Section III: Body of Proposal: “From Public City to
‘Philanthropolis’—Comparing Two Models for Downtown
Development in Indianapolis”
1) What are the research objectives for the proposed project?
Cities are caught between two contradictory pressures: on one hand, competition for
tourist dollars and for attracting new middle-and-upper residents, often young people, to
newly fashionable central city districts demands investment in new amenities like state of
the art sports and entertainment venues, bike paths and other cultural and scenic
attractions. On the other hand, cities find themselves struggling to stretch a shrinking
base of tax dollars to cover based municipal services such as police and fire departments,
schools, transportation, road maintenance, parks and libraries. In addition, federal aid to
cities has decreased drastically since the 1970s.
Over the past 20-30 years, urban development has shifted from being primarily financed
by public entities, sometimes working in partnership with private developers, to a newer
model whereby local philanthropies now play a major role in promoting and funding
downtown development. The research objectives of this project are for students to
examine closely two case studies of economic development in Indianapolis: the
development of the downtown canal in the 1980s-90s and the more recent construction of
the Indianapolis Cultural Trail.
The downtown canal and the Indianapolis Cultural Trail are the two most significant
investments in pedestrian pathways in the recent history of Indianapolis. The Indianapolis
canal while built in increments was essentially a project of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s
while the Cultural Trail has been constructed over the past few years. Most importantly the
two projects summarize the changing relationship between the public and philanthropic
sectors in Indianapolis and likely many other cities. Our primary objective is to document
and understand the implications of this new model of philanthropic development using
downtown Indianapolis as our study site.
Much of the literature on these sites appears in tourism journals and deals with responses
to these amenities from tourists and city residents; our goal is to examine the implications
of the actual planning processes as they were implemented in bringing these two projects
to fruition.
2) What specific research question(s) will your proposed project address?
What was the model of economic development for downtown Indianapolis in the 1980s
and 1990s?
What is the newer philanthropic model for downtown development economic
development?
How do such individuals as city planners, city promoters, economic development experts
and philanthropists evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of each of these two models for
downtown development?
3) What is the significance of this research?
The impetus for the earlier project, the canal, was provided by City staff, who led a downtown
planning process. The basic idea was that an amenity was required to make downtown more
1
attractive to potential residents and that the canal could serve as the catalyst for new
residential development. Thus, while the public sector provided the catalytic idea, the public
sector also was responsible for funding the canal. This was done primarily through a series of
grant applications to the Urban Mass Transit Administration for the development of nonvehicular traffic circulation. The city then provided matching revenue. The city also hired the
design team, hired and managed the construction process, and it remains responsible for the
maintenance of the canal. Additionally, the city has continued to market and provide
incentives for the development of private investment along the canal. Thus, the canal, a
product of the late ‘80s was, conceived, funded, built, and managed though the leadership of
the public sector.
By the time the notion of a cultural trail came into existence, the relationship between the
public and philanthropic sectors had drastically changed. The Central Indiana Community
Foundation (CICF) provided the primary impetus for the Cultural Trail. The route and design
standards for the trail were driven by CICF with city staff participating in the planning process
as an invited guest. CICF raised the revenue for construction of the trail, managed the
construction process, and now struggles with maintenance costs. When CICF approached the
city about assistance with maintenance of the cultural trail, the city replied that they lacked
sufficient resources to support the project. In the final analysis, the city’s two most important
contributions to the Cultural Trail, were to be the conduit to a TIGER grant (made available as
part of the Obama administration’s pro-infrastructure investment effort to create jobs during
the recent deep recession) and to help acquire the rights-of-way. In effect, by 2013, the city
had become the laborer for CICF’s vision.
Thus over less than 30 years the role of the city shifted from being the impetus provider and
guiding partner to becoming an implantation partner, with a role perhaps even less significant
than that of the construction partner. In the meantime, the role of the philanthropic center has
evolved from that of a gap funder/supporter to that of the aspirational leader and developer.
Our project is designed to allow students to investigate and understand the nature of this shift
and its implications for the future economic development of Indianapolis. In addition,
Indianapolis is a leader in the use of philanthropic interests as drivers for economic
development so this project offers students an opportunity to document the emergence of a
new model for the development of city centers.
4) Why does this proposal offer a good opportunity for undergraduate researchers to
gain substantive research skills?
This is a highly original research project and this particular research question has, to our
knowledge, never been fully explored in this comparative way. Drew Klacik has been a
leading policy analyst for the city for 21 years, and is able to provide the contacts that students
will need to explore the multiple dimensions of this research undertaking.
5) What research methodology and specific tasks will students and mentors
undertake?
Hyatt will advise the students on the use of qualitative and ethnographic methods such as
open-ended interviewing, mapping and participant observation. Students will interview a
range of personnel who have been involved with these two projects. They will also consult
planning documents and maps to be able to trace the history of these projects. Rather than
have each student write his or her own paper, as we have done in the past, we are going to
work collaborative with the students toward the goal of pulling together a single, publishable,
multi-authored paper.
6) What plan has been designed to ensure effective communication with all comentors and undergraduate researchers on the MURI team?
2
If funded, this will be our third joint MURI project. During the fall semester, we keep in touch
with the students through the Urban Anthropology class. During the Spring semester, we
meet with them bi-weekly in the small conference rooms in the University Library.
7) What measureable outcomes and benefits will this research provide to the students,
you and your co-mentor(s), your department, and your school?
We hope to have the students be able to present their particular piece of this project at an
appropriate local venue—most likely Research Day at IUPUI and the Butler Undergraduate
Research Conference. (Hopefully next year, these will not conflict on the calendar.) Our goal
is also to produce a publishable paper on this work, with all of the students listed as coauthors. The project combines the approaches of policy analysis and Urban Anthropology—
two fields that are increasingly seen as important collaborators.
This project also fits with IUPUI’s larger mission of Civic Engagement and it will illuminate a
particularly distinctive feature of Indianapolis’ urban landscape.
8) What is the timeline for the major tasks associated with this proposal?
September-October: Selection of students; selected students take and pass the IRB CITI
Human Subjects test
November-December: Students work with mentors to begin developing specific research
plans. Development of annotated bibliographies.
Late November-Early December: IRB approval received.
January-February: Fieldwork begins.
March: Initial drafts of research papers reviewed and submitted.
April: Presentation of work at Butler Undergraduate Research Conference and at
Research Day.
May: Final drafts approved and submitted to MURI.
9) Please provide a rationale for your budget request. (NOTE: The maximum budget
allowance is $2,000 for equipment and/or supplies needed for the research team.
Generally speaking, expenditures for computers and/or travel are not approved by
the review committee at this time due to financial constraints.)
LifeScribe Pens for notes and recording interview data: $139.00/each-- $556-$834
(depending on number of students)
Registration for Butler Undergraduate Research Conference: $240-$320 (depending on
number of students)
Funding for two 1-day fieldtrips via rental van to Louisville and Cincinnati to view
downtown development projects in those cities: $350 (rental van plus food) x 2 = $700
10) Please describe your plan for sustaining your research beyond the funding that
MURI is able to provide. (For example, please list other external grants that have
been or will be submitted as a follow-up to your MURI funding.)
3
We hope to continue work on this topic through our classes and our own research projects
beyond the conclusion of the MURI Project. This research project is a key area of work for
Drew Klacik; Susan Hyatt has also been very active in the development of the sub-field of
the Anthropology of Policy. We believe that students may also want to continue their
involvement in this work.
11) Please identify any areas relevant to risk management.
We will seek IRB approval, Exempt Status, for the interviewing of human subjects.
4
Hyatt & Klacik, “From Public City to ‘Philanthropolis’—Comparing Two Models for
Downtown Development in Indianapolis”
Preliminary Bibliography
Cecil, Amanda K., Yao-yi Fu, Suosheng Wang, Sotiris Avgoustis 2010. Cultural Tourism
and quality of life: Results of a Longitudinal Study, European Journal of Tourism
Research 3(1): 54-66.
Environmental Practicum Couse, Butler University 2012. Indianapolis Cultural Trail.
Prepared for Karen Haley and the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, Inc.
King, Carina, Jinmoo Heo, Sotiris HJI-Avgoustis, Inbeok Lee 2012. Residents’ Perceptions
of Sport Tourism and Quality of Life: The Case of Indianapolis, Journal of Tourism
Challenges and Trends 5(1): 9-20.
Lindsey, Greg 1999. Use of Urban Greenways: Insights from Indianapolis. Landscape
and Urban Planning 45(2-3): 145-157.
Palmer, Kristi L. 2013. Introduction to Indianapolis: Walk, Cycle, Ride the Cultural Trail.
C&RL News.
Wang, Suosheng, Yamada, Naoko and Linda Brothers 2011. A Case Study: Discussion of
Factors and Challenges for Urban Cultural Tourism Development, International Journal
of Tourism Research 13: 553-559.
Wang, Suoshang and Sotiris Hji-Agfoustis 2011. Evaluating costs and benefits of a
tourism project: A Case Study of the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, Tourism Today, fall: 172182.
Wilson, David 1999. Metaphors, Growth Coalition Discourses and Black Poverty
Neighborhoods in a U.S. City, Antipode 28(1):72-96.
5