March 10, 1999

Conversations regarding the Stark Proposal resulted in the creation of an ad hoc "Cultural District Leadership Committee" comprised of senior representatives of each of the players: the City of Akron, Summit County, the Public Library, Civic Theatre, Art Museum, and Stark Development. The committee realized that the scope and magnitude of the project, coupled with potential controversy regarding funding and historic preservation issues would require that the pulse of the public be taken.

Burt Woolf, of QL Consulting, Inc. Lexington Massachusetts, was retained to design and facilitate a public input process that would provide the committee with the qualitative information it was seeking from the public.

The process intersected with, but was not intended to address general downtown planning issues, nor to identify where else a cultural district might be situated, nor to assess the status of the arts and cultural community of the region.

THE PROCESS

A "Definition of the Cultural District Concept" and the design for the stakeholder input process were both developed over two facilitated working sessions (January 20 and January 28, 1999) of the aforementioned Cultural District Leadership Committee.

The public process (February 21-23, 1999) entailed two components: first a series of small-group meetings to secure input from the following stakeholder interests:

• Arts Community (Arts Alliance)
• Historic Preservation (Progress Through Preservation)
• Canal Corridor
• Downtown Businesses
• City Council
• County Council
• Civic Leadership

Second, on the evening of February 22, 1999, a General Public Meeting was convened at the Civic Theatre. Over 200 citizens attended this spirited event.

At the start of each meeting, Burt Woolf presented the definition of the Cultural District concept as developed in earlier work sessions with the Cultural District Leadership Committee. He also reviewed issues and lessons learned from cultural districts around the country. The presentation was followed by a series of facilitated interactions designed to address "How to make this public-private project a success for Akron". Participants were asked to address three related sub-questions:

1. What works for you about this concept?
2. What concerns you about this concept?
3. In what ways might we (i.e. list creative ideas to ... ) build on what works for you overcome/resolve what concerns you

After generating the list of creative ideas, the participants used "sticky dots" to identify which of the listed ideas they felt to be "most promising". The sticky dots, once tallied, reflected a "level of priority" for the ideas generated by each respective group.

Two variances occurred to this format. First, in the small group session for preservation interests, the participants (all representing the Progress Through Preservation organization) came with an organized presentation agenda of their own. Burt explained the interactive agenda that had been designed, but after the participants strongly expressed their need to make their own prepared presentation, Burt agreed to change the meeting format for this group and let them state their case. Therefore, by their own choice (and by Burt's concurrence), the representatives fromProgress Through Preservation stated their issues and ideas, but did not generate any additional creative ideas at the session.

The second variance to the format occurred by design at the large general public meeting. In order to generate as many creative ideas as possible, the audience (well over 2003 was asked to break up into eight smaller groups. Each group discussion was led by a trained volunteer facilitator from Leadership Akron. Interaction was expedited by giving the groups a single common instruction: "Generate a list of creative ideas that builds on whatever works for you about this project, and that addresses whatever concerns you about this project

UNDERSTANDING THE OUTPUT OF THE PROCESS

It is important to note that the process was designed to result in an initial list of issues and concern, generated by a select group of stakeholding interests. Even with the 200 plus participants at the general public meeting, the output cannot and should not be construed as a representative sample of general citizen opinion. Rather, the comments of stakeholders reported herein reflect the views and opinions only of those who actually participated in the sessions that were convened. This is exactly as had been intended from the start.

KEY THEMES/ISSUES RAISED

The following key themes and issues accurately represent the most prevalent comments made by those who participated in the public process.

Participants in this public process demonstrated a great deal of respect for the integrity downtown Akron, taken as a whole. Indeed,

While many participants suggested different ways to create a cultural district, or proposed other areas of the downtown that ought to be considered, such ideas were not in the scope of our assignment. Nevertheless, the effect a concentration of new development and activity on the north side of downtown was of significant concern to many. People want assurances that the middle area of Akron's linear downtown will not be left out of the development equation. The following related issues should be addressed as the project moves ahead:

• How to link the cultural district, to other downtown activities/facilities, via
• visual imagery
• transportation linkages (all modes, especially non-automobile)
• programming
• organizational mechanisms
• How to keep Main Street open in the proposed cultural district site.
• How to create specific physical and programmatic linkages to other downtown and regional attractions such as Inventure Place, Cuyahoga Scenic Railroad, etc.
• How to integrate the cultural district planning into the plans of existing downtown-related initiatives (especially the Canal Corridor) and opportunities (Scenic Byways)

Issue: Find a balance between historic preservation and development. On the whole, participants in the process have a great deal of concern for the preservation and aesthetics of downtown Akron's built environment. Preservation issues were raised not only from extreme activists, but also from middle-of-the-road community advocates, and even from those who are the primary promoters of the cultural district concept.

Is it possible to find a universally acceptable balance between preservation and development, given the wide range of preservation viewpoints that were expressed? It is not likely that any case for new facilities (or even replacement existing facilities) - no matter how technically or historically compelling -- will satisfy the concerns of the most extreme preservation activists. However, if the cultural district were to commit to the following related key preservation issues (presented as priorities during the public process), the case for the cultural district would then more likely have a broader appeal and public acceptance:

Issue: "Where's the money coming from (who's going to pay)"? Notwithstanding how many times it was openly stated that the financial feasibility of the Cultural District project has not yet been studied, this classic citizen concern about finances was expressed repeatedly. Clearly, a Business Plan needs to be prepared for the cultural district that would include a professionally prepared feasibility study including:

• A clear and well-documented financial case statement explaining the financial needs and requirements of each respective component (especially the Library and the Civic Theatre) as to why a move is necessary.
• Research to establish the likely market response to the project and it's various elements
• Assessment of the project's economic impact on the region
• Resource development analysis (sources and feasibility of public, private and philanthropic capital investment)
• Pro forma statements for the project and each component (Operating revenue and expense projections over five years)

Issue: Find a balance between community cultural development and the development of the cultural district. The vast majority of participants in the public process understood that the proposed "cultural district" is not intended to be detrimental to the area's existing cultural community. Indeed, when given the opportunity to explore ways for the cultural district and the broader cultural community to work together, the creative ideas flowed freely. The arts stakeholders discussed the shortage and inadequacy of cultural facilities in the region. The arts community is sorely in need of a comprehensive cultural plan for greater Akron. As for specific issues for the cultural district, the most interesting was the suggestion that Cinemark be an active "cultural" player in the region by offering one or more "screens" as stage venues for live productions, especially for affordable hig h school music performances.

Issue: Move ahead quickly and responsibly. For those stakeholders who believe that the cultural district project should move to the next step (and there were many), there was a clear sense that the project must now expedite clarification of several elements:

• a creative name for the project (not just "cultural district");
• an initial vision statement and preliminary master plan (including a physical model) for the project;
• professionally developed case statements for the project components (why this is being proposed);
• responses to the primary issues raised in the public process (as described in this report); and
• a standing (i.e. not ad hoc) organizational structure.

PARALLEL CONSIDERATIONS

Although not part of our inquiry, the public process revealed three separate, but parallel coordinative activities that are needed for greater Akron and Summit County:

• A stewardship mechanism that coordinates present and future downtown development efforts;
• A comprehensive community cultural plan
• A tourism destination strategy.

These opportunities bear further consideration by the community.

CONCLUSION

Currently, approximately 90 communities in the United States say they have a designated part of town where a concentration of arts and cultural activities take place - they may call such places "The Arts District" or "The Cultural District", or they may give that place a special name, such as "Lincoln Center", Playhouse Square", "East Bay", etc. Whatever the case, there is no single formula as to how such districts are created and sustained.

We do know that to make them happen and to make them successful, arts and cultural districts need the blended and focused energy of key public agencies, private nonprofit organizations, philanthropic interests and commercial enterprises. The district's leadership must bring the voice of public stakeholders to the table early in the process, and the entities who will be part of the district must be responsive to the issues and concerns that are expressed. These ingredients are currently very much present in the development of downtown Akron's proposed cultural district. Many other communities will envy Akron for its willingness to engage the public openly and genuinely in this exploration. We wish you well in your efforts to move forward on this most exciting and challenging development for your community and region.