City Imageability Final Project

City Image: Creating Advantage through Imagability

By Matt Altstiel

GLOS 3900: SENIOR THESIS CLASS
Final Paper

Matt Altstiel
GLOS3981
Senior Thesis Paper
Written Nov.17-Dec. 17 2006

City Image: Creating Advantage through Imagability

When one thinks of the city in general, what does one think of? Does one think of culture, commerce, and modernity? Or, does one focus on negative elements such as: pollution, crime and blight? While such descriptions vary from place to place, often mirroring spectator priorities, the collective opinion of place matters. The formation of image in many ways results in the success or failure of an American city. Therefore, image creation and preservation is not simply a static process, it is an active process continually informing population patterns, patterns of consumption and group identity.

America is an urban nation, and with 73%[1] of the population residing in urban areas, overwhelmingly so. More than ever before, American cities face economic competition from an ever increasingly list of global competitors. The advantage of positive image cannot be underestimated. What makes one place more desirable than another place can be an enormous advantage for attracting population, capital and cultural vibrancy. The central American city, although faced with declining manufacturing importance, decaying urban infrastructure and negative perception, still represents the heart and lifeblood of its entire metropolitan region. As the city goes, goes the metropolitan region. Central cities and suburbs often compete with an antagonistic relationship. Competing over resources, suburbs often refuse to recognize the commonality of their interests, and connection of image. The crucial point to be made is: that cities and surrounding government structures have to ability to choose between success and failure.

Often cities with negative public images embody economic stagnation and civic failures. Once industrial centers amassing great wealth, cities such as: Gary, Flint, Detroit and Buffalo are now hollow shells of their former greatness. Worth asking is the question: which came first, the negative image or the decay? These cities have little legibility and contain a high percentage of unlikable districts. Through imagability and the production of image, this paper intends to address this question. Perception forms image, which in many ways allows a given image to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

Cities with positive or revamped images carry the momentum and the progressive spirit necessary to achieve goals, better their surroundings and exert influence beyond their local boundaries. Positive growth cities have a high degree of imagability and thus a high degree of visibility. This visibility is apparent in various forms, as locals successfully navigate their urban terrain while contributing to the local economy. Suburbanites and exurbanites feed their urban community’s economy by traveling into rather than out of the city. National visibility creates additional economic strength by encouraging the formation of new jobs, businesses and infrastructure to accommodate increasing amounts of visitors. Cities with the highest degrees of imagability, New York, Paris, London Chicago, Los Angeles and Tokyo have all earned the distinction of being world class destinations and highly desirable places to live.[2] Desirability draws directly from the imagability and likeability of urban form.

Overview of Thematic Elements

This paper provides the framework to derive positive image, and tools to implement change and economic stability. Two different case studies provide a model to contrast the effects of positive imagability and negative imagability. To avoid bias, the sample cities chosen, Minneapolis and Milwaukee share similar population demographics, climate, natural landscape and Midwestern cultural values. Minneapolis looms large as economic and cultural giant of the region with a progressive government exhibiting a high degree of agency. Milwaukee represents a city preoccupied with its own perceived inferiority, balkanized government, insular culture and economic stagnation. The current realities of Minneapolis and Milwaukee mirror levels of likeability and imagability.

Crucial to changing city image is urban revitalization, renewal and rebirth within the city’s least positively received districts. Theorists David Lynch and Jack Nasar, provide the necessary terminology and explanation of imagability. The framework of imagability provides the means for the urban planner, policy maker and grassroots activist to formulate and implement policy decisions. Thus it is crucial to explain the concepts of imagablity in detail and provide examples.
The author employed survey techniques in the tradition of Lynch and Nasar to determine imagability. These results, show urban preference and articulate ways to give a city a higher degree of visibility and economic competitiveness. Imagability allows a city to develop its own image and vision for change. Comparing survey results with city promotion strategy establishes a framework for determining the success rates of specific programs.
Finally, this paper will provide suggestions for both cities to enhance their reputation, image and visibility using previously mentioned concepts. However, while these concepts are being applied directly to two distinct models, it is important to remember that every city can benefit to some degree from these models.

Case Study 1: Minneapolis

Minneapolis is the central city within a mid to large metropolitan area with a high degree of imagability and visibility. While the city barely enters into the largest 50 cities in the United State category, the sum of the total metropolitan area ranks within the top twenty.[3] Minneapolis, as a city comprises 40% of Minnesota’s African American population, 20% of its Latino population, 15% of its Native American population and 16% of its Asian American population.[4] Clearly, Minneapolis’ growing diversity comes as no surprise to those aware of its inclusion in the year 2000 as a world class city, one of only eleven in North America.[5]
Within this region, substantial injections of investor capital have buoyed an ever growing tax base for the city. The city’s growing prosperity is well reflected by an average yearly twelve million dollar jump in net tax capacity based levels.[6] Typical of most medium to large American urban networks, empty nesters and young professionals lead the gentrification charge, converting old industrial buildings into new residential units.

A regional economic powerhouse, Minneapolis has successfully navigated the treacherous waters of deindustrialization to anchor in more resilient service and technology sectors. A wealth of healthcare, financial, retail and computer based service companies are headquartered within Minneapolis or its suburbs. Indicative of the city’s position as the chief urban center of the Upper Midwest, Minneapolis has engineered a skyline befitting its regional importance.[7] Minneapolis as a city appears much newer and cleaner than many of its Midwestern counterparts. One senses a genuine sense of pride and civic duty either living or visiting the city. As the regional transportation hub, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport flies to a wide variety of regional, national and international cities.

Minneapolis, in recent years has also emerged as a center of culture. The city ranks second only to New York in terms of theatre seats per capita in the country. The brand new Guthrie Theatre is but one example of the city’s growing cultural reputation. The Block E and Target Center complex transformed blighted sections of downtown, creating jobs within a virtual Mecca for civic entertainment. Minneapolis has become a principal node in the development of Punk and Hip Hop music and culture. Many local acts have reached national prominence.[8] Part of the city’s emphasis on cultural attractions and productions draws from its high number of college graduates and professional degree holders. Indeed, Minneapolis remains one of the few central cities in the entire nation with a better educated populace (higher percentage of college degree holders) than that of its metropolitan area.[9]

Ambitious revitalization efforts, job creation, cultural promotion and fiscal aggressiveness have led the city to seek greater cooperation not only with sister city, St. Paul, but also with suburban Hennepin County governments. Rather than perpetuate economic competition and animosity with its suburban counterparts, Minneapolis effectively formed mutually inclusive strong county governance linking beneficial sectors of county governance with city government. A revenue sharing agreement later expanded to all ten metropolitan counties has narrowed the revenue gap between the richest and the poorest, closing the gap from 16:1, to 4:1.[10] Tax breaks generated from revenue sharing encourages the formation of the service sector jobs. This strategy helped replace many manufacturing jobs before the full severity of creative destruction set in. Grassroots community activism, emboldened by the proactive stance of the city government, has taken responsibility and ownership on its own neighborhoods. Minneapolis enjoys a high quality of life largely due to its high degree of natural imagability as well its highly efficient governmental, economic and cultural strategies.

Case Study 2: Milwaukee

Milwaukee, (pop.596,000) contains more physical terrain and more inhabitants than Minneapolis, but cannot match that city in terms of economic, cultural and academic output.[11] Milwaukee, at the millennium ranked within the top twenty of all American cities in population; however its metropolitan area, including Racine and Waukesha barely positions it within a top fifty ranking. Milwaukee lost well over 30,000 residents in the same period Minneapolis gained 14,000.[12] While many young professionals and empty nesters are rediscovering the past grandeur of the city, many more escape high local taxes in exurban communities. Milwaukee as of 2006 is 40% African American, 37% European American, 11% Latino, 10% Asian American and 2% Native American.[13] Like Minneapolis, the racial balance has substantially. Despite this diversity, Milwaukee ranks as the most segregated city in the entire nation due to loan approval and redlining policies.[14]

The downtown area (CBD), has not witnessed the explosive growth and change of Minneapolis, yet has mustered some positive changes. Near downtown neighborhoods such as the Third Ward, Westtown and Brewer’s Hill have all undergone substantial renewal and revitalization projects. The RiverWalk, with its network of hotels and entertainment districts marks a return to the city’s spiritual and cultural center point.[15] However, Milwaukee and Milwaukee County have not enjoyed a greatly expanded tax base. Instead, due to mismanagement and extensive city poverty, budget shortfalls make fiscal solvency difficult.

Milwaukee has made attempts to transform its economy increasing its non-manufacturing job total by 19% in the 1990’s.[16] However, the manufacturing sector, the most economically vulnerable to global competition, still comprises 18% of metropolitan jobs.[17] Job creation has lagged behind most comparable Midwestern cities, Milwaukee’s chief regional competitors. The city has sought to create employment through expensive housing schemes rather than creating jobs first, and building after. Milwaukee, per capita boasts a higher number of Fortune 500 companies, than both Minneapolis and New York.[18] However, the majority of these companies have relocated their headquarter facilities to the suburbs, thus negating a potential influx of infrastructural and commercial capital into the city tax base. Milwaukeeans on average earned only 58% of their suburban counterparts, translating into a 21.3% city wide poverty rate in 2003.[19] General Mitchell International Airport, the principle metropolitan transportation hub is anchored by Midwest Airlines, but the GMIA lacks the capacity and potential for expansion of the Minneapolis – St. Paul facility. In short, Milwaukee simply does not possess the entrepreneurial spirit of Minneapolis, lagging far behind that city in terms start up companies and job creation.[20]

Milwaukee contains a unique, but overly insular cultural community. The city carries on traditions from its first immigrants. As such, the city’s chief musical gifts to the world have been a handful of semi-relevant rock groups and strong ties to Polka. Milwaukee cannot claim the vibrant cultural scene of Minneapolis. The city has gained fame (or notoriety depending on how it is viewed) as the number two party city in the entire country and the number one binge drinking city. The unique array of cultural festivals and Summerfest, proclaimed the world’s largest musical festival, gives the city a cultural relevance.[21] Despite the size and scope of Milwaukee’s festivals, these events draw almost entirely from a 120 mile radius surrounding the city.

Over the past forty years, socialist leaders with labor party agendas have been driven out of office in favor of small box style leaders, leading to suburban and central city balkanization. Slow to recognize national trends of deindustrialization, the city has presented no coherent plan to create service sector jobs, fight pervasive unemployment and unite municipal governments. As a result, both the government and the economy are highly fragmented, allowing wealth to bleed out to the suburbs. Urban development plans, too weakly funded and too poorly received to reverse the damage of twenty years of neglect. Essentially the northernmost link of Chicago’s regional economy, Milwaukee has not enjoyed the imagability and likeability Minneapolis celebrates today.

An Introduction and Explanation of Imagability

The image of the city may appear at first an ambiguous concept open to broad interpretations. However, the vast majority of city residents interpret urban form with evaluative judgments in much the same manner regardless of culture and location. The “imagability” of city refers a city’s sensory qualities.[22] Imagability, references a host of concepts described below. In essence, “Imagability”, or legibility with sensory perception leads to an evaluated image of the city by producing a recognizable cultural landscape. Therefore, form and structure of the city inform cultural and economic patterns which directly influence urban success or failure.[23]
Kevin Lynch formulates the development of the Environmental Image (Imagable City) into three parts: identity, structure and meaning.[24] Thus where people have the capacity to act, connotative meanings affect their behavior, influencing whether to go somewhere and how to get there. Lynch essentially breaks down the city into five separate parts: landmarks, paths, districts, edges and nodes.[25] Landmarks (visible reference points), paths (ways of movement), districts (larger sections with a specific character), edges (barriers and boundaries) and nodes (meeting points) combine the in its entirety. Therefore, all of these separate elements act together, influencing the legibility or imagability of the city in positive or negative ways. One particular element, if given too much emphasis will impact another element in a negative way. Therefore, if anything, imagability teaches that the micro and macro view of the city are indeed interrelated.

Jack L. Nasar refers to the concept of “likeability” frequently as a source of everyday delight to people and a possible restoration from the stresses of everyday life. Therefore cities that are likeable have the ability to rejuvenate their citizens and encourage positive social behavior.[26] If people like the imagable elements of the city, they will probably convey an agreeable imagability. Likewise, cities with a low degree of likeability “go beyond the absence of emotional satisfaction and abstract notions of good aesthetic form.”[27] Indeed, incompatible appearance and form whether in over short or long term periods leads to sensory overload, fear and stress. Indeed, these emotions taking form in the physical disorder (graffiti, litter, abandoned buildings) create anxiety and even “a threat to survival” for residents and visitors alike. A disagreeable imagability requires a need for changes in appearance. Likeable regions will receive heavier traffic, commercial exchange and social vibrancy. Therefore, it is it vital for urban planners to redraw the city in terms of its likeability.

Likeable areas all have five elements in common. Dislikeable areas all lack the five common features varying degree. The key five features of likeability: naturalness, upkeep of civilities, openness, historical significance and complexity; used in tandem can transform a previously disliked area into a likeable area.[28] Naturalness, reflected by user perception clearly shows preference for vegetation and water, which can positively affect movement and usage.[29] The importance of upkeep of civilities cannot be overestimated as “show increased fear and crime relate to physical incivilities showing an absence of care.[30] People tend to enjoy open spaces as a staple of urban enjoyment, especially in the form of memorable spaces such as plazas and vantage points.[31] Historical significance, as evidenced by numerous studies and the author’s own survey not increases the imagability of landmarks, but evokes “favorable responses through favorable associations, where accurate or not.”[32] Finally, complexity alludes to the visual richness of differing, yet complementary urban features which enhance urban imagability.
The careful interaction between city elements in a particular manner combined with the imposition of likeable characteristics on these elements leads to a city with high imagability, legibility and positive image. The use of image projects can prioritize the imagability of the city by stressing the relationship between collective, on the ground group identity; and beneficial national perception of city identity.

How to Put Idea into Practice

One may wonder, even with the powerful concepts of imagability and likeability as public policy tools, how to put these ideas into practice. As mentioned earlier, the process mirrors the formula: local input + articulation of development strategy = local development policy.[33] The second key step involves: local strategy * # of neighborhoods (districts) = city wide strategy. Finally city wide = effective policy (as measured by public opinion) = positive self image and positive national (international) marketability.

The first step involves the extensive use of surveys to gauge which areas have the highest degree of imagability, and by extension, which areas are the least imagable. By using surveys to effectively represent a cross section of a district, needs can best be addressed and met. Unlike referendums, the majority response will be evaluated and carried out by a developmental body much like Minneapolis’ Dept. of Community and Economic Development (CPED).[34] This local development strategy will determine which areas of the city, and within specific districts, detract from the imagability and likeability of the whole. A cost assessment of city projects a yearly budget estimate. To further stretch the resources of project developers and coordinators, the use of tax incremental financing districts (TIFs) effectively encourage project growth and emphasize local priorities. In order to be truly effective, this first step must repeated every single year as district priorities and needs continually change.
T
he second step involves totaling the expenditures for all districts of the city while evaluating specific districts on a need based format. A city must balance short term and long term solutions. Specific recommendations given by district analysis takes time to implement, however; proactive governments can address principal problems more quickly. In partnership with a CPED like apparatus, qualifying entrepreneurial candidates occupying newly renovated buildings and properties can form a solid local economic base. The majority of metropolitan poverty has been concentrated within the central city. As such, the first five year plan should focus of income distribution tactics. Sharing revenue can halt widening income gaps and divert crucial resources towards the least likeable and imagable areas of the metropolitan area. City wide plans, based of district plans will be capable of tackling the largest issues facing the city.
Combating a specific urban affliction, brownfields, should factor into every major municipal plan. Brownfields at present occupy between 1-7% of the total land area of all 150 central cities.[35] In an extremely inelastic city, properly using abandoned spaces can alleviate housing shortages, accommodate new businesses and cater to high tech industry development.[36] Brownfield renewal deals directly with urban likeability and imagability. Specifically, the existence of brownfields decreases urban likeability, hampering the convergence and legibility of all five major imagability factors. brownfield reduction must be in featured in every yearly district plan as well as every five year plan.

After several years of success at the local level, the city with a revamped local and regional image can showcase its now found imagability on the national and international level. Branding strategies complete with logos and slogans reinforce a particular conception of identity at every level. Tourist opportunities and event hosting become much easier with a heightened level of imagability. Television, radio and print ads all help towards increasing visibility. However, positive word of mouth, spurred by the effective use of yearly and five year plans in establishing a likeable, beloved by its citizens, factors most strongly. A highly visible city with a multiplicity of promotion methods produces a highly efficient city capable of global competition and interaction.
One key point that bears mentioning is the author’s choice of demographics when representing the globally competitive city. The above mentioned plan, while achievable for any size city, specifically encourages city with a combined metropolitan population over 1.5 million. These cities and their urban networks have traditionally been the slowest to adapt modern trends of commerce and industry. Consequently, slow growth, medium to large cities have the most to gain by implementing this overarching plan within their governmental policy.

These cities also face the strongest impetus for gentrification and an excessive preoccupation with tourist oriented services. Joel Koktin explains, “An economy oriented to entertainment, tourism and creative functions is ill suited to provide upward mobility to more than a small slice of its population. Urban governments may tend neglect mundane industries, basic education and infrastructure.”[37] Cities must develop their culture through organic means as a manifestation of economic and political dynamism. Therefore, the crucial distinction between implementation and development of a natural, local aesthetic versus a forced, tourist aesthetic.

Identity Strategies: Minneapolis

The city name Minneapolis, can easily be substituted by its residents by: the City of Lakes. The logo incorporates a solitary sailboat on blue water with trees in the foreground, easily alluding to the city’s natural image and natural charm. However, this particular depiction obviously resulted from a city government emphasizing a certain developmental image. The current slogan stresses the extensive leisure opportunities and comfortable livability of Minneapolis. The slogan and logo also remind residents of the 22 lakes and more than 6,000 aces of parkland within city boundaries.[38] Traditional image making, from the failed campaign “Minneapolis: Everything a City Should Be” of the late 1970’s up to the current time have marketed to a regional audience.[39] Likely few outside the metropolitan region would be able to recall city logos and slogans.

More recently however, Minneapolis government has outlined long term plans for development and image promotion such as 1990’s “Vision 2010” and 2003’s “Vision 2030”.[40] Image planning is mentioned explicitly in goals like “Build communities where all people feel safe and trust the City’s public safety professionals and systems. Foster the development and preservation of a mix of quality housing types that is affordable, available, meets current needs and promotes future growth. Preserve and enhance our natural and historical environment and promote a clean sustainable Minneapolis,” Therefore, image promotion through aesthetic and services are pervasive and important goals in city planning.

To achieve these ends, in 2003, the city government centralized certain agencies and merged with non-profits to create the Department of Community and Economic Development (hereafter, the CPED). CPED has increased the overall beauty and imagability of the city through its “Gateway Project.”[41] These and other projects develop and implement master plans for all eleven Minneapolis districts. By adding public art near neighborhood edges along principle nodes, CPED has increased urban legibility. Similarly, the CPED’s Heritage Program has designated certain historic zones for preservation and revitalized previously aesthetically unpleasant zones. Minneapolis constantly measures public opinion gauges from any one of the eleven district websites. Therefore, recognizing that a positive city image is derived from within the city, the CPED empowers citizens and governments to determine and refine their collective image.

Through this input, Minneapolis has recognized a valuable strategy emphasized by Lynch and Nasar, community input. Given the ability to remake the city by changing negative features and reinforcing positive features, citizens have created a much more likeable physical environment and a more highly imagable city. Once again, the five categories of likeability resurface and inclusion in district policy reaffirms the validity of imagability as an important governmental concept.

Although, Minneapolis: City of Lakes remains the popular city slogan of the day, Minneapolis officials have shifted priorities of image promotion and marketability. Cooperation between state and city officials yielded the “Destination: Minnesota” initiative, launched in 2004.[42] Regional and national tourism ads feature the Minneapolis skyline and other aspects of urban life leaving the viewer no doubt of Minneapolis’ imagability and ideological importance. Under this initiative, Minneapolis has greatly expanded its partnership with the film industry, expanding the film expenditures to 67 million by 2004.[43] By 2005, twenty five national television series claimed Minneapolis as their home base.[44] Despite a relative lack of slogan and logo development, the city nevertheless has a clear promotion strategy allowing the city to reap the benefits of increased local and national imagability.

Identity Strategies: Milwaukee

Since the mid 1970’s Milwaukee has recognized that it has a severe image crisis. Popular television series such as Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley, coupled with internal problems have tarnished city image, leaving Milwaukee with extremely negative imagability. Image promotion provided by the Meier Festival Park with its numerous ethnic festivals led to the unofficial nickname, “The City of Festivals”. However, city imaging and branding were not fully articulated until 1988 with the “Great Place on a Great Lake Campaign.”[45] The slogan sought to give the city a sense of location, and emphasize its positioning, that of a world class city. The blue “M” otherwise known as “The Milwaukee Wave” encouraged citizens and visitors alike to rediscover the city’s famous lakefront.[46]

Although memorable and catchy, the slogan did not lead to increased city imagability. The logo and slogan were deemed too vague by city officials and by 1995, were rejected in favor of a new campaign. In the former’s place, they inserted “Milwaukee: The Genuine American City.”[47] This campaign sought to “convert Milwaukee’s chief liabilities into its most saleable features,” Constructing the Genuine American City). As an image, the idea of a world class city was scrapped in favor of authenticity and the city’s unique “down home culture.”[48] Thus the campaign, while national and regional in scope significantly realigned the priorities of city image.
The redevelopment of downtown, named by city officials as “Everyone’s neighborhood,” surfaced as the primary developmental priority.[49] Thus redeveloping downtown and reconnecting residents to the city’s most visible and imagable area has largely succeeded within the immediate area. However, outlying districts have felt neglected by city officials. Milwaukee largely ignored the remaining architectural resources present in impoverished areas, which if refurbished, could bolster civic pride and identity. Unlike Minneapolis, which has active community participation and effective allocation of resources, Milwaukee has been unsuccessful largely because city officials have not recognized the totality of the city in terms of imagability and likeability.

Newer strategy recognizes the benefits of city wide revitalization. Famed economic development expert Richard Florida recently affirmed this strategy commenting, “The urban landscape itself lures investors and residents. Thus the inspirational, entrepreneurial spirit of the city cannot be separated a city’s particular form” (imagability).[50] Lately, city development has sought to add modern landmarks in areas with low legibility and imagability, (the lakefront and Menominee Valley districts. Furthermore, the city has shifted away from the heavily industrial image of its 1990’s era logo. Instead, the GMVBC (Greater Milwaukee Visitors Bureau and Council) incorporated the city’s two newest and most dynamic elements (the art museum and Miller Park stadium) into this logo. Furthermore, the preferred, simplified phrasing of “Genuine” adopted in late 2005 should allow residents and visitors alike to form their own image of the city.[51]

Milwaukee, unlike Minneapolis does not publish a state of the city report every single year. While the government sponsored tourist group, Visit Milwaukee, publishes new reports and brochures every year, the city does not. The last published state of the city report dates back to 2001, now a span of five years with a publicly articulated city strategy.[52] Therefore, while Milwaukee may have honed and refined its image for development tactics at the national level, the city has done little to increase its imagability and likeability at its most fundamental local level.

Imagability Survey

The survey was principally broken down into three different sections. The first section emphasized the image of Minneapolis by asking respondents to comment of on their perception of the city, familiarity with city governance, awareness of landmarks, principle problems threatening urban stability and preference in slogans. The second section addressed the image of Milwaukee by positing identical questions to gauge image consensus. The third question dealt the strategy of marketing in reference to logos, slogans and branding. The details of this study will be discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

Methodology

The author used was an anonymous survey distributed to primarily students at the University of Minnesota, with a standard duration of ten minutes for completion. The age range of the 215 respondents lay mainly in between 18-23, however there were several outliers over the age of forty. The survey was conducted from the period of November 27 to December 5 mostly in a classroom or meeting setting. Following the general demographics of the University of Minnesota approximately 55% of respondents were from Minnesota, 35% from Wisconsin, and the additional 10% from other states.[53]

College students were selected as principle respondents for several specific reasons. Firstly, college students and young professionals comprise a substantial percentage of the urban creative class. College graduates are better positioned in a globalized, multi-sector urban economy to shape urban economies than their degreeless counterparts. Secondly, this age range engages in heavy consumption of both urban services and urban goods since as a group they are most willing to seek out entertainment options downtown or in an urban environment. Thirdly, although often earning medium to high levels of disposable income, with negligible to medium levels of personal debt, this age group opts for the excitement of urban life over the safety of the suburban experience. Fourthly, this demographic travels primarily seeking pleasure and diversion, and most likely pays more attention to the visual dynamic of the city. Finally, as a high politicized demographic, college students are often more perceptive of and willing to engage various urban problems.

However, despite the advantages afforded by using this specific demographic, several key disadvantages emerge. The overwhelming majority of respondents came from suburban or exurban communities. As such, many lacked the lived experience and unique knowledge of urban imagability that comes with extended residence. Furthermore, due to the antagonistic relationship between suburb and central city, views are often informed by the sensationalized nature of American media, distorting the true nature of urban environments. Often only a very vague, unrealized sense of place permeates the membrane of suburban metropolitan consciousness.

Results and Analysis

Minneapolis, according to the survey benefits from an overwhelming positive public image. While many mentioned the cold winters as an identifying characteristic of the city, many more lauded the amount of cultural activities, the impressive skyline and abundance of natural settings as prominent images and feelings. Crime and urban sprawl were cited as the two most common principal problems threatening city and metropolitan success. A surprising lack of knowledge and involvement with neighborhood organizations, government apparatuses and development networks was displayed with only five percent claiming any affiliation. A wide range of answers demonstrated the difficulty of identifying a principle Minneapolis landmark. The most common selections included the Spoon with Cherry Sculpture, the Mall of America and the Metrodome. The skyline in general was cited as another important manifestation of urban identity. North Minneapolis, generally the poorest and most non-white region of the city, was cited as the most popular choice for redevelopment.[54]

Responses seemed to favor the slogan: Minneapolis: City of Lakes, due to the slogan’s positive identification with nature. The slogan seems to suggest a healthy coexistence between the urban environment and the natural environment. This slogan appears in many places around the city and is the currently favored tagline. On the other hand, the slogan: Everything a City Should Be was handily rejected as it was too vague and lacking in a firm grounding in locality. This slogan was favored by developmental agencies attempting to market the city but did not meet the critical public response to be used.[55]

Milwaukee, according the survey suffers form an overwhelming negative reception. Little to nothing is known about the city in part due to poor promotion despite the relative vicinity (330 miles from Minneapolis). Exactly half (50%) of the respondents were indifferent towards the city, 37% cited a negative image, and only 13% reflected a positive opinion. General images reflected Milwaukee’s industrial history along with its position as a leading producer of alcoholic beverages. Alongside traditional opinions of industrial cities, responses used phrases such as “crime ridden”, “gritty and dirty” and “living in the past” to describe the visual and emotional condition of the city. Crime, segregation and the term Wisconsin-ness were used describe principle urban problems of the metropolitan area. Much like Minneapolis, respondents showed almost no knowledge of local organizations, government agencies and development groups. The Core region and Riverwest neighborhoods (close to downtown), as well as the Northwest Side were primary targets for re-development.[56]

For the survey two popular slogans were used: A Great Place on a Great Lake, and the Genuine American City. The slogan: A Great Place on a Great Lake was favored by 65% of respondents, who identified with the sense of place the slogan affords as well as its memorability. The first slogan was favored by the city for the years 1988-1995. The second slogan: The Genuine American City, now in heavy usage as the civic slogan for Milwaukee did not fare quite as well. Those from outside the Milwaukee area had difficulty associating the term genuine with Milwaukee or believed Milwaukee did not represent the best of America. Similarly, those from the Milwaukee area believed the language used in the first slogan had more positive connotations for the city image.[57]

Following the survey, the best methods to promote a city are tourist attractions, advertisements and general promotion. Curiously absent from the responses was the word of mouth factor; a powerful, yet free method of urban promotion. Along the same lines as urban promotion, the question: which features make a city unique?; ties directly into issues or marketability. Architecture, specifically that of landmarks and skylines were pervasive answers. Emphasis on uniqueness of culture, specialized business and tourist attractions accounted for 34%, 15% and 27% of respondents, respectively.[58] However, many respondents (61%) expressed skepticism in the effectiveness of employing logos, slogans and branding to promote city image. Along the same lines, only a slight majority (53%) believed appropriating public funds towards image building projects enhanced local civic life. Potentially explained by the overwhelming suburban background of respondents, three-quarters (74%) rejected revenue sharing agreements between suburbs and more economically depressed central cities and inner ring suburbs. Therefore, while all respondents had specific images and ideas of imagability to come to mind in their opinions of Minneapolis and Milwaukee, the importance of image development and promotion were generally over looked.[59]

Recommendations for the Future

Minneapolis and Milwaukee both have much to learn and gain from the survey and from the concept of imagability. Minneapolis has the advantage of being a highly likeable city, yet lacks much of the imagability necessary to truly achieve world class status. On the local, district level, Minneapolis already employs the survey strategy of urban planning. However, the Northern neighborhoods of Minneapolis have low imagability and likeability. City resources, focused too long on only certain areas must revive the life of neglected districts. Along the same line, Minneapolis suffers from a lack of historical significance across the city. The city should preserve and redevelop much of its unused brownspace. This process not only reaffirms commitment to the city, but preservation of the past embodies a key element of urban imagability and likeability. Minneapolis should devote more attention to developing its cultural institutions and advertising strategies. The city now has the opportunity to choose and embrace its future. Resident consensus should articulate the designation of a new landmark building befitting the city’s image due to a surprising lack of metropolitan identity.

Milwaukee presents challenges and opportunities as well. A city with low imagability and likeability, Milwaukee desperately needs the implementation of survey tactics and coherent plans. Respondents who lack knowledge of civic government are less likely to get involved and encourage governmental change. Therefore, Milwaukeeans as a population must become more politicized. The creation of a CPED like apparatus (a centralized, yet flexible apparatus with the power to engage district and city wide needs) must be created in Milwaukee. Revenue sharing, while unpopular at first, should help metropolitan residents realize the shared destinies of their communities. Through these strategies, Milwaukee can transform districts, reduce urban maladies and establish a committed, highly politicized populace. Milwaukee faces a greater uphill climb than Minneapolis to reclaim prominence, but once it focuses on local problems, it can truly represent the greatness its ads and pamphlets now claim.

Conclusion

Given a framework for conception and implementation, the image related concepts of imagability and likeability are central to the long term success of the central city and the surrounding metropolitan area. In order to create a city with a healthy mix of imagable and likeable elements, a city must have a responsive, action oriented government capable of making short term sacrifices for the good of the community.[60] Change must come from within. A city’s people with their collective talents will always represent a city’s greatest strength and a city’s greatest weakness.[61] Therefore, before a city can have a nation buy into a particular image, the city’s citizens must subscribe first.

The “How To” section establishes strategy advocated by the author. While the strategy seeks broad application, planners and residents should be mindful that local solutions do have substantial variance. However, the importance of establishing an imagable, likable city capable of satisfying its citizens’ needs should be the principal goal of any city. The survey method helps democratize the process of urban development and helps limit gentrification. Given a choice and given the resources, residents will better their communities. Cities and their smaller districts, with this framework, can recognize which aspects make them great and which aspects require improvement. Similarly, the survey method does not allow the city to neglect its unique features in favor of more dynamic, but inaccurate marketability. The lessons learned from Minneapolis and Milwaukee give hope that local solutions and populations will continue to make American cities globally relevant.

Works Cited

Adams, Steve. Building Sustainable Neighborhoods. 2006 Community and Economic Development Leadership Summit. Midwest Airlines Center, Milwaukee, WI. 6 Dec. 2006.

Altstiel, Matt. “Imagability Survey.” 27 Nov. – 5 Dec. 2006. Mequon, WI and Minneapolis, MN.

Augustine, Dan. Personal Interview. Nov. 17. 2006.

Augustine, Dan. Personal Interview. Nov. 29. 2006.

Barret, Tom. Remarks by Mayor Tom Barrett. 2006 Community and Economic Development Leadership Summit. Midwest Airlines Center, Milwaukee, WI. 7 Dec. 2006.

Cue, Eduardo and Koerner, Brendan I. “Cities That Work.” U.S. News & World Report 6 Aug. 1998: 26-35.

CP Staff. Too Much Is Never Enough. 4 Oct. 2006. Minneapolis / St. Paul City Pages. 31 Nov. 2006. <http://citypages.com/databank/27/1348/article14767.asp>

De Sousa, Christopher. “Policy Performance and Brownfield Redevelopment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.” The Professional Geographer 57.2 (2005): 312-327.
Dresang, Joel. “Region warned to avoid rivalries.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Business section: 30 Nov. 2006.

Ford III, Coit Cook and Wolman, Harold L. “Evaluating the success of urban success stories.” Urban Studies 21.6 (1994): 835 – 850.

Gratz, Roberta Brandes and Mintz, Norman. Cities Back from the Edge: New Life for Downtown. Washington D.C.: Preservation Press, 1998.

Grogan, Paul. Keynote Address: Comeback Cities – Lessons for Milwaukee. 2006 Community and Economic Development Leadership Summit. Midwest Airlines Center, Milwaukee, WI. 7 Dec. 2006.

Inventory of World Cities. 2006. Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network. 19 Nov. 2006. < http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html>.
JULY 1, 2005 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR METROPOLITAN, MICROPOLITAN, AND COMBINED STATISTICAL AREAS (Areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005) Dec. 2005. U.S. Census Bureau. 20 Nov. 2006. <http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/Estimates%20pages_final.html>

Kipnis, B.A. A World City, Psychological Rewards and the Creative Agencies. 22 Sept. 2006. Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network. 19 Nov. 2006. <http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb207.html>.

Kenny, Judith T and Zimmerman, Jeffery. “Constructing the ‘Genuine American City’: neo-traditionalism, New Urbanism and neo-liberalism in the remaking of downtown Milwaukee.” Cultural Geographies 11 (2003): 74 – 98.

Koktin, Joel. The City: A Global History. New York: Modern Library, 2005.

Ed: Miner, Pamela. City of Minneapolis. “State of the City 2003: A Statistical Portrait of Minneapolis Report.” Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development, Planning Division; 2003.

Ed: Miner, Pamela. City of Minneapolis. “State of the City 2005: A Statistical Portrait of Minneapolis Report.” Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development, Planning Division; 2005.

Nasar, Jack L. The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand Oaks, Cal: SAGE Publications, 1998.

Nettles, Cory. Fostering Small Business Growth and Entreprenuership. 2006 Community and Economic Development Leadership Summit. Midwest Airlines Center, Milwaukee, WI. 7 Dec. 2006.

Oswald, Maggie. Personal Interview. 10 Sept. 2006.

Rusk, David. Cities Without Suburbs: A Census 2000 Update. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2003.

Summerfest About Us. 2006. Summerfest. 10 Dec. 2006. <http://www.summerfest.com/aboutus/history.htm>

United States Census 2000. 25 Jan. 2002. United States Census Bureau. 15 Oct. 2006. < http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html>

W States. 17 April, 2006. CNN Money.com. 24 Oct. 2006. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/states/W.html>
[1] Census 2000, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
[2] Kipnis, B.A, http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb207.html
[3] 2005 U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/Estimates%20pages_final.html
[4] 2003 State of the City Report: Population, pg. 16
[5] Inventory of World Cities, http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
[6] 2003 State of the City Report: The Built Environment, pg. 11
[7] 2005 State of the City Report: The Built Environment, pg. 8
[8] “Too Much is Never Enough” http://citypages.com/databank/27/1348/article14767.asp
[9] 2003 State of the City Report: Population, pg. 13
[10] Rusk, pg. 99
[11] Census 2000, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
[12] Census 2000, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
[13] Barrett, Tom. 2006 Community and Economic Development Leadership Summit.
[14] Rusk, pg. 31, 35
[15] Kenny and Zimmerman, pg. 82
[16] Rusk, pg. 44
[17] Rusk, pg. 42
[18] CNN Money.com, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/states/W.html
[19] Rusk, pg. 37
[20] Dresang, Joel. “Region warned to avoid rivalries.”
[21] Summerfest, http://www.summerfest.com/aboutus/history.htm
[22] Nasar, pg. 60
[23] Nasar, pg. 81; Lynch, pg. 10
[24] Nasar, pg. 6
[25] Lynch, pg. 47-48
[26] Nasar, pg. 9
[27] Lang, pg. 187
[28] Nasar, pg. 15-16
[29] Lynch, pg. 44
[30] Newman 1972
[31] Lynch, pg. 44
[32] Nasar, pg. 72
[33] Ford III, Coit Cook and Wolman, Harold L, pg. 844
[34] 2003 State of the City: The Built Environment, pg. 2 - 3
[35] De Sousa, pg. 314
[36] Rusk, pg. 17
[37] Kotkin, pg. 152
[38] Cue and Koerner, pg. 29 - 30
[39] Grogan, Paul. 2006 Community and Economic Development Leadership Summit.
[40] Grogan, Paul. 2006 Community and Economic Development Leadership Summit.
[41] 2003 State of the City: The Built Environment, pg. 4
[42] 2005 State of the City: The Built Environment, pg. 6
[43] 2005 State of the City: The Built Environment, pg. 6
[44] Kenny and Zimmerman, pg. 77
[45] Kenny and Zimmerman, pg. 77-78
[46] Kenny and Zimmerman, pg. 78 - 79
[47] Kenny and Zimmerman, pg. 79
[48] Kenny and Zimmerman, pg. 79
[49] Kenny and Zimmerman, pg. 80
[50] Kenny and Zimmerman, pg. 91
[51] Augustine, Dan. Nov. 17. 2006 and Nov. 29. 2006.
[52] Adams, Steve. 2006 Community and Economic Development Leadership Summit.
[53] Oswald, Maggie. 10 Sept. 2006.

[54] Altstiel, Matt. “Imagability Survey.”
[55] Altstiel, Matt. “Imagability Survey.”
[56] Altstiel, Matt. “Imagability Survey.”
[57] Altstiel, Matt. “Imagability Survey.”
[58] Altstiel, Matt. “Imagability Survey.”
[59] Altstiel, Matt. “Imagability Survey.”
[60] Gratz, Roberta Brandes and Mintz, Norman, pg. 327
[61] Nettles, Cory. 2006 Community and Economic Development Leadership Summit