Housing and main street revitalization

Material Information

Housing and main street revitalization conditions for coordinated policy planning
West, Stephen R
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
v, 122 leaves : chart, forms, maps, plans ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Central business districts -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
City planning -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Housing -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Central business districts ( fast )
City planning ( fast )
Housing ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
Case studies. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Case studies ( fast )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 97-100).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
submitted by Stephen R. West.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
13495834 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1985 .W428 ( lcc )

Full Text

Conditions for Coordinated Policy Planning
Submitted by:
Stephen R. West
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Planning and Community Development University of Colorado at Denver
Professor Bernie Jones, Ph.D., Thesis Advisor
May, 1985

The Thesis of
is approved.
University of Colorado at Denver May, 1985
College of Design and Planning
Professor Bernie Jones, Ph.D. Committee Chair and Thesis Advisor (University of Colorado, Planning and Community Development)
I Patrick C6yle
(Colorado State Main Street Coordinator, State Department of Local Affairs)
(Director of Management System Division, U.S. Department of'BiU.D.)
Is DanlelSchler, Ph.D.
(Director of Planning and Community Development, U.C.D.)

I extend a special thanks to Bernie Jones, the author's thesis advisor and committee chair, for his counsel and guidance throughout the research and writing of this thesis. Appreciation is also extended to Mr. Patrick Coyle, Mr. Emmett Haywood, and Dr. Darnel Schler for serving as members of this thesis committee.
My thanks go also to the Division of Planning and Community Development, a division of the College of Design and Planning, for providing the framework, insights, and encouragement to explore such a broad issue.
I am also grateful to the Chambers of Commerce, downtown organizations, Housing Authorities, and municipal governments of Delta, Duransro, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, Longmont, Louisville, Loveland, Manitou Springs, Montrose, and Sterling for their assistance in the data-gathering process.
Finally, I must express my appreciation to my word processor, friends, family and co-workers for their support, understanding, and encouragement.

Downtown/Main Street Redevelopment has become a matter of accepted fact in many towns today. It has not reached the stage of being a fad, but in many ways it could be referred to as a training ground for persons getting a start in the fields of planning, urban design, architecture, public administration, or a cadre of other fields. Turnover of officials and staff seems high and possibly detrimental to success.
The documented components and complexity of Main Street issues are found in studies and consultant reports rather than volumes of books. Theses from the College of Design and Planning have been directed in the past toward "Neighbonhood Revitalization" (Horn, 1983) and the process of "Downtown Revitalization" (Sherry, 1984). Other theses somewhat related to the present thesis explore housing financing and programs in small towns and other such issues. None of these have attempted to discuss the relationship between Main Street Redevelopment, which is a growing concern in many towns, and the state of the housing stock adjacent to Main Street.
Two studies have engaged the author in evaluation of components of Main Street redevelopment. The first was a study under contract with the Colorado Department of Local Affairs to examine the effectiveness of the design component of a 4-point national/state program (Jones et al., 1983). A follow-up paper was written to address a finding of the research team regarding a lack of community involvement in the redevelopment process (Jones et al., 1984). Another study, as mentioned before, was directed at the overall process itself emphasizing the sequence of steps in redevelopment work (Sherry, 1984).

I It is the express intent of this study to address the issue of housing
conditions surrounding and often encompassed by the Main Street/commerc'al redevelopment boundaries and further describe explicit and implicit policies or goals that include these areas.
Findings of the study revealed extensive plans, policies, and studies that include housing as an issue to be addressed. Each town has some statement or expression that includes housing as a "viable component" to downtown/Main Street redevelopment. The degree of active programming and decisionmaking to guide both uses/areas through a redevelopment process are pronounced.
The size of town, type of organized efforts, and condition of structures were not consistently the causes for having an overall program element of housing or concurrent housing program. Evident goals and policies are expressed that include residential uses as necessary components of redevelopment. Reasons that often prevent implementation of concurrent redevelopment may be: staff capacity and training, citizen activity or apathy, and access to
resources that prevent the implementation of such a concurrent redevelopment approach. It is the feeling of the author that the markets (residential and Main Street/commerce) are also very different and seem hard to coordinate since one is by nature competitive and subject to a high rate of displacement and the other strives for stability in hopes of keeping displacement minimal. Policy findings often implied coordinated or concurrent goals, but the implementation of such goals were not always evident.
Design guidelines and guidelines for historic preservation are in some ways
keys to coordinating the two uses, thus giving the frosting on the cake to overall redevelopment. Striving for a quality and competitive community is an ideal

that the author has found expressed explicitly and implicitly through each community's goals and policies.
It is both the conclusion and further recommendation of the author that avenues of ensuring work programs and planmaking prior to action (as with Downtown Development Authority structures) are key ways to reassure citizens and officials that redevelopment occurs with forethought rather than redevelopment for redevelopment's sake. Also, as a matter of policy,
municipalities and the state are encouraged to assist the community in understanding and participating in a process which intends to affect the standard and quality of living in a specific place. Avenues for citizen input, participation and response can be promoted and utilized in the forms of research, meetings, committees, and forums as well as community projects (creation of parks, home repair, etc.), each of which physically involve all parties in the implementation of goals and policy. It is here where the author sees the linkage within the "transitional areas" surrounding Main Street as well as the present need for concurrent forms of revitalization.

Acknowledgments ....................................................... -i-
Abstraet ............................................................. -ii~
Table of Contents ..................................................... -v-
Review of the Literature ................................................ 1
Introduction ........................................................... 11
Statement of Purpose .............................................. 11
Evolution of Topic ................................................ 12
Research Methodology ................................................... 15
Research Question.................................................. 15
Research Design ................................................... 15
Methodology ....................................................... 16
Selection Criteria ................................................ 16
Sampling and Data Gathering ....................................... 16
Data Analysis ..................................................... 16
Descriptive Findings .................................................. 17
Overview of Each Community ........................................ 17
Delta ........................................................ 17
Durango ...................................................... 22
Glenwood Springs ............................................. 26
Grand Junction ............................................... 30
Longmont ..................................................... 35
Louisville ................................................... 40
Loveland ..................................................... 44
Manitou Springs............................................... 48
Montrose ..................................................... 54
Sterling ..................................................... 59
Policy Findings: How They Address Adjacent Residential Area ............ 64
Delta ............................................................. 64
Montrose .......................................................... 65
Sterling .......................................................... 66
Manitou Springs ................................................... 70
Longmont .......................................................... 71
Louisville ........................................................ 72
Loveland .......................................................... 74
Durango............................................................ 75
Glenwood Springs................................................... 77
Grand Junction..................................................... 80
Summary ........................................................... 82
Data Analysis .......................................................... 84
Conclusions and Recommendations......................................... 94
References ............................................................. 97
Glossary .............................................................. 101
Appendices ............................................................ 103

Ever since the classic Greek city, documented distinctions in uses and standards for living conditions have existed; homes were for privacy, not socialization or business. "Small merchants frequently had shops adiacent to their houses, but business and politics were generally conducted in and adiacent to the agora." (Oallion & Eisner, 1980). Homes were built and located in such a way as to ensure heat in winter and coolness in the summer. "In Hellenic towns sanitation was improved by the pavement of streets and underground drains of dwellings improved drainage increased the number of homes with private baths [although] disposal of sewage was done in a portable fashion." (Gallion & Eisner, 1980).
With the further development of civilization, the building of cities, and the growth of population, land took on other values than those attached to agricultural use. "The fixed marketplace became a land use of great value, the public open space, the forum and the commons being the important center of the town ... It did not take rulers long to recognize that the relationship between land uses was of paramount importance, that the slaughterhouses had no proper place on the windward side of their palaces." (Gallion 6c Eisner, 1980).
Today, under the guise of redevelopment, the smaller cities and towns of the United States are undergoing growing pains. The earlier movement for urban renewal ended up neglecting the places from whence persons were migrating, i.e., the small towns.
Presently, types of revitalization projects are vast, having occurred in both large central city business districts and small neighborhood commercial areas. The majority of literature on revitalization and redevelopment ;s directed

toward urban areas, with few references to small town or Main Street revitalization.
In terms of documenting revitalization movements, Holcomb and Beauregard (1981) have noted that "the late 70's witnessed a resurgence of private investment and government programs directed towards the
redevelopment of commercial districts and the renovation of neighborhoods in cities throughout North America."
With regard to this paper, revitalization is an implied term, putting in its place redevelopment and maintenance as a way of describing the same phenomenon. "Revitalization" may mean to Webster, "to give life or vigor to"; but in the author's conversations with persons involved in such processes, the word "revitalization" was often avoided and "redevelopment" and "maintenance" were the keys to securing information. Holcomb and Beauregard were correct to imply that the word "revitalization" was supposed to produce an image of renewal by replacing decline and disinvestment with healthy expansion and vitality. (Holcomb & Beauregard, 1981). What they failed to mention were the impressions people have of revitalization as displacement, gentrification and physical, rather than community, restoration; i.e., a threat to their personal space.
Holcomb and Beauregard do state that, "The idea (of revitalization) is to provide localized services to make the neighborhoods a more pleasant place to live" (1981). In this same manner, Marshall (1983) has implied that "the neighborhood store, once a part of American life, will reappear, and neighborhood parks will more closely reflect the character and specialized needs of the residents they serve. The assertion of cultural and ethnic identity will help renew neighborhoods and community spirit." (Marshall, 1983).

The nature of most literature regarding redevelopment in the curriculum of the University of Colorado at Denver (Bryce, 1979; Holcomb & Beauregard, 1981; Levy, 1981; National Council for Urban Economic Development, 1978, etc.) is oriented primarily toward the larger cities and urban areas and indirectly toward rural areas. This has also been documented in a recent issue of The Student Planner (Spring, 1985) by Vernon P. Deines, as well as in the Journal of the American Planning Association in July of 1980. Deines, in his article "Planning in small town rural America: an overview of the literature" (1980), revealed two journal articles, three book reviews and one special issue on rural and small town topics in the planning journals existent in the 1970's. National planning conferences have also skirted the rural small town issues of planning.
In Deines' most recent article, addressing new directions in planning education, he does speak of an increase in conferences, legislation and networking that is occurring in the area of rural and small town planning.
In light of this increase in rural, small town education, many Main Street commercial districts are experiencing the problems of declining Central Business Districts (CBD's):
decline of retail sales store owner investment blight
vacant structures migration of jobs physical decay crime
(Holcomb and Beauregard, 1981; Sherry, 1984).

They are also experiencing the problems of declining commercial neighborhood districts:
reduction of local income deteriorated buildings ownership patterns lack of code enforcement vandalism
marginal business increases service decreases lack of parking
scarcity of reinvestment funds
lack of concentration of goods
(Holcomb and Beauregard, 1981; Coyle, 1984; Sherry, 1984).
Craycroft (1981) assessed the small town situation in this way:
"Downtown is decaying, the buildings are in disrepair, important functions have relocated and the sense of place no longer exists Town policy, circumstances and lack of knowledge never allowed Main Street to successfully compete, thus leaving it as little more than a 'nostalgic memory' in most small towns."
His preface in his book Revitalizing Main Street further expounds on this, stating: "External competition and internal lethargy have turned the once
bustling heart of the small town into a dying anachronism." Even after stating this and the fact that business and economics were at issue in writing the book, he remarks:
". If small towns hope to attract industry, they must present themselves as progressive, vital communities -not as backward, dying remnants of times past."

Craycroft's findings seem valid, though he still refers to an overall
community without addressing the avenues through which the community can
achieve goals and influence decisionmaking:
"A small town is not iust a smaller version of a city it is a community ... It is inappropriate to apply urban design methodologies and solutions to small towns And those in small towns should not feel that they are incapable of undertaking revitalization because of lack of professional staffing, ability to grant incentives and tools that cities possess. Most of the problems in a small town are within the comprehension of those living there and can be alleviated within a framework of common sense and forethought."
In this the author agrees; oftentimes, solutions readily exist in the
residents and merchants of a community. In addition to this a "key to a
successful downtown lies in the domain of public policy Proposed policies
must be carefully evaluated for long term effects, and coordinated among the
various local bodies and with county, state, and federal agencies to ensure that
none are working at cross purposes." Public and private sectors also are keys to
success and must work together for such success in revitalization. The key to
this author's thesis is the need for providing explicit avenues that community
members can utilize for participation in planning processes and decisionmaking.
"In order for a revitalization effort to occur in a small city or town, there must be a wide range of support from the residents, business people, and government officials."
(Sherry, 1984). This is true not only in planning, but in design and historic
preservation, as well.
A handbook entitled Building in Telluride: is a good local reference for persons looking to create an overall plan of preservation in light of development. It presents a way of ensuring an equitable and predictable system of building review.

"However, it is recognized that the success of this building review system rests on the degree of understanding and cooperation between building applicants and the various review boards and commissions.
If building applicants make a concerted effort to understand both the intent and implication of town policies and regulations, and if review boards and commissions can do their best to make informed decisions, balancing the needs and desires of the community with the rights of the applicant, a better system of review will result." (Cole and Cooper, 1980).
In this manner, an avenue of inclusion of developers, applicants, residents or
residential uses can be involved in the process. It is also beyond this component
of inclusion that persons must be informed to make educated and knowledgeable
actions in the process.
There seems to be a fine line between when inclusive, participatory processes are effective and when they become ineffective. Avoiding stagnation of solutions amid a myriad of meetings and committees is difficult. It is a similar problem to that of Moses: "Moses could have made it to the promised land in a week or two if he hadn't brought the people with him." (Author unknown).
"Specific sets of policies must grow from the conditions, resources, and aspirations of the particular situation.
Clearly public policy can have an impact on downtown revitalization; the small town does have the capability to guide its own future. Resignation to decay or reliance on federal programs are not the only alternatives available."
(Craycroft, 1982).
Thus the literature goes on espousing case studies, programmatic approaches, tools, strategies and conditions. This thesis takes another slice of the revitalization pie to explore policy issues and physical, political and social conditions of Main Street projects and the extent to which they include a surrounding framework of housing as a component of viability.

The use of this report with respect to housing and its redevelopment >s to identify the ways in which residential areas are addressed, especially when they fall within defined Main Street redevelopment boundaries. The types of programs that already exist, or are being phased out, commonly address the issues of slum and blight conditions. One key book that covers issues of local government and the laws surrounding housing and residential land use is Housing and Local Government (Nenno <5c Brophy, 1982).
Within the preface of Housing and Local Government, one of the trends noted is:
"Under pressure to reduce housing costs and conserve energy, the trend to preserve existing housing and ' neighborhoods in existing neighborhoods will continue .
There also will be a growing trend toward mixed use developments, combining industrial/commercial expansion or revitalization with residential development The more direct programs of federal housing assistance for lower income families are subject to severe budget constraints, raising questions about the level of future federal support. Increasingly state and local governments are moving to take housing actions designed to fill the gap between private housing resources and more limited direct federal assistance. These gap filling local housing initiatives are often linked directly to neighborhood conservation and economic development." (Nenno &
Brophy, 1982).
A short statement on where the United States budget, as of 1985, has directed its development and efforts to maintain the status quo can be found in the chart below. Housing is most definitely not a high priority on this year's budget. This is further pronounced when one finds that within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the only area that was not cut was Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, further tying the hands of that department since research and modes of development cannot be implemented to alleviate the problems of fair housing and equal opportunity.

d e i
-a X
n 260
B 2 40
i 1 220
1 i 200
o 180
s 160
o 140
f 120
o lOO
1 80
n 60
s 40
G o
FS & WIC | Housing
Income Sec. Social Sec.
Other Interest
Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 1985
As part of a state response to the proposed budget, a local organization has initiated a move to study and address the housing issue on a state level. In a memorandum to Colorado State Representative Bonnie AlFson from the Colorado Social Legislation Committee's task force on housing (April, 1985), the Committee recommended an Interim Study of Housing in Colorado be established by the Colorado General Assembly for the summer of 1985 due to nine key factors:
As federal funds dry up, the 30,458 households in Colorado presently receiving federal assistance will be strained to find an alternative source of assistance. In addition, the remaining 138,582 households that are eligible for housing assistance will probably not receive alternative assistance. Of the total number of households in Colorado in 1980, 14% were eligible for assistance, while only 3% received assistance. (Colorado Housing Finance Authority Special 1970 Census Tabulation Data).
The median value of a home in Colorado increased 271% and the median contract rent increased 135% from 1970, while median family income only increased 123%. (1970, 1980 census on Housing).

While the required downpayment, for potential homebuvers in Colorado in 1970 was $1,730 or an average of 18% of a family's income, the downpayment in 1980 averaged $6,410 or 31% of a family's income. (Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Housing, September, 1983, page 38).
The annual housing costs (PITI, property tax and annual utilities and upkeep) increased to 51% of a family's income versus 21% in 1970. (Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force, page 38).
There has been a steady increase of foreclosures in FHA and VA loans since 1981. (Veterans Administration and State data regarding FHA foreclosures).
There were 1,500 evictions in Colorado in 1983, mostly due to nonpayment.
There was a shortfall of 52,414 rental units that were affordable to Colorado renters in 1980.
Since 1981, the numbers of homeless in the Denver area has doubled to 2,000.
Between 1983 and 1984, the Salvation Army had an increase of 27% in requests for emergency assistance.
The memorandum continues:
There are four maior concerns recommended for the Interim Study Committee on Housing to review based on the above statistical information:
1. Review and assess current state housing policy.
2. Review the effect of the drying-up funds on affordable housing in Colorado.
3. Project the need of a state housing policy with both public and private resources.
4. Identify the means and procedures for implementing a state housing policy that will aid in meeting the affordable housing needs for Colorado."
It was further suggested that the statewide clearing-house for affordable
housing, i.e., the Housing Issues Task Force, could prove to be a reliable source
of statewide information for the proposed Interim Study Committee. Such a use

of the Task Force may eliminate the need for the Committee to generate original data.
For the purposes of this thesis, such a recommendation for state assessment of housing could be further supported by local action to directly assess housing needs. In this same manner, local policies that incorporate residential uses as part of redevelopment areas may be activated to produce concurrent or coordinated revitalization.

Statement of Purpose.
The purpose of the study is to document the degree to which goals, plans, and policies that guide Main Street revitalization might also incorporate, or act in conjunction with, the continued maintenance or redevelopment of housing stock in the adjacent blocks to Main Street. The study will describe and summarize efforts of redevelopment in ten Colorado towns noting existing conditions of redevelopment, and the degree of implicit and explicit involvement, with adjacent blocks, especially blocks with housing as an historical use. 'i'en general variables have been utilized:
1. Established geographic target areas for redevelopment.
2. Types of organized efforts.
3. Coals, objectives and perceived outcomes of each effort.
4. Physical conditions of Main Street and its adiacent area.
5. History of land use and zoning in the project area and in the blocks adjacent to that area.
6. Uses being marketed.
7. Financing and other incentives to redevelop.
8. Official city policies related to redevelopment of Main Street.
9. Official city policies related to housing in the area adiacent to Main Street.
10. The degree to which the community is involved or has responded to the efforts of revitalization on Main Street or within its adiacent housing stock.

Evolution of Topic.
During the month of November 1984, the author piloted (field tested) a series of fifteen questions that had been developed to assess the depth to which Main Street revitalization programs are associated with the surrounding geographical communities. In particular, the author sought the implicit and explicit efforts that impact the housing of a Main Street community, the scope of each town's approach toward Main Street revitalization, and the extent to which these efforts extend into the basic community for support. Stated in a broader light, the study assesses the depth to which revitalizing one segment of the community seems to impact other components in the same geographic community.
Over the past fifteen years, sporadic attempts were intiated to revitalize the use and variety of commerce on small town Main Streets across the United States. In Colorado, the State Department of Local Affairs has assisted in a variety of ways with packaging and staffing redevelopment programs. In the spring of 1983 an effort to evaluate a national program, implemented by the Department of Local Affairs, was completed by a research team headed by Bernie Jones, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver (Jones et al., 1983). The Colorado Main Street Program was tailored after the National Main Street Center's four-point approach to revitalizing through historic preservation. The four components to the approach are: design, promotion, organization and economic restructuring. Set into operation in five Colorado towns, project managers were hired for the further implementation of the program's components. The research team was contracted to evaluate only the design component.

Throughout the evaluation of each town, the research team found that to focus only on the design component was impossible since successful design seemed so interdependent with the other three components. While tailoring the evaluation to design, Jones, et al. (1983) took a broader approach to base data collection to see how the design component was used in context with the other three (organization, promotion and economic restructuring). By involving city officials, merchants, participants and nonparticipants, users and proiect directors, the research team was able to identify what was intended to change and what the public perceived as having changed.
Taking the notion of context and citizen knowledge further, a follow-up paper was written, entitled "Main Street Revitalization as Community Development." (Jones et al., 1984). In that paper the researchers agreed that there was little attempt, in any of the towns, to incorporate a community development approach that would involve the whole community in the revitalization process. Further questions were raised as to the relevance of these four components and their subsequent order in the implementation of the program. For the most part, the order, or specific emphasis given in each community, seemed dependent upon the skills or expertise of the Main Street staff rather than a set format for a set condition. In the end, each of these components was seen as a necessity for successful revitalization programs. Beyond this is the fact that these were successful programs that may or may not have included the surrounding community in which they were implemented.
Throughout the study of the Colorado Main Street Program and the preparation of the subsequent paper emphasizing a need for community development (and professional community developers), the author found what

was perceived to be successful Main Street programs existing in the midst of decaying or struggling neighborhoods. In each of the five towns there seemed to be varying degrees of unkempt, decaying houses, yards, and infrastructure surrounding the Main Street project area. The following thesis looks at possible relationships between Main Street redevelopment and the decay or aesthetic identity of the Main Street neighborhood. Its conclusions encourage the study and implementation of concurrent revitalization.

Research Question.
The research question to which this study has addressed itself concerns one primary component of a community's structure, namely housing, and its relationship to Main Street revitalization programs in each of ten communities across Colorado. A specific question was formulated:
If Main Street viability is of such grave concern as to warrant the implementation of competitive economic and commercial programs, and if viability implies the capability of living or developing under normal or favorable conditions, does this also imply that programs currently include some kind of housing element in order to create viable conditions?
Research Design.
This research is designed to challenge successful and unsuccessful programs by examining how comprehensive the approach is and whether the housing stock surrounding Main Street is included as a part of the viable process. Towns were only used if they already had a program in progress. To label any program a success would be too value laden and does not address the purpose of this inquiry. By using five towns in addition to the five National Main Street Center towns, a comparative perspective can be drawn.

Primary data gathering methods used in the pilot study were an initial phone interview, a follow-up, face-to-face interview and site visit. The research instrument was prepared by the author and reviewed by academic advisors. The questions were piloted in the city of Longmont, Colorado, during the month of November, 1984. Upon completion of the pilot study, site visits, interviews and direct observations were conducted in each of the ten communities and incorporated into the thesis. Secondary data varied according to its availability in each town.
Selection Criteria
Communities were selected: (1) only if some form of organized Main Street effort had been initiated, and (2) the population could not exceed 50,000 nor could it be lower than 3,500 (or the size of Delta). This was done in order to find similar communities to the Colorado Main Street communities.
Sampling and Data Gathering.
A purposive sampling approach was followed for the interviews with, but not limited to, planning officials, downtown and housing program directors, and community leaders involved in the process of redevelopment.
Data Analysis.
Survey data were systematically analyzed and reviewed by hand for reasons of sample size and the qualitative nature of some responses.

Introduction. This section will introduce the reader to each of the communities separately. Each of the ten variables are briefly discussed. These could be considered primary in nature since the majority of the statements were made in an interview format without direct reference to documents. The section following the community findings is an in-depth description of explicit policies that exist regarding residential redevelopment. An analysis and conclusion follow, respectively.
Overview of Each Community's Program.
Geographic Characteristics. Delta has historically exemplified its name by remaining a predominantly agricultural community located at the confluence of the Gunnison and Uncompaghre Rivers, producing rich soils in an otherwise arid Colorado climate. In some ways it is looked upon as a rest stop between Grand Junction and Montrose. Its basic image is that of a "dusty" Main Street along Highway 50.
Demographics. The population of Delta in 1980 was estimated at 3,931 persons, with 1,115 families and 1,635 households. The number of year-round housing units is 1,741, with a 9.7% vacancy rate. The median household income (in 1979) was $8,964.00. Of the 1,571 occupied housing units, 569 or 2.7% were

renter occupied. The number of families recorded as being below poverty level made up 15% of the 1,115 families.
Of the total 1,741 year-round housing units, 22 or 1.2% of the units were without complete kitchen facilities. When examining occupancy status by bedrooms, 31 of the units have no bedroom, 22 of these are renter occupied (and are probably buffet-style apartments).
Delta is a home rule city with a council-manager form of government.
Organizations and Their Goals to Redevelop. Recent revitalization and redevelopment have involved a Chamber of Commerce, a Downtown Development Corporation, and a Housing Authority. The Chamber is the oldest, the DDC lasted from 1979 to 1984, and the Housing Authority was formed in 1984 and has plans to remain for a while. These three entities have formally acted to affect the community's overall economy (Chamber goal to draw commerce and industry to the area), historic integrity (Downtown Development Corporation housed the National Main Street Center's goals and objectives of revitalization through preservation), and standard of living (the Housing Authority goal is to bring substandard living conditions up to code). Each of these goals is also oriented toward issues of viability and image.
Geographic Area(s) for Implementation. Geographic areas in which these organizations have directed their attention vary from a localized area of commerce to city-wide housing conditions, to countywide industry and commerce. The DDC's Main Street project area encompassed four blocks of Main Street, extending to the alleys on either side of Main Street. The Housing

Authority focused its first year of funding toward housing in an area to the south, adjacent to the Main Street project area. In its second year (1986), a proposal to quarter the city and direct funds toward the whole city in a phased program has been issued.
-Var-~E>. f
U&- jj'tila

Land Use, Zoning and Marketed Uses. The history of land use along Main Street has been restricted to retail services for the area's residents. A shift from residential to professional offices and commerce was noted in conversations concerning the blocks adjacent to Main Street. Zoning restricts residential uses along Main Street and recently a residential area between Main Street and the railroad tracks was rezoned for industrial use. Uses marketed for the Main Street area have included the reuse of retail by cottage industries and any other form of retail interested in locating in town.

Perceived and Evident Products. A perceived product to be created, as
noted by persons involved in each process, is a good self-image with evident visual improvements. Accomplishments to date include a series of facade and building improvements along Main Street, a sidewalk rehab program, signage and awning changes, the upgrading of housing conditions and a new feeling by residents toward their Main Street and their community.
Incentives to Redevelop. Incentives to redevelop areas over the past five years have involved design assistance monies, a revolving loan fund for signage and facade work, Community Development Block Grant monies, and an element of peer pressure and personal pride. Incentives to coordinate incentives used presently for either commerce or housing do not exist.
Residential Component in Process. Adjacent residents have not been involved as an integral part of the revitalization process on Main Street. As for resident involvement in the Housing Rehab program, only those receiving direct assistance are known to be involved in the process. Responses from residents in attendance at DDC Board meetings, as well as undocumented responses from residents surrounding homes that have been rehabilitated, were noted as being positive.
Policies for Redevelopment. The City of Delta has responded to the efforts to redevelop Main Street by providing personnel and in-kind services. Its response to the housing program has been limited to a "nod of support." Officially Delta maintains no explicit policies that support revitalization of Main

Street. Implicit policies do exist in an unapproved comprehensive plan and a commitment to continue assisting merchants and residents with sidewalk improvements. Official City policies supporting the integrity and maintenance of the adjacent housing stock involve zoning regulations, a trash and litter ordinance, and the federal guidelines utilized in the housing rehabilitation program.
Policies felt to discourage redevelopment of any areas or uses in the Main Street project area involve a policy which discourages housing on the upper floors of buildings on Main Street and portions of the building code.

Geographic Characteristics. Located in the southwestern corner of the state among mountainous and desert terrain, Durango maintains a strong historic tie to its identity as a regional and tourist center. Bounded by foothills and the Animas River, development is restricted to the valley floors or the hillsides.
Demographics. Durango as of the 1980 census had a population of 11,426, with 2,638 recorded families and 4,137 households. The occupancy status of the 4,335 year-round housing units revealed an estimated 5% vacancy rate.
Median income in 1979 was $14,835. Six percent or 172 families were recorded as below poverty level.
Of the 4,120 occupied housing units, approximately 40% were renter occupied. Three percent (3%) of the total 4,335 (or 122 out of 4,335 units) lack complete kitchen facilities. Tenure and occupancy status by bedrooms reveals 157 (3.6%) of the total units to have no bedroom. Sixty-nine (69) or 1.5% of the households have either no bathroom facilities or a half bath.
Durango is a home rule city with a council-manager form of government.
Organizations and Their Identity. Historically, revitalization and redevelopment efforts have evolved from two formal organizations, a Chamber of Commerce and the National Main Street Center office which was housed in the structure of the City and presently exists as the Office of Business Development. Each of these entities has formally acted to affect the community's overall economy (Chamber's goal to draw commerce and industry to the city) and historic integrity (NMSC and other studies set goals to revitalize through historic preservation).

More recently two efforts have emerged that involve the redevelopment of housing and the reestablishment of a relationship between City Council and local businesses. These efforts are coming from the planning office and its distribution of CDBG monies through a housing rehab program housed in the Southwest Community Resources office, and through the Office of Business Development whose most basic goal is to maintain an open dialogue between City Council and local businesses.
Geographic Areas for Implementation. The above organizations have directed their attention toward Main Street and its adjacent blocks of commerce (in the NMSC boundaries) encompassing approximately 12 to 15 blocks. Presently the Office of Business Development has broadened its focus to include the whole city. The Planning office has also turned from a small area of blighted homes to a city-wide distribution of monies. Two historic districts should also be mentioned: the first encompasses the Main Street and the adjacent blocks which includes the train station; the second is a residential district along Third Avenue, parallel to Main Street.

Land Use, Zoning and Marketed Uses. Historically, land use has been
shaped by the initial platting of the townsite. Retail on Main, wholesale on Second, and residential on Third Avenue; Camino del Rio, which runs along the river and railroad tracks, was an area, prior to Urban Renewal, that housed the lower classes of the city. These residences were cleared by construction of a highway bypass. Uses to be marketed by present efforts to redevelop may be categorized as professional, office and commodities.
Perceived and Evident Products. Evident products of the Main Street program include seven (7) blocks in which design assistance was implemented, facade work, signage, awnings and window displays are complete. Two major fires that destroyed full blocks of business cleared the way for major renewal along the Main Street. Physical links to the backside of Main Street have been expressed in plans and conversations, but not necessarily implemented. A perceived future product was not speculated upon by persons interviewed. In the area of housing, physical change occurred inside of structures more than on the surface. These interior upgradings were not expected to be so extensive at the time of CDBG application. Noted changes have occurred since the designation of Third Avenue as a residential historic district.
Incentives to Redevelop. Incentives to redevelop Main Street have dissipated with the loss of the formal Main Street program, although one revolving loan fund still exists. A more recent incentive comes in the form of CDBG monies which have been split between the housing rehab program and the Office of Business Development. Historic tax credits are also an incentive for individual property owners to maintain the integrity of their historic structures.

Residential Component in the Process. Adjacent residents have been
involved in the process of the housing rehab program but never were an integral part of the Main Street revitalization process. Unsolicited responses were noted in the form of persons outside of the housing rehab program making private investments to maintain their homes as well as the residential move to create the Third Avenue historic district.
Policies for Redevelopment. Official city policies that support revitalization are indirectly found in the sign code, design guidelines, Greening of Durango Plan, Narrow Gauge Design study, and the maintenance of city infrastructure. Non-local policies supporting the integrity or maintenance of housing adjacent to Main Street exist in the form of federal guidelines for housing rehabilitation as well as guidelines for preservation of historic districts. Policies that might discourage redevelopment of any areas or uses were not known by the persons interviewed.

Glenwood Springs.
Geographic Characteristics. The City of Glenwood Springs is uniquely located at the confluence of the Fryingpan and Colorado Rivers at the mouth of Glenwood Canyon. At the time of its incorporation it was accessible only by train or horseback and was the destination of persons seeking its infamous Hot Springs. Many geologic hazards exist in and around the town.
Demographics. Glenwood Springs is another home rule city with a council-manager form of government. Its population as of the 1980 census was 4,637 persons, 1,214 families and 1,931 households. Of the total 2,144 year-round housing units, approximately 10% were vacant at the time of the census.
The median household income in 1979 was $15,913. Four percent of the families were below poverty level at the time of census.
Complete kitchen facilities exist in 98% of the year-round housing units, leaving 39 of the 2,144 units without kitchen facilities. Tenure and occupancy status by bedrooms reveals 95 units without bedrooms, 81 of which are renter occupied. Bathroom facilities of a half bath or less are found in 45 of the 2,144 units. Seven percent of the occupied units lacked central heating.
Organizations and Their Goals to Redevelop. Over the past fifteen (15) years, the primary concern of Glenwood residents and merchants alike has been parking on and around Grand Avenue. This issue has evolved in the past five (5) years into a General Improvement District that works in conjunction with a Downtown Business Association to address issues of parking and beautification.

In 1982 a "Future Fair" was held and sponsored by the city coincidentally occurring one month after an energy bust in the area. A product of this fair was an additional goal of the city and the DBA to reassert the economic base of tourism. More recently a political goal has emerged that focuses on development and decision-making by consensus rather than on a special interest basis.
Geographic Area for Implementation. A designated renovation area was established in 1984 that encompasses the majority of the General Improvement District and the Downtown Business Association boundaries. The DBA takes in a 16-block area while the General Improvement District is somewhat smaller.
Land Use, Zoning and Marketed Uses. The rivers and narrow valley have historically restricted access and development in this resort town (its incorporation was in 1885). These natural barriers have divided the town and in

turn have fostered competition between businesses on either side of the Colorado River and 1-70. Traditionally a pattern of commerce on primary corridors (mainly Highway 82) and residential use along secondary corridors has prevailed. Presently offices are beginning to encroach upon the residents adjacent to Grand Avenue; i.e., the larger homes (and more historic homes) are being restored and converted into office space. Traditional retail has also made a move to the outlying shopping center, leaving little service retail on Grand Avenue for its residents.
Presently the city is viewed as a tourist center with supporting business and governmental uses. The city is also a county seat. Uses to be marketed for Grand Avenue include offices, governmental services, entertainment/ restaurants, and a higher-end type of retail.
Perceived and Evident Products. Evident products of change and rehabilitation have included a pocket park constructed by the community, rehabilitated sidewalks, streetscaping and the conversion of larger homes to professional offices. A perceived product of formal efforts to redevelop Glenwood's Grand Avenue area revolves around a pedestrian-oriented strip with well-landscaped and streetscaped areas. The pocket park has successfully linked Grand Avenue to the adjacent residents in those blocks; this was an unintentional link to the backside of "Main Street."
Incentives to Redevelop. Incentives to redevelop the Grand Avenue area in the above fashion exist in the form of a 3/4 cent sales tax that is placed in a revolving loan fund for improvements. In the upcoming year, an Industrial

Revenue Bond issue will be voted upon and is expected to pass. A political incentive may also include a removal of a parking requirement on new downtown development.
Residential Component in the Process. Adjacent residents have acted through a city-initiated downzoning of their neighborhood and in turn have effected a change from rental units to owner-occupied dwellings. These residents have not been involved as integral parts of the revitalization process beyond one project that was a community wide project to build a pocket park on Grand Avenue.
Policies Guiding Redevelopment. Policies in support of redevelopment indirectly are the city's comprehensive plan components and studies for design guidelines and commercial renovation guidelines and other issues of development. Involvement of both residential use and residents is addressed in goals and policy statements, though the actual response has not been overwhelming.

Grand Junction.
Geographic Characteristics. Grand Junction is located at the confluence of the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers within the Grand Valley. It is the most populated area on Colorado's Western Slope and acts as a primary regional center for all points between the Continental Divide and Salt Lake City.
Demographics. Grand Junction is a home rule city with a council-manager form of government. Its population as of the 1980 census (prior to the bust when Exxon pulled out) was 28,144, of which 7,097 were families, 11,696 were households. The total number of housing units was 12,693; at that time, 927 (7.3%) were vacant. Of the 11,766 occupied units, 5,105 were renter occupied.
The median hosuehold income in 1979 was $13,203. Nine percent of the families recorded were below poverty level.
Complete kitchen facilities were available in 12,417 of the total 12,693 units, leaving 276 recorded units without such facilities. Bedrooms are not available in 288 of the units (2.2%). The year-round housing units without bathrooms or with half baths total 302 units, 212 of which are renter occupied. Regarding heating equipment and year structure was built, overall 986 or 8.2% of the occupied structures lack a central heating system.
Organizations and Their Goals to Redevelop. Revitalization efforts in Grand Junction have historically followed the boom and bust cycles of energy, mining and tourism. Its location and identity as a regional center for the Western Slope help maintain its corner of the retail and commerce markets.

The infrastructure and traffic pattern was redeveloped in 1962 through an effort known as "Operation Foresight"; since that time, Main Street's identity in Grand Junction is distinct from others in the study, with a serpentine mall that slows traffic in the midst of Grand Junction's most historic buildings. In 1977 a Downtown Development Authority was created to facilitate the reinvestment in and redevelopment of the downtown area. A couple years later the DDA took on the National Main Street Center program as a part of its highly sophisticated structure. A 1983 evaluation of the NMSC program found the financial and design components of the program to be thriving. Overall basic goals of each organized effort included marketing, promotions, special events, and organization.
Efforts to redevelop the housing stock within and adjacent to the DDA boundaries have only recently gotten underway with the creation of a residential historic district. Explicit goals proposed for housing include three major projects: two of which are medium and high density; another is directed toward restoring 200 existing older housing units.
Geographic Areas for Implementation. Geographic boundaries of Operation Foresight and the National Main Street Center focused upon the immediate downtown area, specifically the infrastructure of Main Street buildings and the streetscape. The Downtown Development Authority has established approximately 30 square blocks in which to operate, with hopes of expanding up to 63 square blocks.

tw Use UK;* Jr*-*-
Land Use, Zoning and Market Uses. Within the DDA boundaries, land use has been maintained as professional, office, commerce and industrial as well as residential. From the Colorado River to Ute Street is heavy industry, Ute to Colorado Street is business and single family, Main to Grand is predominantly commerce and governmental services, and north of Grand is residential. Uses being marketed by the DDA involve all categories of use, with a philosophy oriented toward creating and filling office space first before retail. High-end retail and quality urban housing are also being sought in the later phases. Grand Junction, like Longmont, is another town in this study that would like to increase its convention space and add a hotel at one end of Main Street.
Perceived and Evident Products. A final product sought after by the present DDA and the City Planning office is a financial, governmental, cultural and professional hub of the region. "It will offer quality shopping,

entertainment, housing and job opportunities which will in the end maintain the city's position as a civic center," in the words of one respondent.
Physical changes include an increase in new office space, historic renovations of various buildings and facades, and infill of new retail on Main Street. In the adjacent housing stock, a senior project, code upgradings and private maintenance of individual homes have occurred through Housing Authority efforts.
Incentives to Redevelop. Incentives to redevelop Main Street are extensive: signage monies, loan pool, facade monies, Tax Increment Financing, alley improvement project funds and historic tax credits for preservation. Redevelopment incentives for housing have involved grants (primarily for elderly housing) and tax credits for the residential historic district. The city housing authority and the DDA do attempt to coordinate their efforts, although evidence of this coordination was vague.
Residential Component/Involvement or Response. Adjacent residents have not been an integral part of the commercial revitalization process. The creation of 7th Avenue Historic District was purely a resident-initiated move that was successful in gaining designation. Residents have had a vocal and visual response to efforts on Main Street by attending meetings and showing that they will attend events and patronize stores and offices downtown.
Policies Guiding Redevelopment. The city's response to the redevelopment efforts is most evident in the change in parking management as well as a change toward policy and project issues without direct financing.

Policies supporting redevelopment of Main Street involve the Master Plan for the downtown area, modified zoning requirements, downtown design standards for plazas, parking, streetscapes, the West End Master Plan and the intensive review process for Planned Developments. Policies supporting housing redevelopment revolve around the city's housing rehab program, residential housing and Central Business District components of the comprehensive plan, corridor policies and the zoning and development code.
Policies noted to discourage redevelopment of any area or use involved the parking code requirements, traffic circulation, and height restrictions. Coordination, or at least dialogue, is open between the City Planning office and the DDA. The housing authority is not active at this point in time. The possibility of coordinating the preservation efforts in the town does seem high.

Geographic Characteristics. Longmont is located in the St. Vrain Valley along Highways 287 and 119. It has historically been a community that subsisted on agricultural industries. Its food processing plant and GW sugar have been the longstanding industries, to be supported more recently by Hewlett-Packard. The city has the opportunity and resources to diversify.
Demographics. Longmont is a home rule city with a council-manager form of government. Its 1980 population of 4.2,942 included 11,476 families and 15,442 households. Year-round housing units totalled 16,346, and at the time of the census 863 (or 5.2%) of the units were vacant. Renter occupied units make up 5,500 of the 15,483 units available.
The median household income in 1979 was $19,638. Four percent of the 11,476 families were recorded as below poverty level.
Kitchen facilities were reported as complete in 16,248 units, leaving 98 units without complete facilities. Approximately 144 units have no bedrooms, 106 of which are renter occupied. Bathrooms are lacking or are possibly insufficient in 181 of the year-round housing units.
Organizations and Their Goals to Redevelop. Four downtown-oriented organizational types have existed over the past ten years. The initial form of commercial revitalization came from the Heart of Longmont association, which had a basic goal of promoting the downtown. Out of this group grew a move for a General Improvement District. The District's first approach was to address

parking, both on-street and off-street, with pedestrian passageways leading from the backside of Main Street to the front. Around 1979, downtown businesses hired a consultant who recommended a manager for downtown. In 1983, city council, through a recommendation from a blue ribbon committee, recommended the formation of a DDA. The present Downtown Development Authority maintains a primary goal of implementing a maior proiect that would be a magnet for the professional community. Differences that distinguish the DDA from the GID lie in the readiness to commit public dollars prior to private commitment. The GID approach was to lay out infrastructure improvements prior to private commitments.
Geographic Areas for Implementation. Boundaries of the DDA have taken on the original 9-block core of the "Colony town" and extended out. into the adjacent blocks of Main Street as well as along the railroad tracks. Approximately 30 blocks are included in the area.

Land Use, Zoning and Marketed Uses. Within the DDA boundaries are
residential, commercial, office, wholesale and industrial land uses. Land use has historically maintained business, retail, commercial, and wholesale on Highway 287 (Main Street) and industry, wholesale, and auto services along Highway 119 and the railroad tracks. Single-family residences have traditionally been located west of Main Street, and a mixture of single-family and two- and multi-family units have developed to the east of Main Street.
Types of uses being marketed for the future revolve around specialty retail, professional offices, financial services, entertainment, conference and governmental centers. The philosophy behind the hotel project is to create a focal point for businesses and industry to work and also gather for conferences, meetings and conventions.
Perceived and Evident Products. The final product of the DDA is to achieve and maintain an identity as a center for industry and commerce to meet, as well as find financial and governmental services and specialty retail services. Achievements to date involve facades and sideivalk improvements, pedestrian passageways, increased parking and sporadic private changes. Residential change was noted in the eastern neighborhood, possibly linked to the downzoning of the neighborhood.
Incentives to Redevelop. Incentives to redevelop Main Street have existed in the form of a revolving loan fund (CDBG money), Tax Increment Financing, and Industrial Revenue Bonds. Incentives to redevelop the housing stock existed only in the guise of the presentation of a plaque for historically designated

homes. Tax benefits would also follow designation of historic property. No incentive was noted for coordinating both housing and Main Street redevelopment.
Residential Component/Involvement or Response. Residents of adjacent neighborhoods on either side of Main Street have played an adversarial role in the minds of most businesspersons involved in Main Street. Downzoning has successfully occurred on either side of Main Street, causing the planning office of Longmont to feel that office uses and other businesses will now be contained on Main Street itself; i.e., encroachment of commerce and other business has been halted within the first block to the west of Main and in the same manner has been curbed to within the second block off of Main Street to the east.
Two points of view prevail concerning the legitimacy of downzoning these areas when they lie so close to a core downtown area. One point of view is that it strangles the downtown and the potential for it to develop. The second point of view is that downzoning preserves a housing stock that would otherwise be converted or replaced with a nonresident!al use.
Residents have also participated by voting in two bond issues that have placed the city on a debt schedule into the 1990's.
Policies Guiding Redevelopment. A de facto city policy of letting downtown carry the burden on its own has been projected. This is in line with a similar response noting that decisionmakers in Longmont are oriented toward support of new fringe development rather than the redevelopment of core areas.

Official city policies supporting the revitalizaton efforts on Main Street are found in the City's Master Plan, as adopted in 1982, the Plan of Development (required by State law, C.R.S. 1973, Title 31, Article 25, Part 8) established by the Downtown Development Authority, and a continued commitment to maintain parking through the GID.
Policies thought to be inhibiting redevelopment or maintenance of areas or uses include the building, fire, zoning, and licensing codes, all of which are felt by some to be written for new development rather than encouraging redevelopment. The researcher further noted that the stimulus to redevelop does not come from the governing body, but rather it comes from private initiative.

Geographic Characteristics. Louisville is situated between the greater metropolitan area of Denver and the greenbelt of Boulder. Historically its image has been that of a coal mining town. More recently it is related to Storage Technology Corporation, which is a high tech type of industry.
Demographics. Louisville is a statutory city with a population in 1980 of 5,593 persons, 1,541 families and 2,176 households. There was a total of 2,264 year-round housing units, with 105 vacancies at the time of census.
The median income in 1979 was $20,274. Five percent of the families are below poverty level.
Amenities available involved 11 housing units with incomplete kitchen facilities, and 14 units with either half or no bathroom at all. Approximately 126 of the occupied housing units lack central heating systems.
Organizations and Their Goals to Redevelop. A process of revitalization/redevelopment has been in existence for the past ten years or so. Three basic organizations have carried this process: the Louisville Business Assoc., the Louisville Chamber of Commerce, and the local historic commission. A more recent fourth organization is the Louisville Development Corporation. Sponsorship of these efforts have shifted from public to quasi-public.
For the Louisville Development Corporation, the goal is an aesthetically pleasing, functional and viable downtown. The Citys goal is along the same line of viability, hoping in addition to maintain "fabric and density" that also maintains Louisville's small-town character.

Geographic Areas for Implementation. Geographic boundaries in which
these goals are to be pursued encompass a predominantly commercial area beginning with the alley on the west side of Main Street and the train tracks on the east side. Overall it is a 7-block target area.
Land Use, Zoning and Marketed Uses. Land use within these boundaries since 1947 has maintained its character in height and density. Main and Front Streets have traditionally been the prime locations of commerce, offices and entertainment. More recent history shows a decrease in commercial use on Front Street and an increase of residential uses. The types of uses marketed for the project area were found to be specialty retail office, city and county services, and entertainment (especially restaurants).
Perceived and Evident Products. The perceived product of the LDG efforts is a "downtown neighborhood" that will enhance and strengthen resdents, service businesses and restaurants.


Physical changes that have occurred on Main Street during the past 10 years have involved the restoration of an historic structure, the creation of a Main Street mini-mall, infill development and an overall heightened awareness level. The mini-mall is the only link to the backside of Main Street. Alley improvements have been discussed but not implemented. No direct physical changes were noted in the housing stock lying adjacent to the proiect area.
Incentives to Redevelop. Incentives to redevelop the Main Street
commerce area are minimal. The LDC offers low-cost loans for facade work, and parking is not required for new development. It is hoped by some that city council will move in the direction of a sales and use tax to increase revenues. Pride and property value is also an incentive to redevelop.
Incentives to redevelop or maintain housing in the blocks adjacent to Main Street are also minimal. The historic commission distributes plaques for houses of historic significance, and they in turn can apply for historic tax credits.
Incentives to coordinate Main Street and housing development involve a basic pride of ownership and personal property value. Beyond these, no incentives to coordinate the two types of development exist.
Tools and strategies involved to date have been creative financing, state and federal grants, physical changes, and entrepreneurial training. Present components of the downtown Louisville plan of the LDC focus on promotion, parking and general physical improvements.
Residential Involvement or Response. Avenues for residential involvement in the process have included public meetings, votes on districts and bonding, and

LDC newsletters and public notices. Perceived apathy of property owners is a concern of the City and the LDC.
The City's response to these efforts has been through publicity, staffing, hiring consultants, and initiating public improvements such as parking lot construction. Council to date has put the responsibility for organization and action in the hand of the merchant community.
Official City Policies. Official city policies that support the revitalization to commerce are limited to the comprehensive plan at this time. It is hoped that the creation of an historic district and future leveraging of monies will occur.
Official city policies supporting the integrity or maintenance of the adjacent housing stock are found in the Planned Unit Development process and in the comprehensive plan's housing section. Another city policy concerning rezoning is directed toward keeping commercial uses within the present boundaries.
There were no official city policies noted to discourage redevelopment of any areas or uses in the project area.

Geographic Characteristics. Loveland, located on the Big Thompson River, has survived as an agricultural and urban community located between Fort Collins and Longmont on Highway 287. New industries have changed its dominant agricultural industry to include some high tech, with Hewlett-Packard within a short commuting distance.
Demographics. Loveland is a statutory city with 30,244 persons, making up 8,376 families and 11,443 households. A total of 12,213 year-round housing units existed in 1980 with 784 vacant units. Renter occupied units totalled 4,122 at the time of census.
Median household income in 1979 was $17,499. Family type by poverty status in 1979 revealed 423 of 8,376 families (5%) to be below poverty.
Incomplete kitchen facilities were reported in 105 of the 12,213 year-round housing units. One hundred (100) of these same units have no bedrooms, 77 have less than one bathroom. Of the 11,429 units occupied, 406 (3.5%) lack central heating.
Organizations and Their Goals to Redevelop. Revitalization in Loveland has been oriented toward a large downtown area. This being one of the largest towns in the study, its target area is similar to that of Grand Junction and Longmont. In 1971 an organization known as UCARE initiated a move to create a downtown mall. This was followed by the city planning office's two consecutive plans (1975 and 1976) for the Central Business District. At this

same time a rental rehab program was created for housing in and adjacent to the Central Business District. A senior citizen housing project was also done on a private basis. In 1979 a Downtown Development Authority district was formed. The DDA was supported primarily by a mill levy.
General goals for the DDA are to restore a hometown atmosphere and recreate downtown's original importance in the community. The City planning office runs on this same line by maintaining a social goal of developing downtown as the heart of the City and promoting it as a community center (open 15 hours a day). On the economic side, the goal of capturing more sales tax is evident.
Geographic Areas for Implementation. The geographic area in which this is to be implemented is a 30-block area. This is the same size as the Grand Junction DDA boundaries and in the same manner representative expect to expand this area to absorb a greater constituency. Unique to Loveland is that the expansion will absorb a commercial and municipal center.
l-etucf -45-

Land Use, Zoning and Marketed Uses. Land use in this historically
agricultural community has maintained a traditional Main Street with close-in residences, including some second-story residences on Main Street. Uses to be marketed under the new work program are to be established officially by the market study component. It is perceived by the three entities that commerce and housing are to be maintained, and the maintenance of a variety of services will lead to an end result of a viable Main Street community. Incubator facilities, small specialty shops, aesthetically pleasing streetscapes, and services for the neighborhood are felt to be components of the final product.
Perceived and Evident Products. Physical changes that have occurred in the CBD began with the early 1970's street plan (re-routing traffic through town), street lights, streetscaping, alley improvements, parking lots and onstreet parking. Physical changes in the residential area are unknown at this time.
Incentives to Redevelop. Incentives available to redevelop Main Street and the CBD are tax credits for historic structures, reduced interest rates for facade loans (Facade Loan Program), and building code revisions.
Incentives to redevelop or maintain housing in the project area and the adjacent area consist primarily of the rental subsidy program.
An incentive to coordinate redevelopment in both areas is the possibility for luxury and subsidized housing above the commercial spaces in the district.
Residential Involvement or Response. Adjacent residents were involved in the process through a series of downtown meetings in 1984. No definable

neighborhood groups were noted at the time. Neighborhoods were defined as having a high turnover rate and/or a high number of elderly residents. Response by the adjacent residential community was supportive, though not overwhelming.
Official City Policies. The City has been involved from the start and continues to be, with the newest council members establishing downtown as a priority issue. It has also underwritten costs of studies, appropriated CDBG monies, and supplied in-kind services to the DDA.
Existing City policies that support the revitalization of Wain Street and the CBD are basically the Master Plan and the endorsement for the downtown work program for 1985. Policies supporting the integrity or maintenance of the adjacent housing stock revolve around federal standards for the housing authority. There are no policies that might discourage redevelopment of any areas or uses.
Because of the size of the town, few links have been made to the "backside of Main Street" or in this case from residential to commercial. One alley improvement has been completed that links a parking lot to businesses on the same block.

Manitou Springs.
Geographic Characteristics. Manitou Springs has historically been a resort town, originally accessible only by train or horse. Its proximity to Colorado Springs encourages people to live in its beautiful mountainside setting and commute to Colorado Springs. It is located along Fountain Creek and takes advantage of its many springs.
Demographics. Manitou Springs is a home rule city with a council-manager form of government. The 1980 census reported 4,475 persons making up 1,201 families and 2,145 households. Occupancy status of the 2,293 year-round housing units showed 167 vacancies at the time of census. Of the 2,293, 994 units were renter occupied.
The race of persons revealed 4,372 whites, 57 American Indians, 27 Spanish, and 19 black persons in 1980.
The median household income in 1979 was $13,270. An estimated 119 or 9% of the families were found to be below poverty level.
Of the 2,293 year-round housing units, 46 (2%) report incomplete kitchen facilities, 109 of the 2,293 (5%) do not have a bedroom, and 100 (4%) lack full bathroom or have none at all. An estimated 559 lacked central heating.
Organizations and Their Goals to Redevelop. Three formal organizations address redevelopment of Main Street and/or housing in Manitou Springs: a Chamber of Commerce, Local Development Corporation, and the organization left from the NMSC program. The Historic Commission is also a strong

influence regarding redevelopment. Goals of each are similar to many other towns. The Chamber is oriented to city-wide commerce and economic development. The Historic Commission maintains a goal of historic restoration, while the NMSC had an extended goal of revitalization through historic preservation. The National Main Street Center was housed in the Local Development Corporation. Basic to the goal of the LDC was to change the perspective of Manitou residents toward a more positive image. Presently the nonprofit LDC maintains the primary goal of promoting downtown Manitou as a year-round city.
Geographic Areas for Implementation. The Main Street Center Proiect boundaries did not extend into the adjacent residential neighborhoods, although two historic districts encompass the majority of the town (which is 3 miles long and 1 mile wide).

Land Use, Zoning and Marketed Uses. The history of land use in the
project area and its adjacent residential blocks has been tourist, novelty and specialty shops on the first floor, offices on the second floor, and residential on the third. In the residential blocks, large homes with summer cottages in the back of the lot have prevailed. A basic notion that Manitou Avenue is not to be a neighborhood shopping area is only one perception of what is being marketed downtown. As a way to avoid the trap of seasonal uses, more service-oriented business, wholesale and light manufacturing uses have been discussed. One of the persons interviewed felt that by tapping its art community, complementary uses will be drawn onto Manitou Avenue.
Perceived and Evident Products. Numerous physical changes have occurred on Main Street: facade improvements, signage, office and residential
renovations on upper floors (25 buildings have been renovated). Maior renovations are still in progress, one of which (the Barker House) saves an historic building and at the same time will place 40 (elderly) residents on Manitou Avenue.
Private efforts to redevelop along with the preservationists have created an overall change of residential character. It has also drawn new professionals to town.
The most evident physical link to the backside of Main Street is the historic "lovers' lane" that runs between the Manitou House and the Cliff House. The lane runs along the backside of Manitou Avenue, and if not informed of its historic value, a person might think of it as another dirty alley.

Notions of a final product expressed by persons interviewed, revolve around "an exciting, mixed-use district with an emphasis on retail, highlighting the town's scenic/historic qualities. Consistent streetscaping with a pedestrian orientation. A residential combination of pleasure seekers, service workers and entertainment establishments."
The impact of the process is thought to be positive for all persons in terms of property value and general quality of life. A thriving business community would allow the city to provide more extensive services (i.e., water, sewer, etc.).
Incentives to Redevelop. Tools and strategies utilized to achieve the NMSC and LDC goals involved the following:
Gates Foundation grants for facades and signage.
Seed money grants.
Leadership quality within Main Street staff.
Creation of a legislative review committee 8 years ago made up of residents and business persons.
Elimination of parking meters and construction of parking lot.
Merchandising program.
Special promotional events.
Design guidelines.
Sign ordinance (being drafted).
Rewriting historic preservation ordinance to eliminate a clause allowing owners of historically significant structures to opt out of the historic district and its controls.

Incentives to Redevelop. Incentives to coordinate both Main Street and housing redevelopment efforts exist in the form of the economic development committee representing a coalition of residents and business people. Overall the incentive to maintain its status as one of the largest historic districts in the nation, proper/effective utilization of historic tax credits and the historic design guidelines can be considered an incentive to coordinate both residential and commercial development. Existing incentives to redevelop Manitou Avenue include federal tax benefits for historic designation, the Community
Development Block Grant Program, the provisions for design assistance, low-interest loan money for acquisition and redevelopment of commercial structures.
On the residential side, incentives are similar with regard to historic tax credits, but one must also include peer pressure as another incentive to redevelop.
Residential Component in the Process. Residents have been involved in the historic district's efforts to preserve and restore homes. A housing
redevelopment program in 1975 or 1976 also involved many residents in the revitalization process.
Residents have responded through voicing opinions to the Economic Development committee.
Policies for Redevelopment. City has responded by eliminating restrictive ordinances originally intended to rid the town of hippies and bikers. After the historic designation of the town, the planning office and historic preservation
commission work hand in hand. City policies supporting the revitalization of

Main Street involve the design guidelines adopted during the Main Street program, the comprehensive plan and two studies leading to the writing of the comprehensive plan and creation of a Local Development Corporation. Guidelines of the historic district are also felt to be in support of downtown. Zoning is thought to be too permissive, although it has been utilized as a leverage to keep people in the historic district.
Policies supporting housing are found in the housing element of the comprehensive plan and the design guidelines of the historic preservation ordinance.
Official city policies that discourage redevelopment may be found in the historic preservation guidelines and in the fact that the "central business district" is also in a floodplain. National policies regarding development in a floodplain have not necessarily prevented many of the homeowners or businesses from developing within the floodplain, let alone over the river.

Geographic Characteristics. The City of Montrose is located in the heart of the Uncompahgre Valley on Colorado's Western Slope. Incorporated in 1882 agriculture, mining and timber industries were served by this trade center. A recent article in the Denver Post announced the designation of its irrigation canals as historic features. Planning also has a stable history in this community: with its first planning commission appointed in 1955, the town has had a series of master plans that have guided it for the past 25 years. The City's economic bases are oriented to tourism, agriculture and mining, respectively.
Demographics. Montrose is a home rule city with a council-manager form of government. Its population is 8,722 persons, making up 2,349 families and 3,253 households. Total year-round housing units were reported as 3,519, with 265 vacant units at the time of census. Of the 3,254 occupied units, 981 were renter occupied.
Median income in 1979 was $14,261. The census recorded 140 families (of the 2,349 or 5.9%) to be below poverty level in Montrose.
Complete kitchen facilities were found in 3,502 of the year-round housing units, leaving 17 with incomplete kitchens. Twenty-eight (28) units do not have defined bedrooms, and 11 have less than one complete bathroom. .Central heating was lacking in 395 of the occupied housing units (395 of 3,259 units).
Organizations and Their Goals to Redevelop. Two primary organizations exist in Montrose for the purpose of development and maintenance, one of which

directly acts to change Main Street. Historically the Montrose Chamber of Commerce has maintained a broad goal of spurring economic development within the county of Montrose and at times within the city limits. Since 1973 the formation of the Downtown Improvement District has been directed toward public improvement projects and some facade restorations. Initial goals of the DID involved parking, streetscaping, and improvements for pedestrians; these were also the goals that had been set by the business community. In 1982 the District developed a Downtown Improvement District Plan which had an extended goal from those previously mentioned, i.e., to address building renovation needs and establish a central activities area on Main Street. The plan further addressed parking, traffic, circulation, image and future growth. It was also noted by persons interviewed that it was a highly physical/architectural plan.
A third organization working to redevelop a part of Montrose is actually a part of the City structure: the housing rehab program is a traditional program that follows the goals of the CDBG program and its intent to remove or eliminate conditions of slum and blight.
Geographic Areas for Implementation. The geographic boundaries for the Downtown Improvement District include an approximate 17 block area covering 5-1/2 blocks of Main Street and extending 2 blocks off of Main in either direction. The Improvement Plan study area took an even greater area, to include 27 blocks. Boundaries for the housing rehab program has been limited to a small area west of Main Street. Presently the 1986 application proposes a city-wide distribution of funds for housing rehabilitation.

Land Use, Zoning and Marketed Uses. Historically land use surrounding Main Street has been maintained as residential. In recent years a change has been noted in sporadic conversions of rental homes to single-family, owner-occupied homes. The Improvement District boundary does overlay residential, commercial, government services and some wholesale uses.
The Downtown Improvement District does not have an extensive or formal marketing plan for the future. Inactive participation of members was cited as a possible reason for the lack of a marketing concept. The Chamber, as noted earlier, is interested in marketing any commerce or industry that will assist the county as well as the town of Montrose. The growth of the city is noted to be along the highway to the southeast.
Perceived and Evident Products. Physical changes on Main Street have included facade work, parking lot construction, pedestrian outcropoings, the Centennial Plaza (as its central activity center), and streetscaping. Changes in the housing stock have been focused in a 4 to 5 block area on the west side of the General Improvement District. Each change involved has brought the buildings/dwellings up to code. Physical links from parking lots to certain businesses have also made a visual impact.
Incentives to Redevelop. There are no incentives existing to redevelop Main Street at this time. CDBG rehab monies for homes have been the basic incentive for redeveloping the existing housing stock. No incentive to coordinate housing and Main Street maintenance or redevelopment exist.

Residential Component in the Process. Housing conditions surveyed in
1973 estimated that 5% of the houses in Montrose were in need of major repai>. Demolition and complete reconstruction have eliminated that 5%. A housing authority was created by council in 1974 and reactivated in 1977 to provide subsidized housing for senior citizens. Only in the past year has the housing authority located an acceptable site for the project. The Farmers Home Administration has also initiated a senior citizen housing proiect to be located on a portion of the county fairgrounds. Adjacent residents have not been involved in the revitalization process on Main Street. To the extent that the residents have acted to rehabilitate or maintain their own private homes, those residents have gotten involved in the CDBG process.
Policies for Redevelopment. The City has historically been supportive of business, no matter where it is located in or adjacent to the city. City Council has an implicit policy of not limiting commercial growth to any particular area of town.
No official City policies exist that support revitalization or redevelopment of downtown/main street. The Master plan is not so much an adopted guide to policy as it is a report of conditions that existed at the time of its writing1 (a report of existing conditions and how those conditions could change).
Policies that support or encourage the integrity and maintenance of housing stock adjacent to Main Street are the federal regulations established by HUD rehab standards. State and local embellishment have changed the standards to a certain degree, although the basic notion is that of eliminating slum and blight conditions. The rehab program is presently attempting to establish an

incentive for current landlords to rehab and maintain their buildings in a more consistent fashion.
Policies that might discourage redevelopment of any areas or uses in the project areas are few. Residential uses in the Central Business District (which is basically the DID boundary) are conditional uses and as such must be processed through the council.

Geographic Characteristics. Located along the South Platte River and adjacent to Interstate 76 in the northeast corner of the state, Sterling maintains its strength as an agricultural center for northeast Colorado as well as towns in bordering states.
Demographics. Sterling is a home rule city with a council-manager form of government. Its population in 1980 totalled 11,385. Families totalled 2,935 and households numbered 4,373. Year-round housing units totalled 4,662, with 1,496 renter occupied and an overall 270 vacancies at the time of census.
The median household income in 1979 was $14,581. One hundred and sixty-three (163) families (5.5%) are noted in the census as being below poverty level.
Amenities such as kitchen facilities were lacking in 74 of the 4,662 housing units, a total of 78 units have no defined bedrooms, and 105 lack a complete bathroom. An estimated 443 occupied households lack central heating systems.
Organizations and Their Goals to Redevelop. Redevelopment efforts in Sterling have come out of three basic groups. An informal merchants' association developed in the early 70's as a response to fears of chain store development on the fringes of town. A second organized effort to address the needs of the area is found in the City's Urban Renewal Authority 1UR.A). This is a structure with a basic goal of addressing the problems of blight; in most towns it is synonymous with housing, although in Sterling, as in other towns (Arvada, Wheat Ridge), the result of redevelopment is commerce, wholesale and to a

certain extent industry. The Northeast Council of Governments (NECOG) of Colorado was a further organizational entity which developed the Sterling Downtown Improvement Corporation. In 1979 the National Main Street Center was drawn to this historic agricultural center, housing itself in the URA. SDIC hired a manager which in turn established the Main Street office for Sterling. Sterling Downtown Incorporated came out of another attempt to organize the town's efforts to redevelop.
Through the URA, acquisition of HUD funds for housing adjacent to the courthouse square has been operating since 1979. An attempt to construct a housing project for the elderly fell through for unknown reasons. The goals of the URA follow the National CDBG funding goals of eliminating slum and blight conditions.
Geographic Areas for Implementation. Geographic boundaries of the URA, the Merchants Association, and the defunct Main Street Program surround the town square and its commerce, involving a 16-block area. Merchants farther west on Main Street have requested an expansion of the boundaries and were denied as of this writing. The Chamber of Commerce would to a certain extent be in support of this type of expansion since it is not in support of purely downtown development.

Qex>*rc,jpluCL. AreCt~
X?a>v- U. I ^
J-c(x(A (Js£ (Ah'jiii'h Anfc^
Land Use, Zoning and Marketed Uses. Land use around the courthouse has historically been maintained around the courthouse as retail, finance, governmental services and a few blocks of residential use. Thirty years ago the square was closely surrounded by residences. Retail has bled into the residential area, e.g., south 2nd in the 200 block is now almost completely retail. Uses being marketed for the project area involve retail, office (with parking), quality apartments on the second story of buildings, and a multi-family development adjacent to the district.
The basic notion behind the marketing is to maintain the identity of downtown as a core shopping center and financial center, with offices and apartments above much of the retail.
Perceived and Evident Products. As a final product, persons involved have noted an "authentic refurbishing at the physical setting," a pedestrian-oriented

streetscape with pedestrian outcroppings and improved parking. The impact of all this is thought to be felt most by the entrepreneur and consumer, with spinoffs for the whole community.
Physical changes have involved facade renovations, streetscaping, refurbishing of a gazebo on the courthouse lawn and various awning and signage changes. In the area of housing, conversions of single-family to multi-family homes have occurred. Refurbishing of various homes has occurred. Physical links to the backside of Main Street were hard to conceive for an established district in a town square configuration.
Incentives to Redevelop. Existing incentives for redevelopment of the district and Main Street are the revolving loan fund, Tax Increment Financing and cheaper rent. In the housing stock, residents can access revolving loan monies and Urban Renewal Authority grants. Incentives to coordinate
development could exist with the URA writing grants and the housing authority administering them. Elderly housing is said to be needed, and to place it within the district would create a basic community for the merchants and offices to service.
Residential Involvement or Response. Adjacent residents have not been involved in the process. In terms of a solicited response by the adjacent residential community, votes on special improvement district and a Tax Increment Financing District have not drawn a large number of residents. Residents have also shown up for public hearings, basically testifying against any development of downtown.

Policies and Plans for Redevelopment. The city's response has generally been to cooperate with most issues raised by the merchants' association.
Official city policies that support revitalization do exist. These involve the comprehensive plan, various ordinances and resolutions, and the Urban Renewal Authority policies. The Sterling Housing Authority acts in conjunction with the comprehensive plan to administer a program for low-cost housing in "blighted areas." This basically follows the HUD Fair Housing standards.
Policies such as zoning and those addressing parking are thought by some to discourage development.

Introduction. The previous section of descriptive community and program findings has presented the context and rough enumeration of the variables examined. Stating the importance of any one variable as compared to another is not the purpose of this thesis. It is the context of each community's political nature, demographic makeup and the form that redevelopment can take that distinguishes each effort.
Below are expanded findings of policy. Specifically, these are policies that are directed toward the redevelopment of Main Street or in some towns, the central business district. In the community findings, the statements on policies were taken primarily from the interviews conducted in each community. The policy findings here are directly from explicit, written policies regarding the redevelopment of Main Street. The length of description does not necessarily imply a deficiency in policy; rather, it may be due to lack of access to such official statements.
The order is based upon the degree of explicit coordination between the two forms of redevelopment. The level of activity is not a factor since this is a description of the explicit policy and the extent to which it includes residential redevelopment as an integral part of the maintenance or redevelopment of a Main Street area.
Delta exhibited a minimal amount of policy that guided redevelopment decisions. Coordination of the two forms of redevelopment (addressed in this

thesis) exist in the comprehensive plan to the extent that both uses are addressed in the plan. Policies regarding the housing rehab program parallel the standard goals and objectives set out in the CDBG guidelines. Involvement of persons residing in dwellings adjacent to Main Street is on a public notification, meeting or hearing basis, leaving residents in a reactionary position. This is a characteristic that was found in all of the communities. It would seem to follow that if residents are kept in a reactionary position, then a process of redevelopment will constantly run the risk of a "not in my backyard" argument that stymies elected officials and staff.
Goals and objectives of the Planning Commission regarding future growth and preservation of the community's quality of life in 1972 are as follows:
1. To preserve the cohesive small town flavor that is characteristic of the Montrose Community today;
2. To assure that growth and development in the Montrose Community will pay its own way;
3. To encourage and solicit employment opportunities for existing residents, permit but not solicit certain industries which create population influx, and reject all industries which may have any adverse effect on the Community because of any detrimental effects on the environment; and
4. To strive toward improving the social, economic, and cultural wellbeing of every citizen in the Montrose Community.

The City Planning Commission adopted two more goals in 1977. They
1. To encourage the implementation of housing programs that will provide a decent house for every citizen in the Community, particularly housing for the elderly; and
2. To work cooperatively with the County Planning Commission and present a Land Use Plan to the citizens of Montrose Community for their acceptance.
Beyond the adoption of goals by the Planning Commission, no explicit policies exist that would address Main Street and its adjacent housing stock in a coordinated fashion. As has happened in Delta, the physical changes on Main Street have come and gone; now the Housing Authority is acting to create physical change and is the only active form of redevelopment close to Main Street.
Applicants for the housing rehab program in 1984 fell in the low to moderate incomes with regard to the county's median income of $22,000. Low-income households varied from $7,700 for 1-person to $14,500 for 8-person households. Moderate incomes were defined between $12,300 for 1-person households and $22,000 for 8-person households. Applications were designated for the "West Main Improvement Area."
Sterling's Urban Renewal Authority maintains policies delegated by the Federal Government regarding the elimination of slum and blighted conditions

and redevelopment of the Central Business District of Sterling. The Urban Renewal project area encompasses the traditional CBD and contains the major downtown commercial, governmental and related activities. Major problems in the area, noted in the Urban Renewal Plan (1981), involve the presence of a "substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures ." leaving Sterling to be viewed as a blighted area in its entirety. Deterioration of site and other improvements, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, "which impairs the sound growth of the municipality," retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic and social liability and is a menace to the future sound economic growth of the CBD.
Urban Renewal Objectives are eleven in number, three of which are relevant to the present study:
To encourage coordinated development of parcels and structures to achieve efficient building design, multipurpose use of sites, unified parking and service arrangement and internal pedestrian linkages.
To assist existing businesses within the area that are compatible with a retail-residential, mixed-use environment to remain in the area and expand the market potential.
To encourage a mix of high-density residential, retail, commercial, and office development within the Central Business District and wherever feasible, to recognize the needs of housing opportunities for elderly, low-income, and handicapped persons.
Within the redevelopment plan (Section F), 2 of the 20 blocks are slated for elimination or redevelopment of existing residential uses. Upon the author's site visit, conditions of blight were also found to exist outside of the district, which would imply a need for greater assistance directed possibly through another entity or left for the housing authority.
The preliminary goals of this comprehensive plan for the City of Sterling

To foster Sterling's quality that sustains itself through effective and mutually supportive physical, economic and social systems; that rewards its citizens by fulfilling their common aspirations while maximizing individual growth potential and freedom of choice; and that successfully competes for an equitable share of the region's future growth.
To identify and protect the physical, economic, and social assets of the City's past and present development as a basis on which to build the future.
To be responsive to potentially constructive changes in the physical, economic and social condition of the City.
To provide a variety of community activities and services, and to provide a wide range of choice of life styles.
To provide every member of the community with the chance to participate equitably in the life, rewards and responsibilities of the community.
To support community activities with a desirable, convenient, attractive, comfortable and enjoyable environment.
The subsequent objectives are eleven in number, four of which are relevant
to the present thesis:
To encourage a variety of housing that will provide a pleasant environment and adequate housing for all citizens.
To support the creation of neighborhood groups which will promote a sense of community pride in every area of the City.
To encourage community participation in the development and growth of the City's future.
To revitalize the downtown area as per the Urban Renewal Plan for Central Business District.
Policies expressed in the comprehensive plan address the issue of a "slowly deteriorating" district in need of revitalization by (1) supporting the Sterling Downtown Improvement District, and (2) permitting business expansion into or within residential areas only if such expansion maintains and improves the residential desirability of the affected neighborhoods. Policies also encourage

the city to seek ways of offsetting the cost of building single-family homes within the area, noting modular housing, mobile homes and increased densities as options. Neighborhood improvement groups are also encouraged as a means of ensuring beautification and general maintenance of neighborhoods. If cleaning up is all neighborhood groups are supposed to do, it's no wonder they don't exist out here in Sterling.
The Comprehensive Plans housing component notes a significant reduction in the numbers of substandard units. ''Many dwelling units in outlying areas were upgraded to livable because people in these areas have access to water and sewer which in many places were unavailable." In 1979 public hearings were held by the North East Council of Governments to find out what the needs of the community were. Among the housing concerns were issues of waiting lists, prices of units, handicapped accommodations, and the high number of female head of households (797/4,350 households). Since the 1980 census, 100/164 of the proposed low-income housing units have been built by the Sterling Housing Authority.
Within the zoning section of the comprehensive plan, reference is made to a need for preservation of residential character. Areas surrounding the CBD are "areas of transition, with many residential uses mixed with commercial uses." A suggested new ordinance was proposed to either eliminate these nonconforming situations or adjust classifications to reflect the current use of land. In this manner the city would retain the power of zoning to protect existing residential areas against downtown development pressures.

Manitou Springs.
Manitou's housing policy, stated in the comprehensive plan, maintains the following goals and objectives:
A decent, affordable home in a well-planned, livable environment for all citizens of Manitou Springs.
Elimination of all substandard housing and dilapidated structures in Manitou Springs within five years.
Improvement of all public streets, sidewalks, and drainage in accordance with a capital improvements program.
A working and effective housing code enforcement procedure within one year.
Policies that complement these predominantly physical and aesthetic objectives: (1) place the burden of improving rental housing conditions on the landlord, (2) encourage individual homeowners to refurbish their own properties, (3) make discrimination an intolerable act, (4) attempt to reduce displacement unless the home is dangerous to life and limb, and (5) that "advantage will be taken of all available Federal and State programs that demonstrate promise in reaching the housing goal.
Other policies related to the present thesis address issues of economy (a stable, year-round community) and community identity (nature and historic preservation), both of which lack a stipulation regarding ways in which the residential or business communities will be involved.
The Historic Preservation Commission and the City planning office do work together to ensure the physical restoration of Manitou's character. As will be

noted later, redevelopment efforts through historic preservation are one of the most predominant links between Main Street and its adjacent housing stock. It was a resident of Manitou who remarked, "If and when total restoration of the homes and Manitou Avenue occurs, I will have to leave because of the homogeneity of residents." This is a weak point of "total" restoration or revitalization; since displacement is bound to occur and a specific type or class of people will move in, the end product runs the risk of losing the character of the people while gaining a physical identity.
A political concern voiced in Manitou and other communities is directed toward "coordination between agencies and organizations involved specifically, the Local Development Company and the Chamber of Commerce." In regard to this thesis, the above coordination may need to be dealt with prior to or concurrently with a continued funneling of residential input into the process of redevelopment.
Longmont is the only city in this study that expressly utilizes established neighborhoods as the most basic planning unit. The Central Business District corresponds to the historical Longmont business center. A point of interest to the present study is the Central Business District policy (VI.C.) which states that "a concentrated pattern of development is encouraged The east and west boundaries of the CBD should not be expanded into adjacent neighborhoods in order to encourage development and redevelopment."

This very policy has been carried out in part by the neighborhood-initiated downzoning of the east and west side neighborhoods. The present attitude of the Downtown Development Authority is that this is a poor structuring of use adjacent to a CBD, which in the end may promote the preservation of the neighborhoods and the stagnation of the CBD.
The DDA encompasses 242 acres of Old Town Longmonts original square mile. Within the area land uses range from industrial to residential. Maintenance of residential character is most noticeable when a full block away from the commercial uses. Residential uses at the very edges are somewhat out of character and tend toward being dilapidated. Reference to the elimination of blighted areas implies the elimination of such homes. Policies of the DDA refer to residential uses within the district and propose control of their condition through zoning and on a project basis.
Encouragement of mixed-use developments and diversity in land use (to prevent a predominance of a single use) is an explicit priority. This in turn implies a coordinated effort to redevelop and maintain all uses within the district.
Louisville addresses planning for the total community in a concise form through its comprehensive plan. The plan has been revised twice since its initial adoption in 1983. The latest update includes the CBD and a housing component. Unlike other cities Louisville explicitly states that review and updating of the plan shall occur at least every two years.

Within the CBD section, matters of preservation and enhancement of
buildings has a carryover effect in the implementation of such goals in that:
"The city shall encourage perimeter development to support the character of downtown with development review focusing partially on how the submittal relates to the surrounding area in terms of architecture, scale, spacing, and development patterns. Design guidelines shall also guide the aesthetics of such development .
As a matter of economic development, "Rehabilitation and redevelopment of the surrounding area shall be encouraged The city shall encourage retail and service activities on street levels and office and residential on second and third floors."
Along with the economic goal of mixed use, the City shall also encourage a variety of dwelling types and housing densities near the CBD, encourage maximum densities under existing zoning adjacent to the CBD, and encourage conversion of residential structures to commercial within the CBD.
An interesting issue in Louisville is the access to businesses on the west side of the CBD. It is here where one side of the alley is totally residential and the other is a mix of commercial and business. Access for truck deliveries is limited, especially when the small main street is full of parked cars.
A goal and basic growth policy of the city is to provide a high level of service to its residents, and to achieve a unified, urbanized area with a population equivalency of 20,000 people. The specific housing element of the Louisville plan addresses the importance of promoting affordable housing, its availability regardless of income, and other such issues. Redevelopment and
preservation of homes in this community are keys to the maintenance of the
town's character. "It is the goal of the City to promote the preservation and maintenance of older homes and buildings that contribute to the character and

Rental Rehab Program which will be administered by the Loveland Housing Authority.
In Durango policies do exist which indirectly shape the development and redevelopment of Main Street. Political avenues of development involve an additional step in the review process that includes a Design Review Board. Housing policies also exist which parallel the national interest in serving low-and moderate-income persons and addressing slum and blighted areas. A note also exists in the comprehensive plan (p. 138) that identifies the need for "affordable" housing and says "standard" housing "is not really a pressing overall community need (the workers always come, there is a high migration, doubling up of singles, etc.) even though the need of groups is real and immediate Short of direct governmental intervention through subsidies or the control of land prices, there is little to be done in the Durango planning area for the provision of new affordable housing."
The above statements are policies above and beyond the issue of maintaining the existing housing stock through rehabilitation programs. Housing has fallen victim in Durango to overall competition for scarce financial resources. A common problem also exists in the consumption of dollars in the area of administration of the housing rehab program. "Whether the community would support the expenditure of its local property tax dollar for rehabilitation is a question of the apparent overall community need for such a program." Apparently in 1984 the degree of community interest, concern, and willingness

necessary to continue funding and infuse more capital into such a program did not really exist (p. 138, comprehensive plan of Durango).
A quote from a letter received by SWCR from the Mercey Housing Corp. and cited in the comprehensive plan reads, "It is a sad commentary that in an area where there is most need for housing for low-income families, 250 entrepreneurial real estate agents are buying up housing stock and land which will never be in the hands of the lower middle class, say nothing of the poor."
The City's comprehensive CDBG application has been structured to
specifically address the following program design criteria:
Support of comprehensive neighborhood conservation, stabilization and/or revitalization;
The expansion and retention of employment opportunities;
Remove slum or blighted conditions; and
Support of federal and state programs being undertaken in the community.
The application was entitled, "Durango: A City of Neglect."
In comparison with conditions in 1969, when 78% of housing was in standard condition, 13% in deteriorating condition, and 9% in dilapidated condition, the town is presently in much better condition. The majority of the change came via the bulldozer and rerouting of the highway around Main Street and through a former residential area.
Presently displacement and overcrowing of older community families is occurring simultaneously with a shift from owner-occupied to renter-occupied dwellings. "The city of Durango believes (as stated in the FY 1982 application for CDBG funding) that a comprehensive grant truly meets the main objectives of the Act, i.e.:

"The development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income."
A 1984 assessment of housing types found a significant enough increase in available housing stock to turn its efforts toward ensuring affordability. A series on housing in the Durango Herald (January, 1984) struck chords of discontent by reporting waiting lists for Durango Housing Corporation units and for other subsidized units, along with a perceived laissez-faire attitude toward tight controls over rental and land markets which extract high rent and land prices. It is because of these reported situations that "substandard units thrive and thus a need for a housing code or rental licensing program exists."
Beyond these statements of condition, expressed in the Durango comprehensive plan, only indirect policies exist that support or influence redevelopment efforts on Main Street or in its adjacent housing stock.
Glenwood Springs.
Glenwood Springs has explicit policies and supporting studies ("Community Design Plan, Existing Goals and Policies," 1983; "Goals and Objectives," 1980 and 1982; "Land Use Plan for the Glenwood Springs Area," 1981; "Community Forestry Program," 1983; "Neighborhood Quality Report," 1981; "Commercial Renovation Guidelines," 1984; and "Implementation Report: Land Use") which in their own unique ways address the issue of planning and redeveloping areas in Glenwood, ways that include residential uses adjacent and within the core of its Central Business District. Capital improvements were considered in the Implementation Report to be of highest priority. Residential involvement was

solicited, though a response was not overwhelming. Issues of parking were addressed. Further residential involvement could take place in the form of a residential and business coordinated expression of what would be an adequate buffering of residential areas.
The tools of implementation in Glenwood revolve around what might be termed a "conventional" zoning system. Basically, the city has zoning districts, each of which has a set of standards and permitted uses. This type of system has failed in many communities, but appears viable in Glenwood Springs. The best indicator of this success is the fact that Glenwood has not gotten into a syndrome of "zoning by variance," in which variances to zoning regulations are handed out frequently and at times with questionable validity.
Efforts to involve citizens and property owners in revisions of zoning were recommended in three areas: North Glenwood, Downtown with adjacent residential areas, and the South Glenwood area (p. 26, Implementation Report). Residents could work with the business group to assure adequate buffering of the residential areas.
Goals and policies of the Commercial Renovation Guidelines encourage 11 aesthetic and physical development points, one of which is to coordinate "linkage with other community improvement projects; i.e., Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Plan, Streetscape Design Vocabulary, North Glenwood Circulation Plan." Sundesigns Architects & Planners and Plum Street Professional Associates, as consultants to the City, assessed the surrounding neighborhood, with the following findings:
This neighborhood is predominantly 60-80 year old houses of one to two stories in a dense pattern. Some of the larger residences and former boarding houses have been converted into multi-family structures. It contains the

City's most diverse mixture of income levels, family structures and age groups. Two senior housing buildings east of downtown which are tall and monolithic contrast with the character of the surrounding area.
The interface between the commercial core and the residential neighborhood must be carefully handled to insure that the character of each is compatible. This is partially accomplished by existing zoning which allows compatible commercial use, such as professional offices, within the residential area. Compatibility could be further reinforced by restriction of building heights and renovation of existing residences to accommodate businesses as the need and opportunity become apparent.
The consultants concluded that the most outstanding common element which unifies the City is not within the built environment, but rather is the natural setting within which the built environment exists. These natural elements are the common threads which knit together all the diversities of Glenwood Springs. It is this natural setting which makes Glenwood Springs what it is and draws the tourist, visitor and resident here, both in the past and present.
The City must, above all, protect this natural resource by maintaining and enhancing the existing viewsheds, developing the river corridors for the enjoyment of all, and being responsive to the mountain setting.
The middle point of the renovation area contains blocks adjacent to the railroad tracks and the river. For this reason the redevelopment surrounding the river corridor is equally as important as the redevelopment of Grand Avenue.
Two of the ten basic design guidelines, taken from the commercial renovation guidelines, involve: Maintaining a limit of a one-story change in height regarding buildings adjacent to one another. Also, new buildings along the edge of the commercial district should step down in height similar to the abutting residential structures. This maintains a smooth fabric. Other guidelines encourage spaces above first floor commerce to be designed for commercial, office or residential uses. Offices and similar, less public-intensive

uses should be encouraged at the edges of the commercial area to buffer
residential areas.
Grand Junction.
Grand Junction is one of three towns surveyed that has a Downtown Development Authority. In this manner it is similar to Loveland and Longmont, but in the size and political strength it stands out as a consistent example of how a DDA should be established. Housing projects have been supported by the DDA and the organization is committed to the continuing process of revitalization. Its 5-year goals do involve the location of quality urban housing of varying densities in the downtown area.
The DDA's 1984 work program commits itself to a comprehensive and cooperative approach to downtown development: "cooperative" representing a partnership between public, private and nonprofit participants with interest in downtown. Of primary concern in this thesis is its cooperation with the Grand Junction Housing Authority. The DDA and Housing Authority are attempting to initiate a "Downtown Housing Effort" that was not noted in conversations with staff, but shows up in the work program.
Housing is noted as being an integral component to a vital downtown (even though existing residential involvement is lacking outside of the residential historic district). The character and "built-in market for downtown businesses and 24-hour life" are to be built through housing as well as office development.
The City, Housing Authority, financial institutions, investors, developers, and the State and Federal governments can all work together to create the

incentives for and undertake projects which conserve existing units and develop new ones so that an adequate and balanced supply of housing is available in the downtown by using the following:
1. Continue to cooperate with the Grand Junction Housing Authority in the administration of the Grand Junction Downtown Neighborhood Conservation and Housing Rehabilitation Program in the targeted downtown residential area.
2. Develop a strategy to implement the Downtown Housing Redevelopment Plan discussed in III.A.2 of the work program.
3. Assist housing developers and investors interested in developing high density housing downtown by identifying projects, obtaining options, acquiring sites, planning projects, conducting feasibility analyses, securing financing, and obtaining necessary permits.
In a reciprocal manner the city of Grand Junction's zoning and development code has been amended to indicate the adoption of the Downtown Development strategy as the downtown element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The residential land use element espouses eight basic policy statements, one of which is to support the Grand Junction Housing Authority program and other programs providing housing for low- and moderate-income households and housing designed for the elderly.
The Downtown Planning Area (as defined in the "Downtown Development Strategy") does explicitly include existing residential uses as viable and also moves to preserve that in one of its objectives: "To prevent the problems associated with social and economic dislocation resulting from commercial redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization activities." The explicit policy

moves to "Encourage the restoration of older residential structures and the
preservation of the character of older neighborhoods where changes in use and
redevelopment are allowed to occur." Other related policies are noted below:
Initiate, adopt, and support programs which insure that new development is compatible with the residential areas that are located in or adjacent to the Downtown planning area.
Encourage residential redevelopment in areas where the necessary public facilities and services can be provided economically and efficiently.
Encourage redevelopment of large parcels of land and the construction of multiple use structures.
Encourage redevelopment and/or renovation of transition areas on the periphery of the Downtown Planning Area.
Encourage office and residential uses on second-story levels of structures.
Consider allowing limited commercial uses in or around older neighborhoods to support the residents of those neighborhoods.
Support programs which will serve to improve the occupant mix and physical condition of older neighborhoods.
Improve citizen participation in the Downtown planning and implementation process by promoting strong neighborhood Downtown planning groups.
Support programs which mitigate the negative aspects of the displacement of existing residents and businesses in the Downtown planning area.
The Downtown area is also divided into districts that can be found in the appendix with policies for each area.
It is not the intention of the author to project the notion of Grand Junction having the best program, structure, and activity. This is by far not a portrayal

of a best and worst case scenario. Rather, this is an indication of how policy which guides redevelopment is at the whim of interested developers and political interpretations of such policy. The degree to which residents may formally enter into the redevelopment process, especially when it concerns their immediate environment, is also an influential factor in decision-making and the implementation of such decisions. The actual participation or level of activity in each of the ten communities varied not so much according to its size as it varied according to political climate, trained personnel, and innovative ways of using standard or traditional tools. The unique finding in Grand Junction was the clarity and explicitness presented in the Downtown Development Strategy, its adoption as explicit policy, and the intentions stated for inclusion of a residential component.

The study until now has been descriptive in nature, establishing the context of redevelopment in each of the separate communities. Through the community/town findings, geographic, physical and conceptual (goals) variables have been delineated. Explicit policies then were dealt with in greater depth in the policy findings. Below is a synthesis of the findings and conclusions based upon those findings.
Each of the towns, in accordance with the selection criteria, has had and in most cases continues to have, organizations or offices working to redevelop a designated Main Street area or core downtown area. Whether these efforts are working to change the image, use, physical condition, economics or a combination of such goals, the present study has found that only two active efforts exist which address Main Street and the housing that surrounds it. Durango utilizes a financing tool to address both Main Street and housing redevelopment, while Loveland has an active housing component in their work plan which can be classified as a coordinated effort. These are the only cases of active explicit policies which in effect coordinate the redevelopment of core areas (office and commerce development) with the redevelopment of housing stock immediately adjacent to Main Street. Communities with explicit but inactive policies that address housing and Main Street redevelopment concurrently are those with Downtown Development Authorities, such as Grand Junction and Longmont. Towns such as Glenwood Springs and Durango, where extensive studies made conclusions that were adopted as policy, did not seem to be actively implementing the recommendations of the studies at the time of this

writing. Other communities mention the redevelopment o? both uses in a separate fashion.
Formal efforts to redevelop housing in each of the communities were found to be based within either public (city) or private, nonprofit (Historic Commission, Southwest Community Resources) structures. Housing authorities (4), housing rehab or rental rehab programs (2), and more prevalent historic or landmark commissions (5) were found tied into the municipality.
Each of the efforts to redevelop Main Street has the characteristic of being a private/public partnership; for example, the Downtown Development Authorities are required under state statute (Part 8, Article 25, Title 31, C.R.S. 1973) to have a development plan. The structures of Local Development Corporations and business associations have in most communities established a line of communication between the organization and the municipality. Each includes an element of cooperation or compliance between private and quasipublic organizations and the local or state government.
In regard to each organization's goals, each person interviewed was asked to state or present to the researcher a formal statement of goals and objectives for redeveloping either Main Street or housing in the area of Main Street. The findings were broken down into seven areas: economic, social, cultural, physical, conceptual, organizational, and political goals or objectives.
Two of the most prevalent goals were the economic goal of facilitating reinvestment and redevelopment through new industry and commerce (9 towns) and the physical goal of structural preservation (9/10 towns). These can be identified most readily with Chambers of Commerce, Historic Preservation or landmark commissions and some Downtown Development Authorities.

Preservation of a culture or community was not mentioned in conversations, leaving the researcher with a stereotypical view of historic preservation being purely structural in orientation, rather than socially oriented. Another stereotype may be noted in reference to each Chamber of Commerce which seems to identify only with profitable ventures of capital gain in industry and commerce development. Residential community goals are not found in either of these entities, but were found in all of the other organizational types, including a couple of organizations oriented toward business redevelopment.
Goals directed toward housing maintenance and redevelopment addressed the issue of "slum and blight" and general living standards (9 towns). These goals were derived from Housing and Urban Development requirements for funding under the Community Development Block Grant Program (see Glossary) which defines slum and blight as one of the conditions to be established prior to funding.
Capital improvements were often noted as being high on priority lists of communities and their organizations. Parking seemed to be the most prevalent project to start within each community; beautification and pedestrian passageways followed. To a certain degree, physical links to Main Street through passageways and pocket parks have created a visual connection from Main Street to its adjacent residential areas in seven of the ten (7/10) towns surveyed. Notions of bikeways and sidewalk improvements have also been proposed in four of the ten towns.
Conceptual goals were identified in response to notions of image, viability, and maintenance of small town features (i.e., hometown atmosphere, small town character) in six of the ten towns (6/10). A general goal to facilitate

organization of downtown merchants or hire a downtown manager was noted in eight of the communities. Organization of adjacent residents was not noted as a goal in any of the towns surveyed.
Political goals were noted by few persons; the most prevalent political goals concerned the establishment of an open dialogue between council and business (1 town), decisionmaking by consensus rather than special interest (1 town), and a piece of the Community Development Block Grant pie (1/10). This final "piece of the pie" relates to the competitive nature of funding for "non-entitlement small cities," of which eight towns in this study are defined as "small cities"; Longmont and Loveland are not.
Incentives and financing tools for Main Street redevelopment abound in the state as a whole. The ten towns of this study each have at least two of these tools available for Main Street, with the most prevalent being revolving loan funds or straight low-interest loans available for use. Community Development Block Grant monies are utilized to benefit Main Street in four of the ten communities (4/10). Historic tax credits and grant programs are also used in five of the ten towns (5/10). Incentives to redevelop housing adjacent to Main Street comes most commonly in the form of historic tax credits used in four towns and CDBG monies used in two of the towns surveyed.
Coordinated tools for redevelopment are found in Loveland under its 11-point work program and in Durango in the form of CDBG monies which are split between housing and Main Street. Grand Junction's DDA work plan includes a component for housing, and specific projects that have either commenced or have been completed in the last two years. This is similar to the Loveland work program. Both Grand Junction and Loveland have a similar structure that is

dependent upon a cooperative effort between the housing authority, the DDA and the City Planning office. A final form of coordination was found in Manitou Springs where the Local Development Company and the Historic Commission work in a like manner to redevelop through historic preservation. The historic preservation effort is still alive in three of the five "Colorado Main Street" towns and have extended efforts into residential areas adjacent to Main Street in Grand Junction, Durango, and Manitou Springs.
Glenwood Springs and Longmont may be considered together because of their more traditional tools; Glenwood Springs has possibly the highest success rate for not "zoning by variance" and also has succeeded in a downzoning effort for reasons of natural hazards, which affect a neighborhood adjacent to Grand Avenue. Longmont also has experienced the phenomena of downzoning, although it was initiated by its neighborhood group rather than its governing body.
Land uses have historically developed with Main Street as its focal point. Each program or organization directed toward Main Street redevelopment has defined boundaries in which residential uses have existed. Delta is one exception to this rule since its National Main Street Center boundary was alley to alley along Main Street. Presently that program is defunct, and the Chamber of Commerce has regained sole responsibility of development; their boundaries extend county-wide, which incorporates all uses by default.
Uses marketed in each of the towns include some degree of retail, with a high amount of focus toward professional office development. Hotel/convention center projects are proposed in three of the ten towns. A general policy of emphasizing downtown as being distinct from fringe and shopping mall uses is evident in many towns (9). Three towns (Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, and

Loveland) have actively indicated intentions of marketing quality and subsidized housing within their districts of redevelopment.
Residential Involvement and Response. Only two of the ten towns were found to include residents as an integral part of the planmaking process. None of the towns regarded residents as being an integral part of the policy decisions made regarding redevelopment of either Main Street or its adjacent housing stock. Placement of residents on advisory boards or task forces that might examine the needs and make recommendations of plans or policy was not found in any community, unless we assume that persons working on Main Street live in town and are on the boards of DDA's or in Council; each of those persons in turn would supposedly speak consistently as a resident for residential concerns. Only one has established neighborhood groups surrounding Main Street. Two towns have established residential historic districts, and two communities have participated in the downzoning of designated areas.
To involve residents in the process, whether it is explicit or implicit, may assist in averting the "backyard" arguments that often keep public meetings and hearings open until the wee hours of the morning. It is the author's perception from observing meetings in which citizen after citizen makes arguments based solely on a refusal to permit something in their "backyard" that explicit and well-publicized avenues for participation may exist, but the knowledge of how to use them effectively and efficiently is lacking. Workshops to present in depth, large and small redevelopment projects, is helpful in averting such subjective and ineffective rationalization. Each of the towns surveyed has at least one explicit policy statement that could encourage such an approach.

To illustrate the degree of citizen participation and the degree to which residential uses are included in redevelopment programs, the author has drawn upon the Arnstein ladder of citizen participation (Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35:216-224, July, 1969). Few of the towns studied have included residents as integral parts of the decisionmaking process; the majority fall into Arnstein's category of tokenism; none seemed to fall into the nonparticipation category. This implies that organizations have at least taken a step to include adjacent residents either by notification, hearings, or meetings. Thus, even though defined areas for Main Street/Downtown redevelopment include residential uses, residents have little or no possibility for influencing the redevelopment process.
Ranking Involvement ___________Community______________
Glenwood Springs (park project)
Durango, Grand Junction, Loveland, Manitou Springs
Glenwood Springs, Sterling
Delta, Longmont, Louisville, Montrose
The ladder of participation is for illustrative purposes only, to express the point that many planners as well as citizens fall into the trap of making token
Degrees of Citizen Control Delegated Power
Citizen Power Partnership Placation
Degrees of
Tokenism Informing
Nonparticipation Therapy Manipulation

efforts to involve citizens as well as themselves in the planning process. As noted by Craycroft (1982), specific sets of policies (as with plans) must grow from conditions, resources, and aspirations of the particular situation.
If an indexing of residential forms of involvement could be established, with a progression from passive and circumstantial involvement to more active involvement, the majority of the communities would be found to involve citizens through notifications, public meetings and hearings, and possibly forums. Beyond these circumstantial but active forms of involvement, residents have not been directly utilized or established as part of decision making.
Another inventory was taken with respect to implicit and explicit policies that included residential redevelopment as a component of the redevelopment process. In this, the most explicit forms emerged from Downtown Development Authority work programs and plans adopted by four (4) of the municipalities. Only two seemed to be explicitly active in implementing such policy, while the other two were not as active. Further areas of activity were noted in a concurrent form through historic districts or commissions as well as the Housing Authorities that were working in a tandem fashion.
Historic preservation commissions and Downtown Development Authorities seem to be the most explicit forms of redevelopment which bridge a gap between Main Street/CBD redevelopment and the maintenance and redevelopment of adjacent housing stock. Thus, historic preservation is a noted point of commonality regarding involvement of residents in the process/program of redevelopment. Historic preservation often comes under fire for its concern over buildings and physical character of a place, rather than working to incorporate the social character that one might also identify with a type of

architecture. (Preservation of social history may not always be recommended: persons often forget the pain and struggle that went along with many of the glorified eras preserved by glorified physical characteristics.) The Department of Local Affairs has very good references, as well as the Colorado Historic Society, that are guides to preservation and restoration.
Policies directed or in support of redeveloping Main Streets abound in the forms of adopted and unapproved comprehensive plans, downtown plans (DDA statute, 3 of 10 towns), design guidelines, historic preservation guidelines, zoning, streetscape plans, and other ordinances or codes. Policies supporting housing redevelopment are found initially under federal regulations which deal with slum and blight conditions, the intent of which is to benefit low- and moderate-income persons (7 of 10 towns). Historic preservation guidelines as policy also support housing redevelopment. Review processes and other codes or regulations also exist (2 of 10 towns).
Policies regarding redevelopment of both Main Street and housing adjacent to Main Street do exist to different degrees in each community studied. The most active effort is actually a fiscal policy established in Durango which splits the CDBG funding between Main Street businesses and the housing rehabilitation program. Beyond this are communities with explicit adopted policies that include housing as a "beneficial'' component to redevelopment; Grand Junction, Longmont, Loveland, Montrose and Sterling were not found to be as active as Durango. Grand Junction does, through the DDA and the city of Grand Junction, have explicit policy and goal statements referring to housing as "an integral component to a vital downtown" (p. 12, Grand Junction DDA, 1984 work program).

Possibilities for coordinated policies or policies supporting both uses concurrently exist within the separate components of comprehensive plans and in historic preservation guidelines. Other than these, the work programs of Loveland and Grand Junction contain housing components in addition to their other components. Durango has a list of 11 components, one of which addresses coordinating design guidelines, bikeway/pedestrian plan, etc., as a way of connecting the fabric of the CBD and its adjacent neighborhoods together. This has also been proposed in Louisville, Loveland, and Glenwood Springs.
Thus, each of the communities has at least some form of implicit housing policy as well as an explicit one, the differences in their present state of activity was an evident element of distinction.