INDUSTRY fi BUSINESS
Goodrich helps Akron fight urban blight Opportunity Park, sparked to life with contribution from Goodrich, is moving into high gear Opportunity Park, a downtown Akron, Ohio, urban renewal project, is moving into high gear with major construction activity slated to begin this spring. The program, sparked to life by a $3.8 million contribution from B. F. Goodrich Co., is another manifestation of the growing corporate involvement in urban problems ( see box ). More significantly, the project represents a rare case of an industrial firm entering a direct partnership with local and federal agencies on an urban renewal project. Goodrich counsel and assistant secretary E. A. Cole, who serves as liaison with city officials on the project, says, "In two or three years Opportunity Park will prove that such joint industry-government programs can work." Opportunity Park and Goodrich's involvement in it are noteworthy in other respects. In terms of real estate involved, its 400 acres would do credit to any larger city; on a per capita basis (Akron's population is about 300,000 ), the comparison is even more impressive. Robert E. McCabe, assistant commissioner for the Urban Renewal Administration, has described the Goodrich grant as the largest contribution by a business firm to help defray local costs of urban redevelopment. Akron city planners have been able to parlay the Goodrich grant into a $48 million project. The Opportunity Park project, and the planning that has made it work thus far, had its inception in 1964. Like many other cities, Akron was facing a serious exodus of industrial and commercial firms to the suburbs. City officials became concerned with revitalizing the downtown area. Three renewal projects were already on the drawing boards, but none came to grips with what was considered by many as one of the city's eyesores—the area surrounding Goodrich's downtown plant and office complex. Goodrich, for its part, had long been aware of the deteriorating conditions. The company also was cramped for space in which to expand. Rumors began to spread that the company might pull out of Akron. Since a renewal project in the area might benefit Goodrich, the city sounded out the company in July 1964 on financing a $300,000 municipal study to get a 18 C&EN FEB. 26, 1968
project rolling. Goodrich agreed. This study produced a master plan for redeveloping the area. The plan calls for new residential housing, business and industrial parks, parking facilities, and highway and road construction. But the study did not provide for any immediate method to finance the project. Matching federal funds on a two-for-one basis were available, but the city lacked even the required $3.5 million in "seed money." Edward Erickson, then mayor of Akron, put the plan before Goodrich management, which saw the plan's potential and the role the company could play in it. In June 1965, the company agreed to underwrite the $3.5 million in cash that was needed. The city, for its part, agreed to sell bonds to finance parking decks in the area and committed itself to the construction of schools and public facilities. The $12.2 million cost to the city for these facilities could be credited to the local cost of the project. Four months later the plan was approved by the Housing and Home Finance Agency, which has since set aside $32.3 million in federal money for Opportunity Park. Planning for Opportunity Park has
RENEWAL AREA. Near Goodrich's downtown Akron plant and offices is 400-acre Opportunity Park. New housing, schools, and roads will result from the project
encompassed all phases of urban redevelopment: 1700 units of high-rise, garden, and town house apartments; rehabilitation of single-family residences bordering the area; industrial parks; municipal parking facilities; and relocation and widening of major traffic arteries. All buildings in the area not slated for demolition will be refurbished. In addition, Goodrich has already begun a multimillion-dollar modernization of its plant and offices; exterior remodeling and landscaping will be coordinated with Opportunity Park planning.
Many corporations are involved in urban Corporate response to the call for involvement in solving the problems of the cities has taken a variety of forms. To the problem of decaying real estate, some corporations are applying money, others leadership, and still others technology. Last month a group of Pittsburgh companies, including PPG Industries, West/nghouse, U.S. Steel, and Koppers, formed the Allegheny Housing Rehabilitation Corp., which will purchase and renovate dilapidated but structurally sound housing (C&EN, Jan. 15, page 18). AHRCO's goal is to rehabilitate about 1000 housing units annually, for resale at about $10,000 to $12,000 each. AHRCO estimates that after about five years it will be able to pay dividends on stock purchased by participating companies. A group of life insurance companies has moved to lower one roadblock to slum rehabilitation—a lack of mortgage money in run-down, high-risk urban areas. The group represents 88% of the assets of the U.S. life insurance business. They have agreed to make available $1 billion for mortgages in slum areas. The $1 billion represents about two thirds of 1% of the assets of the participating companies, or about 6% of one year's investable funds. The money will be invested at belowmarket interest rates, where government insurance is available, and at prevailing rates in high-risk areas, where mortgage money has been unavailable before. Some of the $1 billion will be made available for investment in commercial properties, especially those which show promise of creating jobs for inner city residents.
When the renewal project is completed in 1973, Opportunity Park will represent some $200 million in new construction. In addition, an estimated 2500 jobs will be created in the area. Part of Akron's pride in the project is the speed with which it blossomed— 15 months from inception to approval of federal funds. By contrast, the city's 99-acre Grant-Washington project to provide space for light industry and research organizations required five years to travel the same ground. Although limited land clearing is under way in Opportunity Park, activity will not begin in earnest until spring. But with the major share of the planning, financing, rezoning, and coordination completed, the lessons and implications of Opportunity Park are emerging. Phil Doyle, Akron's director of planning and urban renewal under present mayor John S. Ballard, explains that the exodus of business and industry from the cities, as serious as it has become, could be worse except for the problem of these firms getting a fair return for urban land already paid for and occupied. This is even more true for the medium- and smaller-sized cities. One obvious solution for these cities is to make urban locations more attractive. Thus, Mr. Doyle says, "One of the city's aims at the outset was to provide Goodrich with conditions as comparable as possible to those which they would have in a suburban location." By soliciting Goodrich's support and cooperation, the city was able to plan more effectively both commercial
and residential redevelopment of the area. One anomaly in the Akron program exists. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the progress in the city's urban renewal program, Akron was not included in the list of cities that became eligible for federal funds last fall under the Model Cities Program. Mr. Doyle says: "There's no doubt that we would have liked to take on the added projects in our Model Cities application. But with something like urban renewal, it's largely a matter of priorities. I imagine that with so much going on here already, we were somewhat far down on the list." Underlying Mr. Doyle's remarks is the implication that, whatever the need for new federal approaches to urban problems, progress can be made under existing programs. Akron's success in marshaling federal, city, and industrial resources in Opportunity Park raises the moot point: Perhaps city planners have not been imaginative enough in soliciting industrial support, or perhaps they underestimate industry's willingness to support well-conceived projects. Altruism aside, Goodrich gained some benefits from its participation in Opportunity Park. A spruced-up industrial location and another coat of polish for the corporate image are but two intangible ones. In addition, the company will be able to coordinate its own modernization program with the renewal construction in Opportunity Park. More pragmatically, the renewal project will make additional land available that Goodrich can use in its ex-
rehabilitation projects Smith Kline & French has taken the leadership in renovating the Spring Garden district that surrounds its Philadelphia plant and offices. The company is cooperating in a plan whereby a local developer purchases rundown mansion-townhouses and converts them into three-unit apartment houses for resale to the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Smith Kline & French's role in the plan is to pay 40% of the interest on the loan the developer took to purchase the properties. Several companies are active in the technology of rehabilitation of rundown housing with demonstration projects, showing how a particular product can reduce rehabilitation costs. For example, U.S. Gypsum began such a project some time ago in Harlem, and B. F. Goodrich Co. in Cleveland has cooperated on a rehabilitation project called Project Hope to demonstrate that vinyl plumbing can reduce rehabilitation costs. Armstrong Cork Co. has independently renovated housing in the Lancaster, Pa., area. The New Detroit Committee, composed of civic leaders from many fields, has drawn one third of its membership from the business community. The committee's main function is one of providing leadership for a coordinated attack on all phases of Detroit's problems, including housing. For example, the New Detroit Committee has worked closely with the Virginia Park Rehabilitation Citizen's Committee in developing what appears to be a successful program of direct neighborhood participation in planning and rehabilitating their own community.
pansion plans. (The company is seeking 11 acres and, in spite of its grant, will pay the going price as set by the city.) Such benefits underscore the fact that industrial invo dement in urban renewal affairs is often a two-way street. According to Ward Keener, chairman and chief executive officer of Goodrich, the company's route to involving itself in Opportunity Park was largely a matter of self appraisal. When first broached to the company, the plan drew rumblings about its practicality and legality. But the crucial phase for Goodrich was to define for itself its own role in the community and how the welfare of the company is linked to that of the community. "Once our management had made this positive decision, all technical problems became secondary, and
Akron's F nil Doyle Exodus could be worse
we decided to back the plan to the hilt," Mr. Keener says. Direct participation by industrial firms in essentially government-sponsored renewal projects is clearly no panacea. To say it is would overlook other phases of the urban problemjob opportunity for inner city residents, rehabilitation of slum housing, and mass transit, to name a few. Also, the amount of renewal funds that industry could reasonably be expected to generate would have little effect on the huge and complex problems that exist in large cities. In addition, even the most socially motivated company must see in its involvement in the problem some degree of mutual benefit. Such benefits are not always clearly defined and are often products of the times. But all cities, large and small, are subject to decay. There are undoubtedly many cases where, as in Akron, the interest of a company is linked to problems of the community. Opportunity Park shows that this link can be the springboard for joint attacks on the problem. FEB. 26, 1968 C&EN 19
