The MRT had a HUGE Sunday Edition front page story on Downtown Midland. Not a whole lot is new in this story to those of us who have followed the attempts to "revive" downtown. However a couple of things in this story caught my eye:
Denton downtown proponents have been working on revitalizing their downtown since 1989, according to Denton's Main Street Program Manager Julie Glover, and while the progress was incremental, the results have been significant. Glover said the city joined the Texas Main Street Program -- an organization that provides support for cities seeking to revitalize their downtowns -- in 1990 and it took five years before the first large effort was undertaken.
1989?! Denton started revitalizing their downtown about the same time the FDIC finished selling off all the buildings in Downtown Midland. Talk about a head start.
Even so, what does Denton have to show for it's 17 years of working on their Downtown?
Over the past decade, she (Glover) said, approximately $36 million has been reinvested in the area on small projects such as painting, as well as on larger, full-scale renovations. In 1999, she added, the total worth of downtown properties was about $37.2 million and by 2005 valuations had increased to about $61.2 million.
OK, so Denton pours $36 million into Downtown over the past DECADE and values have only gone up $24 million in the last 6 years? Sounds like a $12 million loss to me. If you ignore the $12 million loss, in 6 years Denton's downtown valuation has only gone up 10.75% per year over the last 6 years, which is barely more than what the Tax Assessors have been hitting property for per year all around the state, much less the red-hot metroplex area.
On top of that, there is this issue of the size and scope of the comparison. In 2005 Denton has a value of $61.2 Million and Midland has what? "....$108 million."
So let's review: Denton spends 17 years working on their downtown to the tune of $36 million dollars, or more, and after all that effort the value of their downtown is slightly more than HALF of Midland's CURRENT downtown valuation.
Look, I'm all for reviving Midland's Downtown...but come on people, find something comparable. All the downtown boosters keep pointing at Cities that have downtowns nothing like Midland's. Using these templates, and tossing out these "examples of success", in my humble opinion is not going to produce similar results....unless you count spending more taxpayer money than your rise in property valuations.
8 Comments
The last few comments in the article by a city leader were also interesting as to the "future" of downtown development. That comment was that the demolition of the "blight" of the Midland Savings building is only the beginning. He listed two or three additional buildings that are also in the wrecking balls sites for the near future. No mention of what will go in their place or why they need to be torn down at all – other than they “must” be torn down.
After reading the article, the truth of the whole situation dawned on me. It is not revitalization they really want - it's higher rents for the properties they already own. This would account for the lack of a real plan - other than the complete destruction of hundreds of thousands of square feet of existing office space. Less existing space means higher rents for what is left. THAT, in my opinion, is what is really going on here. Other opinions?
Well they plan on tearing down the entire block between Big Srping Colorado Illinois and Ohio. Looks like prime real estate for a convention center.
$100 MILLION spent on Odessa's downtown? .... ummmm I guess those trees were kinda expensive down there in front of the courthouse on Grant.
Any of the city fathers ever spent time in a downtown that is alive?
The MRT has always been in the hip pocket of the rich and influential local oilmen of a particular ethnicity, so each edition should have a conflict-of-interest disclaimer; or at least the reader should read with a grain, or two, of salt in their eyes.
When reporter Guy states, "While there is no single point that can be identified as the moment downtown Midland peaked and began the slow, downward spiral into obsolescence, many who are familiar with the historical trends in downtowns agree on the primary factors that contributed to the exodus," he didn't do his homework or delve into the paper's morgue. Of course it was the automobile, but that is a generality applied to each and every city in America and not specific to the matter at hand.
The decline of downtown Midland can be traced to the bust of the 1980s, when the Scharbauer-Midland National Bank went belly up, the majors began to merge and left the area, Claytie built ClayDesta Plaza, and the FDIC was the biggest property owner in the Permian Basin.
Additionally, the article did not (or barely did) that downtown Midland is unique in the aspect that it never really had a central courthouse surrounded with shops as many/most American cities do/did.
Though the "classic" downtown structure (a courthouse surrounded with retail) probably did exist in Midland in the very, very early days (pre 1950's), downtown retail has not been a major part of Midland for half a century. Which begs the question - why do certain people want a "vibrant" downtown today? Could it be to increase the property values (and rents) of those that own downtown property? If so, this is okay in a capitalist society, though should be disclosed.
One more point. If "revitalization" is so important to these people, why not revitalize the south and east sides of Midland? There are many areas there that have seen retail close and buildings become "blight". Could it be that revitalization in those areas would not serve the people Aztlan refers to above? The more this downtown revitalization continues, the more it really smells of simple greed and good 'ol boy politics.
no doubt there is naturally self interest involved, but I don't think it is the ocntolling factor. The zeitgeist is for urban redevelopment. that's the thing to do these days, just like the popularity of anti-sprawl movements, and anti-Wal-Mart / big box movements. A few years back it was stadiums, every large and mid-size city wanted a new stadium, and many got one.
On cannot say the motivation is purely this or that though. The proponents make many valid points about why it would be good to see a vibrant downtown district. But they do so with blinders on, to not see that the way cities exists is not defined by a model formed decades ago,suburbanization is never going away, it is constantly changing and should be focused on just as much as urban reuse and infill. They are also blind to the economics, to not see that the massive investment and low return may make a revitalized downtown nothing more than a public money pit development/them park.
But then, it could be great. But it takes a really good solid, adaptable, public, plan, and also the good will of the public.
I suspect that the writer (Mr. Guy) may have been given the unenviable assignment of writing a non-critical piece on downtown development efforts after the abyssmal week the pro-dev people had when it was revealed that they did not, in fact, have any real plan other than tearing down an old building.
Regardless of subsequent actions the egg is on the face to stay.
Notice how these articles never mention risk or the even the possibility of no return on the investment.
Call me cynical, but methinks that Mr. Guy is not free to write about any of the downsides to these efforts.