11
(Kleinber, B., 1995:145). Moreover, nonprofit development corporations were established
such as the Charles Center/Inner Harbor Management Corporation in Baltimore in 1965.
Urban renewal partnerships are described as ‘arm’s length partnerships’ between the public
and private sectors. Due to the fact that “[f]ederal rules for urban renewal directed a sharp
separation between city renewal agencies and developers. The city was responsible for
planning a project and carrying it forward until the land was cleared and ready for new
construction. [...] Developers had no role at all during the advance planning” (Frieden;
Sagalyn, 1989:43). Cites had to make plans for cleared sites, but often they were unable to
find developers to buy the land and carrying out the development project. Thus, developers
were excluded from the planning process. Their job was to take over projects perceived by
city staffers and to get them built. The poor public-private sector cooperation during planning
processes led to significant negative impacts on urban structures. This was the case for
instance in Saint Paul when in the late 1960s and early 1970s several blocks were cleared.
City staff prepared comprehensive plans for this area, but eventually no development proposal
could meet the desired density and mixture of uses while still meet financial feasibility. As a
result of this planning mistake, the cleared blocks stayed vacant in the 1970s and the area
became known as the “superhole”. (Brandl, J.; Brook, R., 1982:189). This example illustrate
the insufficient arm’s length multisectoral partnerships that excluded the project planning
process.
Urban renewal partnerships as early examples of intersectoral partnerships in urban
development focused on massive, visible brick-and-mortar development projects in
downtown that “showpieced public-private experiments in central-city revitalization” (Haider,
D., 1986:139). The clear spatial priority of public-private partnerships on downtown and its
CBD as well as the fact that redevelopment was exclusively physical is due to the chief role of
business executives in redevelopment. Downtown coalitions had built strong alliances to
rebuilt downtown and capture federal funds. The thrust of public-private partnerships is the
so-called ‘downtown-corporate strategy’ that means shaping downtown areas into centers of
corporate headquarters with banking, professional support services, office buildings, and
hotels.
To conclude, this kind of partnership had four main characteristics (Levine, 1989:19-21):
• Public-private partnerships were governed by local corporate committees such as
ACCD (Allegheny Conference on Community Development), GBC (Great Baltimore
Council) whose chief goal was to revitalize CBDs;
• Public-private partnerships were stimulated by federal monies through the Urban
Renewal program. This approach- using public dollars to ‘leverage’ private
investment- became a cardinal principle of public-private partnerships;
• Autonomous redevelopment agencies emerged as new instruments of urban
governance. Public financial and land use powers including eminent domain and
resource allocation were used by those entities. In some cities even private
development corporations were established;
• Public entrepreneurship with profound support of the mayor (entrepreneurial mayors).
Cities underwent urban renewal particularly in the 1960’s and 1970’s until the program’s
termination in 1974 through consolidation into CDBG. CDBG is a legacy of the Nixon
administration though it was signed into law by then-president Ford. CDBG consolidated
seven former programs, the most important of which were Urban Renewal and Model Cities.
By and large urban renewal partnerships were extremely project-oriented given the business
community a special role. The public and private sectors had separate roles. Therefore,
partnerships in that time are considered as arm’s length partnerships. “The urban renewal
program depended upon a complex intermixture of private initiative and public authority”