at the riverfronts. To
achieve environmentally safe areas at the riverfront, Pittsburgh planned to replace all
existing industrial and underutilized sites to encourage development of other activities
like recreation, shopping and housing. The clean up made the riverfront attractive and
inviting for investors, who were now interested in financing further developments at the
improved sites. Remediation of the contaminants was an essential part of the Louisville
Waterfront Revival Plan. Portland also guided the cleaning of the Willamette riverfront in
the initial stages of the plan. With increasing awareness for the importance of riverfront
ecology, Saint Paul and Pittsburgh also emphasized the maintenance of environmental
balance. New activities and land uses planned at the riverfront need to be in compliance
69
with the ecosystem at the riverfront. The restoration of the natural edge of the river was
one of the strategies.
Creating open spaces or linking the existing green areas abutting the riverfront was aimed
at satisfying two purposes: preserving the natural edge of the water and attracting people
toward the river. Recreational attractions like biking, hiking, fishing and other water
related activities were planned. Open spaces were essential because the land adjacent to
the river lies in the flood zone and no structures can be built in that area. Louisville
planned open spaces and called it planning for “the unpredictable nature of the river”.
These open spaces served as buffer zones between the development and the edge of the
river. Festivals and conventions were planned in the open spaces because they were at the
edge of the river and of great cultural and historic significance.
The economically significant part of all the plans in study was the office, retail,
residential, and institutional development. The recreational activities and other landuses
were interdependent. Retail spaces were developed for shops and restaurants to generate
revenues for sustained development. Office spaces were planned in Pittsburgh to ensure a
constant source of revenues in the form of rent or sellable spaces to finance future
development or pay off the private developers who invested in initial stages of
development. Since activities like aquariums and museums to act as anchors at the
Chattanooga riverfront, other retail businesses and restaurants, sprung up at the riverfront,
giving it a vibrant and lively character. Portland also increased the number of shops,
restaurants and conventions to make its riverfront a vibrant and enticing place in the city.
70
More people visiting the riverfront ensured the viability of the businesses and retail
activities planned there.
Planning commercial spaces also helped in encouraging the private investors because
they could foresee the profitable side of the revitalization plan. Saint Paul encouraged
private investment at the riverfront. Huge government undertakings like the aquariums
and museums attracted private theatres and shopping malls. The influx of a diverse
population at the riverfront was suitable for retail and specialty stores for tourists as well
as residents.
Housing and residential landuses were planned at the riverfront to achieve the objective
of creating a 24-hour activity space for safety and visual surveillance due to presence of
people living close by. The demand for quality housing at the riverfront, near retail,
commercial, recreational and civic activities is high. People like to live near the work
places downtown and to enjoy the views of the river. Mixed-use development was
planned in the cities of Pittsburgh, Portland and Chattanooga. This was done in phases to
ensure availability of finances and also, more importantly, to use money wisely by taking
into account the response of people in the initial stages. Street vitality was a factor
considered while developing housing on the waterfront of the Willamette River in
Portland. In Chattanooga, Riverset Apartments opened as the first downtown housing
built in more than a decade, with all 41 units being leased before the complex opened
(Project for Urban Spaces 2004).
71
The discussion above can be summarized in the following table:
Table 1: Case Studies

Cities Objectives Organizations Type of Endeavors/ Year Strategies
Organization
Chattanooga Reconnect Chattanooga Venture, Private (Citizen Vision 2000, Public Develop and guide public-private
downtown to Moccasin Bend Task Committee), Non- Private Partnership. investment
riverfront Force, River Valley Profit Year 1984 Public access and quality development
Partners along riverfront
Improve connectivity between
disparate portions
Eliminate barriers, improve walkways
and roadways
Reconfigure existing highway
Columbus Redevelopment of Riverfront Commons Public (City of Columbus Riverfront Define private and public roles
river corridor, link Corporation, Greater Columbus), Non- Revitalization Plan, Replace underutilized, industrial and
residential, Columbus Arts Council, Profit Public and Private vacant lands
institutional and Ohio State University sector cooperation,
civic heart of Interviews and Public
downtown open houses.
Year 1998
Louisville Create parks, activity Waterfront Development Public (Community Louisville Waterfront Focus on long-term issues
areas, and increase Corporation, City of and State Leaders), Revival Plan, Regular Remediate contaminants
accessibility to Louisville Non-Profit public presentations Emphasize the unpredictable nature of
public and discussions. river while planning
Year 1986
Pittsburgh New recreation Riverlife Task Force, Private, Non-Profit Three Rivers Park Plan, Design public spaces
opportunities, Howard Heinz Community Meetings Broaden public access
awareness of natural Endowment, R.K. and public forums. Imaginative development concepts for
aspects of river, Mellon Foundation, Year 1997 office, retail, residential and
connect all aspects of Pittsburgh Foundation for recreational activities
urban life Architecture Protect the ecological state
Portland Connecting city core Portland Development Public (City of Downtown Waterfront Cleanup measures
and riverfront, Commission, Oregon Portland) Development Develop public open spaces, recreation,
remediation of site Department of Strategies, Public and transportation infrastructure
contaminants, Environmental Quality private partnership, Increase restaurants, shops,
strengthen State’s voluntary clean conventions
connection to up program. Remove parking and garages for more
riverfront Year 1979 interactive and enticing environment
Develop housing for street vitality
Saint Paul Riverfront Riverfront Development Public (City of The Saint Paul on the Encourage private investment
revitalization to be Corporation, Saint Paul Saint Paul) Mississippi Emphasize well designed development
incorporated in the Economic Development Development Maintain environmental balance
city revitalization, Partners Framework
restoring natural Year 1997
environment,
connect to river
Sources: Chattanooga Waterfront Overview 2004. Riverfront Commons Corporation 1998.

Louisville Development Corporation 2004. Pittsburgh City Council 1997. Center for Brownfields
Initiative 2005. Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation 2004.
Apart from the riverfronts, other waterfronts in cities like Boston, Baltimore, and San
Diego also have emphasized the use of mixed-use development for economic vitality.
With essential retail, institutional and recreational activities available in close vicinity at
the riverfront, the residential units are in great demand. Nearness to workplace and the
beautiful view of the river enhance the interest of people to buy or lease houses.
72
6.4. Economic Impacts of Riverfront Revitalization in Case
Studies
A riverfront can be a great asset for a city. It not only attracts people for recreation and
tourism but also entices businesses. The goals of economic development, environmental
balance and cultural vibrancy at the riverfront are interdependent. People tend to get
attracted towards water, and clean rivers allure businesses to establish on the banks. With
good accessibility, facilities and infrastructure, riverfronts can become appealing places
for people and businesses.
Improved infrastructure, access and new built up spaces are a good reason for businesses
to establish at the riverfront. Proximity to downtown is a major factor in determining the
location of office sites. Since the downtown in cities evolved near the waterfront due to
the history of water based transport for business and commerce, the attraction of
businesses was an easier task. Newly developed landscapes and facilities for food are
appealing for the businesses as they provid a good ambience to work and thus entice
high-quality professionals. The view of the river and downtown from the riverfront office
sites also increases the marketability of the offices spaces that were planned and built in
the revitalization process. Corporate firms with business at a global scale establish at the
riverfronts for all the above-mentioned qualities of the revitalized riverfront site.
Anchor activities like aquariums and museums sponsored solely by the government or in
partnership with the private sector were responsible for drawing a large number of people
to the riverfront. From school kids to elderly citizens, the age group of people visiting
73
such facilities is vast. This encouraged smaller private investors to invest in businesses
like eateries, restaurants, specialty shops and antique stores. An influx of tourists further
increased the profitability of the businesses at the riverfront. The concept of locating
malls and theatres to take advantage of a huge crowd visiting the riverfront for recreation
has also been exploited.
Housing units were a popular choice of all the riverfronts as they becomes a major source
of revenues because of the residents. They can be developed in phases with little cost
increase with each unit added to the development. The residents in the riverfront housing
also make the smaller businesses sustain during the off-season for tourists. It ensures the
overall safety and virtual vigilance of the riverfront area. The safer the place the more the
number of people visiting it and the greater the benefit for retail stores located there.
Tourism plays a major role in determining the construction of new hotels and other
facilities at the riverfront. Tourists are attracted to the river, the historic district near the
riverfront and the downtown. Well-maintained and renovated heritage structures can be
adapted for use as offices, hotels, restaurants and museums, therefore historic
preservation forms a part of the riverfront development plans. Water related activities like
fishing, boat cruises and motorboat rides make the waterfront vibrant and occupied
during most times of the day.
Apart from the direct affects on businesses and retail activities and taxes generated from
the same, there are indirect economic advantages of the riverfront revitalization. The
74
redevelopment of open spaces at the riverfront improves the quality of life of the whole
city. The overall property values increase. Increasing recreational activities also add to an
enhanced image of the city and attract new residents in the community.
6.5. Findings
The inferences drawn from the analysis to develop a model for economically viable
riverfront redevelopment plan are stated in this section. The features that are
characteristic of the chosen case studies are an important part of the model. Table 2
summarizes the findings from the case studies.
Table 2: Summary of Strategies of Riverfront Revitalization Case studies

Cities/ Characteristics Public Private Infrastructure Mixed Use Accessibility Preservation Environmental Anchor Conventions Other
Partnership Development Development Improvement of Historic Clean-up Activity and Festivals
Structures
Chattanooga # # # # # # #
Columbus # # # # # Protect riparian corridor
Louisville # # # # # # # # Citizen participation
Pittsburgh # # # # # #
Portland # # # # # #
Saint Paul # # # # # # Preserve ecosystem
Sources: Chattanooga Waterfront Overview 2004. Riverfront Commons Corporation 1998.

Louisville Development Corporation 2004. Pittsburgh City Council 1997. Center for Brownfields
Initiative 2005. Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation 2004.
The findings can be explained as follows:
Public Private Partnership: All the case studies have shown that there is a need to
develop public-private partnerships for execution of riverfront projects, due to the
enormous scale of the project and the huge investment required which the city
government cannot finance by itself. The roles played by private developers and city
agencies are discussed in all the plans to specify the tasks to be fulfilled in order to attain
the intended large-scale redevelopment at the riverfront. Government also plays a major
role in land assembly, either by buying the property or practicing eminent domain rights.
75
Another method of collecting land involves identifying the land owners and making them
partners in the redevelopment process.
Infrastructure Development: The role of the government is often to develop the
infrastructure, which includes the sewer system, storm water drainage, water supply,
building and improving roads and walkways. This is mainly done to encourage private
investment for further development of sites for different uses like retail, recreation,
business, and residence.
Mixed Use Development: One of the major tools for creating an economically viable
riverfront is planning for mixed landuse development. It helps enhance the economic
feasibility of the redevelopment plan during implementation and supports public
activities later on. Revenues generated from retail, business or residential uses at the site
sustain maintenance of parks, walkways, roads, parking and other public facilities at the
riverfront. This helps to provide free public facilities and encourage more people to visit
the riverfront.
Recreational Areas: Many recreational activities can be associated with the riverfront.
Some of them can be water based like boating, canoeing and fishing. Other activities may
not be directly related to water like parks, children play areas, jogging and biking trails
and some outdoor games areas like volleyball and beach ball. Shaded and semi open
areas for picnic and small get-togethers is highly recommended at the riverfront. These
activities increase the diversity of people visiting the riverfront.
Preservation of Historic Structures: Retaining and renovating old bridges, buildings
and certain industrial areas for recreation, adaptive reuse, museums or other uses. is
identified as an important part of the revitalization process. This helps improve the
76
general appearance of the site and creates an appealing and inviting environment. It
enhances the cultural value attached to the site and bonds new development with old.
Environmental Clean-up: It is essential to create awareness about the importance of
preservation of riverfront ecosystem. Complying with the regulations of Clean Air and
Clean Water Acts is necessary for developing a hygienic public space. This adds to the
beautification of riverfront and makes it more appealing to public and investors as well.
The environment at the river’s edge enhances the interaction between water and people
coming to visit it.
Improvement of Accessibility: The secluded riverfronts were linked to the civic heart of
downtown and the neighboring communities by removing or reconfiguring the existing
barriers like highways, railroads, and floodwalls. This, along with the development and
improvement of walkways and roads, increased accessibility and encouraged people to
come to the riverfront for jogging, hiking, biking and other such activities.
Development of Anchor Activity: Certain activities like aquariums, museums, shopping
malls, and theatres form the anchor tenants or owners of property at riverfront. These
activities attract a huge crowd and help make other smaller retail activities, like eateries,
small restaurants and food parlors, sustainable.
Conventions and Stage Shows: Promotion of the riverfront is essential to creating
awareness of the redevelopment activity among the people. After the preliminary stages
of revitalization, some kind of cultural festival, convention or performance assists by
attracting a large number of people to the site of redevelopment.
These findings helped in writing guidelines for the model of an economically viable and
successful urban riverfront revitalization plan.
77
7. MODEL FOR URBAN RIVERFRONT REVITALIZATION
Based on a thorough examination of the characteristics of successful urban riverfront
redevelopment projects, some basic recommendations can be made for the revitalization
of riverfronts to ensure the economic success of the projects. The economic viability of
such projects depends upon the management and coordination of activities planned for
the redevelopment at the riverfront. This implies that all characteristics for a riverfront
revival plan are interdependent and complimentary.
The model is applicable in its original form to all the riverfront revitalization projects. It
is duplicative because it is derived from the commonalities of the case studies. Following
are the recommendations for an economically viable riverfront revitalization plan:
• Before the actual planning process starts, it is essential to make people aware of
the necessity of revitalization. This will help create an interest and developing a
consensus for the project. Citizen and non-profit groups are encouraged to come
forward and participate in the planning process and also act as a link between the
public and private sectors. This could be done by organizing shows and
conventions at the riverfront to attract people and interested developers.
Chattanooga planned for stage music shows in order to make people aware of the
new redevelopment planned at the riverfront.
• The local governments should make efforts to develop and improve existing
infrastructure and help in land assembly. These tasks are out of the scope of
private developers because of the high costs associated. These government
initiatives promote private efforts and investments in the revitalization process.
78
With reference to the case studies and literature it is clear that government
initiatives are essential to bring about a widespread involvement and investments
of private sector.
• Partnership of the public and private sectors is essential to achieve the goals of
revitalization. Efforts should be taken by the planners to accommodate both
private and public sector roles in their plan. Clearly described roles help prevent
an overlap of efforts and ensure smooth progress of the project. Incentives should
be provided to the private developers through tax abatements, tax increment
financing and bonds. This is also aided by developing a non-government agency
to coordinate the activities between public and private sectors.
• Identifying and utilizing various resources for funding the project from federal
and state agencies, for environmental cleanup, historic preservation and the
establishment of public activities like aquariums and museums, is essential to
reduce the burden of finances on local government. These bigger projects usually
benefit the city as well as the whole region in improving its quality of life.
Regional governments can be pursued to invest for the betterment of the region.
• Recreational activities are essential part of any riverfront revitalization plan
because they can be very well planned and implemented in the open spaces in the
flood zones. Jogging and biking trails, open air theatres, and play areas for
children serve all age groups and interests. Activities at the riverfront as well as in
the water entertain people by providing alternatives for active and passive
entertainment. They bring about the required vibrancy and liveliness at the
riverfront.
79
• The foremost important initiative in drawing crowds to the riverfront is
developing new access and improve existing ones. New walkways, bicycle paths,
and roads opening on to the riverfront are essential elements of any riverfront
redevelopment plan. Improvement of accessibility to riverfront increases the
influx of people by reducing the trouble of way-finding towards the riverfront.
Abandoned bridges which are abandoned for vehicular traffic can be opened for
pedestrians. These may also be connected to parks and recreational areas.
• The planning element necessary in the process of developing an economically
viable riverfront revitalization plan is mixed use development. The
interdependence of different landuses creates a vibrant and 24 hour riverfront.
Recreational, commercial, retail, residential and institutional activities in
combination serve the purpose of providing alternatives for people to come to the
riverfront for enjoyment, work or stay.
• Preserving historic buildings at the riverfront helps build the character of the
riverfront. It promotes tourism and cultural values of the place. The adaptive reuse
of buildings helps in their regular maintenance. It also helps in obtaining special
grants and incentives for refurbishing and remediation of the building.
• Big investments like aquariums, museums, and convention centers create anchor
activities. These attractions contribute towards making the businesses, retail and
tourism related activities viable. These investments are attractions for people all
over the world and not only for particular region or city.
• Preserving and enhancing the natural environment is essential to avoid any further
environmental deterioration of riverfronts. Awareness about the conservation of
80
the ecosystem makes it a healthy place for recreation and public use.
Environmentally sound sites encourage development by private sector developers
for business and residential purposes.
These recommendations focus on the viability of the riverfront revitalization projects so
that the riverfront remains a lively and culturally rich part of the city. The model can be
used for development of any riverfront because the findings have been taken only from
common features of the selected case studies. These guidelines provide a sound basis for
developing a riverfront revitalization plan. A revitalized riverfront can contribute largely
towards the development of a city and its quality of life.
81
8. CONCLUSIONS
With increased participation of local governments and awareness of the importance of
riverfront revitalization among citizen groups, riverfront redevelopment activities were
transferred from federal and state governments to local agencies. This helped the cities
develop a more customized plan for their riverfront redevelopment. The lessons learned
from the analysis of literature and case studies brought into focus certain common
characteristic features and some unique approaches to revitalizing riverfronts as
mentioned in the findings. With a revitalized riverfront, downtowns gain vitality and
more businesses get interested in establishing at the riverfront. The vibrancy is restored
due to more people visiting the riverfront during evenings and weekends. These projects
also bring in money from other places with an increase in tourism activities.
The study was based on case study of six riverfront cities. The number of case studies
was limited to six because of adequate data available on six cities and it also formed
optimum number of cases to reach a common conclusion. The framework adopted for
research provided understanding about the revitalization plan devised by the cities, the
key players in redevelopment process, strategies and tools for revival at riverfront and the
influences of the plans on the city. This study did not involve any statistical analysis and
the analysis is based on qualitative data only. This research can be strengthened by
further analyzing the quantitative data and cross checking the results from this study.
The case studies based approach has some limitations which relate to the applicability of
the model in different cases. All components of the model can be adopted for any
82
riverfront revitalization plan with some additional customized strategies for a peculiar
problem not discussed in the study. Overall this model is generalized to such a level that
it can be applied to any riverfront without any major changes and maintaining the basic
structure.
Riverfront revitalization of cities at the bank of a river is an excellent tool for restoring
the character of the central core. Improving and reutilizing the riverfront best serve the
purpose of enhancing cultural values and celebrating the history of the city. Revived
riverfronts serve as the community’s living room and offer a congregational place at the
scale of the city.
83
9. REFERENCES
Alden, Bill. 2004. Photos (Many with Towboats) of the Ohio River at Louisville,
Kentucky. Internet. Online available from
http://home.att.net/~river.photos/alpha_nz_and_others.htm. Accessed March
2005.
American Heritage Rivers. 2004. Internet. Available from

http://usparks.about.com/library/weekly/aa030898.HTM. Accessed October 2004.
American Rivers. 2003. Internet. Available from

http://www.amrivers.org/index.php?module=HyperContent&func=display&cid=2
83. Accessed October 2004.
Bassett, Keith, Ron Griffiths, and Ian Smith. 2002. Testing governance: Partnerships,
planning and conflict in riverfront regeneration. Urban Studies. Edinburgh. 2002.
Vol. 39, Iss. 10; p. 1757.
Boston Redevelopment Authority. 2002. Fortpoint Channel: Watersheet Activation Plan.

Boston: Boston Redevelopment Authority.
Breen, Ann and Dick Rigby. 1994. Riverfronts: Cities Reclaim Their edge. New York:
Mc-Graw Hill.
Browne, Zamgba J. 2002. Renewal on the water. New York Amsterdam News. New York.
N.Y. October 24. p. 1.
Bruttomesso, Rinio, ed. 1993. Riverfronts: A New Frontier for Cities on Water. Venice:
International Center Cities on Water.
Burayidi, Michael A. ed. 2001. Downtowns : Revitalizing the Centers of Small Urban
Communities. New York : Garland.
Bureau of Planning. 1999. South Waterfront Plan. City of Portland. Internet. Online
available from http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=34291.
Accessed April 2005.
Callies, David L. and Heidi Guth. 2002. Selected Techniques for

Revitalization/Redevelopment. In American Planning Association: Conference
Proceedings in Chicago. Session on Redevelopment, Innovation and New
Urbanism. Internet. Online available from
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings02/CALLIES/calli2.htm
Carmichael, Dennis and Jacinta McC ann. 2004. Urban Riverfront Parks: What Works.
Urban Land Archives. Internet. Available online from
84
http://research.uli.org/DK/UrLand/re_UrLand_US_fst.html. Accessed November
2004.
Center for Brownfields Initiatives. 2005. Available online from

http://www.brownfields2003.org/endorser.list.aspx. Accessed March 2005.
City Population. 2004. Internet online. Available from

http://www.citypopulation.de/Canada.html. Accessed November 2004.
Culverwell, Wendy. 2004. Riverfront effort gains steam from PDC push. Washington.
Vol. 26, Iss. 13; p.4.
Flint, Anthony and Geeta Anand. 1997. US cities offer lessons for Boston. Boston Globe.
Boston. Mass.: Dec 1, 1997. p. A.1.
Gaffen, Yehudi. 2004. Cities Riding Waves Of Success With Well-Planned Riverfront
Restorations. Public Management. Washington. Vol. 86, Iss.10; p. 30.
Geddes, Ryan. 2004. Riverfront Study Suggests Unified Approach to Planning. Business
Journal. Jacksonville.Vol.19, Iss.44; p. 7.
Gordon, David L. A. 1997. “Financing Urban Riverfront Redevelopment.” Journal of

American Planning Association. Vol. 63, no. 2: 244-256.
Greenberg, Kenneth. 1989. Urban Riverfront: Accent on Access. Washington D.C.: The
Riverfront Press.
Hall, Andrew. 2004. Photo: Portland Riverfront. Internet. Available online from
http://www.portlandbridges.com/viewphotosall-D300CRW00841-30-cat-0-
1.html. Accessed March 2005.
Harte, Alexis. A city guided by its river. 2003. American Forests. Washington.
Vol.109, Iss. 2; p. 36.
Hudnut, William H., III. 1998. Cities on the Rebound: a Vision for Urban America.
Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Jacobson, Louis. 2000. Giving credence to a clear-water revival. National

Journal. Washington. Vol.32, Iss.44; p. 3424.
Kozloff, Howard. 2002. Three Rivers Rising. Urban Land Archives. Internet. Available
online from http://research.uli.org/DK/UrLand/re_UrLand_US_fst.html. Accessed
November 2004.
Leroy, Glen S., Alvin Groves, and Michael B. Dollin. 1999. Inland Riverfront as
Aesthetic Enhancements and Economic Development Catalysts. In American
85
Planning Association: Conference Proceedings in Seattle, D.C. Database online.
Available from http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/BIAS/BIAS.HTM.
Accessed 20 September 2004.
Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation. 2005. Exploration of the Economic

Impact of Louisville’s Waterfront Park. Internet. Available online from
http://www.louisvillewaterfront.com/Economic%20Impact%20of%20Waterfront
%20Park.pdf. Accessed March 2005.
Markowitz, Michael. 2003. Riverfront revival. Planning. Chicago. Vol.69, Iss.4; p. 36.
Marshall, Richard and Baykan Gunay. 2003. Riverfronts in Post-Industrial Cities.

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. Dordrecht. Vol. 18, Iss. 2; p. 201.
Marston, J., ed. 2004. Chattanooga Changes. Urban Land Archives. Available online
from http://research.uli.org/DK/UrLand/re_UrLand_US_fst.html. Accessed
November 2004.
Monk, Dan. 1998. Riverfront development groups breeds success. Business Courier.
Cincinnati. Nov 20. Vol. 15, Iss.31; p.3.
Murakishi, Michio. 2002. The Banks Urban Riverfront Redevelopment Project: A Case
study in Urban Revitalization. M.C.P. Theses. University of Cincinnati.
National Register of Historic Places. 2005. Internet. Online available from

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/welcome.html. Accessed March
2005.
Olson, Sherry H. 1980. Baltimore, the Building of an American City. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Pittsburgh City Council. 1998. The Riverfront Development Plan: A Comprehensive Plan
for the Three Rivers. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh City Council.
Portland Development Commission.1978. Downtown Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan.

Portland: City of Portland Development Corporation.
RiverCity Company.2001. Transportation and Urban Design Plan: Chattanooga

Riverfront Parkway. Chattanooga: Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez
Rinehart.
Salvesen, David. 1997. Urban River Revival. Urban Land Archives. Internet. Online
available from http://research.uli.org/DK/UrLand/re_UrLand_US_fst.html.
Accessed November 2004.
86
San Antonio Riverwalk Advisory Commission. 1987. San Antonio Riverwalk
Development Guidance System. Texas A and M University: Department of Urban
Affairs.
Sandweiss, Eric. 2001. St. Louis: The Evolution of an American Urban Landscape.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
Souers, Amy and Betsy Otto. 2005. Restoring Rivers Within City Limits. Open Space
Quarterly. Internet. Online available from. Accessed February 2005.
Stephen, J and Michael Fagence, ed. 2000. Recreation and Tourism as a Catalyst for
Urban Waterfront Redevelopment: an International Survey. Canadian Journal of
Urban Research. Canada
Steubenville Planning and Zoning Commission. 1992. Ohio Riverfront Development

Strategy. Dayton: Woolpert Consultants.
Torre, L. Azeo. 1989. Waterfront development. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
The Center for Great Lakes. 1986. Water Works! A Survey of Great Lakes riverfront
Development on United States and Canadian Shores. Chicago: The Center for
Great Lakes.
Turabian, Kate L. 1996. A Manual for Writers of Term Paper, Theses, and Dissertations.
6th ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
White, K.N. et al., eds. 1993. Urban Waterside Regeneration: Problems and Prospects.
NewYork: Ellis Horwood.
Wrenn, Douglas M. 1983. Urban Waterfront Development. Washington: The Urban

Land Institute.
United States Bureau of Census. 2000. Internet online. Available from

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2
000_SF1_U&_lang=en&_ts=118253616591. Accessed November 2004.
Urban Land Institute. 1981. An Evaluation of the Cincinnati 2000 Plan. Washington:
Urban Land Institute.
US Chamber of Commerce. 2005. The US Chamber’s History. Internet. Online available

form http://www.uschamber.com/about/history/default. Accessed March 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Internet. Available from

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/heritage/rivers.html. Accessed October 2004.
87
US National Archives and Records Administration. 2005. Records of Bureau of
Economic Analysis. Internet. Online available from
http://www.archives.gov/research_room/federal_records_guide/print_friendly.htm
l?page=bureau_of_economic_analysis_rg375_content.html&title=NARA%20%7
C%20Research%20Room%20%7C%20Guide%20to%20Records%20of%20the%
20Bureau%20of%20Economic%20Analysis. Accessed March 2005.
88

Ucin 1123542011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ucin 1123542011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conceptual Model for Economically Viable Urban Riverfront

Revitalization in the United States

Division of Research and Advanced Studies

in partial fulfillment of the

MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING

20th July 2005

Chair: Michael Romanos, Ph.D.

Member: Carla Chifos, Ph.D.

Reader: Patricia Z. Timm, Ph.D.

players involved has contributed substantially towards development of the model.

investment and create awareness of riverfront revitalization among the citizens.

scale at riverfront. The landuses show a mix of residential, recreational, institutional,

commercial, and retail activities. Improved access through development of walkways,

now provide with a vibrant and energetic ambience.

Figure 1: Chattanooga Riverfront Parkway ................................................................ 37

development. The US Chamber of Commerce was established as early as 1912 and

Archives and Records Administration 2005).

participated in the development process as financer or as guarantor. In most cases the

developers. Development or enhancement of existing infrastructure, environmental clean

(Callies and Guth 2002).

a propeller for economic activities and overall downtown improvements. Famous

improve their waterfronts. Building of stadiums, aquariums, museums and convention

centers became a trend in waterfront redevelopment plans. Government incentives helped

private developers come forward and contribute to the process.

drinking water, thus their redevelopment was a crucial task.

only with riverfronts in order to take a more focused approach.

demonstrates the relation between economic development and riverfront revitalization.

issues relating to riverfront redevelopment and to bring about economic development.

the ships and barges.

the situation for a better image and use of the riverfront.

riverfront. Different cities have implemented various economic development strategies to

could be adopted in future riverfront development plans.

2.1. Research Questions

This thesis intends to answer the following questions:

riverfront redevelopment plans?

chapter and how gathering data and analysis was accomplished.

that occurred after the implementation of the riverfront redevelopment plan.

3.2. Literature Review

The review of literature on the revitalization of riverfronts and its contribution to

economic development of a city forms the basis of discussion of issues relating to

builds up an understanding of the relationship between the objectives and strategies

• Need for riverfront revitalization

• Issues related to riverfronts’ revitalization

• Riverfront revitalization and economic development

3.3. Case Studies

the basis of size of the city measured by its current population.

2. Selected six American riverfront cities with redevelopment plans.

3. Analyzed the strategies implemented on the basis of their description in riverfront

4. Presented a menu of strategies and tools.

their contribution towards the economic development of riverfronts. The economic

development benefits were qualitatively assessed in terms of:

• New commercial development;

• New institutional development.

related activities that are a result of revitalization at riverfront.

3.3.1. Criteria for Selection of Case Studies

actually addressed in practice.

• Since the conceptual model is intended to be developed for the North

• Cities with programs and plans adopted for redevelopment of their

riverfront were selected.

• Availability of study material and literature on selected case studies was a

major criterion in finalizing the case studies.

• The final selection included cities of different sizes so that commonalities