Riverside and Rostock

Life in Two Historic Districts Undergoing Revitalization

Susan Mazur-Stommen

Rostock

Comparison is Instructional

This paper will compare and contrast the experience of living in two designated historic districts

– Mile Square in Riverside, California – Kroepeliner Tor Vorstadt in Rostock, Germany

Both have been the target of revitalization efforts in the past decade.

Both share many structural similarities – Size @ 200,000 inhabitants– Density

Both combat similar problems– Crime– Sprawl

Convergent Histories

Rostock is nearly 700 years old, and has a long history as a Hanseatic League city and as a seat of the Protestant Reformation.

Riverside is not quite 150 years old, and was, until the mid-Twentieth century, primarily agricultural.

The Second World War transformed both cities, drawing thousands of migrants to work in new industries.

COMMONALITIES

Both are cities with populations around 200,000 Both cities have state universities with student

populations of around 10,000 Both cities struggle with sprawl

– Riverside has several new, thinly populated and serviced neighborhoods, grafted onto the historically defined city core

– Rostock is often called a ‘polycentric’ city, a legacy from the days of state-centralized planning

PURPOSE

The past four years I have lived in two distinct historic districts, in widely separated cities, where extremely different strategies of urban revitalization have been pursued, with divergent outcomes.

BACKGROUND

From 1999 to 2000 I lived in the Kroepeliner Tor Vorstadt, a neighborhood of approximately 100 acres in Rostock, Germany.

From 2000 to the present I have lived in the Mile Square District (640 acres) of Riverside, California.

Kroepeliner Tor Vorstadt and Mile Square are historic districts comparable in age, style, and issues.

Trajectory - KTV

The KTV originally was agricultural land outside of the city walls of Rostock until it began to be developed in the late 19th century.

Compared to the slums existing in other cities of the period, the neighborhood was relatively enlightened in its layout

after World War I, little or nothing was done to maintain the neighborhood and its housing stock for over seventy years

KTV at the Turn of the 20th Century(Picture courtesy of the RGS)

Unrenovated Mietskaserne 1999(Construction Date 1919)

Trajectory – Riverside

Riverside was founded during the same period as the KTV – 1870

Had its heyday around the turn of the 20th century– Many of the most significant buildings in downtown,

including the Mission Inn, were built at this time

Also similar to the KTV, many buildings fell into decrepitude during the time period 1920-1990

– Some to this day continue to resist successful renovation and re-use, such as the Fox Theater at the corner of Market and University

Abandoned House – Riverside 2000(Construction Date 1927)

NEGLECT

By the beginning of the 1990s, both cities had decrepit inner-city neighborhoods, consisting of a mixture of residential, commercial, even light industrial usage

Structures dated from the late nineteenth to the late twentieth centuries

Used to warehouse residents that the state found undesirables

– Junkies, the homeless, and asis in the KTV – Parolees and the mentally ill in the case of Riverside

REVITALIZATION

The late 1990s saw increasing rhetoric and action in terms of redevelopment for both of these historic districts

– 1990 to 1994, Rostock planned, acquired funding, and strategized city-wide renewal

– 1994 to 1999 activity in Rostock peaked, totally transforming the town.

– In Riverside, similarly, planning took place in the early to mid 1990s – but the actual construction boom started around 1998 and continues to this day.

Renovation in Rostock

‘Rehab’ in Riverside

GOALS AND PRACTICES

The goals and practices of the groups responsible for much of the revitalization and investment in these two neighborhoods have diverged widely

Evidence of distinct sets of cultural values and beliefs concerning the roles of the state and of the individual in terms of responsibility for achieving and managing the restoration of endangered historic districts.

Incenting Homeowners

The City of Riverside is re-zoning the downtown district to eliminate multi-use zones and where possible, re-convert units.

The Riverside Dept. of Housing and Community Development supports the purchase and renovation of single-family homes in the district through loans and grants

Gentrification is to be mitigated through the use of limited equity housing loans – maintaining the quantity of affordable units in the area.

Incenting Entrepreneurs

The URBAN project in Rostock supported the rehabilitation of anchor buildings

These act as an enticement to further private investment and maintenance.

Rostock seeks to mitigate gentrification by privileging socially and environmentally conscious projects.

Rostock – Anchor Projects

AUTRE TEMPS, AUTRE MORES

The pro-homeowner and pro-entrepreneur approaches address differing populations

Outcomes will likely be different– local investment– job creation– property values– demographics

Divergent outcomes are rooted in cultural differences between the United States and Germany (esp. GDR)

OUTCOME - Rostock

In Rostock, the KTV’s revitalization is basically complete

There are few un-renovated buildings left, business is booming, and the reputation of the district as a destination is set

Outcome - Riverside

Riverside will have awhile to wait, issues abound, slowing the neighborhood’s progress– Quality of life– Zoning– Structural

Summing Up

Does the process for revitalizing historic districts have sufficient components to successfully develop into sustainable, historic, environments. – local ownership– a higher profile– focus on political realities