Public Leadership of Asheville’s Downtown Revitalization

4 p o p u l a r g o v e r n m e n t

So says a local realtor about Asheville, North Carolina, and it is no coincidence that this pro-

motion begins with a focus on the city’sdowntown. By all accounts, Ashevillehas masterfully leveraged its cultural andphysical legacies to transform its centercity into a thriving downtown wherepeople want to live and spend time and money.

The story of the transformation ofdowntown Asheville is compelling andinstructional for local governments inNorth Carolina and beyond. The valueof the story, though, is not as a winningrecipe for downtown development. Strat-egies for development must respond tothe particularities of a downtown, and asdowntown development professionalswill quickly point out, “Downtowns areabsolutely unique places: no two arealike in form, structure, or functionalcomposition.”

Rather, the value of the Asheville storylies in the inspiration it offers to localgovernments daunted by the prospect ofcreating leadership capacity within andthrough alliances with others to enhancethe well-being of their communities. Byfocusing on the particular role of thepublic sector in revitalizing downtownAsheville, this article offers local govern-ments insight into the multifaceted na-ture of downtown development efforts,describes a model of public leadershipwithin the context of a public-privatepartnership for revitalization, and setsforth a general framework for consid-ering the requirements for leading achange initiative.

The Asheville Story

After decades of deterioration, manydowntowns across the country are ex-periencing a marked resurgence.2 Asmore and more communities begin toconsider downtown development to bea key component of their overall eco-nomic development strategy, new opti-mism surrounds the economic potentialof urban centers. An increasing numberof public officials now proclaim withgreat excitement and fanfare their plansto revitalize their downtowns. However,many local officials are at a loss forspecific public strategies to repositiontheir downtowns and attract new invest-ment, business, and residents.

Although Asheville certainly did notact alone in transforming its downtown,the city’s critical role in initiating and

leading the revitalization stands withoutquestion. As one of the most successfulprivate developers of downtown proper-ties readily asserts, “It would not havehappened had it not been for the city’s in-volvement.”3 By serving as the effective,committed initial sponsor of the down-town turnaround, the city provideddirection, resources, sacrifice, and theimperative for change in the criticalearly stages of the revitalization era.

Essentially this chapter of the Ashe-ville story begins in 1981 with theemergence of a critical consensus aboutthe future of the city’s downtown andthe city’s consequent role as a changeagent. The chapter closes in 1993 withthe election of new members to the CityCouncil and a significantly changed rolefor the city in downtown development.For purposes of setting a context and en-suring chronological accuracy, we brieflyconsider a number of actions that oc-curred before 1981 and after 1993.

Hitting Rock BottomTwenty-seven years ago, “downtownAsheville was a virtual wasteland. Mostof the buildings were uninhabited, fewpeople lived in town, and fewer stillcame downtown.”4 Seventy-five percentof the buildings stood vacant, and theminimal stirrings of street life and foottraffic included not one but two red-light districts.5 The demise had been along time in the making, but theopening of the Asheville Mall inNovember 1973 marked a real andsymbolic acceleration in the physical

Public Leadership of Asheville’s Downtown RevitalizationLeslie Anderson, Anita Brown-Graham, and Jennifer Lobenhofer

P O P U L A R G O V E R N M E N T

Anderson is an adjunct faculty member at the School of Government, specializingin economic development and civic educa-tion and engagement. For more than twentyyears, she was employed by the City ofAsheville, the last ten of them as director ofDowntown (and later City) Development.Brown-Graham is a School faculty memberspecializing in affordable housing, com-munity and economic development, andpublic liability. Lobenhofer is director ofthe School’s Community and EconomicDevelopment Program. Contact them [email protected], [email protected],and [email protected].

Imagine a city where gargoyles keep watch over an Art Deco downtown. Where smoke-blue mountain peaks not only accentuate the skyline—they dominate it. A city where you can drink cappuccino at a sidewalk cafe, browse through antique shops,or join an impromptu bluegrass jam . . . A city so special, it’s rated as one of the “Top 10 Places to Live” by Outside magazine, listed in Rand McNally’s Places RatedAlmanac, and referred to by travel writers as the “Paris of the South.”1

and emotional abandonment of down-town.6 As the department stores andother retail operations migrated to themall over the next decade, downtownAsheville lay on the verge of decay.Former Mayor Louis Bissette recalls,“We used to say, ‘You could shoot arifle down the street any night, and you wouldn’t hit a thing.’”7 Downtownhad hit rock bottom.

Asheville attempted to respond to thedemise of its downtown. In 1977 theCity Council created the Asheville Re-vitalization Commission. The commis-sion published a revitalization plan in1978, which noted,

The physical and economic conditionof downtown Asheville has been unhealthy for several decades. Devel-opment of suburban shopping cen-ters increased concern for the down-town’s future. Recent construction of three new commercial buildingsand a civic center did not seem tosignificantly improve the overalleconomic climate. Thus, it becamethe consensus of business, civic andpolitical leaders that some form of local governmental interventionwas needed.8

The plan recommended a “villagesconcept” to promote the distinct char-acter of the fourteen neighborhoods ofdowntown. Unfortunately, despite at-tempts at public participation in devel-opment of the plan, sufficient supportfailed to materialize. Dissatisfaction withdowntown continued to build.

Although civic leaders in Ashevillehad begun to focus on downtown, therewere no large-scale successes. Ironically,many people in Asheville point to a large-scale project that failed to be realized, asthe watershed event in downtown revi-talization. Without the proposal for thisproject, the efforts to revitalize downtownmight well have withered on the vine. N

orth

Car

olin

aD

ivis

ion

ofTo

uris

m,F

ilm,a

ndSp

orts

Dev

elop

men

t

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 6 5


Finding an Effective CatalystIn 1980 a national developer approachedcity leaders with a proposal to build aseventeen-acre downtown mall andconvention center. The plan, whichwould have necessitated leveling elevencity blocks in the heart of downtown,promised approximately 700,000 squarefeet of retail space, a hotel, 125,000square feet of office space, and 3,500parking spaces. Total project costs wereestimated at $116 million, with the city’scontribution pegged at $40 million.9

Some people in Asheville embracedthis plan, but others cried out against it.Those in favor of it were buoyed by thedeveloper’s interest indowntown, and theypointed to the likeli-hood that the projectwould bring an in-creased tax base, morejobs, and many touristand convention dollarsto downtown. Thoseopposing the planargued vehementlythat it posed untenablelosses of historicbuildings, and risks tothe environment and to small businessesalready existing in downtown.

An intense civic debate ensued formonths. Opponents emerged victoriousin 1981 when they succeeded, by a 2-to-1 margin, in defeating a referendum thatwould have provided general obligationbonds for the project.

The proposed downtown mall pro-voked an important debate about thefuture of downtown and caused thecitizens of Asheville to organize and be-come involved in downtown issues. How-ever, in the wake of the referendum, therewere deep, open wounds created by fiery,targeted civic discourse. This result wascostly in many ways: years of friendshipswere severed, business relationshipsended, and political allies turned on oneanother. Civic energy was depleted.

Ironically, out of this difficult periodemerged an important positive legacy: a catalyzing of the historic preservationmovement in Asheville. Loudly andclearly, voters sent the message that theyfavored saving downtown’s existingbuilding stock over constructing newbuildings.

In the next twenty-five years, 135 income-producing buildings inBuncombe County were rehabilitatedusing federal and state tax-credit pro-grams for historic preservation, the largestin number and dollar amount of anyNorth Carolina county.10 Most of thebuildings are in downtown Asheville.

Stepping Out: The City LeadsThe day after the 1981 referendum, thecity hired Becky Williams (now BeckyAnderson) as an economic developer forthe Asheville Revitalization Commis-sion. In addition, to respond to the deepdivisions created by the referendum, the

City Council ap-pointed a DowntownTask Force to providea forum for thevarious factions totalk and determine aprocess for movingthe revitalizationefforts forward.

The task forceeventually recom-mended the establish-ment of a commissionto focus exclusively

on downtown. The City Council agreedand created the Downtown Commissionin 1982, charging it to “develop theCentral Business District as the region’sprimary office, retail, hotel and culturalcenter.”11 Originally the commissionconsisted of six members appointed bythe City Council, plus the entire mem-bership of the City Council itself. Thecomposition changed in 1986 once thecouncil determined that the basic ele-ments of the plan to revitalize downtownwere in place.

The change in composition created an opportunity for the council to ap-point members who had the single focus of revitalization. Also, it providedan expanded role for the city’s local government partner, Buncombe County.Thereafter the commission consisted of two representatives each from theCity Council and the County Commis-sion, and three others, two representingthe private sector and a chairpersonselected from the community. Manynonprofits and citizen groups were af-filiated with and provided support forthe commission.12

The commission’s powers were directand broad.13 To carry out its purpose, thecouncil gave the commission “the powerto do all things, subject to limitations asmay be imposed by the North CarolinaGeneral Statutes or by the ordinances ofthe City of Asheville, necessary and con-venient to carry out the purposes of theCommission for the public welfare.”14

Building the Capacity to Lead andManage a Renaissance Asheville’s City Council took furtherdecisive and unified action to ensurethat the emerging vision and affinity fordowntown would be implemented andsustained.15 In April 1986 the councilappointed Douglas Bean as manager ofAsheville. Bean’s hiring reflected a toppriority of the council: hiring a managerwith revitalization experience. Bean hadled the successful downtown revitaliza-tion effort in Morganton, North Caro-lina, and had a reputation for bringingdisparate interests together.

Almost as soon as he began the job,Bean realized that the private sector wasneither organized nor leading the revitali-zation. Clearly the city would have tocreate a strong, coordinated effort to re-juvenate the downtown. ConsequentlyBean created a new city department, theDowntown Development Office (thename “Office” was intentionally usedso as to seem less bureaucratic). Withguidance from the commission, theDowntown Development Office was toserve as a catalyst for the public andprivate sectors as well as to be part of,and support for, a broader system ofdowntown groups.16

Within six months of his appointmentas city manager, Bean selected LeslieAnderson, a coauthor of this article, tohead the office.17 Anderson went on toserve almost ten years as director ofDowntown (and later City) Development.

After several years the DowntownDevelopment Office moved from city hallto a storefront on a street that wasformerly the “Fifth Avenue of Asheville.”The office thus served as the physical hubof downtown revitalization activity.18 Italso served as the nonphysical hub.Downtown Development Office staffplayed a variety of roles, including projectmanagers, planners, business recruiters,matchmakers, nonprofit managers,

The proposed downtown mall provoked an importantdebate about the future ofdowntown and caused thecitizens of Asheville to organize and become involved in downtown issues.

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 6 7

cheerleaders, party-givers, fundraisers,parking managers, marketers, anddreamers. The office had responsibilityfor coordinating projects and communi-cating with all partners and the generalpublic. The staff coordinated some cityprojects directly, assisted other city de-partments in their projects, and supportedallied organizations in their activities.

The city manager recommended thatthe revitalization effort incorporate thesuccessful Main Street model of the Na-tional Trust for Historic Preservation.Although Asheville was too large to be-come a Main Street city, DowntownDevelopment Office staff and volunteersavailed themselves fully of the program’sresources by attending conferences,studying the publications, and visitingthriving towns that had used the model.Task forces of citizens worked to putplans in place for each of the MainStreet model’s four arenas: economic re-structuring, design, organization, andmarketing/promotion.

Three of the Downtown Develop-ment Office’s roles were particularly in-strumental, albeit subtle. First, the office

coordinated a large volunteer programthat was inclusive and hands-on. It in-tegrated people into an extensive arrayof responsibilities in the public andprivate sectors—for example, writingdesign guidelines, educating the public,organizing a historic walking trail, de-termining how to get big projects rolling,and working through political barriers.

Second, the Downtown DevelopmentOffice responded to, and leveraged theskills and the influence of, civic leadersin Asheville. Chief among the advocatesespousing high aspirations for down-town’s development was the vocal andarticulate Roger McGuire. McGuire andothers fostered community conversationsabout the unique purpose and value ofdowntown. As former Asheville CityManager Bean said,

Roger was downtown’s chief salesman.Roger preached, cajoled, worked, crit-icized, and wrote about what neededto happen. He was the conscience ofdowntown. He invested his ownresources in downtown, broughtexperts to town, and challenged the

city, informally and formally. Rogerforced the city to choose higher stan-dards than were natural for the city.19

A third key role of the DowntownDevelopment Office was to create theproper business-related climate for suc-cess. From the mid-1980s through theearly 1990s, the availability of commer-cial and governmental incentives and tools was limited. Local banks were rarelyinclined to make loans for renovation of downtown properties, and if they did,they required unrealistic amounts ofcollateral. To lower barriers, the Down-town Development Office responded innonbureaucratic, entrepreneurial, andcreative ways to any obstacle preventingprivate investment in downtown. Staffprovided marketing analysis for busi-nesses, served as their liaison to andadvocate with other city departments,shepherded ordinance changes, expeditedreviews and processes, and matchedinvestors, property owners, and lessees.Staff generally opened doors and solvedproblems. They worked “outside thebox” a lot.20

The Griffin under construction.

Scot

tD

edm

an,M

ount

ain

Hou

sing

Opp

ortu

nitie

s,In

c.


Strengthening the Public-Private PartnershipFrom the beginning, perhaps growingout of the severe division of the early1980s, public-private partnership pre-vailed as the organizing principle forsustaining the revitalization. Key stake-holders determined that the DowntownDevelopment Office should have a lim-ited number of staff, thereby forcing theoffice to create opportunities for othercity departments and groups outside ofcity government to be players.21

Soon after the 1986 reorganizationof the Downtown Commission, thecommissioners realized that althoughthe commission consisted of communityleaders and government representativesinterested in and committed to down-town, few of them owned property orbusinesses downtown. Recognizing thatrevitalization needed to include thosewho would be most affected by thedowntown efforts and had a financialstake in the outcome, they initiatedcreation of a private-sector partner, theAsheville Downtown Association (ADA).Over the next year, a citizens group

studied models from other cities, andwithin a year the ADA held its firstmeeting (in June 1987). It formed as a501(c)(6) organization, with its ownboard of directors and work priorities.

The city, through the Downtown De-velopment Office, nurtured the develop-ment of the ADA. ADA staff were on thecity’s payroll for about a decade and werea part of the Downtown DevelopmentOffice team. This created a symbioticrelationship that provided dedicated staffto pursue the merchants’ interests whilethe city received input directly from themerchants. The arrangement “enabledthe organization to get a lot accomplishedand served both sides well. The merchantshad direct access to a city departmenthead and the Downtown DevelopmentOffice had merchants who would helpbolster their efforts to renovate buildingsand attract businesses downtown.”22

“They needed us and we needed them,”said Mary Fierle, of the DevelopmentOffice.23

Downtown merchants, propertyowners, advocates, and entrepreneurswere a crucial new addition to the castof players. The ADA organized mar-keting and promotion efforts, supportedleasing and business recruitment, andled problem-solving initiatives. It alsowas a recruiter and a conduit for com-munity involvement. As Ashly Maag,one-time ADA director, said, “We werea hybrid organization: the city’s private-sector partner and a voice and advocateto the city from the private side.”24

Walking the TalkThe city determined that just as private-sector support for the revitalizationeffort needed to be broad-based, so didpublic-sector support. Municipal govern-

An integral aspect of government’srole in revitalizing downtowns isensuring the availability of high-

quality affordable housing. In addition to providing much-needed life after 5:00 P.M., affordable housing allowsemployees to live close to work and

creates income diversity in the face ofgentrification. One of the resourcesavailable to help local governments

achieve these outcomes is the federallow-income housing tax credit—Housing

Credit, for short—the nation’s largestand most successful affordable-housing

program. The Housing Credit bringsgovernments, financial institutions, anddevelopers together in a public-private

partnership to create or rehabilitate rentalhousing for households that are at or

below 60 percent of the area’s median in-come. In Buncombe County, where Ashe-

ville is located, this is equal to $30,240for a four-person household and a maxi-

mum housing expense of $600 plusutilities for a two-bedroom unit.

The Federal Housing Credit Program

Scaffolding on Battery Park Apartments in downtown Asheville duringNational Church Residences’ recent renovation of the 122-unit former hotel.

Nat

iona

lChu

rch

Resi

denc

es

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 6 9

ment reinvested in public property at alevel of quality conducive to excellentdevelopment. The city kept city agenciesdowntown, created civic amenities, sup-ported downtown events, paid for ap-propriate studies, improved publicproperties, and encouraged its employeesto use downtown merchants. The cityalso constructed three new parking decksdowntown, implemented a streetscapeplan, created two Urban RedevelopmentAreas, and supported creation of the Ur-ban Trail. Perhaps the most symbolic ofthe city’s efforts occurred with acquisi-tion and rehabilitation of an old buildingin the revitalization area that becamethe Downtown Development Office.

In addition, the city manager con-ducted frequent walking tours withdepartment heads, during which he en-couraged coordination of downtownprojects across departments. He madeclear his expectation that each depart-ment would contribute to the revitaliza-tion, and he insisted that accountabilityfor achieving the vision be built into de-partment work plans and staff perfor-mance reviews.

The city convinced other levels ofgovernment also to walk the talk.Garnering county support was relativelyeasy. County government leaders,having participated in the DowntownCommission and the planning exercises,recognized that locating county agenciesdowntown would stimulate develop-ment and improve both the image andthe tax base of the area. For countyleaders, there could be no justifying the “standing concrete” of vacantbuildings and their anemic contributionto the tax base.

City school officialswere similarly suppor-tive. When the schoolboard needed to lease new centraloffice space, it did soin a newly rehabili-tated, prominentdowntown building,although suitable less expensive spacewas probably avail-able elsewhere in the city.25

Reaping the Positive ResultsThe Downtown Development Officemanaged a festivals program thatincluded Bele Chere (pronounced “BellShare”), a festival encompassing the en-tire center city during the last full week-end in July. Today Bele Chere attractsmore than 350,000 visitors, and in2005 the festival’s direct total spendingwas estimated to be $12.4 million.26

Events like Bele Chere were centralto the downtown program, as evidencedby the marketing plan’s positioning state-

ment: “DowntownAsheville is the en-tertainment capital ofthe region [westernNorth Carolina].”27

Community-orientedevents such as LightUp Your Holidays,Moonlight overDowntown, Tell It inthe Mountains,Downtown after 5,Oktoberfest, JulyFourth festivities, andFirst Night Asheville

In North Carolina overall, there are1,500 Housing Credit properties, withmore than 40,000 units. Each year thestate allocates about $160 million inHousing Credits, which results in the an-nual addition, on average, of 40 proper-ties and 2,500 units. Currently, Ashevilleis home to 17 Housing Credit properties,with a total of 1,121 units.

The program creates affordabilitythrough the Internal Revenue Code,otherwise known as the federal incometax statute. A full explanation of theHousing Credit is beyond the scope ofthis article. Following is a greatlysimplified example:

• A sixty-unit property requires $5 millionin total costs to acquire and develop.

• The property generates a $3.6 millionreduction in federal income tax liability.

• In exchange for this tax credit, aninvestor contributes $3.2 million inequity.

• This equity replaces debt that wouldotherwise be necessary for construction.

• Payments on a $1.8 million loan ($5 million minus $3.2 million) aremuch lower than those on a $5 millionloan, and these savings are passedalong to the tenants.

The North Carolina Housing FinanceAgency (NCHFA) is responsible foradministering the Housing Creditprogram in this state. NCHFA is a self-supporting public agency with a missionto create affordable housing opportu-nities for North Carolinians whose needsare not met by the market. NCHFAawards Housing Credits through a highlycompetitive process.

Downtown Revitalization

The primary purpose of the HousingCredit program is to make investmentsin real estate that serves the housingneeds of low-income families andindividuals. However, NCHFA also iscommitted to helping local governmentsimprove their communities.NCHFA’s rental policies and practicesdemonstrate this commitment. Since

2000, more than one-third of NorthCarolina’s federal Housing Credits havebeen awarded to proposals that havedirectly assisted in revitalizing neighbor-hoods. These properties have made adifference in more than fifty municipal-ities across the state.

Following are four fundamentalprinciples for local government officialsand nonprofit organization leaders tokeep in mind when considering the useof Housing Credits for a downtownimprovement effort:

1. Housing Credit properties areprivately owned businesses. As with any prospective business, owners needto be certain that there is a market fortheir product—in this case, renters.Because the product is real estate, theother criterion owners should consider is location.

NCHFA’s most frequent investment-related concern regarding site andmarket in downtowns is that HousingCredit properties not be the first activityin a neighborhood. Such properties arenot suitable as “sparks.” Instead, they

County government leaders,having participated in theDowntown Commission andthe planning exercises, recog-nized that locating countyagencies downtown wouldstimulate development andimprove both the image andthe tax base of the area.


were all launched from the mid-1980sto the early 1990s so that residentswould come downtown, have fun, andsee the progress.

The festivals also served an importantorganizational development function:they were a training ground for newand emerging leaders and allowed thecity to celebrate its unique quality of lifeand civic spirit.

Far beyond the cultural and economicvalue of festivals such as Bele Chere,Asheville stands as an impressive ex-ample of what an economically viabledowntown can mean to the tax base ofan entire city and county. In 1982, oneyear after the beginning of the concertedefforts to revitalize downtown, the totalvalue of property in the Central BusinessDistrict was $48,237,500. In 2004,after more than twenty years of con-certed work and tens of millions of dol-lars of private investment in the buildings,the taxable value was $386,834,500, anincrease of 702 percent.28 If an acre ofland with improvements in downtownis compared with an acre of land withimprovements in a rural or suburban

area, today the value of Central BusinessDistrict property per acre to BuncombeCounty’s average tax yield is $44,887per acre for Central Business Districtmixed-use, three- or four-story condo-miniums (with first-floor commercialuse), versus only $1,716 and $1,236 peracre for city and county residentialproperty, respectively.29 The density addsresidents to the city without increasedcosts for infrastructure.

Because of the city’s foresight andcommitment to the Central BusinessDistrict, positive results abound. Theapproach of preservation and adaptivereuse honored Asheville’s history, savedhistoric buildings, and provided uniquespaces for entertainment, offices, living,and civic amenities. Twenty years afterthe formation of the Downtown Com-mission, downtown Asheville enjoys anexplosion of new, urban construction,especially residential. Residents livingdowntown (in Census Tract 1) increasedfrom 819 in 1990 to 1,351 in 2000.30 In2006 and 2007, four hundred apartmentsand condominium units will come onthe market.31 One challenge ahead is to

provide affordable workforce housing.Only a small percentage of the upcomingunits are moderately priced. Attractingdevelopers to this niche is difficult (forinformation about a helpful resource,see the sidebar on page 8).

Business offerings of all types haveexpanded, including an increase from 2 galleries in the mid-1980s to 30 todayand from 6 minority-owned businessesto 22-plus today. There is more thanone million square feet of office spacedowntown, representing about 50percent of all office uses within the city.There also are 200 retail shops, 80restaurants and bars, 25 music venues,12 churches and religious organizations,5 museums, and 5 theaters.32

A Theory of Change

Examining the Asheville story in retro-spect, one can discern the course of actionthat created downtown Asheville’sresurgence. More difficult to ascertain ishow those actions fit into a broadertheory of economic change. If down-town development, like other economic

should complement other efforts. Havingsurrounding revitalization efforts well underway provides assurance that NCHFA’sinvestment will not be the only one.

2. NCHFA’s evaluation of proposedsites for new construction also looks tothe other half of the purpose statedearlier: helping improve the lives of low-income households. Would the propertybe a nice place to live for senior citizensor families with children? In other words,does it make sense to create housingunits at this location?

The site criteria assess whether the lo-cation has a neighborhood feel and askabout the quality and the proximity ofsurrounding shopping, services, and otheramenities. Using the criteria, NCHFA staffapply penalties for problematic features.Downtown and infill areas often competewell in this evaluation. Concerns do arisewhen there is an expectation that eco-nomically vulnerable households willserve as residential pioneers, the onlypeople inhabiting an area.

For rehabilitation proposals the con-cerns are very different than for newconstruction proposals because the ques-

tion of whether to create housing alreadyhas been answered. Thus the quality-of-life issue for existing properties is whetherthe proposal will help those living in theworst conditions. NCHFA encouragesrehabilitation of distressed projects,which can be part of the reason an areais in need of revitalization. The changesresult in visible physical improvementsand, in some cases, better management.

3. Every locality in North Carolina hasaccess to federal funds for housing andcommunity development. Adding thesefunds as additional sources for HousingCredit properties can make the differ-ence between a successful project andone that struggles.

There are two ways to use these funds.The first is by offering below-marketfinancing, which reduces the debt-service burden on the property and thusthe burden on the tenants. The monthlypayments on a loan with a 6 percentinterest rate and a twenty-year term aretwice as high as those on one with a 2 percent rate and a thirty-year term. Fora sixty-unit property with a $1.8 millionloan, the difference is $218 per unit

per month in tenant rent versus $111per unit per month—or $1,284 per year,a significant amount for low-incomehouseholds.

The second use for local funds is toimprove the area surrounding a pro-posed site. Repairing dilapidated homes,clearing abandoned structures, addingsidewalks, and building parks are amongthe many eligible activities that assist inthe Housing Credit award process.

4. NCHFA always welcomes opportu-nities to work with local governments.The key is to communicate at an earlystage in planning. At that point, NCHFAstaff and prospective applicants candiscuss how state policies fit with localpriorities.

Properties in Asheville

Downtown Asheville offers several ex-amples of successful Housing Creditproperties representing both new con-struction and rehabilitation. Two of themost recently awarded projects are TheGriffin and Battery Park Apartments.

continued on page 12

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 6 11

development, must play on the uniquecontext of each community, can othercommunities draw specific lessons fromAsheville’s experience? We think so.

The public-sector strategy for trans-forming Asheville’s downtown reflectsbroad principles of effective leadershipof change initiatives, which have impli-cations beyond downtown redevelop-ment. As evidence, we point to thesymmetry between the activities ofAsheville’s leaders and the principles foreffective change set out by HarvardBusiness School Professor RosabethMoss Kanter. Although the city’s leadersdid not consider Kanter’s work or anyother explicit theory of change as theybreathed new economic life into theirdowntown area, their actions stronglycorrelate with Kanter’s theory. Theparallels suggest that, whether changestrategies are driven by the public sectoror the private sector or both, andwhether they are intentionally linked tochange theory or not, effective ones callfor certain essential ingredients.33

On the basis of her research on changetheory, Kanter argues that leaders of

effective change initiatives must set thedirection, define the context, and helpproduce coherence. Leaders also mustmanage the culture, or at least thevehicles through which that culture isexpressed. They must set the boundariesfor collaboration, autonomy, and thesharing of knowledge and ideas; givemeaning to events that otherwise appearrandom and chaotic; and inspire volun-tary behavior—effort, innovation, andentrepreneurship.34

More particularly, Kanter suggests,leaders must ensure that their changeefforts are doing the following:

• Tuning in to the environment

• Challenging the prevailingorganizational wisdom

• Communicating a compellingaspiration

• Building coalitions

• Transferring ownership to aworking team

• Learning to persevere

• Making everyone a hero

Tuning in to the EnvironmentKanter writes, “As a leader you can’tpossibly know enough, or be in enoughplaces to understand” everything thatyou need to know to give direction toyour work.35 She therefore suggests thestrategy of creating listening posts—ways to actively collect information thatsuggests new approaches. Asheville didjust that.

At the Asheville Revitalization Com-mission, the newly hired Williams re-ceived the following charge: “Be anombudsman, an information mover, apresence in downtown, and spread themessage: ‘The city cares.’”36 Ken Micha-love, then the city manager, instructedWilliams to eat breakfast every morningwith someone about prospects for down-town, alternating companions betweenthe two downtown-mall factions.

The city’s tradition of setting up mul-tiple and various types of listening postscontinued into the mid and late 1980s.When the Downtown DevelopmentOffice started, staff visited each businessdowntown and collected the concernsand the ideas of its employees. When

Residents and guests exploring the restored ballroom during the grand reopening of Battery Park Apartments.

Nat

iona

lChu

rch

Resi

denc

es


the time came to order new street furni-ture, organizers set up choices of benches,trash receptacles, and streetlights forpeople to try, and asked them to vote fortheir favorites. Organizers conducted“charrettes” (intense, creative work ses-sions) to gain input on the future ofdowntown. As the planning department’surban design planner picked up newsabout significant changes in the down-town environment, she shared it and tookaction. The city introduced a mountedpolice program that aided both publicsafety and community relations. All staffspent a lot of time with their feet on thestreet (and their eyes and ears alert).

Challenging the PrevailingOrganizational WisdomAccording to Kanter, successful leadersof change develop “kaleidoscopic think-ing,” a way of constructing patterns from the fragments of data available,then manipulating them to form differentpatterns. This kind of thinking allowsleaders to question their own assump-tions about the correct solution to a problem.

Asheville set out to question its ownand others’ assumptions about how todevelop downtown, and to explore arange of solutions to downtown’s prob-lems. The city sponsored ventures to othercities, asking voyagers to return with freshideas.37 Also, local nonprofits broughtexperts to Asheville to share their experi-ences. When the French Broad River Gar-den Club sponsored a workshop andtalk by Mary Means, the first directorof the National Main Street Center ofthe National Trust for Historic Preserva-tion, more than 500 people attended.38

The city was armed with new pos-sibilities, but it was sobered by therealization that an even broader cross-section of community residents neededto grasp the stubborn problems of adecaying downtown and appreciate howa renewed downtown could advancetheir interests. As one strategy, in 1985the city began a planning process forwriting a new citywide comprehensiveplan. The process, named Alternativesfor Asheville, involved hundreds ofparticipants from diverse perspectivesand factions and resulted in the adop-

tion of the Asheville City Plan 2010.The plan called for a revitalized down-town that would be the regional centerof western North Carolina.

Communicating a CompellingAspirationKanter writes, “You cannot sell change,or anything else, without genuine convic-tion, because there are so many sourcesof resistance to overcome.”39 At leastinitially, people tend to respond tochange efforts with attitudes such as“We’ve tried it before, and it didn’twork.” To counter this resistance, thecity and other advocates went to greatlengths to communicate a consistentvision that illustrated the history, thedesires, and the decisions of the city.

Out of the discourse emerged a visionthat set a high yet attainable standard:

Renaissance Asheville—A downtownthat functions for commerce througha rich mix of business types . . .projects an image of Asheville as asmall, progressive Southern City . . .pulses with activity throughout the

The Griffin is a fifty-unit property locatedon Grove Street in the city’s central busi-ness district, close to the businesses andluxury condominiums of the Grove Arcade.Construction will be completed in fall2006. The developer is Mountain Hous-ing Opportunities, Inc., a local nonprofitwith broad experience in housing.As a proposal, The Griffin earned one ofthe highest site and market scores everin North Carolina—148 out of a possible155 points. In addition to HousingCredits, the property will benefit from$426,000 in below-market financingfrom local government sources. Theaverage rent will be under $450 permonth (plus utilities).

Battery Park Apartments is a well-known 122-unit marquee property onBattle Square, also located in the centralbusiness district. The developer, NationalChurch Residences, budgeted $30,300per unit in construction costs to reha-bilitate the existing structure, which wasnot severely distressed but was in need ofimprovement and modernization. Localgovernments made a loan of $225,000

and issued a $6.7 million tax-exemptbond. Equity for the Housing Creditscovered the remaining costs. The grandreopening was held in August 2005.

Conclusion

With the right planning, federal HousingCredits are a powerful tool for downtownrevitalization. By combining real estate

fundamentals, quality-of-life considera-tions, local support, and early communi-cation, local governments can strategi-cally direct this resource for everyone’sbenefit.

—Mark Shelburne

The author is counsel and policy coordinator for the NCHFA’s

Rental Investment Department.

continued from page 10

And

rew

Spau

ldin

g,Re

inha

rdt

Arc

hite

ctur

e,In

c.

An architectural rendering of The Griffin.

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 6 13

day and evening . . . beckons andcomforts children and older adults . . . honors our heritage, history, andmountain landscape . . . complementsthe high quality of life of the area . . .entices with its diverse offerings infine dining, cultural opportunities,housing and retail . . . projects astrong, compelling sense of place—commitment to quality in details,authentic design, pedestrian oriented,urban character . . . [T]he social,financial, cultural, governmental,psychological, economic center ofwestern North Carolina[,] which isopen to diverse and creative possibil-ities yet unseen.40

To breathe life into the vision, city staffemployed a variety of strategies. Withthe local newspaper, they producedmonthly inserts promoting the vision ofdowntown as a viable district and givingupdates on the progress of development.They conducted “hard hat tours” (toursof construction sites), organized unifiedretail-sales campaigns, told the down-town story at numerous gatherings, andgave away hundreds of toy yellow hardhats. Working with the Tourism Devel-opment Authority, they launched a mar-keting campaign for tourists with thetheme, “Come See Downtown Revitali-zation in Action.”

Building CoalitionsKanter says that change leaders need the involvement of people who have theresources, the knowledge, and the cloutto make things happen. In the earlystages of planning, leaders must identifykey supporters and sell their dream withthe same passion and deliberation asentrepreneurs sell their products.

Understanding that public-private part-nerships were pivotal to successful revital-ization, the primary players immediatelybegan working actively to foster suchrelationships. The Downtown Develop-ment Office served as the hub for them.

Coordination of the various partnersoccurred through the Downtown Com-mission. The commission was a forumfor discourse, and it monitored and en-couraged constant forward momentumand progress on projects. It supervisedthe creation and the implementation ofthe annual Downtown Action Plan.

Members used their relationships andinfluence with the City Council to down-town’s advantage. The commission alsoserved as a sounding board and an ideaincubator for staff.

The final key piece of the tripartitecoalition was the ADA. It served as aliaison between the city and the down-town business community, and it pro-vided much-needed private-sector supportfor the city’s revitalization endeavors.

Transferring Ownership to a Working TeamKanter asserts that a leader’s job is to support the team, provide coachingand resources, and patrol the boun-daries within which the team mustoperate freely. The city proved to be amasterful leader in its downtown re-vitalization effort.

One of the Downtown DevelopmentOffice’s first exercises was the construc-tion of a sociogram. The visual repre-sentation of all the groups involved indowntown improvement and their rela-tionship to one another clearly instructedthe leadership about a chronic problem:there were too many groups indepen-dently doing their part and not relatedor connected. These realities led to thecrafting of a public-private partnershipmodel that was functional, trim, flexible,inclusive, manageable, and, ultimately,successful at building civic forces forchange. Implementation of this modelwould not have occurred, however,without the leadership, the funding, andthe sponsorship of city government.

The City Council, the city manager,and the Downtown Commission ex-pected the Downtown Development Office to take the lead in creating apartnership environment within the re-vitalization program. They also expectedthat ultimately this partnership, ratherthan the city exclusively, would sustainthe revitalization. Thus the continuingcharge for the Downtown DevelopmentOffice was “Orchestrate and coordinatethe revitalization of downtown Ashevillethrough a public-private partnership.”41

By the mid-1990s, because of severalfactors, it was imperative that a tran-sition occur to position the private sec-tor as the dominant player. One projectthat assisted this transition was dubbedthe Downtown Advantage. The city, the

ADA, and certain developers workedtogether to tout the economic benefitsof investing in downtown and locatingthere. Through a resource guide, news-letters, brochures, media stories, speak-ing engagements, and advertising, thecampaign was promoted.

Learning to PersevereAs Kanter acknowledges in her study,“Every idea, especially if it is new or dif-ferent, runs into trouble before it reachesfruition.”42 Forecasts run short, diversionsare likely, momentum will slow, andcritics will emerge. Former City ManagerBean readily admits that the city under-estimated the resources needed torevitalize its downtown.43 There alsowere diversions such as politicalsquabbles, developer bankruptcies, andfeelings in some neighborhoods that theyhad been left out. Momentum stalled.

Asheville had applauded its advantagein having elected officials and advocatesin local government in partnership withthe private and nonprofit sectors totransform downtown. However, asKanter predicts, critics, skeptics, andcynics began to challenge the city by theearly 1990s. Naysayers, led by the localCouncil of Independent Business Owners,criticized the city’s involvement in realestate and business development, andthe amount of city resources beingdedicated to downtown.

As Kanter declares, “Roads curve.”The downtown development effort wasforced to navigate around roadblocks.For instance, to combat the negativestatements by critics, advocates developedthe Mythbusters campaign. The myths,rumors, and incorrect information cir-culated about downtown were restatedand refuted with facts.

The backlash continued, however.The ads of certain candidates for CityCouncil called the city’s emphasis andinvestments in downtown a waste. Fournew members of the seven-member CityCouncil were elected in 1993. The sur-prising first action of a coalition of twonew and two continuing council mem-bers was to fire Bean. Under a new cityadministration, the amount of city re-sources dedicated to downtown was di-minished. The Downtown DevelopmentOffice was absorbed by other city de-partments, and its clout and scope were


diminished. Several staff left the city’semployment. Within a few years theADA became totally independent of thecity. The Downtown Commission,however, continued its work.

All these changes were followed by aperiod of minimal investment, startingin 1995.44 Two years later, though, de-velopment rebounded and then soared,buoyed by the strong, early momentum,the intentional transition to the privatesector, and attractive investment oppor-tunities. Redevelopment continued,fueled by significant investment by theprivate sector.

Making Everyone a Hero Kanter cautions that remembering torecognize, reward, and celebrate accom-plishments is critical to the success ofany change effort. Asheville took manyopportunities to celebrate the success ofthose laboring to transform downtown.

The ADA and the Downtown De-velopment Office created the DowntownHero awards. Periodically they wouldsingle out volunteers for unselfish con-tributions to the downtown effort. Eachperson received a large gold medallionon wide red ribbon, and the media andADA publications acknowledged his orher contributions. The PreservationSociety of Asheville/Buncombe Countybestowed its Griffin Awards on ownersand developers who rehabilitated andpreserved historic buildings to highstandards. Some people used donationsto the Urban Trail to honor downtowncontributors. Staff and volunteers or-ganized open houses to show off newresidences, offices, and galleries. Theseries of festivals and events held down-town showcased the district and cele-brated progress made.

The city and the ADA made it apoint to recognize their partners—dozens of people—who were the changeagents of downtown. More recently thecommunity has focused its recognitionand appreciation primarily on a smallnumber of private-sector catalysts.

Conclusion

The Asheville experience in downtownrevitalization illuminates the success thatis possible when a local governmenttakes a leadership role in addressing a

problem, while taking care to be in-clusive and to engage key stakeholderscontinuously.

Asheville’s leaders were clear thatonly a civic force including the private,not-for-profit, and public sectors wouldbe strong enough to reverse decades ofdowntown decay and dysfunction. Torescue downtown Asheville for futuregenerations, city leaders sought to cre-ate, but not to be the sole extent of, ahuman structure and culture needed tosupport downtown development. Theyunderstood that the city had to build asystem larger than municipal govern-ment and innovate from within it.

Without a doubt many private- andnonprofit-sector leaders played pivotalroles in Asheville’s downtown revitali-zation. However, describing the city’sspecific role in the revitalization makesits effective leadership immediatelyapparent and establishes the consistencyof that role with characteristics set forthmore generally for change efforts.

Notes1. Century 21, Welcome to Asheville,

North Carolina, available at www.century21asheville.com/About_Asheville_NC/page_262864.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2006).

2. EUGENIE L. BIRCH, WHO LIVES DOWN-TOWN (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Inst.,2005). During the 1990s, downtown popula-tions grew by 10 percent. In contrast, down-town populations declined by 10 percent inthe 1970s and stagnated (changed by only – 0.1 percent) in the 1980s.

3. Interview by Leslie Anderson and AnitaBrown-Graham with L. Ted Prosser, Presi-dent, Landmark Management, in Asheville(Apr. 2004).

4. Jennifer Carlile, Working Title, A Downtown Mainstay Marks 20 Years ofIndependence, MOUNTAIN XPRESS (Asheville),May 29–June 4, 2002, at 42.

5. Alexandra J. Vrtunski, The DowntownRevitalization of Asheville, North Carolina: A Model from the Mountains (1999) (unpublishedmaster’s thesis, University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill) (on file with Leslie Anderson).

6. Asheville Mall Opens Officially Tomor-row Morning, ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES, Nov.22, 1973, at 2. The official opening date wasNovember 23, 1973, but some stores openedas early as January 1972.

7. Interview by Leslie Anderson and Anita Brown-Graham with Louis Bissette,Former Mayor, City of Asheville, in Asheville(Apr. 2004).

8. Asheville Revitalization Comm’n, A Revitalized Downtown—Citizen’s Summary

of the Asheville Revitalization Plan 6 (1978)(unpublished report, on file with the AshevillePlanning Dep’t).

9. Vrtunski, The Downtown Revitalization.10. Interview by Leslie Anderson with John

Horton, Former Restoration Specialist, Officeof Archives & History, N.C. Dep’t of CulturalResources (Jan. 2005).

11. ASHEVILLE CITY CODE, Ordinance 1287(1982).

12. Active groups included the AshevilleDowntown Association, the PreservationSociety of Asheville/Buncombe County, theAsheville Area Arts Council, Asheville-Buncombe Discovery, the Asheville UrbanTrail, and Bele Chere festival trustees.

13. ASHEVILLE CITY CODE, Ordinance 1287,Asheville Downtown Commission (1982),replaced by Ordinance 1567 (1986). Thecommission could do the following:

• Enter into contracts with the approval of City Council

• Recommend land development policies to City Council

• Recommend public policy changes• Identify urban design criteria• Promote and facilitate downtown living• Facilitate, and act as a liaison for,

significant catalytic projects• Actively encourage the involvement of

the private sector and private capital• Develop financial tools to provide financing

for downtown redevelopment projects• Identify developers/investors for

downtown development• Assist in business retention• Develop overall development policy for

downtown• Prepare and recommend a Master Plan14. ASHEVILLE CITY CODE, Ordinances 1287

(1982), 1567 (1986).15. The City Council made other efforts to

involve the right people with the right set ofskills. For example, to get the ball rolling andto provide an outside perspective, in 1983 thecity hired the consulting firm of Zuchelli,Hunter & Associates. Its scope of work wasto test the market and propose viable conceptsand primary development sites. It broughtSoutheastern Historic Properties, developersfrom Winston-Salem, to the table. Otherdevelopers consulted the Zuchelli, Hunter &Associates market study as they consideredinvesting in Asheville. Among them was EstelleSchneider of Schneider Nine, who initiatedthe large Pack Plaza project (and later de-faulted). These outsiders were the first in asuccession of important external players inthis era of downtown Asheville’s renaissance.

16. When the Downtown DevelopmentOffice was launched, the recently appointedDowntown Commission was active in settingthe charge, choosing the director, and leadingthe agenda.

17. The Downtown Development Officeeventually consisted of a staff of five, including

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 6 15

the director, support staff, the festivals mana-ger, and the Asheville Downtown Associationmanager. The city’s parking function mergedinto the department early in the office’s exis-tence. That operation included about twenty-five people, full- and part-time. In addition,the office coordinated, nurtured, and managedapproximately 1,500 invaluable volunteers.

18. The physical office was purposelydesigned to be transparent, with no blinds orcurtains, so that people on the street could seethe activity taking place inside, days, nights,and weekends. People could, and often did,drop in informally to see how things wereprogressing. Leslie Anderson.

19. Telephone Interview by Leslie Andersonwith Douglas Bean, Former City Manager,City of Asheville (May 2, 2005).

20. Leslie Anderson, Personal Notes fromCity Council Orientation (Dec. 1993).

21. Initially there were just three people onthe staff: the director, an administrative assis-tant, and a festivals manager, who imple-mented all the city’s major events, most ofwhich were held downtown.

22. Vrtunski, The Downtown Revitaliza-tion, at 15.

23. Interview by Leslie Anderson withMary Fierle, Former Business DevelopmentCoordinator, City Development Office, Cityof Asheville, in Asheville (Jan. 2006).

24. Interview by Leslie Anderson withAshly Maag, Director, Asheville DowntownAss’n (1992–1995), in Asheville (Dec. 2004).

25. Asheville was not beyond using a stickto get support from other governments whena carrot failed. It uncovered little-known statestatutes and federal executive orders and usedthem to remind the state and federal govern-ments of their obligations to locate publicagency offices in historic downtown areas. InNorth Carolina, House Bill 1151, entitled AnAct to Promote the Acquisition by the State ofBuildings and Space in Buildings Having His-toric, Architectural or Cultural Significance,passed the 1977 session of the GeneralAssembly and became Section 146-23.1 of theNorth Carolina General Statutes. That policywas used to leverage state government leasesin the newly renovated Pack Plaza. The cityworked with the Pack Plaza developer to seekleases for state agencies and challenged acompetitor who had previously been awardedstate leases for his shopping center south oftown. The appeals went all the way to theNorth Carolina Council of State. The councilvoted to award the leases to Pack Plaza insupport of the policy expressed in the statestatute, and denied the proposed leases out-side downtown. A similar strategy was usedwith federal government buildings and leasesunder federal Executive Order 12072. In oneexample, the city and its partners were success-ful in getting the National Climatic Data Centerand attendant offices to vacate the center’sbeautiful and historic Grove Arcade building

in favor of more public uses, remain down-town, and build a prominent new federalbuilding. These strategies used public policyand relationships to the advantage of both thepublic and the private sector and produced acreative tension that served a positive purpose.

26. Parks and Recreation Dep’t, City ofAsheville, Report to City Council and theCommunity, Bele Chere 2005 (Jan. 2006)(unpublished report, on file with the Parksand Recreation Dep’t).

27. Downtown Development Office—A Public/Private Partnership 2 (handout for aCity Council presentation) (Nov. 1993) (onfile with Leslie Anderson).

28. These data provide a snapshot ofmarket value on January 1, 1982, comparedwith market value on January 1, 2004, asdetermined by the Buncombe County TaxOffice. Therefore they are not adjusted forinflation. Interview by Leslie Anderson withGary Roberts, Buncombe County Tax Asses-sor, in Asheville (Jan. 2006). Since 1982 theboundary of the Central Business District hasexpanded. The current taxable value of thatarea is $637,272,200. Interview by Leslie An-derson with Stephanie Monson, UrbanPlanner, Office of Economic Development,City of Asheville, in Asheville (Feb. 2006).

29. Interview by Leslie Anderson withJamie Metsch, Planning Technician, CityDevelopment Office, City of Asheville, inAsheville (Dec. 2004).

30. Interview by Leslie Anderson with BrettSatz, Information Systems Specialist, DataCenter Affiliate, & Webmaster, Land of SkyRegional Council, in Asheville (Feb. 2006).

31. Interview with Monson.32. CITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CITY OF

ASHEVILLE, DOWNTOWN ASHEVILLE, NORTH

CAROLINA 13 (Asheville: the Office, 2005).33. Kanter’s theory of change is based on

her extensive research on change in the privatesector, rather than on change led by the publicsector. In comparing Asheville’s actions withKanter’s change theory, this article also teststhe generalizabilty of Kanter’s theory.

34. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, The EnduringSkills of Change Leaders, 13 LEADER TO LEADER

15 (1999), available at http://leadertoleader.org/leaderbooks/l2l/summer99/kanter.html. In a separate, seminal work on economicdevelopment, Kanter argues that for cities andregions to thrive in the global marketplace, theymust possess both magnets and glue. Magnetsare assets that attract a flow of external resources—new people or companies—to ex-pand skills, broaden horizons, and hold up acomparative mirror against world standards.Glue, on the other hand, is a way of bringingpeople together to define common good,create joint plans, and identify strategies thatbenefit a wide range of people and organiza-tions. Clearly Kanter’s model of thriving communities begs the question of how a com-munity moves from being one that flounders

to one that flourishes economically—thequestion of how a community developsmagnets and glue. See Rosabeth Moss Kanter,Thriving Locally in the Global Economy,HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, Aug. 2003, at 119.

35. Kanter, The Enduring Skills.36. Interview by Leslie Anderson with

Becky Williams Anderson, Former EconomicDeveloper, Asheville Revitalization Comm’n,in Asheville (Dec. 2004).

37. A local nonprofit organized a bus tripthat took community leaders to nearbyWinston-Salem to learn about the arts anddowntown, and then to Roanoke, Virginia.Roanoke, Asheville’s sister city at the other end of the Blue Ridge Parkway, is known forits success with Center in the Square, in theheart of downtown, where a variety of artsresources are located. Community leaders inboth locations taught and inspired Ashevilleleaders. This trip also facilitated team spiritand generated many ideas, including whatbecame Pack Place Education, Arts & ScienceCenter on Pack Square. The City Council tooka trip to Greenville, South Carolina, and alsostudied Charlotte’s Fourth Ward project. Allthese cities were ahead of Asheville in theirrevitalization.

38. In addition, Asheville-Buncombe Dis-covery, a now-defunct nonprofit, sponsoredpresentations by Robert McNulty, of Partnersfor Livable Places, Washington, D.C., andMayor Joseph Riley, of Charleston, SouthCarolina, during this period.

39. Kanter, The Enduring Skills.40. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,

CITY OF ASHEVILLE, ASHEVILLE DOWNTOWN:2010 ACTION PLAN 1 (Asheville: DDO, Jan. 1991).

41. Leslie Anderson, Personal Archives.Several priorities were present from thebeginning:

• Actively engage downtown merchants and property owners in revitalization.Create a private-sector partnership

• Bring to fruition the downtown plansoutlined in Asheville City Plan 2010

• Use the Main Street model and its reliance on historic preservation and other resources to implement programsthat work

• Build an active pool of volunteers engaged in downtown activities

• Facilitate rehabilitation and developmentof downtown buildings by propertyowners, investors, and developers

• Create interlocking interests and account-abilities among all the groups interested in downtown

• Produce a few, quick visible victories—completed projects

42. Kanter, The Enduring Skills.43. Interview with Bean.44. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CITY

OF ASHEVILLE, AN UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN

ASHEVILLE (Asheville: DDO, 2003).

Public Leadership of Asheville’s Downtown Revitalization

Documents

Transcript of Public Leadership of Asheville’s Downtown Revitalization