As follows from my research description, the evaluation of statistical data is not pertinent to
my study but the examination of complex procedures and specific strategies. That explains
why I primarily used qualitative research methods for my research. The research methods
encompass reviewing of documents, development agreements and other contracts, self-
projections, and analyses. Furthermore, I conducted interviews with city staffers and a
developer pertinent to my project. Additionally, I drew up a questionnaire to Business
Associations in order to get information and data on Business Improvement Districts (BIDs).
Since public-private partnership is not a precisely defined planning procedure, the examined
development projects and methods tend to be different and therefore require a explanation in
advance.
II. Partnership Models in the United States
Public-private partnerships may be found in all sizes and varieties of US-American cities.
Public-private partnerships were critical for the rebuilding of downtown in virtually all big
cities. Cities without partnerships are now the exception rather than the rule. The highly
visible downtown redevelopment projects in the US were sponsored by partnerships including
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New York and so forth. Public-private partnerships have
increasingly been perceived as key for urban revitalization in U.S. cities. Wagner, Joder and
Mumphrey, for example, conclude in their research about development strategies in central
city revitalization that public-private partnerships are one of the main factors that are
advisable for successful central city revitalization (Wagner, F. W.; Joder, T. E.; Mumphrey,
A. J., 2000). Baltimore’s Charles Center/Inner Harbor development is frequently cited as a
model of public-private partnership and public entrepreneurship (Barnekov, Boyle and Rich
1989). Both projects are “massive downtown urban renewal projects” (CED, 1978:220)
jointly planned and constructed by the City of Baltimore and the business community.
Responsibility for planning and implementation was divided between the two sectors. The
partnership for management and marketing of the projects were institutionalized through the
Charles Center-Inner Harbor Management, Inc., a project-orientated private nonprofit
corporation.
A. Reasons for Partnership building in Urban Development and Evolution of
the Partnership Idea
To describe the evolution of public-private partnerships, it is useful to discuss distinct periods
of development in conjunction with overall urban development trends. In the first part of this
section I intent to discuss the emergence of public-private cooperation in the context of
general urban development trends. Subsequently, I deal with significant urban policy tacks
that contributed to public-private partnership building.
After World War II fundamental changes of urban social and economic patterns were taking
place and affected the development of cities substantially. The deindustrialization struck
many cities particularly those in the rustbelt while at the same time laying the groundwork for
public-private cooperation. But public-private partnerships are not only a phenomenon in
rustbelt cities but in sunbelt cities as well. Here they have been a significant component of
urban growth. A far-reaching suburbanization process began in US-American urban areas in
the 1940s and it caused a dramatic loss of population in central cities. Middle class whites