Streetscape improvements in an historic tourist city a second visit to King Street, Charleston, South Carolina

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 26 (2005) 421–429

Streetscape improvements in an historic tourist city a second visit to King Street, Charleston, South Carolina Stephen W. Litvin* School of Business and Economics, College of Charleston, Hospitality and Tourism Management, 66 George Street, Charleston, SC 29424, USA Received 24 September 2003; accepted 27 January 2004

Abstract ‘‘King Street, like people, after years of use and abuse, has developed wrinkles in its face. It’s time for a facelift’’ (The Post and Courier, November 17, p. B1). Such was the sentiment, several years ago, of Charleston, South Carolina merchants as they considered their historic main street. This paper, second in a series, follows the progress of the King Street revitalization project undertaken by the City of Charleston as it strives to maintain its downtown’s attractiveness. The current views of the city’s merchants, based upon a survey exercise conducted mid-project, provide useful feedback to the city, but of broader importance, provide valuable lessons for other historic tourist cities striving to preserve their urban retail core. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Historic city; Heritage city; Shopping; Tourism; Revitalization; Rejuvenation; Charleston

1. Introduction

1.1. Tourism and historic cities

This paper is the second of what is projected to be a three-study trilogy that reviews a major downtown streetscape revitalization project in historic Charleston, South Carolina. The first study by Crotts and McNitt (1998) was conducted prior to the project’s commencement and provided insight on local merchant attitudes regarding the need and willingness-to-pay for the proposed project. The current research was undertaken mid-project, with the first major section recently completed, and provided local merchants an opportunity to review and reflect upon the project as it has unfolded. A final study will revisit the project upon completion. Collectively, the longitudinal nature of these three snapshots of merchants’ attitude will provide Charleston’s planners with valuable feedback. Of broader importance, the findings should be of value to city planners and tourism researchers elsewhere as they consider similar projects in other historic tourism cities.

Orba-sli (2000) has made an interesting point, noting that while urban areas in the past were predominantly areas of production, today they have become centers of consumption. For many cities, this shift has led to an emphasis upon tourism as an engine of economic growth. Historic cities in particular have turned to tourism, with the allure of heritage travel fueling this growth (Lindgren, 1997; Kerstetter, Confer, & Graefe, 2001). In the US this trend has accelerated following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, as American patriotism has resulted in many tourists choosing to vacation in historic cities such as Charleston (Litvin & Alderson, 2003). Cities blessed with heritage as a selling point are advantaged when looking to develop their tourism product. Robertson (1995) has presented several strategies for the successful downtown of the 21st century. Germane to this study, he suggested that cities emphasize historic preservation; that the city be kept walkable with attractions and amenities easily accessible; and that the downtown amalgamate housing, work, shopping, entertainment, government and tourist attractions. Such a mix would seem the ideal foundation for what Bruce, Jackson, and Cantallops (2001) see as key

*Tel.: +1-843-953-7317; fax: +1-843-953-5697. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.W. Litvin). 0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.01.001

ARTICLE IN PRESS 422

S.W. Litvin / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 421–429

to a city’s success–sustainability. Such sustainability, though, is highly contingent upon a city’s forward vision. For an historic city, this vision mandates the identification and preservation of those assets that establish the city’s unique identity and which distinguish it from its surrounding areas (Robertson, 1995). Sustainability, however, does not happen by chance and finding the balance between being an historic city, attractive as a place to live, and being an historic city, attractive for tourists to visit, is difficult. Li (2003) noted that the fundamental issue is the inherent contradiction between the desire to conserve heritage and the inevitable change associated with the developmental process. Too much development, Li noted, and the city is in danger of losing its cultural foundation. Too little, and business opportunities are forgone. To counter this, Kotler, Haider, and Rein (1993) have suggested that cities think like a business and take a proactive role in their stewardship of the city; not turning to planning as a result of downturns, but rather planning so as to avoid downturns. In the case study that follows, the City of Charleston can be complimented for exhibiting the forward-vision advocated by Kotler et al. (1993) as the City proactively took strides designed to enhance the sustenance of its unique heritage tourism product. 1.2. Tourism and shopping The streetscape revitalization plan discussed herein, which encompasses much of Charleston’s main street, King Street, has been orientated specifically towards making the city’s downtown retail core more appealing and attractive (Crotts & McNitt, 1998). Numerous tourism authors have noted the importance of retail as a foundation of a community’s tourism infrastructure. Goeldner and Ritchie (2003), for example, stated that shopping is the single most popular activity among both domestic and international tourists. They noted that over 60% of domestic and 90% of international tourists incorporate shopping time into their vacations. Cooper, Fletcher, Gilbert, Shepherd, and Wanhill (1998) included shopping as an integral part of their ‘tourism amalgam’, while Weaver and Oppermann (2000) observed that retailing has progressed from an associated service activity to a major attraction in its own right, accounting for almost 30% of all tourist dollars spent in Australia—a number in line with the one-third estimate Snepenger, Murphy, O’Connell, and Gregg (2003) extrapolated from their review of several USA studies. In fact, Turner and Reisinger (2001) indicated that shopping has become, for most destinations, the second most important source of tourist expenditures, exceeded only by accommodations. Timothy and Butler (1995) explored the attraction of shopping and noted that for many the activity serves as

a fulfilling form of recreation and even relaxation. What has made recreational shopping more ‘fun’ has been the recent proliferation of attractive retail options. Mega-malls such as the West Edmonton Mall and Minneapolis’ Mall of America add a cornucopia of leisure amenities to the experience, transforming traditional shopping malls into amusement parks and cultural/entertainment centers with such scale they have become tourist destinations in their own right (Tarlow & Muehsam, 1992). Similarly, festival marketplaces, such as Faneuil Hall (Boston), Harborplace (Baltimore), Covent Garden (London), and Darling Harbour (Sydney), have created upbeat in-town retail centers in historic or quasi-historic settings (Law, 2002), successfully attracting both locals and tourists. Germane to this study, many North American cities and towns are working to preserve and revitalize their downtown retail cores as these architecturally significant desirable locations are recognized as potential magnets for tourist shopping (Snepenger et al., 2003). One such city is Charleston, South Carolina. 1.3. The city of Charleston, South Carolina As a tourism destination, the city of Charleston provides a wide array of attractions. The city offers tourists an amalgamation of the largest preserved historic district in the USA, nearby beaches, a temperate climate, and Civil War era plantations, forts and gardens. These assets combine to attract in excess of four million visitors annually (Hicks, 2003). The beauty and charm of the area has earned Charleston numerous accolades. Recent awards for the ‘Holy City’ (a designation that reflects the city’s many churches and steeple-dominated skyline) have included Cond!e Nast Traveler’s ‘‘Top 10 Travel Destination in North America’’ (ninth consecutive year), National Geographic Traveler’s ‘‘The Top 50 Places of a Lifetime America’’ designation, and inclusion on Southern Living’s ‘‘Favorite Historic Destination’’ and ‘‘Favorite Dream Getaway’’ destination lists. Many consider Charleston the birthplace of the American preservation movement (Preservation Society of Charleston, 2003). By 1920, local concern over the destruction of historic buildings inspired the formation of the Society for Preservation of Old Dwelling Houses, still functioning today as the Preservation Society, and in 1931 led to the city’s adoption of the nation’s first Historic Zoning Ordinance. During the decades since, the city’s preservation accomplishments have been impressive. In fact, Ashworth and Turnbridge (1990, p. 216) noted that ‘‘the contemporary tourist-historic development of Charleston is probably unsurpassed in the New World.’’ Many US downtowns are perceived as inconvenient, obsolete, and sometimes even dangerous places, typically lifeless during nights and weekends. In

ARTICLE IN PRESS S.W. Litvin / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 421–429

contrast, Charleston’s core has remained attractive and highly pedestrianized (Robertson, 1993, 1995; Cloar, 1995), presenting both residents and visitors a vibrancy that Muhlebach and Muhlebach (2003) have referred to as ‘the 18-hour city’, i.e. a city with ‘life’ from morning to night. In addition, Charleston’s retail core has remained human-scaled and, thanks to the preservationists’ efforts, architecturally true to its historical past. In fact, Charleston may be America’s most ‘European city’, which Law (2002) described as a vibrant mix of historic buildings, a wealthy residential population, good shops, and an active cultural scene. 1.4. The King Street streetscape project As noted above, thanks to the efforts of an active citizenry, Charleston is blessed with a well-preserved central urban core. In the late 1990s, however, the city recognized that its main street, King Street, was in need of revitalization work. As one merchant stated, ‘‘King Street, like people, after years of use and abuse, has developed wrinkles in its face. It’s time for a facelift’’ (Meyerson, 1999). City leaders and merchants understood that both to maintain the city’s quality of life and to sustain its tourism success these ‘wrinkles’ required attention. Such recognition led to the formation by the Mayor and City Council, in concert with the downtown merchants, of the King Street Improvement District, a legal body given the charge of overseeing the major downtown streetscape revitalization project discussed herein. An extensive review process was undertaken by the city prior to the creation and implementation of the revitalization plan. This included a design charette, which encompassed downtown merchants, the merchant association, city planners, and city architects. The charette, as described by Crotts and McNitt (1998), allowed the various parties to better understand each other’s goals and financial limitations and led to a general sketch of the project. This was followed by a merchant willingness-to-pay survey, which allowed planners to assess project viability from the perspective of those who would ultimately shoulder a portion of its costs. The goal of these efforts was to allow the city and merchants to reach consensus, or at least lessen acrimony, over potentially contentious issues. The process, per Crotts and McNitt (1998, p. 10), ‘‘ultimately led to a well-rounded and realistic redevelopment plan with everyone who chose to participate being satisfied that they were able to contribute.’’ Crotts and McNitt (1998, p. 10) continued, that ‘‘while the willingness-to-pay survey allowed planners to gauge the overall streetscape priorities at the macro level (i.e. improve sidewalks, add trees and flower boxes, etc.) the charette could focus at the micro level by eliciting feedback on the most preferred

423

building materials (i.e. slate versus concrete, species of flora, etc.).’’ The planning process yielded an approximately $12 million streetscape rejuvenation plan. The majority was to be funded by the City ($7.5 million), with King Street merchants to pay the balance ($4.3 million) through taxassessment. Interestingly, during the charette, the merchants selected the most expensive sidewalk option, bluestone slate, even with the understanding that this would significantly increase the project’s, and thus their own, costs. Annual tax-assessments, which expire after 10 years, were based upon King Street frontage. These ranged from $174 for a small shop to more than $20,000 for Charleston Place Hotel, with its full-block frontage. Most merchants pay between $500 and $1500 annually (Behre, 1999). In addition to the new sidewalks, project highlights included; replacement of curbs, laying of brick crosswalks at major intersections, burying of all utility wires, planting of trees, and installation of new ‘old style’ street lighting. Project construction began in 2000. As this paper was written, phase-one, Middle King, had just been completed. Upper King Street, phase-two, was about to commence, with Lower King then to follow. 1.5. King street King Street is the heart of the Charleston Peninsula. The retail section, just over a mile in length, is a narrow two lane road with most buildings elegant nineteenthcentury two-story shophouses painted multiple shades of pastel. While the King Street streetscape revitalization work plan was separated into three phases, in fact the commercial section of the street is comprised of four quite distinct districts (Fig. 1): *

*

The antique district dominates Lower King, with many quaint shops selling goods to a predominantly upscale clientele. Ashworth and Turnbridge (1990), in their discussion of historic cities, associated Lower King with such renowned high-end antique districts as Amsterdam’s Paulus Potterstraat and Marais in Paris. Middle King has two personalities: * The southern section, anchored by the four-star Charleston Place Hotel, features upscale retail shops such as Saks Fifth Avenue, Williams Sonoma, and Victoria’s Secret. This section of King Street, dominated by corporate chain stores versus local merchants, has been, as coined by Williams (2003), ‘‘nationalized’’. * Further north, the upper blocks of Middle King are contiguous to the College of Charleston and the school’s 10,000 students (Ferrell, 2003). This section features amenities one would expect to find in a college town: bars, pizzerias and sandwich shops, a convenience store, bookstore, etc.

ARTICLE IN PRESS S.W. Litvin / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 421–429

424

city’s merchants to learn how they assessed the project to date, again, with the goal of learning from the experience so as to better guide other municipalities contemplating such efforts for their communities.

2. Research method

Upper King Street commerical Zone College of charleston South of Broad, residential

Middle King Street " college town" Middle King Street nation chain stores Lower King "antique district"

Fig. 1. King Street map, Charleston, South Carolina.

*

Upper King encompasses a broader range of traditional downtown businesses. However, following the devastation wrought Charleston by Hurricane Hugo in 1989 many of the major stores left the already somewhat tired area (McDermott, 2003). Several blocks at the southern end have seen recent private investment and have slowly become a part of the tourist district. The balance, however, as described by an Upper King merchant, ‘‘yis very poor. In the business world, we would say it’s fully amortized yThere has not been attention paid to it in many, many years’’ (Smith, 1998, p. 1).

It is worth noting that the now completed Middle King renovation work caused merchants in that section to suffer significant disruption and aggravation during construction (Hardin, 2002). The work was projected to be completed in the spring of 2001, about 9 months after groundbreaking. However, unforeseen problems encountered when burying the utility wires, plus cracking and wobbling of the new slate sidewalks (Hardin, 2002) extended the work through the fall of 2002. One Middle King merchant whose business closed in the midst of construction stated: ‘‘We have over the last several years endured the introduction of new [competitor] chain storesybut we cannot survive the ongoing challenges of streetscape’’ (Urban Cotton, 2001, p. 7B). Middle King merchants, however, with their phase complete, can now enjoy the fruits of the effort; while those to their north and south still face the inevitable disruption of construction. Against this backdrop, the current research, conducted in the fall of 2002, explored the attitudes of the

A merchant list, maintained by the Peninsula Merchants Association, provided approximately 175 King Street business addresses. The list included all merchants with King Street addresses, inclusive of both Association members and non-members. A five-page selfadministered survey instrument with postage-paid return-address envelopes was distributed to each of these merchants, with follow-up second requests mailed to non-respondents. Key questions explored the merchants’ original attitude toward the project, their original willingness-to-pay, their current project assessment, their future expectations for the project, and their perception of its impacts upon their business. In addition, demographic data related to square footage, business type, business ownership, years in business, etc. were requested. Finally, the survey form included, at the behest of the Association, a series of questions related to waste recycling, the results of which are not discussed herein.

3. Findings 3.1. Survey responses Replies were received from 95 merchants, representing a 55% response rate. (The original research by Crotts and McNitt (1998) discussed throughout these findings did not incorporate a second request mailing and had a 35% response rate.) Respondents were well distributed spatially, with 20% from predominantly antique Lower King, 38% from the retail oriented southern section of Middle King, 16% from the college oriented (and heavy food and beverage) northern Middle King section, and 26% from the mostly commercial, and as yet largely tourism undeveloped Upper King section. Appropriately, the largest industry segment represented was ‘retail’ (59% of respondents). This was followed by food and beverage (16%) and antique dealers (13%), with the balance (11%) comprised of merchants providing miscellaneous other services. Privately owned companies represented 84% of respondents, 10% were corporate chains, and 6% were franchise operators. Seventy-eight percent of respondents were lessees while 22% owned their property. Respondents were on balance relatively stable enterprises. Merchants reported that they had been in business at their current location an average of 11.1

ARTICLE IN PRESS S.W. Litvin / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 421–429

years, with a range of less than 1 year to over 70 years. Those who completed the survey instruments would seem to be well positioned to respond on behalf of their companies; 66% were the business owner, with an additional 27% either general manager or store manager. 3.2. Willingness-to-pay Crotts and McNitt (1998) asked merchants their willingness to contribute towards the funding of the streetscape project. At that time, prior to project commencement, and, importantly, prior to finalization of their tax-assessment amount, 67% of those expressing an opinion felt the city should pay all project costs. Only one in three (33%) had indicated a willingness to contribute to the project, what Glaser and Denhardt (1999) would deem a serious ‘tax-demand discontinuity’. In the current study, however, when those merchants who were in business in 1998 were asked how they had felt about the project at the time, only 52% recalled having indicated that they would be unwilling to pay while 48% indicated their original support. That the merchants’ recall skewed so strongly to the positive is certainly interesting. With the first section of the project complete, and merchants now able to see results, a good number seem to have forgotten their original opposition.

425

3.4. Impact upon business The merchants were asked how the streetscape improvements to-date had affected their business (Table 2). While the modal response (52%) indicated that the project had no effect, 41% indicated that their businesses had either moderately (22%) or significantly (19%) benefited from the project—in balance a strong affirmation. Responses, however, again varied depending upon the merchant’s King Street location. The majority of Middle King merchants, those who endured the construction and disruption outside their doors, but also the first to reap initial benefits, indicated that their business had improved significantly (24%) or moderately (33%) as a result of the project. Only 7% felt the project had negatively influenced their level of business. An interesting contrast to these results was noted when comparing the two not yet revitalized sections. While a strong majority of both Lower King and Upper King merchants noted that the revitalization of Middle King had no effect upon their business (Lower King=86%, Upper King=71%), those who noted an impact were at opposite ends of the scale. All remaining Lower King merchants (14%) indicated that they had found the

Table 1 Project evaluation

3.3. Project evaluation The current survey instrument asked merchants to evaluate the completed Middle King streetscape based upon a ‘school grading scale of A to F, with C representing an average grade’. Responses were then converted to a five-point scale (‘F’=0 to ‘A’=4). When Crotts and McNitt (1998) had asked the merchants to rate King Street before work had begun, they graded the streetscape a ‘C’ (mean=2.1). In the current study, the merchants’ grade of the completed section’s streetscape improved marginally, to a weak ‘C+’ (mean=2.2), a score statistically unchanged from the pre-work grade (t ¼ 1:149; p ¼ 0:254). Segmenting these responses spatially provided interesting results (Table 1). Lower King Street merchants gave the completed work by far the lowest grade, a very weak ‘D+’ (mean=1.4); almost one-third graded the project as ‘F’. Those located on then completed Middle King were more favorable. The retail oriented merchants to the south gave the project a grade of 2.5, while the merchants to their north, the mostly small eateries catering to the college crowd, were less impressed (mean=1.9). Upper King merchants, those next to have work begin outside their doors, were most favorable toward the project, grading the streetscape a solid ‘B’ (mean=2.7). None of these merchants ‘failed’ the project.

Overall project evaluation (all respondents) Segmented by locationb Lower King merchants Middle King, southern section merchants Middle King, northern section merchants Upper King merchants

Mean gradea

% ‘F’s’

2.2

12

1.4 2.5 1.9 2.7

32 6 23 0

a Grade based upon school grading system ranging from ‘F’=0.0 to ‘A’=4.0. b One-way ANOVA, F ¼ 5:747; p ¼ 0:001:

Table 2 Project’s impact upon business to-date Significant Moderate No effect benefit (%) benefit (%) (%) Overall impact Segmented by locationa Lower King merchants Southern section of Middle King Northern section of Middle King Upper King a

Negative impact (%)

19

22

52

7

0

0

86

14

24

33

36

7

10

50

40

0

21

7

71

0

One-way ANOVA, F ¼ 4:204; p ¼ 0:009:

ARTICLE IN PRESS 426

S.W. Litvin / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 421–429

construction detrimental. Conversely, all Upper King merchants who had felt impact (28%) were of the opinion that the improved streetscape to their south had helped their businesses. When asked about the future, merchants from all King Street sections foresaw better times ahead. The most optimistic were those from the now complete Middle King section, 64% of whom predicted an increase in next year’s business. This was followed by 52% of Upper King merchants; even in the face of construction soon to begin outside their doors. The least optimistic were those on Lower King, only 34% of whom felt that business was likely to improve in the coming year. 3.5. Correlation: project evaluation and project impact A correlation analysis between the merchant’s project evaluation (the grade they gave the completed work) and the merchant’s perception of the project’s impact upon their business was run to determine if these two variables moved in tandem. The analysis was found to be positive and significant. That is, those merchants who felt they had most benefited from the project gave the project the highest approval rating, while those who felt the streetscape work had been detrimental gave the project a significantly lower grade (Pearson’s correlation co-efficient=0.462, p ¼ 0:000 [the negative correlation is a result of inverted response scales]).

need to grab a share of the tourism market. Before Middle King work began, tourists accounted for 22% of Upper King sales (Crotts & McNitt, 1998). This has now increased to 32%. Over the next 5 years, they project a continued rise to 46%, a tourist share more than doubled in a decade.

4. Research limitations Several limitations must be considered when evaluating these findings. As is often the case in survey research, respondents to both the original (Crotts & McNitt, 1998) and the current study were promised anonymity. Thus, while composite change has been noted over time, more powerful ‘paired sample’ statistical tests could not be conducted to explore the attitude changes of individual merchants. In addition, while both the original and current studies were conducted as mailed survey exercises, Crotts and McNitt (1998) chose not send second-requests and neither study extended their data collection efforts to determine the potential impact of non-response bias. Finally, there is always concern that some answers given may have been politically motivated. For example, merchants unhappy with the amount of their tax-assessment allocation may have indicated a stronger than actual negative evaluation of the program to send a message to the city. It is hoped, however, that having this research performed by an independent researcher mitigates such concern.

3.6. Tourist versus local business mix Crotts and McNitt (1998) and the current study each asked merchants to classify their customer base. During the 5-year period between the two studies, Lower King has seen a major shift. In the original study, Lower King sales were distributed 56% tourist and 44% local customer. Their current mix is 72% tourist versus 28% local. When asked to project this mix 5 years hence, merchants predicted that in 2008 tourists would represent 68% of their business. Had the Lower King merchants simply reported a shift during the construction period, one could surmise that the cause was local customers having steered clear of King Street during construction. However, the merchants’ projections reflect a continued shift, suggesting that business factors other than construction disruption are at play. Whether this increasing reliance upon tourist traffic is healthy represents an interesting question considered later in this paper. Middle King merchants have not experienced a similar trend. In the Crotts and McNitt (1998) study, tourists represented 47% of Middle King consumer demand. This has risen only marginally to 49%. In 5 years it is projected that tourists will represent 46% of sales volume. Upper King Street merchants are optimistic that revitalization will provide the impetus they

5. Discussion Before project commencement, merchants rated the King Street streetscape as 2.1 on a 4.0 school grading scale (Crotts & McNitt, 1998). Merchants now rate the completed section a marginally improved (but statistically unchanged) 2.2. With King Street arguably one of America’s more attractive main streets, a ‘‘gem’’ per Ashworth and Turnbridge (1990), the relatively low ‘C+’ grade as well as the lack of perceived improvement are puzzling. Perhaps the 1998 pre-project grade obtained by Crotts and McNitt (1998) reflected merchant frustration with a deteriorating environment. King Street at the time offered outstanding historic architecture and a pedestrian-friendly scale which attracted tourists to Charleston in significant numbers, but it was clearly time for a ‘facelift’’ (Meyerson, 1999). In 2003, with phase-one complete and the upgraded section, in the author’s opinion, considerably more attractive, an interpretation of the still low grade may be that merchants were hoping for, or even felt promised, more than cosmetic change. From a consumer behavior perspective, it is understood that satisfaction is a function of both expectation and perception. In this

ARTICLE IN PRESS S.W. Litvin / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 421–429

respect, it would seem that the average project grade implied ‘satisfaction’, but not ‘delight’—merchant expectations were met but not exceeded. Regardless of interpretation, the grade received was less generous than one would expect for such an attractive area and, given the significant effort and funds invested, represents a response likely to disappoint the City. The following discusses potential causes for the lack of satisfaction on the part of some merchants. Not all merchant are likely to benefit equally from any project, and the findings herein reflected that those merchants who felt they had most benefited from the project were those most favorable towards the project. Conversely, those who did not recognize direct benefit were quite critical. Part of the cause of such divergence may well have been a result of the wide variation in the perceived need for the ‘facelift’; a function of where on King Street a merchant was located. Several blocks of Middle King, in the vicinity of the Charleston Place Hotel, had recently been upgraded and required minimal work; Upper King Street had received little attention for decades; while Lower King, well maintained through the years, provides an existing streetscape which serves as a good match for its attractive shops. Thus, while the streetscape project represented an ambiance improvement effort for Lower King and most of Middle King, neglected Upper King merchants viewed the upgrading as a critical and long overdue redevelopmental catalyst. However, the tax-assessment burden bore no relation to degree of need. Rather, project costs were shared ratably by all merchants based solely upon King Street frontage. Given such diversity of need, it is not surprising that sentiment toward the project varied spatially. It is also of no surprise that those who perceived they had the most to gain from revitalization were those who felt most positive about the project. To further explore this issue, the Executive Director of the Charleston Preservation Society, Cynthia Jenkins was consulted. She pointed to what she considered a key issue—the creation of a uniform streetscape the length of King Street. Said Mayor Riley (1999, p. 1), a proponent of such an approach: ‘‘The decision to have the street read as one commercial district of the same quality is a sound one.’’ However, Jenkins (2003) noted that the many antique dealers along Lower King share a strong sense of the history of Charleston, and guard against any effort to turn Charleston into a ‘theme park’ (think Colonial Williamsburg) versus a living city. This would be in line with Orba-sli’s (2000, p. 2) warning that historic towns not ignore ‘‘the depth and dynamism of the urban environment in favor of the re-creation of sterile and ‘experienceable’ settings.’’ The antique dealers, Jenkins noted, point to the fact that historically the downtown of Charleston has been a mosaic of styles, blending over time to create the city’s distinct charm. As

427

such, Lower King merchants, while generally not opposed to a ‘sprucing up’ of the area, felt strongly, for example, that not only was the extra expense of bluestone slate sidewalks throughout not justified, but that its use was inappropriate. Concrete had been the surface in front of their stores for decades. They were comfortable with the look. Why change, and equally importantly, why add to the cost? Fix the cracks, they argued, but leave the concrete. They lost the argument, the project incorporates a uniform vision, and it would seem that their displeasure has been reflected in their poor project evaluations. The issue, thus, would seem to relate to the sensitivity of tying tax-assessment to outcomes rather than to need. Lower King merchants never felt a strong need for a comprehensive project and seem to resent paying a share equal to that of Upper King merchants, in dire need of the work. For the merchants, clearly the equal taxassessments fail to return equal investment returns. For the city, however, the cost of tearing up the various sections and redoing these in a uniform design bear no relationship to the section’s then existing state of repair, and it is therefore logical from the city’s perspective that all merchants share cost equally. Clearly, this debate holds no ‘right or wrong’ position. Both sides make valid points. The key lesson, however, is that project administrators must pay additional attention to those merchants who will receive the least direct benefit, helping these merchants justify in their own minds why their cost allocation is fair and how, with an attractive and vibrant downtown they along with all others will ultimately benefit—the ‘rising tide lifts all ships’ argument. A related issue, judging from merchant comments, was the fairness of tax-assessment timing (the survey form had a final open question soliciting merchant comments). All merchants were required to begin their 10-year payment period simultaneously. Middle King is now complete and Upper King set to commence. Lower King merchants, however, will not see any work for several years still. Though such an approach was perhaps a fiscal necessity, some merchants felt it to be unfair. Why pay, they ask, until their section benefits? These merchants would seem to have a valid argument, and one that again helps explain response variation by location. Phasing of assessments to parallel the work schedule would certainly seem an approach destined to reduce merchant acrimony. A final point of discussion relates to the trend away from local patronage and towards a tourism-dependent retail economy; a trend predicted by the Snepenger, Reiman, Johnson, and Snepenger (1998) Downtown Tourism Lifecycle Model. Several blocks from King Street is the Market Street area. Market Street businesses are almost entirely tourist-oriented—a plethora of souvenir, tee shirt, and craft shops. Adding

ARTICLE IN PRESS 428

S.W. Litvin / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 421–429

to the Market’s tourist focus, cruise ships calling on Charleston dock at the foot of Market Street, just a short stroll away. ‘Sacrificing’ the Market to tourists has seemed to work well. Tourism business in the Market is good and the area contains much of the tourism congestion. Locals, however, simply have no reason to shop in the Market area and rarely venture there except when accompanying out-of-town guests. This works fine, but what if the tourist-dependent area spreads to the broader downtown? Snepenger et al. (2003) have warned that a shopping district must maintain its local flavor to remain viable and have noted that when locals cease to shop in an area, leaving it strictly for tourists, that the space becomes contrived, ultimately resulting in a disconnect. The result is a space void of meaning for both groups; locals find little of interest and tourists are no longer attracted by a place devoid of the special life that brought them to the historic city in the first place. Thus, a successful retail core in an historic city requires the delicate balance of attractive retail facilities that appeal to tourists, among a range of merchants providing services that satisfy the needs of locals (Orba-sli, 2000; Timothy & Butler, 1995). The King Street merchants surveyed herein predict a future considerably more reliant upon tourism. City planners must watch this trend with care and a degree of concern if King Street is to remain a viable main street for Charlestonians, and a sustainable attraction for tourists.

6. Conclusion The City of Charleston, through good planning and perhaps good fortune, has been blessed with an outstanding downtown retail core that has been able to effectively meet the needs of locals and tourists alike. As Snepenger et al. (1998) have advised, keeping this balance will be critically important. Equally important will be maintaining the city’s physical attractiveness. The King Street Improvement District streetscape project discussed herein, now one-third complete, has been a forward-looking effort towards this goal. At its onset, the King Street redesign planning process, as described in detail by Crotts and McNitt (1998), was inclusive and democratic; important to ensure a project’s success (Bruce et al., 2001). Equally important, the current research suggests, is keeping merchants aware and involved as the project progresses. Issues discussed herein have pointed to the city planner’s need to pay particular attention to issues of perceived equity. The King Street Improvement District assessed all merchants ratably, regardless of their perceived relative need. In addition, all merchants were taxed on the same timetable, again regardless of when benefit would accrue. While this research does not

consider the appropriateness of these decisions, the response variations across the different sections of the project clearly point to the impact these policy decisions have had upon merchant attitudes. Though it is always difficult to measure direct ‘cause and effect’ for a streetscape program, to allay these concerns it is important that merchants be provided with data from the city that reflect how their investment (and aggravation) has been returned in the form of increased business. In the current study, most merchants are optimistic for a bright future; forecasting improved sales volume for the year ahead. If in fact general business levels begin to pick up, the city should make a concerted effort to spread the good news, doing its best to send the message that its streetscape efforts have begun to pay financial, and not just visual, dividends. Kotler, Haider and Rein (1993, p. 14) have suggested that: Every place—community, city, state, region, or nation—should ask itself why anyone wants to live, relocate, visit, invest, or start or expand a business there. What does this place have that people need or should want?;y what competitive advantages does this place offer that others do not? Every community can and should consider these questions if it wants to exercise control over its future. City leaders of Charleston, South Carolina seem to understand the city’s competitive advantages, and should be lauded for the proactive steps they have taken to steer their city towards a successful sustainable future. This ‘mid-term’ review of the city’s ongoing downtown revitalization project has attempted to provide useful insights for municipal planners of Charleston, with the broader intent that the lessons gleaned can be of value to other historic cities contemplating similar projects in their retail core. Three years hence, when the dust has cleared and with the streetscape project hopefully complete, it will be interesting to revisit King Street to conclude the research trilogy and further learn from the city’s ambitious project.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the Charleston Peninsula Business Association for its support with the study. Also to be acknowledged for their assistance are College of Charleston undergraduate students John NeSmith, Brandon Hair, and Sean Dulle.

References Ashworth, G. J., & Turnbridge, J. E. (1990). The tourist-historic city. London: Belhaven Press.

ARTICLE IN PRESS S.W. Litvin / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 421–429 Behre, R. (1999). Property owners on King Street eye new sidewalk style. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), August 23 (p. B1). Bruce, D. M., Jackson, M. J., & Cantallops, A. S. (2001). PREPARe: A model to aid the development of polices for less unsustainable tourism in historic towns. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(1), 21–33. Cloar, J. A. (1995). Downtowns emerging in new forms. Real Estate Issues, 20(2), 25–32. Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., Shepherd, R., & Wanhill, S. (1998). Tourism principles & practices (2nd ed.). Essex, UK: Longman. Crotts, J. R., & McNitt, L. (1998). Funding public streetscape improvements in a heritage city: A willingness to pay survey. Visions in Leisure and Business, 16(3), 4–15. Ferrell, A. (2003). C of C’s fall ritual begins anew; Thousands of students, families throng campus. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), August 24 (p. B1). Glaser, M. A., & Denhardt, R. B. (1999). When citizen expectations conflict with budgetary reality: Discontinuity between the public’s demand for services and its willingness to pay taxes. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 11(2), 276–310. Goeldner, C. R., & Richie, J. R. B. (2003). Tourism, principles, practices and philosophies (9th ed.). New York: Wiley. Hardin, J. (2002). King Street sidewalks need repairs. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), June 22 (p. B1). Hicks, B. (2003). Our changing coast: Newcomers transforming Charleston, sea islands. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), November 29 (p. A1). Jenkins, C. (2003). Private interview with author. Jenkins is Executive Director of the Preservation Society, Charleston, SC. Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., & Graefe, A. R. (2001). An exploration of the specialization concept within the context of heritage. Journal of Travel Research, 39(3), 267–274. Kotler, P., Haider, D., & Rein, I. (1993). There’s no place like our place! The marketing of cities, regions, and nations. The Futurist, 27(6), 14–19. Law, C. M. (2002). Urban tourism, the visitor economy and the growth of large cities (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum. Li, Y. (2003). Heritage tourism: The contradictions between conservation and change. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(3), 247–261. Lindgren, J. M. (1997). Saving San Antonio: The precarious preservation of heritage. The Journal of American History, 84(3), 1158. Litvin, S. W., & Alderson, L. L. (2003). How Charleston got its grove back: A CVB’s response to 9/11. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(2), 188–197.

429

McDermott, J. P. (2003). Land deal could open door to upper King Street renewal. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), July 12 (p. A1/A13). Meyerson, G. (1999). Quoted in R. Behre King street merchants discuss sidewalks. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), November 17 (p. B1). Muhlebach, R., & Muhlebach, E. (2003). A shopping odyssey. Journal of Property Management, 68(1), 34–37. Orbas-li, A. (2000). Tourists in historic towns, urban conservation and heritage management. New York: E & FN Spon. Preservation Society of Charleston (2003). http://www.preservationsociety.org. Web-site accessed December 14, 2003. Riley, J. P. (1999). Quoted in R. Behre property owners on King Street eye new sidewalk style. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), August 23 (p. B1). Robertson, K. A. (1993). Pedestrianization strategies for downtown planners: Skywalks versus pedestrian malls. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(3), 361–370. Robertson, K. A. (1995). Downtown redevelopment strategies in the United States: An end-of-the-century assessment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(4), 429–437. Smith, P. (1998). Quoted by S. Bailey in C. Kahn merchants want concerns heard. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), October 01, Downtown Charleston Section 1. Snepenger, D. J., Murphy, L., O’Connell, R., & Gregg, E. (2003). Tourists and residents use of a shopping spree. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 567–580. Snepenger, D., Reiman, J., Johnson, J., & Snepenger, M. (1998). Is downtown mainly for tourists? Journal of Travel Research, 36(4), 5–12. Tarlow, P. E., & Muehsam, M. J. (1992). Wide horizons: Travel and tourism in the coming decades. The Futurist, 26(5), 28. Timothy, D. J., & Butler, R. W. (1995). Cross border shopping, a North American perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 16–34. Turner, L. W., & Reisinger, Y. (2001). Shopping satisfaction for domestic tourists. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(1), 15–27. Urban Cotton (2001). Cited in J.P. McDermott urban cotton closing King Street shop, blames ongoing streetscape work. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), October 06 (p. B1). Weaver, D., & Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism management. Brisbane: Wiley Australia. Williams, C. (2003). Charleston a retail shopping center. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), June 27 (p. S57).