Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Development in the United States

23

into account. As I concern public-private partnerships from a geographic point of view, I
intent to stress spatial aspects of public-private cooperation in urban development more than
in the classifications above. Furthermore a sensible typology of public-private partnerships in
urban development should consider the involvement of the public sector regarding financing
of specific partnership projects and the provision of financial or not primarily financial
incentives in order to attract private investment as well as organizational structures and
institutionalization of partnerships. Though Hamlin and Lyons present a comprehensive
overview of possible organizational structures public-private partnerships may take, they do
not consider less institutionalized public-private partnerships that are not based on ‘hard’ law
and formal arrangements. In this regard, Eisinger provides a better solution when speaking
about indirect partnerships including ‘soft’ arrangements between the public and private
sectors. Therefore, it is useful to combine both approaches in order to cover a wide spectrum
of possible organizational structures of public-private partnerships. The distinction between
informal partnerships and formalized partnerships may be an appropriate approach. The
involvement of the public sector may stretch from a low to a high level. It can be expected
that a highly formalized and institutionalized partnership reaches a higher level of public
sector involvement than an informal and low institutionalized public-private partnerships.
Additionally, the social-determined classification of Squires, Levine, Stewman and Tarr
include preferred objectives and spatial foci of certain public-private partnerships which may
correlate with the degree of public sector involvement and the institutionalization of
partnerships.

A. Informal Partnerships

Informal relationships between the public and private sectors have a long tradition in the US
including private-sector advice to local governments and planning by the private sector.
Stewman and Tarr describe how the public and private sectors have worked together in
planning matters in Pittsburgh (Stewman, S.; Tarr, J. A., 1982:59-113). The most outstanding
example is the Allegheny Conference on Community Development (ACCD) as critical private
sector organization and “key planning and action organization” (Stewman, S.; Tarr, J. A.,
1982:63). The ACCD had sponsored planning and research in Pittsburgh’s downtown
redevelopment. The Allegheny Conference paid experts to draw plans for redevelopment,
which the public sector then reacted to, usually indicating its acceptance (Sbragia, A.,
1989:107). Building upon the model of the Allegheny Conference, businessmen’s
development committees organized in virtually every major city in the United States between
1945 and 1965.

Cafferty and McCready illustrate the way in which planning for economic development took
place in Chicago in the 1970s (Cafferty, P. S. J.; McCready, W. C., 1982:131-140). Different
sets of actors from both the public and private sectors were involved in the planning process
for downtown. An important group was the “Chicago Central Area Committee” composed of
CEOs of major Chicago corporations. Chief concerns were, for instance, commercial
development, planning and physical improvement. As a result of a comprehensive research
and discussion process, a Chicago central-area plan was conceived and was then discussed
with city staffers. Another important plan was the Chicago 21 plan for the development of the
CBD. To draw up this plan, the Chicago Central Area Committee contracted with an
architectural firm. The Chicago 21 plan strongly influenced redevelopment in downtown
Chicago.

Another example occurred in Minneapolis as the Downtown Council, an organization made
up of corporations to strengthen the downtown area, worked closely together with city

<<   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   >>

More intriguing information