Five Downtown Strategies: Policy Discourse and Downtown Planning Since 1945
- 1 January 1993
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Journal of Policy History
- Vol. 5 (1) , 5-27
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0898030600006588
Abstract
Americans have planned for their downtowns within a continually changing framework of images and assumptions about the nature of central business districts. During each decade since World War II, discussion of downtown problems and possibilities has been dominated by a distinct set of assumptions that has conditioned academic research, federal policy, and local planning. From decade to decade, experts on downtowns have chosen different themes as central to the interpretation of downtown growth, change, and policy needs. As the understanding of the situation has changed, so have the preferred planning solutions and public interventions.Keywords
This publication has 54 references indexed in Scilit:
- Downtown Plans of the 1980s: The Case for More Equity in the 1990sJournal of the American Planning Association, 1991
- Urban design in Portland, Oregon, as policy and process: 1960–1989Planning Perspectives, 1991
- Unequal Partnerships: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment in Postwar America.Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 1991
- Center City Transformed Planners as DevelopersJournal of the American Planning Association, 1990
- The Changing Downtown: A Comparative Study of Baltimore and Hamburg.Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 1988
- Metropolitan planning and downtown redevelopment: The Cincinnati and Dallas experiences, 1940–60Planning Perspectives, 1987
- Economic Restructuring and the Politics of Land Use Planning in New York CityJournal of the American Planning Association, 1987
- The Transformation of San Francisco.Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 1986
- Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change.Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 1985
- The Daytime Population of the Central Business District of Chicago.American Sociological Review, 1950