Learning from the Differences Between Cleveland and Chattanooga
In a previous post, I discussed some of the similarities between Chattanooga, TN, and Cleveland, OH. (Unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, I can’t fix the formatting problems with that post–something to do with the way WordPress handles Word. Sorry). One fellow blogger, Jim Russell, expressed concern over cities trying to copy one another. Jim is right, and I said as much in my reply to him. I also fessed up to falling behind in getting “part two” of that original post–dealing specifically with what we can learn from our differences–written. Today I’ll try to correct at least part of that.
The similarities between Chattanooga and Cleveland are reasonably well known by now: both are river-dependent manufacturing communities that have suffered greatly with the decline of manufacturing in the US. Both cities were cited in 1969 for their heavily polluted environments–Cleveland for the Cuyahoga River catching fire and Chattanooga for air so polluted drivers had to have their lights on during the day. In fact, many in Chattanooga consider the city to be a “rust belt city in the south” rather than a traditional southern city.
But it is in the differences between the two cities that we can learn the most about what might or might not work here in Northeast Ohio. Some lessons could apply directly. Others, by highlighting the differences between the two cities, also highlight the need for slightly different aproaches toward the same overall goal: a healthy place with a thriving economy.
A key unavoidable difference is geography. Chattanooga, much like Pittsburgh, is bounded by mountains and hills that create a concentrated downtown area. Northeast Ohio has a very different geography, and must deal with it accordingly. We will always be more “spread out” and this will demand a different approach to both design and physical development.
A bounded space can create a sense of intensity with respect to the activities occurring there. Similarly, an unbounded space dissipates the energy in ways that make people feel “nothing is happening here” even when quite a lot is going on. Stick your hand in a 200 degree oven and you’ll say it feels warm; plunge your hand into 200 degree water and, even though the temperature is the same–you’ll get burned. Concentrated economic activity is no different from concentrated molecules in that respect.
In my first post on Chattanooga, I mentioned that the city has not seen explosive job growth as a result of its downtown development efforts. Chattanooga has pursued the path of environmental restoration as economic development, one I think has great merit. Environmental restoration as economic development works on two levels: it creates a more attractive physical space, elevating optimism, pride, and commitment to the area in the process. It also creates an environment that can support growing businesses that serve the global demand for green or sustainable products and energy sources.
So if environmental resoration as economic development is such a good idea, why hasn’t Chattanooga seen more job growth?
Chattanooga definitely got the first part of the equation right–they made the city a better place with a heavy emphasis on cleaning up their river front and focusing on aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly design. But city leaders and economic development specialists are only now recognizing and beginning to act on the other half of the equation: positioning Chattanooga as a place for businesses that make green/sustainable environmental products and services to call home. Chattanooga initially focused on attracting tourists, and anchored downtown with an aquarium. It has worked well in terms of driving tourism–downtown has seen significant growth in restaurants–but not in terms of building new industries.
Chattanooga cleaned up its river and made downtown an attractive place to visit by creating The River City Company, a not-for-profit development company focused on acquiring and building public spaces. The River Walk and Aquarium were two of its first projects. This model worked well for Chattanooga, but would it work here? Probably not, although I do think Chattanooga’s experiences help point the way toward what would work here…
There is a way in which Northeast Ohio can learn from what Chattanooga has done and successfully apply environmental restoration as economic development in our region–it will just look and feel a little different here. In my next installment, I’ll explain how. (Hint: it involves water)