711.40973 C864 cop. 3 ' llllll l llll l lllllllllll H III HI SHh IIIUIIIIIIIIIIIII ^ . 1 I I u ■ . 1 . . ■ ■ t I i|i i ■laMliiilm m iSi Ji l^iyiiHltaibiHJlHHiUH The Crescent City Disaster: A Small Town Rebuilds L ^1 wm\ |g f^ ^ Department of Architecture LIniversity of Illinois at Lrbana -Champaign LINOIS HISTORICAL SURVEY THE CRESCENT CITY DISASTER: A SMALL TOWN REBUILDS Sherry Acord Mary Patricia Lynch *Kathy Cooney Lois Rocker Suzanne Dash Steven Trlerweiler ♦Leonard Lingo ♦Project Directors and Editors Dr. Claude Wlnkelhake, Faculty Advisor Dr. Demitri Shimkin, Project Consultant March, 1978 Sponsored by National Science Foundation Student-Originated Studies NSF-SOS SMI 77-05136 Department of Architecture University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements iii List of Illustrations ^y Introduction 1 Subject and Coals of Research 2 The Explosion ^ Immediate Impact of Explosion 6 Description of the Rebuilding Process 10 Introduction 10 Diagram of Rebuilding Phases 10 Phase One Diagram 12 Summary Events Roles and Policy Phase Two Diagram 20 Summary Events Roles and Policy Phase Three Diagram 30 Summary Events Roles and Policy Phase Four Diagram 3 6 Summary Events Roles and Policy Phase Five Diagram 42 Summary Events Roles and Policy Seven Years After 45 48 Conclusions Methodology 54 Implications for Future Research 57 Appendix 59 ^ NSF-SOS Program 60 tK Definitions of Terms 61 N Crescent City Today 62 I Development in Iroquois County before 1970 64 Questionnaire "^ Structured Interview '6 Bibliography °4 _^ Data Sources Methodology Sources (5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Crescent City research team would like to thank Dr. Claiide Winkelhake, our principal advisor; Dr. Dendtri Shimkin, project consultant; and our faculty advisors. Professors Lachlan Blair, Larry Cohen, Harry Triandis, and Jon Van Es. Special thanks are in order for Dr. Max Ward and the National Science Foundation for rtaking the project possible. Vfe gratefully acknowledge G. Day Ding, as well as the staff of the Departitent of Architecture, especially Brenda Polk, Irene Kipp, Carole Couch, Ginna Mahin, and Marsha Goldenstein. Finally, we extend our special gratitude to the people of Crescent City, Illinois, v^o not only patiently, but enthusiastically, answered our questicxis and offered their insights. Ill LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 Iroquois County Map 3 Figure 2 Explosion, June 21, 1970 4 Figure 3 Main Street, 1960 (looking southeast) 7 Figure 4 Aerial photo looking west, late June, 1970 7 Two-block area outlined. Figure 5 Crescent City map (1977) . Two-block area outlined 8 Figure 6 Diagram of rebuilding phases 10 Figure 7 Phase One diagram of events and lot map 12 Figure 8 Phase Two diagram of events and lot map 20 Figure 9 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Two 21 Figure 10 Comprehensive Plan proposal 26 Figure 11 Phase Three diagram of events and lot map 30 31 Figure 12 A design proposal for block one; Phase Three Figure 13 Phase Four diagram of events and lot map 36 Figure 14 Phase Five diagram of events and lot map 42 Figure 15 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Five 43 Figure 16 Main Street, 1977 (looking southeast from Main and Colfax).... 46 Figure 17 Main Street, 1977 (looking southwest between Grant and Maple). . 46 Figure 18 Diagram of Rebuilding Process 51 Figure 19 Simplified Conceptual Framework, July, 1977 . 55 PHOTO CREDITS The team is indebted to the following people whose photographs appear in this report: Figure 2 Kankakee Daily Journal Figure 3 Dennis Harms, Crescent City, Illinois Figure 4 Danner and Associates, Consulting Engineers, Champaign, Illinois IV z h u 3 Q 0[ h Z INTRODUCTION Subject of Research Crescent City is a small town located in the center of Iroquois County in east central Illinois. Its population in 1977 was about 700. On June 20, 1970, a freight train transporting liquid propane gas de- railed in Crescent City, causing a series of explo- sions which virtually leveled the town's business district. Many homes were also destroyed and others substantially damaged. This research project in- tended to describe the redevelopment process in Crescent City's business district after the disaster. Goals of the Study Our goals were twofold: first, that the information gathered about Crescent City's redevelopment could become part of a later comparative study; and second, that the description be useful, as is, to architects and planners working at the scale of the small town. It is our hope that the analytic framework which we have developed to describe the redevelopment can be used to describe other specific development processes. ILLINOIS 10 40milei IROQUOIS COUNTY S mi lei norf h r I Iroquois County Map THE EXPLOSION By far the most dramatic physical change in Crescent City's history occurred on June 21, 1970. At 6:30 a.m., a freight train on the Toledo, Peoria and Western railway derailed near the Crescent City business dis- trict. The train consisted of 109 cars; a journal on the 20th car had overheated and broken. This car, carrying sand, derailed, and brought the next thirteen cars with it. Nine of these were tank cars carrying liquid propane. Figure 2 Explosion, June 21, 1970 THE EXPLOSION (cont.) One of the tank cars was punctured and released propane gas. Although it is not known how, the gas ignited and flames spread to the nearby build- ings. Crescent City's volunteer firemen arrived on the scene shortly there- after, pouring water on the burning buildings and derailed cars. At this point they believed that they could keep the fire under control and kept positions close to the fire. However, an Illinois State Police sergeant learned that the tank cars contained propane, a fact previously unknown to the firemen. At this point the firemen moved back to safer positions and police began to evacuate the town. More fuel was added to the fire when safety valves on the tank cars re- sponded to the increasing pressure and released some of the gas. Neighbor- ing communities were contacted for assistance. The situation was further complicated by the fact that power lines operating the main water pumps had to be de-energized as they were dangling and exposed to fire. At 7:33 a.m., one of the tank cars exploded with a tremendous force, hurling large portions distances of 600 and 700 feet away. A huge fireball extended hundreds of feet into the air (Fig. 2). This explosion was followed by three others over the course of the next three hours, causing extensive property damage and injuries. Initial confusion, due to the large numbers of local firefighting units with no central authority, was eventually alle- viated by a State Police command post. Crescent City residents were permitted to return to their homes after 2:00 p.m. on June 22nd. Two tank cars were still burning that evening, and one the next day, but these fires were under control. IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF THE EXPLOSION As a result of the explosions, sixty-six people were injured, eleven seriously. Fortunately, there were no deaths immediately attributed to the disaster. Property damage was extensive in the town. Twenty-nine residences (both single-family detached and apartment units) were destroyed, while many others were substantially damaged. The town's two-block business dis- trict (see Figs. 4 and 5) was almost entirely devastated, with sixteen businesses completely destroyed and seven others severely damaged. The subsequent events and activities in Crescent City relative to the redevelopment of its business district form the major substance of this re- port. Figure 3 Main Street, 1960 (looking southeast) Figure ^ Aerial photo looking west, late June, 1970. Two-block area outlined. locati of explosions &MiL fl ^fL Q ^D B B ^ ^ ' 1=Q D D S iavra, E3« a I tQ iQ c n ri^ a [D & r crescent city, illinois ^ leo 100 4(0 1 ^im^ Figure 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE REBUILDING PROCESS Introduction In this section it may appear, especially to any Crescent City resident reading this report, that we are emphasizing the problematic aspects of the rebuilding process in Crescent City at the expense of the experiences many people told us about during our summer of fieldwork. We recognize this em- phasis and wish to state that it has been our intention to highlight the problems the town had to face. By doing this, we hope these rebuilding problems might be more clearly recognized and, therefore, more easily anti- cipated. Hopefully, anyone reading this report on Crescent City's unique experience may learn something of value, should that experience prove to be not so unique. Certain conventions of style were used throughout each section of the report to make its content more understandable. Role/policy sections con- sist of our interpretations and conclusions from our data materials. We have paraphrased some comments made by Crescent City residents during our interviews. Where these are included, the speaker is identified only in terms of the role he or she is playing (businessman, resident, etc.). Para- phrases were selected over direct quotations to help prevent disclosure of the source of the information. Present tense is used to describe events in the events section. All persons are referred to in the masculine gender, although some of the key characters are women. Again, this convention has been used merely to prevent identification of individuals. The reader may wish to refer to the definitions of key terms, found in the Appendix. June 21 1970 Aug 7 NovS Feb 3 1971 Oct 4 Jon 1972 Explosion Decision to form CCDC First non-plan building started Key lot sold to plan non- supporter Block two lots bought by CCDC CCDC building completed PH ON E PHAS TWO E PH TH ASE REE PH FO ASE UR PH FIV ASE 'E Reorgo ond se< nix arch ation for Plan f orm ulotion Depar rebuil ture ding from plan Declin suppoi > of t Plan implen lent ation resources Diagram of rebuilding phases Figure 6 10 (0 0) UJ u cc a z 5 J 3 ui CI IL z a u 01 U] D Jun 21 1970 Exploiion Two blocks of butin«*t oroo lovolod Commujty r«*id*nt« EVENT ROLES Building pormlt ittu«dfar n«w building outtida two block orao Buiinatsmon Villoaa Board Jun 29 Phase One Reorganization and Search for Resources Rabuildingdaiifn taom lalactad HUD houtinf ditcuttad VilioflaBoord LGA County hnuiina Auth Jul 6 Community-wlda planning maating- unifiad rabullding and cooparation itraiiad Ootign Taom Moy or Comniunltw ra«idant» Jul 10 Aug T Dacition to form privata davalopmant corporotion SBA LGA Vilioga Board Co«nniuPitv ratidant^ Economic analyi ii of town complatad Oatign Taam LGA Aug 1 Key to Lot Mop axiiting building Main St. (US. 24) 12 II 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 o u BLOCK TWO 13 j 14 IS 1 16 1 1 7 ' 18 Figure 7 c o «5 Union St. 12 12 II 10 9 8 7 6 5 2 1 4 3 I^ BLOCK ONE □ 14 IS 16 E: 17 3 18 Q. O 25 50 100 faat Phase One — Summary Phase One was essentially an initial organizing phase during which few major decisions were made. However, it is important because it was the time during which the people in Crescent City began to familiarize themselves with the re- sources at their disposal to assist in redevelopment. The distinction between roles in this phase is best made on the basis of resources. Our description has focused mainly on events and roles which relate to the two- block business area. Fifteen people either owned lots or ran businesses in the area prior to the explosion. Crescent City was declared a disaster area by the Small Business Administration (SBA) but not by the federal government since the explosion was not an "act of God." This was significant in that it precluded the possibility of Crescent City benefitting from several different federal disaster aid program. The only rebuilding money immediately available was through the SBA 502 program. SBA deals only with private interests, making it necessary to form a private develop- ment corporation. Definite commitments from prospective renters were required before any money would be loaned by SBA. In effect, it became not only desirable, but financially necessary, to elicit unified cooperation in order to qualify for the loans. While SBA did have a program to make loans to individuals, the stipulations of this program were such that only one person applied for and received this loan. Planning funds obtained from LGA were made available to the design team chosen by the Village Board. LGA required that a comprehensive plan for the entire community be developed. Specific architectural design was not part of the planning report. 13 Phase One — Events: June 21, 1970 to August 6, 1970 June 21 As a result of the explosions and fire, the following businesses have been destroyed in the two-block business district: gas station 2 taverns hardware store barbershop poultry and feed store piano tuning and repair shop laundromat sheet metal business beauty shop machine shop tool and die business construction office auto repair corn crib and two steel bins Two vacant buildings have also been destroyed, as well as seven apartments (owned by two different people) . The U.S. Post Office and Iroquois Township Building are leveled also. June 22 Residents are permitted to re-enter Crescent City and clean-up efforts begin, both on the private level and with assistance from various agencies. Emergency relief is provided by the Red Cross, and clean-up assistance comes from various government agencies and volunteers. June 23 Governor Ogilvie visits Crescent City and promises to do what he can to help. A special meeting is held at the town hall, with repre- sentatives in attendance from the Better Business Bureau, the Watseka First Trust and Savings, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) . Crescent City has been declared a disaster area by SBA, but not by the federal government, since the explosion was not "an act of God." June 29 The Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad accepts finan- cial responsibility for the disaster, and railroad adjusters begin immediately to accept and settle claims. The first announcement of intent to rebuild is made by one owner of a business destroyed in the two-block area. At a town meeting, a building permit is Issued to this owner allowing him to put up a prefabricated building on a different site. Also at this meeting, an 18-month limit is placed on the use of trailers as temporary housing. A disaster fund is established at the Watseka First Trust and Savings. 14 Phase One — Events (cont.) July 6 At the Village Board regular meeting, two representatives of the Iroquois County Housing Authority make a presenta- tion explaining the possibilities of HUD-financed low- income and elderly housing for Crescent City. Crescent City may be eligible for this support now, because so many homes have been destroyed; also because there is a higher than average percentage of persons over 65 living in the town. A resolution is passed requesting the Housing Authority to apply for 30 units of housing. At the same meeting, two representatives of the State Department of Local Government Affairs (LGA) help the Board make the final selection of the architectural firm which will do the planning work for the redevelopment. A firm from Champaign, Illinois is selected. July 10 A community-wide planning meeting is held at the Crescent City grade school, attended by about 125 persons. Two major issues are discussed: Small Business Administration (SBA) funding and the work to be done by the design team. The SBA representative explains that SBA deals only with private interests, not with local governments. Through the SBA 502 program, low-interest (5 1/2%) loans can be made to a local private corporation for 90% of the cost of construction of new business buildings. (Private lend- ing institutions, at regular interest rates, must be tried first.) However, the local corporation is responsible for the remaining 10% of the cost of construction and can rent or eventually sell property to individual businessmen. Before a loan can be approved, a corporation must be formed and definite commitments by prospective renters must be obtained. At the same meeting, the members of the design team, in- cluding architects, planners, and consultants (including economic and geological) are introduced to the audience. A spokesman for the team announces a timetable of work to begin immediately, culminating in the release of their recommendations in six weeks. The State Department of Local Government Affairs, under its 701 program, will pay for 2/3 of the planning costs; the Village will pay the rest. The mayor of Crescent City urges citizens to make their feelings known. The desirability of a coherent, unified business district is stressed by the SBA representative and the design team, with emphasis on private redevelopment. July 21 The contract is signed between the planning team and the Department of Local Government Affairs (LGA). 15 Phase One — Events (cont.) July 23 The Watseka Daily Times-Republic announces a question- naire, dealing with local shopping patterns and prefer- ences, which will contribute to the analysis being done by the economic consultant. July 30 The economic and geological reports for the design team are completed and sent to LGA. Results are not yet pre- sented to town members, but will be used as a basis for later planning decisions. 16 Phase One — Roles and Policy Railroad The railroad resources. S those who had is that settl value of the aJ 1 of the bu than 50 years value was abo played an important role due to its financial ettlements were made almost immediately with property damage or loss. An important point ements were made based on the pre-disaster property, not the replacement cost. Since ildings in the business district were more old, and some much older, the pre-disaster ut 25% of replacement costs in most cases. Businessmen The businessmen in the two-block area had the most important resource: the property to be redeveloped. As might be expected, some varying opinions were expressed regarding the railroad settlements for property damage: (Village Board member): Some people made money off the settlements. 50% were satisfied, 50% were not, but knowing those people, nothing would have satis- fied them. Design Team Local Government County Government State Government (Businessman) : (Town resident) Some businessmen really cleaned up — $10,000 for a $1000 building. Two of the empty storefronts on Main Street could have been bought for $5000 or $5500 apiece, but would cost $40,000 to replace. The design team's resource was its expertise. Using its expertise, it was responsible for developing a rebuilding plan and acting in an advisory capacity. It had two formal clients — LGA and the Village Board — and two "informal" cli- ents — the businessmen and community residents. On the public side, governmental agencies at four levels interacted with the town during phase one. At the local level, the mayor had the necessary leadership qualities and some contacts at higher levels of government. The Village Board had the official authority to make public decisions. However, the types of decisions they were called upon to make now were much broader in scope than the decisions they had been responsible for previously. At the county level, the Iroquois County Housing Authority acted as a channelling device for federal housing funds. Two roles were important at the state level: the governor and the Department of Local Government Affairs (LGA) . The governor had contacts, visibility, and official authority. He initiated many contacts for Crescent City in an attempt to get funds. Many of these contacts did get in touch with the mayor. 17 Phase One — Roles and Policy (cont.) LGA, being a public agency, had stipulations regarding the use of its 701 planning funds, which were federal in origin. LGA required that a report, including a compre- hensive plan, be prepared. Specific architectural work would be additional, under a separate contract. (Design team member) : There was disagreement between the planners and the architects about the importance of developing plans as opposed to writing a re- port. Federal Government Finally, at the federal level, three roles were important in Phase One. HUD was a prospective source of money in the form of subsidized housing. SBA was a prospective source of loans; its stipulations regarding the necessity of a local corporation were extremely important in shaping the course of future events. The third role at the federal level was influential not for what it did, but for what it didn't do. That is, the appropriate federal authorities chose not to name Crescent City a disaster area and, therefore, it was not eligible for certain federal disaster assistance programs. 18 Aug 7 1970 Decision to form private develop- ment corporation (CCDC) SBA LGA Villoge Board Community resident 5 Development Corporation formed. Boord of directors elected CCDC Community residents Aug 27 Phase Iv/o Plan Formulation Initial rebuilding plans discussed at CCDC meeting CCDC Design Teom Sep 16 Purchase of block one and two lot options begins CCDC Lot Owners Sep 28 Comprehensive planning report presented at community meeting Nov 5 First non-plan building in block one started Bu sinessmon DesignTeom CCDC Community residenti.. Oct 12 Approval of thirty units HUD housing Village Board County housing Auth Oct 30 Key to Lot Map Land Purchase Building ^ by CCDC (option) existing Main St. (U.S. 24) J 1 1 r^ Vs \\ 5 r; v|| ■10 H / -6^ .S 4 J ^^^ • I-- sN \.>k. V.\ -k-ik. S N i-A BLOCK TWO o u 1 13 j 14 1 15 j 1 16 1 7 1 18 1 1 i __^ X^ v\ \^ \\ 12 II 10 n'> ^^ 7N N*- t} 4 3 2 1 o BLOCK ONI iW 14 h- 15 r 16 y 17 -< 18 a o s Figure 8 Union St. 20 Phase Two — Summary In this phase a community based development corporation (CCDC) was formed and a board of directors elected. The same planning design team was chosen to de- velop an architectural rebuilding plan for the CCDC. The design team in the first two phases worked with businessmen mainly through the mayor. The mayor and design team continued to look for sources of rebuilding funds in addition to SBA funds. The planning report was presented at a community-wide meeting. Later, one businessman requested a building permit in block one, indicating that some businessmen did not wish to wait for organized rebuilding. The CCDC began to purchase lot options in the two-block area. ^°in St T««n c*nt»r Villag* hall / Stor«( 44 ( ruQi *- Drug Shops Hordwor. Bonk Union St Figure 9 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Two 21 Phase Two — Events; August 6, 1970 through November 5, 1970 August 6 A public meeting is held with 200 people in attendance. The planning team submits the results of the market survey, which indicate that 12,571 people would use a new shopping center in Crescent City, with a pur- chase volume of $450, 000/year . The businesses named most desirable are a bank, grocery, hardware store, variety store, restaurant, beauty shop, laundromat, and a barber shop. August 20 The SBA representative again explains the conditions of SBA loans and the need for a private corporation. It is announced that a development corporation will be formed, with the board and officers to be chosen soon. 75 people pledge $25 each to the corporation. A representative of Eisner's, a grocery store chain, tells the Village Board that in order to operate a store in Crescent City, he will need to take in $8,000 a week. August 27 100 residents are present at a meeting at which the Crescent City Development Corporation (CCDC) is formed. An 11-member board, including a director, are elected from 29 nominees. The same architectural firm is hired to do additional work, not part of the LGA contract, as needed. September 9 The first CCDC board meeting is held at the high school, The top priority is to get a grocery store to come in to the new village center. The possibility is dis- cussed that there could be more market potential than was indicated in the survey if a larger area were con- sidered. September 16 100 members of the CCDC meet at the grade school to hear a progress report by the design team. Plans call for a new shopping center on block 2 with future expan- sion into block 1. September 25 CCDC begins trying to buy options on lots in block 1 of the 2-block area. The board members feel that de- velopment can best be handled in a unified way if all the lots are under a single ownership, or at least op- tioned by the same owner. October 12 October 15 At a public meeting the rebuilding report and community plan required by LGA are presented to community residents. CCDC obtains options on Lots 2, 5, 9, 10; 11 in block 2. 22 Phase Two — Events October 16 October 17 October 19 October 30 November 1 November 2 The principal architect advi that LGA will pay $2500 unde if CCDC wll match the funds, sonal interviews be held wit the business district, and t to get firm commitments for the corporation. (At this t the corporation were highly that substantial investments to raise enough money to imp ses the CCDC chairman r the second contract He suggests that per- h owners and lessors in hat stock options be sold stock to be sold later by ime, the expectations for optimistic. It was hoped would be made in order lement the plan.) CCDC obtains options on Lots 1, 6 in block 2. CCDC obtains options on Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 in block 1. The Watseka Daily Times-Republic announces that the County Housing Authority has received notice of HUD approval of 20 low-rent housing units in Crescent City (6 low-income and 14 elderly). The mayor estimates a $250,000 grant (1/3 of expenses) will be needed to keep costs down and rents affordable in the new village center. At the regular Village Board meeting, the Assistant State's Attorney from Iroquois County is present to discuss the HUD housing project. Also, a building permit is issued to a businessman to rebuild in block 1. 23 Phase Two — Roles and Policy CCDC The CCDC was formed to make the town eligible for an SBA 502 loan. Businessmen and community residents were asked to contribute $25 each to become members of the not-for-profit corporation. It assumed respon- sibility for local management of rebuilding in the destroyed two-block area. Its success depended upon cooperation among businessmen and lot owners within that area, community residents, and the design team. A board of 11 members was elected to direct the CCDC efforts. Design Team Both the mayor and the principal architect were very busy during this phase trying to locate possible sources of public funds. The approval of the HUD housing was the only source of funding which came through during this phase, but this did nothing to help commercial development. The design team made their recommendations for rebuilding during this phase. They recommended that: — the village center be rebuilt as a private venture — the CCDC immediately obtain options on all property in blocks one and two. Block two would be needed for immediate development and block one for future expansion. — the CCDC solicit letters of intent from prospective tenants — the development consist of nine store units of vary- ing sizes and their related parking — parking should be off-street — the development should be convenient, easily ac- cessible, preserve the rural appearance, have a distinct appearance, be of economical construction, and be well landscaped. Problems arose due to differing expectations about the desired outcome of the planning work. (Design team member) : In a sense, there were two cli- ents: LGA and the town. LGA did more than the townspeople wanted or expected. People did not care about future develop- ment, but LGA money was origi- nally federal money, and neces- sitated a general community plan. People felt the plan was too non-specific . 24 Phase Two — Roles and Policy (cont.) (Design team member) : In the peoples' opinion, only the leveled blocks ought to be developed "right"; in the rest of the area, the didn't want the architects or city hall to interfere. A diagrammatic map of the comprehensive plan can be seen in Figure 10. Community Residents Some of those we interviewed stated that there were mixed feelings toward the CCDC from the very beginning. To some, the CCDC board elections seemed predetermined. (Businessman) : They railroaded their men in. Some people were disillusioned when they felt they had no say in the decision-making process. There was also misunderstanding about what a development corporation was for and what it proposed to do. (Village official); Everyone on the board was soli- citing door-to-door, but people didn't want to buy a share without getting anything in re- turn. They had never heard of a development corporation. Since at one time the CCDC had considered financing re- building through issuing bonds, the reactions of com- munity residents to rebuilding were important. The fear that rents would be too high in the new Village Center without some sort of aid was becoming more widespread. Crescent City, it was feared, could not compete with the larger nearby towns. The design team's plans seemed overly optimistic and expensive. (CCDC member) (Town resident) : (Town resident) People were all hepped up for rebuilding, but the architect's plans scared them. The "older generation" in Crescent City would not accept any plan so grand. They (the design team) presented plans and drawings, but the peo- ple were only interested in fi- nancing. When they got their insurance money, they were no longer interested in big plans. 25 26 n i>| Hn « nMu ) >"Mm iiii nn rr7 i Trn t> n i inM >i uM ii m i MHM I nh »> mu > ii mm i HHM in iien 7 lc =^ Figure 10 Comprehensive Plan proposal 27 Phase Two — Roles and Policy Lot Owners The owners of lots in the two-block area began to play active roles, either in support or non-support of the CCDC by selling or not selling options to their lots. All but six owners in the two-block area sold options very early. These six had various reasons for holding back: One person wanted to rebuild the apartments he had owned before, but this use did not conform to the planned commercial use for his lots. 28 Phase Two — Roles and Policy One other person did not want to sell to the CCDC because he distrusted their motives; it was a "land grab". Ke was not particularly interested in re- building, feeling that his one lot was too narrow (25'), and he knew the owners of the contiguous properties were unlikely to sell to him. Another property in question during phase two was owned by a person who did not live in Crescent City. Relatives were operating the business for him, but they did not want to rebuild after the ex- plosion for reasons of health and the feeling that the business could not survive much longer. I'Jhy they did not sell options immediately is not known. One of them was on the Village Board at the time. Three owners wanted to rebuild their businesses im- mediately on the same lots, although one wanted to build a different type of business. They did not want to wait for the CCDC and its plan to come through. One of these owners received a permit to rebuild on the same lot. The permit had been withheld earlier due to noncompliance with new zoning requirements for setback. (Village Board member) : He wanted to put his build- ing right back where it was and resented being told what to do. A Village Board member convinced the Board that this person was losing money every day and couldn't live off the railroad settlement because it had to be used for rebuilding. 29 Nov 5 1970 First non— plan building in block one started Businessman EVENT ROLES JWA survey shovi^s lack of suoport for rebuiding plan JWA CCDC Community residents Late Nov Phase Three Departure from Rebuilding Plan 40 residents oppeor at village board meeting to discuss HUD housing Village board Community residents Dec 7 Block one lot sold to private businessman Businessmen Dec 30 Feb 3 Purchase of lot back half block two by private businessman Businessman Lot owner UJ U1 ec < D I o a. u. Resolution to Purchose lots on back half block two for $40 per frontage foot Village board Feb 1 1971 Key to Lot Map Lend Purchase Building by individual by CCDC (option) existing Laa__J new construction Main St (US 24) v\ \\ \N s\ \\ \\ S\ 12 1 •Ih 1 1 8 7 1 4 3 1 1 o u BLOCK TWO 13 1 14 j 15 1 16 1 1 7 18 o 10 l: .\\ ■■ \ BLOCK ONE ^ 14 15 V 16 17 < 18 a o Figure 11 Union St. 30 Main St Shops Laundry Existing Store - 1 Telephone Exchange V 1 Pa rki ng 110 cart 1 1 \ 6 units HUD housing 8 units HUD housing 11-27-70 Figure 12 Phase Three — Sununary Union St A design proposal for block one; Phase Three In this phase the first major departure from the rebuilding plan occurred. The village board, which had been trying to prevent rebuilding on either block, so that the rebuilding plan could be implemented in its entirety, gave up on the less important block one. Several businessmen, without business or other income, were feeling the pinch of living expenses and taxes. The CCDC continued, without success, to seek sources of money and potential new business. Recognizing a decline in community support, a survey of residents was organized by the Junior Women's Association. The results of this survey were disappointing. The town board began to encounter resistance to HUD housing from community resi- dents. Late in this phase it attempted to aid the CCDC by trying to purchase lots in the still-vacant block two. 31 Phase Three — IwenCs : November 5, 1970 through February 3, 1971 November 5 Ground is broken for a new building on lot 12, block one. The design team, along with a local contractor, helped de- sign it. November 19 A local service organization, the Junior Women's Association (JWA) , announces that they will conduct a survey of community residents in cooperation with the CCDC. Questions included relate to interest in the proposed Village Center, willing- ness to use it, willingness to invest in it and the CCDC, and any suggestions or complaints. November 30 The mayor sends a letter to a congressional representative to see if he can contact HUD about obtaining funds from their demonstration program. He estimates that $450,000 would be needed for the first phase of the demonstration program. December 7 Forty community residents appear at a town board meeting to discuss HUD housing. December 30 A block-one lot owner sells his lot to a businessman who wants to rebuild a business. January 18, 1971 The mayor sends a letter to the state representative stating that the village needs $50,000 to buy lots to be reserved for the Village Center. February 1 At a regular Village Board meeting, the board passes a reso- lution to purchase lots on the back half of block two. 32 Phase Three — Roles and Folic ■zX. Businessmen When one businessman began rebuilding on block one, the likelihood of implementing many of the design team's re- building recommendations dropped. Several reasons were given for the departure. (Village board member) (Town resident) The businessman was bound and de- termined to rebuild in the same spot. The businessman didn't want to be told where to rebuild. (Village board member): (CCDC member) The businessman couldn't live off the insurance settlement, so the village board allowed the build- ing to be built. The CCDC got tired of fighting in- dividual rebuilding efforts and gave up on block one. The lack of business income and the prospect of paying tax on insurance settlements were certainly forces to be reckoned with. One other businessman purchased an adjoining lot in block one, thus showing his intention to rebuild individually. The unity of businessmen needed for an integrated rebuild- ing was eroding. CCDC The CCDC faced two major problems during this phase. First, thb CCDC had to obtain commitments from potential renters before it could receive an SBA loan and begin building, but had little success in locating any. (CCDC member): The CCDC couldn't get that many renters at once. (Village official); The CCDC tried hard to attract new business. It advertised in newspapers, but this was unsuccess- ful; most potential lessors wanted a building that was already built. The CCDC was in the unenviable position of not being able to attract new renters until a building was there, and not being able to get a new building until it got new renters. The rebuilding in block one removed two potential renters. Second, the CCDC had no success in finding outside sources of funding for commercial purposes other than SBA. The CCDC also looked for funds from private individuals to finance the rebuilding plan. A tentative project analysis 33 Phase Three — Roles and Policy (cent.) indicated that $300,000 would be needed for the first four years of operation. The development corporation, in its early stages, tried without success to find 100 people willing to invest $3000 each in bonds which would return 6% interest after four years. Community Residents Support from community residents, as well as businessmen, was an important resource which declined during this phase. Since government funds had not come through, money from within the community became the principal source of funds. Some perceived the rebuilding plan to be unfeasible when first presented in phase two. This perception may have been intensified as no potential renters were found, no new sources of funding were discovered, and as individual rebuilding efforts began. We obtained some impressions of this decline in interviews. (Village official) Rebuilding caused substantial divi- sion in the community. Many who gave money to the CCDC ($25 initial contribution) didn't support it 100% as time went on. (CCDC member) (CCDC member) When people found out state and fed- eral governments were not going to rebuild the town, they backed down. The plan lost impetus when Eisner's decided not to come in; the grocery was needed as a nucleus for the plan. (Design team member) Village Board For their plans, time was of the essence. When buildings (inde- pendently constructed) started to go up, time was lost. HUD housing had been suggested as part of the rebuilding plan. Community residents began to question the need for it during this phase. The Village Board continued to act in support of the CCDC by pressing ahead for HUD housing for the town. The mayor actively pursued new sources of funding and looked for potential commercial renters. The board was also important in a passive sense for the actions it permitted: issuance of a rebuilding permit in block one. According to the re- building plan, block one was to be used for future expan- sion; however, the board did permit more immediate rebuild- ing on it, while it tried to retain block two for a complete village center. Later in this phase, the village board at- tempted to purchase the remaining lots in block two for the development corporation. 34 Feb 3 1971 Phase Four Decline of Support Oct 4 1 Purchase of lot back half block two by businessman Village lots purchased bock by CCDC Businessman Lot owner CCDC Villaae Board UJ 1/1 < I Ol Ul > u. EVENT Another lot back half block two purchased by businessman $25,000 received forpurchose of lots in block two Non-plan building started Optioned lots purchosed by village board ROLES Businessman Lot Owner Village Board State Government Businessman Village Board CCDC Feb 19 Apr 15 May May Key to Lot Mop L ond Pu re hose Building ^ by individual by Village Board ex i St inc nn n ew construction Main St. (aSZ4l o u BLOCK TWO m 1 ] 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 14 I 15 j 16 i 1 D 7 [ 18 Figure 13 o O ._ '/y ] 1 ^ J 9 a 5 4 3 7 1 12 II 10 ^ / /. BLOCK ONE L^n u 15 16 y 17 18 Union St. a s 36 Phase Four — Summary Until the beginning of this phase, the major obstacles preventing rebuilding were the lack of sufficient funds to purchase lots and build, and the lack of success attracting prospective new business. The lesser importance of block one for rebuilding made it expendable and one businessman was allowed to begin rebuilding there. At the beginning of this phase, one businessman purchased lots in the back of block two, later building a residence upon them. This pre- vented the rebuilding plan from being implemented at the scale originally en- visioned by the design team. Village Board, and CCDC. The Village Board would not, or could not, prevent independent rebuilding upon these lots. Several factors may have influenced this: — the community's continuing decline in interest and support for unified re- building — the growing controversy over HUD housing, which was linked with the plan in many peoples' minds — the conflict within the community which the rebuilding had generated and which residents wanted to see stopped. Later in the phase the village board received money from the State with which to purchase lots. This was accomplished, though not without difficulty, with the purchase of lots in the front of black two. This opened the way for the CCDC to purchase lots back from the village at a nominal price. 37 Phase Four — Events : February 3 February 19 March 29 April 5 April 15 May 1-31 June 7 February 3, 1971 through October 4, 1971 One businessman purchases lot 18 on the back of block two. Same businessman purchases part of lot 14 and all of lot 15 on the back of block two. They are to be used for his residence. Village Board decides to immediately activate the village zoning committee. At a regular Village Board meeting 20 people appear with a petition containing 175 signatures opposing low income/ elderly housing; however, the Board decides that they will notify the county housing authority that they will stand by their previous decision to support the project. The Village Board receives $25,000 from the State to purchase lots in blocks one and two. A building permit is issued for construction of a residence on the back of block two and a business in block one. Another businessman on block two trades the front of his lot with the Village Board in exchange for the back of an adjacent lot. He begins construction of his building during this month. The Village Board purchases two lots in block one, all but one of the front lots in block two, and one back lot in block two. The village takes over CCDC land options. At a Village Board meeting, no decisions are made concern ing HUD housing. Also, a block two businessman is given one week to decide about selling his property on the front of block two before condemnation proceedings begin. 38 Phase Four — Roles and Policy Village Board After many months of activity on the part of the Village Board and CCDC with few visible results, the Village Board tried to regain momentum for the plan by attempting to purchase lots on block two. When some of these lots in block two were purchased by a businessman, the Village Board could have in- fluenced the subsequent rebuilding by exercising its authority to refuse building permits and condemn land, but it did not. The Board did attempt to impose restrictions on all individual businesses rebuilt, in the form of a revised zoning ordinance. Also, in at least one instance condemnation of land was threatened. Later in this phase the Village Board purchased all re- maining lots in blocks one and two with money pro- vided by the State. State Government Businessmen Village Board members played a variety of roles within the community (neighbor, business contact, etc.). The demands of each of these roles strongly influenced each village board member in his role as a board mem- ber, thus making the board responsible to the commu- nity in many ways, and influencing the board's actions. The State gave a $25,000 grant to the town to be used for purchase of lots late in this phase. The purchase of lots in the back of block two by in- dividual businessmen was the most influential single act in the rebuilding of Crescent City, because it removed the possibility of building a single block shopping mall as envisioned by the design team and CCDC. This property was now to be used as a residence rather than a business. Community Residents Shortly after this another block-two businessman announced his intention to rebuild in block two, ig- noring recommendations regarding setback from the highway and selection of building materials. Other businessmen were still very reluctant to sell block- two lots to the Village Board. Community support continued to decline in this phase. Our interviews suggested several important influences which were serving as dividing forces within the com- munity at this time. The rebuilding plan appeared extravagant, especially as time passed without visible results, and as sufficient money sources failed to materialize. Mistrust of the design team and CCDC developed among some community residents. Any lack of faith, founded or unfounded, would reduce the chances of unified rebuilding. 39 Phase Four — Roles and Policy (cent.) Community residents were becoming tired of the conflict between groups which the rebuilding effort seemed to create. (Village official): There was no history of con- flict with businessmen before the disaster. Division caused by the issue of HUD housing also ap- peared to decrease support for the Village Board, CCDC, and rebuilding plan. (Community resident) : At the time they were consider- ing putting in the housing projects, the town rejected them. (Design team member) : Community leaders were inter- ested in low income/elderly housing, but the townspeople were not. 40 Oct 4 1971 Phase Five Plan Implementation Late Dec 1 Purchase of lots in block two from village CCDC building completed CCDC Villaqe boarcJ CCDC EVENT ROLES CCDC building started CCDC Mid Oct Key to Lot Map Land Purchose Building WA by individual by Village Boa rd by CCDC existing new construction Moln St ( U.S 24) o u c □ O 12 5 F /. 8 7/ "A BLOCK ONE ^ 14 15 16 \ 17 3 18 a S Figure 14 Union St. 42 Phase Five — Summary In this phase the remnants of the rebuilding plan of the CCDC and design team were implemented. Most individual businessmen who intended to rebuild had either started to rebuild or were back in business by this phase. The CCDC purchased lots in block two from the village board and completed the building that now houses the town's only grocery. The two-block area, for all practical purposes, was now rebuilt. The HUD housing project was dropped. o Main St TT {^ ^ G Union Si A^ 1 Tavern Grocery Future expansion ' \ D ~) Pof I Office Reitauronl Tavern Beauty thop Existing Building a o Figure 15 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Five Phase Five — Events: October 4, 1971 to January 1972 October 4 CCDC buys lots 6-10, block two from the village. Low income/elderly housing project is dropped for lack of support witliin the town. Mid-October December Construction begins on the CCDC building. Construction of the building for the CCDC is completed, and a convenience grocery store opens within it. &-K Phase Five — Roles and Policy Village Board During this phase the Village Board finally dropped the HUD housing project due to lack of agreement over its importance among community residents. The board itself was still in favor of the idea. CCDC The CCDC was unable to obtain an SBA loan to purchase land and start construction of a building until it found businessmen willing to rent or buy space. During this phase it found a businessman from outside the town willing to do so and obtained the SBA 502 loan. The grocery opened a little over one and one-half years after the explosion. Community Residents Significantly, this one and a half year time period is the approximate time period which many people felt was the length of time it took for the town to return to normal following the explosion, and so, arbitrarily marks the time our interest in Crescent City's rebuilding ends. 44 Seven Years After Today the only sign of the destruction which occurred in Crescent City is a monu- ment with a small sculpture made from train wreckage, just west of the city hall. The town has clean, one-story, commercial buildings lining the south side of Route 2A . Well-kept homes lie behind the commercial strip and north of the TP&W tracks. Most people do not mind talking about the events of seven years ago. They will tell you they really like the appearance of the new town, and most will minimize the importance of the old town. In fact some will joke with you and even say that the explosion was a form of instant urban renewal — it got rid of a lot of old buildings which needed to be torn down anyway. The people of Crescent City continue to display the durability which enabled them to rebuild their town. 45 Figure lb Main Street, 1977 (looking southeast from Main and Colfax) Figure 17 Main Street, 1977 (looking southwest between Grant and Maple) (0 z (0 3 J u z u CONCLUSIONS Public Policy Our initial intent for this study was to identify and describe the groups or individuals influential in public policy formation in Crescent City. This would be limited to policy directly related to redevelopment in the destroyed commercial district. We began by formulating the following definition of pub- lic policy: "a stated or implied set of priorities within a defined area of juris- diction resulting in decisions which attempt to respond to problems within the area of jurisdiction." As the research proceeded, we found that there was not one set of priori- ties directing decision-making, but many. It seemed to make more sense to think in terms of micro-policy, the decision-making rules for specific roles, rather than an overall policy which directed the course of action. We have now defined policy as Richard Bellman did in "Dynamic Programming," as a set of rules telling one what decision to make in terms of the present state of the system. As will be discussed later in this section, the scale of the small town seems to be a very important consideration. We suggest that the small town dif- fers from the city, or the region, not only in size but in structure. There may be a continuum of scale along which the concept of public policy needs to be adjusted. Awareness of these structural differences could prevent unnecessary problems for architects and planners working at the small town scale. We would now like to summarize the major problems which arose during the redevelopment of Crescent City. Rather than making recommendations for design professionals to follow, based on this one isolated example, we prefer to pre- sent our conslusions as potential problems to be anticipated. As every situa- tion is different, it is our hope that the framework we have developed (Fig. 18) would be more useful to the designer than the specifics of the Crescent City situation. The major problems which occurred during Crescent City's redevelopment process can be placed into five categories: money, time, context, goals, and scale. Money Perhaps the most obvious problem was the lack of money, or more accurately, the failure to mobilize it. Public sources of financing failed to materialize early enough. The only outright grants came from the State of Illinois (for purchase of lots) and Local Government Affairs (for planning). Small Business Administration loans carried the stipulation that potential renters be pre-committed; this brought about a costly loss of time and limited some possibilities of attracting renters later. Private up-front money was not as readily available as initially hoped. The problem seems to be more a reluctance to invest than a lack of funds. This was due to several reasons: some mistrust of the CCDC board, the village of- ficials, and the architects; misunderstanding of the purpose of a development corporation; disagreement over the physical features of the plan; a general at- titude of conservatism toward spending money; and a rather widely-held belief that Crescent City did not need, and could not support, much commercial develop- ment. 48 CONCLUSIONS Money (cont.) The loss of income by businessmen with destroyed businesses necessitated a fast solution to the problem. This was complicated by related problems: insurance compensations were not enough to replace the destroyed buildings; and it was difficult in some cases to document lost inventories. These condi- tions made it somewhat difficult for the businessmen who had lost businesses to get enough money to rebuild. More potential renters for the new village center were lost when some of the older businessmen decided to retire r;ither then go back into business. Time Time was a crucial factor which contributed to erosion of support for the plan. The early enthusiasm exhibited at the first meetings after the explosion died out as reality set in. The early work done by the design team was largely conceptual rather than specific, partly due to LGA's requirements. The need was for a fast solution; loss of income as time passed without a building in which to conduct business became more crucial. People were not willing to wait for the plan to be developed in a more specific way. Support for the plan faltered as disappointing market survey results came in, the expected federal money did not materialize, and the unpopular HUD hous- ing was tacked onto the project. As buildings were constructed in block one, which was to have been reserved for future expansion, and the back half of block two, which was to have been included in the initial phase of development, the possibilities were severely restricted and more time was lost. Context When Crescent City was first laid out in the 1860's, it had two primary "reasons for being": the railroad and the grain elevator. At the time, the town was relatively self-sufficient and the commercial strip which grew up along Highway 24 served most of the needs of the residents. But later changes favored development elsewhere: the railroad ceased to carry passengers; Route 24 was widened and paved, and major north-south routes intersected 24 elsewhere (Route 45 at Oilman and 1 at Watseka; much later, 1-57 at Oilman and 1-65 in Indiana. See Fig. 1). All of these factors reduced Crescent City status as a favorable business or industrial location relative to other towns. Oilman, Watseka, Kankakee, Kentland (Indiana), and, further away, Chicago and Champaign-Urbana , grew for various reasons. Easily accessible from Crescent City, they provided jobs and low prices only their larger competitive markets could stand. In 1970, Crescent City was no longer self-sufficient and had no need for commercial development aside from the "convenience" type. Anything beyond that could survive only if it were able to attract business from outside the com- munity. This was not attempted, partly because of the financial risk involved, and partly because bringing in "outsiders" was generally felt to be undesirable. Goals There was no agreement on goals for the redevelopment project, relative to its nature and scope. The design team worked primarily through the village officials and CCDC board, who had optimistic, long-term goals for the project. They felt that business could be attracted to the town to support a somewhat more ambitious development. Many community residents, however, withheld needed 49 CONCLUSIONS Goals (cont.) support because they took a more conservative position. They preferred not to risk competing with larger nearby towns and were content to settle for a small convenience- type shopping development. In actuality, the proposed development was not far removed from that; but many people misunderstood it, having trouble visualizing it based on the architects' drawings and model. They tended to visualize a much more extensive shopping center than what was intended. A few individuals with short-term goals controlled the situation because they owned key parcels of land. The formal power structure was not the control- ling force in this situation. The scale of decision-making was at the level of individual goals, rather than community-wide goals. Scale Crescent City has avoided many of the problems of larger towns and cities simply because of its size. There are few public services (no police force, no sewers), thus capital expenditures are low and so are taxes. The low taxes and lack of big-city problems are important reasons why people live there, although local family ties seem to be the most prevalent reason. All of this helps to explain why there is a tendency to resist local change, and a fear of ambitious or larger-scale development. As mentioned earlier, some of the qualitative, rather than quantitative, implications of small-town scale are very important. The formal power structure in Crescent City, the Village Board, was not effectively in control of land use in the two-block area. The re-activated zoning ordinance was not enforced all the time; possible actions such as property condemnation were threatened but never used, to our knowledge. We can make two observations about this. First, as a result of the explosion, the Village Board was forced into a new role for which it was not prepared. Pre- viously, its functions were to manage the water supply system, and to let con- tracts for small-scale repairs and improvements on public property. But as the elected decision-making body for the town, it was expected to manage clean-up after the explosion, and eventually, to manage redevelopment. The design team could only make recommendations — ultimately the decisions, and their enforcement, had to rest on local officials, either of the CCDC or the Village Board. The second observation is really a continuation of the first. Every indivi- dual in Crescent City was playing more than one role during any given phase. Sometimes these roles came into conflict. Village Board and CCDC board members were also neighbors, business contacts, churchgoers and Softball teammates, to people who opposed the redevelopment plan. While the Boards as entities had collective goals for the community, the individuals who made them up had their own individual goals which sometimes took higher priority. They were reluctant to enforce some things at the risk of losing friendships or business. Again, the scale of decision-making was individual rather than community-wide. 50 c Explosion D Need for rebui Iding determined Diaaram of Rebuilding Process Rebui Idi ng group formed PTtonol Influence Rebuilding plan formulated P'on Pr omot ion G roups and Individuoh with resources needed for rebuilding Mobilize resources according to rebuilding plan Mobilize resources but not according to rebuilding plan Do not mobiliie resources Plan Implementation Non- plan Implemento ion Revi'g plon "O Figure 18 pg Effects of ^ resource decisions 51 >■ (D J Q I h Ul METHODOLOGY Large scale disaster causes many serious problems of recovery. Rebuild- ing is but one aspect of the total problem, and while not the most immediate one, it appears that it may be the most pervasive one. We chose to study Crescent City because the magnitude of the rebuilding problems it had to face seemed disproportionate to its small size. We t mght this would make the rebuilding process more apparent than under normal circumstances. In the case of Crescent City the slow, incremental changes tiat usually occur in the built environment materialized overnight, thus providing a unique opportunity to ob- serve the process of change in a small toxvm magnified in scope and intensified in t ime . It was our desire to collect information abouL the rebuilding of Crescent City, then develop a model of the rebuilding process from the town's own ex- periences, rather than testing the validity of other process models of rebuild- ing. At a later time our process model of rebuilding i:i Crescent City could be compared to other models. One of the stipulations of our research grant from the National Science Foundation was that the research be interdisciplinary; considering the broad scope of useful inquiry for phenomena occurring at the larger scale, we felt an interdisciplinary approach was mandatory. If the results of our interdis- ciplinary inquiry were to be expressed in a format which was usable for the de- sign and planning professions, the information needed to be integrated across disciplinary lines rather than divided by them. This goal seemed achievable if our analysis was drawn directly from the data. For these reasons the development of a conceptual framework for analysis was the most important, yet most difficult, aspect of our research. The frame- work had to account for all useful units of analysis — with each unit in proper relation to other units. The structure of this framework was not substantially completed until the final stage of data collection began, and has since been refined as the analysis has progressed. Data Collection Data was collected in three major stages: 1) pre-summer, 2) summer- background, and 3) summer- focused. Pre-summer . Our main intent was to determine the availability of documen- tary sources of data such as town histories and local newspaper accounts. We also obtained a copy of the original rebuilding plan report and began to con- sider how we wanted to initially approach the town. At this time we were un- sure of how townspeople would react to our research. It was decided that of- ficial approval from the mayor and village board would be necessary. Summer-background . Our intent in this stage was to collect a wide range of information about the town and surrounding region that would serve to es- tablish a context for more specific data collected later. We also tried to develop a variety of data sources to allow the possibility of cross-validating information. Documentary sources were much more reliable than other data sources for exact dates of events. Among these documentary sources were: local newspapers, county planning documents, village board minutes from before the explosion to the present time, and two county histories. Dates and "event" descriptions from these sources were extremely useful in creating a framework for questions during later interviews. 54 METHODOLOGY (cont.) The unstructured interviews conducted in this stage were used to obtain general information about the town, about immediate reactions to the explosion, and about the town's rebuilding. Initially, we interviewed principal people in the town (fire chief, mayor, village board members, etc.). Recommendations for further interviewees were asked for at the end of each interview. At first, recommendations were our principal basis for selecting people to talk to. After we became more confident of our acceptance by the townspeople, and as particular recommendations recurred, we used our data as a basis for making selections. Two interviewers were sent on an interview whenever possible. Notes were recorded, then written up at a later time. Initially, two sets of notes were used as a check, since most of our researchers were not experienced interviewers. Tape recorders were considered, but were decided against because we thought they might make people more reluctant to speak. Also, we did not have the resources to transcribe a large number of tapes rapidly. During this phase of data collection, we were particularly fortunate to gain access to all the correspondence between the principal design team archi- tect and various people connected with the rebuilding. We were also able to ob- tain all preliminary drawings and sketches produced by the design team for the duration of the rebuilding. The content of these drawings was used later in our analysis to validate some of our assumptions about rebuilding phases. Summer — focused . Our intent in this stage of data collection was to closely examine the rebuilding period in Crescent City. We felt it important to look for meaningful sequences of actions which led to particular outcomes within the re- building period. Data collection was directed by the conceptual framework de- veloped just prior to this stage of research. (See diagram below. Fig. 19) Influence! Lot Changes Effecit Figure 19 Simplified Conceptual Framework, July, 1977 We were specifically interested in changes associated with lots in the two block rebuilding area, what influenced each change, and how each change effected changes on other lots. Land acquisition and transfer information was obtained from the county courthouse. Other documentary information was obtained from newspapers and or- ganizations directly involved in the rebuilding. Three data collection tools — a businessman's interview, a "peoples" interview, and a questionnaire — were developed in this stage. The businessman's interview (see Appendix) was used to get information concerning the business climate at the time of the explosion and at the present time, reactions to various events during the rebuilding period, and individual factors which influenced the businessmens' decisions about rebuilding. This interview was given to nine of fifteen businessmen within the two block re- building area and to seven of nineteen businessmen outside Lhis area but within Crescent City. 55 METHODOLOGY (cont.) Late in this stage of data collection we were concerned about obtaining in- formation only from people who appeared to be closely related to the rebuilding — or who were referred to us by those previously interviewed. The "peoples" in- terview and questionnaire were used to collect information from a random sample of people within the community. The "peoples" interview was a direct outgrowth of our conceptual framework. In this type of interview the interviewer was to probe, from a set of previously chosen events, for influences upon, and effects t , each event. This interview technique was used for only six interviews before summer data collection was finished. The questionnaire was intended to be used mainly as a check upon informa- tion gathered previously. Its content was similar to that of the businessman's interview, and it was mailed with a self-addressed, stamped envelope included for return. Seventy-five questionnaires were distrijuted within the corporate limits of Crescent City and seventy-five outside the corporate limits, but within five miles of the town center. Ten of these were returned, not delivered, and forty one were returned in some stage of completion. For our purposes the interviews generally provided more useful information than the questionnaire, because the interviewer could correct misinterpretations of questions and pursue interesting lines of inquiry for which the questionnaire would provide only one answer. People were generally reluctant to provide lengthy responses to open-ended questions on the questionnaire — while not finding it dif- ficult to elaborate on their answers in an interview. The questionnaire seemed more useful in testing very specific hypotheses which could be answered with a few words. Data Analysis Our data analysis was carried out in two parts: 1) concurrent with data collection, and 2) after summer fieldwork was completed. Early analysis . Early in the summer-background stage of data collection, we analyzed the content of seven of the first interviews in terms of themes discussed. We attempted to generate a list of categories which could be used for later analysis and intended to periodically update the list. However, this attempt was discontinued before we moved into the summer-focused stage; it would have required an inordinate amount of time beyond our manpower limits. Also, the structure of the interviews proved to be too inconsistent for formal analysis . By the end of summer data collection, we had compiled a master list of all events related to the rebuilding period. All our documentary sources were used for the compilation of this list. Later analysis . After the summer we reviewed the events list and chose six key events which seemed pivotal in the final outcome of rebuilding. Each key event was selected because it reduced the number of alternative reLux_ding solutions possible. These six key events were then used to break the rebuilci'ng process into five phases. Also at this time we developed a list of roles which seemed pertinent to the rebuilding, based on our own impressions. Later we reviewed early interviews and businessman interviews, noting important roles. We then compared the two sets of role formulations and formed a revised list of roles related to the rebuilding. Next, the roles were examined within the context of rebuilding phases. Role interactions were noted within each time-phase, and sequences of actions culminating in the final event of the phase were traced as the data would allow. When it was possible to infer decision rules for the actions of an individual 56 METHODOLOGY (cont.) playing a particular role, the rules were noted as "policy". Finally, the design team's drawings were correlated with the rebuilding phases according to their dates of completion. Each was then examined in light of the events which occurred during the phase in which it was drawn. Some implications for further research . At the beginning of our study we assumed that Crescent City's rebuilding process wns controlled by public policy formulated by the town government, much the same as a large city would promulgate a renewal policy. Our study suggests that public policy does not exist at the scale of a small town in the same way it does in a large urban setting — the force of local government being ameliorated by other factors at the smaller scale. This suggests (since policy does play a part in any re- building) that it may be useful to consider the concept of public policy along a continuum of scale from small town to large city. It would be helpful to define this continuum more explicitly. Comparative studies of the rebuilding process of towns at a similar scale would be a first step in testing such a hypothesis. 57 X D 2 ui a a < THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION STUDENT-ORIGINATED STUDIES PROGRAM The Crescent City research project was funded by a grant from the National Sci- ence Foundation under its Student-Originated Studies Program. The following excerpt from the National Science Foundation's "Guide for Preparation of Pro- posals (1976)" describes "^he nature and intent ol the program. "The Student-Originated Studies Program is designed to provide teams of college students with experience in independent, self-directed study in which they initiate, plan and direct their own research activities with minimal supervision. Each project is prnblem-orienLtd and seeks an understanding of and possible solutions to a local problem that has immediate relevance to society. "Proposals may be submitted in any combination of science disciplines but they must present an interdisciplinary approach to solving a problem. The proposal should describe the scientific research the student group wishes to carry out and give details as to the funds required for that purpose. The research problem must be not only amenable to a scientific solution, but one requiring an investigation that draws upon several sci- ence disciplines. The emphasis in the Program is on independent study as an educational vehicle to train the kinds of scientific personnel that our society will need to solve interdisciplinary problems." The field work for tills rcsearcli project was done primarily during a ten-week period in the summer of 1977. llu: team, under ths auspices of the Department of Architecture at the University of Illinois, was made up of seven students representing the fields of anthropology, community psychology, sociology, agricultural economics, urban planning, and architecture. 60 DEFINITION OF TERMS role : a group or individual having a unique set of goals and a common perception of the state of the system during a specific time period (a phase in this case). Any individual can fit into many role groups during the same phase. Depending on the nature of the decision to be made, the individual will act according to the policy of one of his roles. policy : a set of rules, stated or unstated, telling one what decision to make in terms of one's present perception of the state of the system. ^ event : Two types of events are documented in the description of the rebuild- ing process. The first is a change to a lot within the two-block com- mercial area: sale of the lot, sale of an option on the lot, or con- struction of a building on the lot. The second type of event is an occurrence which sets a direction, or establishes a policy, relative to the redevelopment process as a total. community : a physical boundary within which people share a sense of identity (not necessarily "belonging"). In the case of Crescent City, all peo- ple within the school district are included in the community because that is an important activity which focuses identity. When asked, people usually mentioned the churches, school, and grain elevator as three nodes which drew people together. School district is the most easily defined In physical terms. lot : parcel of ground whose boundaries are legally defined. land : ground without regard to legalized boundaries. resource : that which is necessary to achieve a goal. goal : a desired outcome. phase : a discrete time period between two events which are pivotal in terms of the final outcome of Crescent City's rebuilding. ^ Adapted from Richard Bellman, "Dynamic Programming," Science , (July 1966), 34-37. 61 CRESCENT CITY TODAY Agriculture Businesses Schools and Churches Government Geology Iroquois County is a sparsely populated, agri- cultural county and the Crescent City area is no exception. Some of the richest farmland in the country can be found there, with principal crops being corn and soybeans. As in many rural areas, a few very large families make up a sizable part of the population. Most of the residents of Crescent City are descended from families of agricultural background or are retired farmers themselves. The town's grain elevator is an important economic asset and serves the surround- ing area. Crescent City has a few medium-sized business operations, including among others a lumberyard, boat factory, and several construction contractors. Many of the residents work in the surrounding towns, primarily Gilman, Watseka, and Kankakee (see Fig.l ). Most shopping is done in these places as well. A grade school and high school are located in the town. The schools are the objects of much local pride, and consolidation into larger school dis- tricts has traditionally been opposed. Crescent City also has three churches: Catholic, Lutheran (the largest congregation) and Methodist. Local governmental units include two townships (Crescent and Iroquois) and the elected Village Board of Trustees. Town government is primarily concerned with the water supply system, as there is no police department. Public expenditures are minimal and thus taxes are very low; an issue of current concern is the lack of a sewage treatment facility. The soil in the area is sediment from a glacial lake, Lake Watseka, which is believed to have dried up some 14,000 years ago. This tight, fine-grained soil does not accept fluids rapidly and makes a gent "■ ly sound foundation material. The water table is high ! ider most of the region, and much of the town's watei: is supplied by the numerous local artesian wells. Sur- face water drains to McCutcheon's Slough, which skirts the southern and western edges of town (Fig. 5) . The slough empties into Spring Creek to the north- west and eventually into the Iroquois River (Fig.l ). Like that of the rest of central Illinois, the local topography is very flat; total relief in the immediate area is not much more than fifty feet. An interesting geological feature is an arch-shaped warping of the bedrock between Crescent City and Watseka. Natural 62 CRESCENT CITY TODAY (cont.) gas has been injected into this storage dome by Northern Illinois Gas Company, in a convenient location to meet the Chicago suburban demand. Physical Form An examination of the map of Crescent City (Fig. 5) provides much information about its physical form. U.S. 24, a well-traveled east-west route, cuts the town in half along with the railroad tracks which it parallels. Most of the town's businesses, be- fore 1970 as well as today, have frontage on 24. Illinois 49 delineates the western edge of town. The imposing structures of the grain elevators on the north side of the tracks are visual landmarks, as are the nearby town hall and water tower, located between 24 and the tracks. Housing is overwhelmingly of the single-family de- tached type, although there is one apartment build- ing in the town. Styles and sizes vary widely; some of the houses date back to the late 1800' s. Newer subdivisions are obvious on the map, in the south- western corner of town and the northern edges of town. The town is growing steadily but very slowly. 63 DEVELOPMENT BEFORE 1970 Early Settlement Impact of Transportation Early records tell us that Iroquois and Illinois Indians populated Iroquois County. Although they warred with each other, apparently they were friend- ly to the white people who began to arrive in the 1830' s. The first white settlers in the Crescent City area were English descendants migrating westward from Ohio and Indiana. A substantial impetus for de- velopment occurred in 1858 when tracks were laid for the Peoria and Equawka Extension Railroad (now Toledo, Peoria and Western). The railroad brought with it a larger market, and cultivated farms began to dot the landscape. Much of the land was swampy prairieland, however, and it was not until German im- migrants arrived in 1865 that the area was drained and tiled. By 1869, a railroad station and switch were built approximately halfway between the towns of Oilman and Watseka. Immediately thereafter, the town was given the name of Crescent City and was laid out and platted. The railroad carried freight and passengers, although passenger service was discontinued in 1928. U.S. Route 24, the "Cornbelt Highway," parallels the rail- road in Crescent City and together they bisect it. This highway brought Crescent City much of its business, and was a major physical form determinant as well. State Route 49, a minor north-south arterial forming the western edge of town, has had less impact than Route 24, serving mostly local needs, as it substan- tially parallels other larger north-south routes. These roads were not paved until the 1920 's, although they were in existence earlier. The local completion in the last decade of Interstate 57, which connects Chicago and Memphis, has had a pro- nounced effect on the entire Crescent City area. Seven miles west of Crescent City, the 1-57 interchange at Route 24 in Oilman, Illinois, has decreased traffic on 49 while increasing it on 24, which now acts as a feeder for both 1-57 and 1-65 in Indiana. 64 QUESTIONNAIRE THE INFORMATION FROM THIS SECTION WILL HELP US IN DETERMINING THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRESCENT CITY AREA RESIDENTS. PLEASE CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. Demographic Data 1. Sex: a. male Are you the person to whom this questionnaire was addressed? female 2. What Is your marital status? a. married b. separated c. divorced d. widowed e. never married yes no 3. 5. What is your relation to the head of the household? a. head b. spouse c. other (specify) Your age is: a. b. c. d. e. f . below 20 20-30 30-A0 40-50 50-60 60-70 70+ What Is your occupation or job title? a. professional worker technical worker sales worker manager or administrator clerical worker foreman laborer craftsman farmer or farm worker service worker machine operator full-time homemaker student unemployed retired other (specify) b. c. d. e. f. g- h. i. J- k. 1. m. n. o. P- 6. What town do you work in? 7. What was your total family income before taxes last year, 1976? a. under $5,000 b. $5,000~$10,000 c. $10,000— $15,000 d. $15,000— $20,000 e. $20,000— $30,000 f. $30,00CH- 65 What is the highest grade of school you have completed? a. no formal education b. eighth grade or less c. some high school d. some high school plus technical-vocational school e. high school graduate f. technical-vocational school beyond high school g. some college, no degree h. college graduate 1. some graduate school, no degree j. graduate or professional degree Do you have any religious affiliation? a. yes b. no If yes , what is it? 10. Do you attend a church in Crescent City? a. yes b. no 11. Do you consider yourself from Crescent City? a. yes b. no If no, where do you say you are from? 12. How long have you lived in the Crescent City area? 13. Were either of your parents born in the Crescent City area? a. yes b. no 66 THIS SECTION WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT CRESCENT CITY WAS LIKE BEFORE THE DISASTER. PLEASE CIRCLE OR ANSWER BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. 14. 15. 16, 17. 18. Were you working outside Crescent City in 1970? a. yes b. no Did you do most of the weekly grocery shopping for your family? a. yes b. no If no, who did it? Where did you buy your groceries in 1970? When Crescent City had its own grocery store, did you use it: a. most of the time b. occasionally c. hardly ever d. not at all 19. What physical features in Crescent City prior to the disaster did you think were most distinctive? 20. If you could bring back some aspect of the old business district, what would it be? 21. If you were going to have a business in Crescent City, where would you locate it? Please indicate on this map. N<>«»<-^ 67 PLEASE USE THE LIST OF BUSINESSES BELOW TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (8) QUESTIONS, YOU MAY WISH TO REFER TO THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE LAST PAGE OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. 22, 23. 24. 25, 26. 27, Which businesses were most successful in 1970? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) Which businesses were most important to the town? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) Which businesses did you most often recommend to friends? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) Which of these businesses gave credit in 1970? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) Are there places on this list you would go when out with friends? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) Are there places on this list you would go when out with family? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 28. How often did you use these businesses? (Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.) a. often b. occasionally c. seldom d. never 29. How satisfied were you with them? (Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.) a. liked a lot b. liked c. didn't care d. disliked detested (1) Hill's Feed and Poultry (2) Simpson's Auto Repair (3) Nelda's Beauty Salon (4) Lavoie's Standard Oil Agent (5) Leo Scheldt's (6) Paul Miner's Restaurant (7) Meyer's Launderette (8) Midwest Litho Printing (9) Audrey and Rink's (lO)Morrison Construction (ll)C.C. Farmer's Elevator (12)Sea Sprite Boat Co. Q.28/Q.29 / (13) / (14) / (15) / (16) / (17) / (18) / (19) / (20) / (21) / (22) / (23) / (24) Q.28/Q.29 Hofmeister's Hardware Diane's Beauty Shop Marilyn's Beauty Shop Jenkin's Barber Shop Crescent Oil Service Gibson's Standard Morton's Piano Service Hoffman's Shell Station_ U.S. Post Office Ennen's Tool and Die Schmidt's Steak House Alexander Lumber Co . 68 THIS SECTION CONCERNS EVENTS FOLLOWING THE EXPLOSION, PLEASE CIRCLE OR ANSWER BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. 30. How were you affected by the explosion? (Circle all that apply.) a. extensive property damage b. slight property damage c. no property damage d. extensive personal injury e. slight personal injury f. no personal injury 31. Did any of your close relatives sustain extensive property damage or personal injury? a. yes b. no 32. Which businesses did you miss the most? 33. What goods and services were difficult to obtain after the explosion? 34. Are there places outside Crescent City where you became a regular customer? a. yes b. no 35. Aside from normal business activities, what other things did you do in business district? Where did you do these things? Did the disaster change that? a. yes b. no 36. Were you a member of the Development Corporation? a. yes b. no 37. If n£, why did you decide not to participate? 38. How did you hear about the Development Corporation? 39. What influenced you to join the Development Corporation? 69 40. Did you attend Development Corporation meetings? a. yes b. no 41. Do you still participate in the Development Corporation? a. yes b. no 42. Who in Crescent City do you think would have benefited most from the ac- tivities of the Development Corporation? 43. Did you hear about any plans for low- income and elderly housing in Crescent City after the explosion? a. yes b. no If yes , when did you first hear about it? (specify month and year.) What did you think of it? Were you: a. strongly in support of it b. in support of it c. neutral d. against it e. strongly against 44. Did you know that architects were drawing up plans for rebuilding Crescent City? (You may wish to refer to the drawing on the back of the last page of this questionnaire.) a. yes b. no 45. Did you ever see any of these plans? a. yes b. no If yes , when? 46. Did you talk to any of the architects personally? a. yes b. no 47. Did you go to the town meeting at the high school when the rebuilding plans were presented? 70' "WK:© a ftRC/^ , lU^nEAD ! A8. After it was over, what did you personally think about the meeting? 49. What did other people think about the meeting? a. liked the plan b. felt wary about the plan c. were undecided about the plan d. did not like the plan e. other (specify) 50. Did you attend any other meetings that dealt with rebuilding? a. yes b. no If yes , when? (Specify month and year) 51. What did you like or dislike about the plans for rebuilding Crescent City? 52. What were some of your ideas about rebuilding Crescent City? Please draw them on this map. iTf'. '.W. iTK^-KS: r ■^ K~ uhT^h^tT ^ f u^' "^msK ^ / ^ \ t 1 r 71 THIS SECTION CONCERNS INFORMATION ABOUT INFLUENCES ON REBUILDING. PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR ANSWERS AND RANK THEM BELOW. 53. l^ich of the following were most influential in getting Crescent City rebuilt? Name three (3): a. Development Corporation b. mayor c. trustees d. local businessmen e. other local organizations f. state government g. federal government h. individuals on their own i. architects and planners j. influential local families k. other (specify) Could you rank these in order of importance? 1. 2. 3. How did they influence rebuilding? THIS SECTION CONCERNS A BRIEF PICTURE OF BUSINESSES USAGE TODAY. PLEASE CIRCLE OR ANSWER BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. 54. Which do you like better: a. parking in business district before 1970 (on-street parking) b. parking in business district today (off-street parking) Why? 55. Can Crescent City support new businesses? a. yes b. no If yes , what kinds? 56. What will Crescent City be like ten years from now? a. declining b . same c. growing Why do you think so? 72 57. When you go up town, do you usually walk or drive? 58. How would you describe to a stranger what Crescent City looks like? PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF THE BEST ANSWER. 59. Where would you usually go for: Crescent City Watseka Oilman Kank weekly grocery shopping 2 3 4 convenience grocery items 2 3 4 clothes 2 3 4 appliances 2 3 4 gasoline 2 3 4 tools and hardware 2 3 4 repairs 2 3 4 banking 2 3 4 doctors and dentists 2 3 4 drugs and prescriptions 2 3 4 a new car 2 3 4 Christmas shopping 2 3 4 Other RECREATION movies eating out going out with friends going out with your family vacations 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 73 PLEASE USE THE LIST OF BUSINESSES BELOW TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (8) QUESTIONS. 60. Which businesses are most successful today? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 61. Which businesses are most important to the town? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 62. Which businesses do you most often recommend to friends? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 63. Which of these businesses give credit today? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 64. Are there places on this list you would go when out with friends? (Please write the numbers coreesponding to the businesses here.) 65. Are there places on this list you would go when out with family? (Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 66. 67. How often do you use these businesses? (Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.) a. often b. occasionally c. seldom d. never How satisfied are you with them? (Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.) a. like a lot b. like c. don't care d. dislike e. detest (1) Leo Scheldt's (2) Sennett's Market (3) A-Way Grain Elevator (4) Audrey and Rink's (5) Glen Schiewe's Print Shop (6) Horton's Piano Service (7) Light's Hardware (8) Hoffman's Shell Station (9) Gibson's Standard (10) Kountry Kettle (11) U.S. Post Office Q.66/Q.67 (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) Ennen's Tool and Die Peter's Construction Miner's Coin Laundry Ward's Car Wash Alexander Lumber Co . Jenkin's Barber Shop Gocken Standard Station Gene Paap Masonry Crescent Oil Service Sterrenberg Insurance Jack's Idle Hour Q.66/Q.67 / 7" / 'f ~r 7" T 7" 7" /" 7' 74 WHAT KIND OF TOWN WOULD YOU LIKE CRESCENT CITY TO BE? BELOW IS A LIST OF CHARACTERISTICS OF A SMALL TOWN THAT ARCHITECTS MIGHT HAVE CONSIDERED IN RE- BUILDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT. INDICATE WHAT KIND OF TOWN YOU WOULD LIKE BY PLACING A CHECK IN THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN. 7. 9. I reject this Not ray concern Desirable Important Essential A town where you know everybody . A town where new families settle down. A town that is distinct in appearance from other towns. A town that keeps growing. A town where people keep their yards up. A self-sufficient town. A town with parks and landscaping. A town with industrial development . A town where each building has its own character. 10. A town where people would come to retire. 11. A town with lots of different kinds of people. 12. A town that people have built themselves. 13. A town that outsiders like to visit. Are there any other comments you would like to make about the rebuilding, or any suggestions or comments about this research project? THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE IS FOR YOUR USE IN RETURNING THE QUESTIONNAIRE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELPING US I 75 The Structured Interview: Interviewer's Text STATE THE FOLLOWING BEFORE THE INTERVIEW BEGINS. My name is . I am a student at the University of Illinois and part of a research team which has received a grant from the National Sci- ence Foundation. As you probably already know, our research team is studying the response of Crescent City to the 1970 tank car explosion. Since most of the business section was destroyed in the explosion, the rebuilding of the lo- cal businesses is a central part of our study. This interview includes ques- tions on what business was like in 1970, how you were affected by the explosion, your decisions about rebuilding, and about business today in Crescent City. I will read the question and record your answer. Certain questions have many possible responses — for these I will show you a card with a list of an- swers on them. You may then tell me which answer seems best. If you do not understand a question, tell me, and I will repeat it. You do not have to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable about. All your answers will be kept in strict confidence. 76 30. What were the arrangements? 31. Did anyone else own it with you? a. yes (go to 32) b. no (go to 33) 32. Who owned it with you? 33. How many people were working for you at any one time in 1970? 34. Did you have problems getting employees? 35. Did you give credit in 1970? a. yes b. no REACTION TO EXPLOSION (CIRCLE CORRECT ANSWER). 36. How did the explosion affect your business? a. It was completely destroyed b. Part of it was salvaged c. Other (specify) 37. Immediately after the explosion, how did you feel about rebuilding? I planned to: a. rebuild immediately b. wait and see c. not rebuild d. other (specify) EFFECTS OF EXPLOSION 38. Did you have insurance? a. yes (go to 39) b. no (go to 41) 39. What was covered? 40. How did you feel about your insurance compensation? a. very unsatisfied b. neutral c. very satisfied 41. Did you receive compensation from the TP&W? a. yes (go to 42) b. no (go to 43) 42. How did you feel about this compensation? a. very unsatisfied b. neut al c. very satisfied 43. Was the business your only source of income at this time? a. yes b. no 44. Were the other sources sufficient to support you and your family? a. yes b. no SHOW LIST OF CATEGORIES FOR INFLUENCES 45. Here is a list of things that may have influenced your decision to rebuild (or not). Please check the items that had the most influence on your deci- sion to stay or not to stay in business after the explosion. Any questions? 46. Were there any others that you feel should be mentioned? a. yes (what?) b. no 47. Of the ones you have checked, which '•'. s the most influential? 48. How? 49. Which was the second most influential? 50. How? CATEGORIES FOR INFLUENCES— WHETHER OR NOT TO STAY IN BUSINESS Financial Railroad settlement: TP&W _Availability of loans Potential for governmental assistance _Income from other sources Interviewer: Date: Person Interviewed: BRING OUT OLD TOWN PHOTOGRAPHS. RECORD BUILDINGS IDENTIFIED AND ORDER OF IDEN- TIFICATION ON DRAWING. 1. Would you show me which was your business, building, lot? 2. Could you point out what some of the other buildings are? IF NOT ABLE TO USE PHOTOGRAPHS, USE THESE QUESTIONS. 3. Could you describe the location of your business? 4. Could you describe where some of the other businesses were in relation to yours? PLEASE TELL ME THE LETTER OF THE ANSWER WHICH SEEMS BEST. 5. In your opinion, how was the business community doing in 1970? a. very poor b. poor c. fair d. good e. excellent 6. Could Crescent City have supported expansion of the individual businesses that were already there? a. yes (go to 7) b. no (go to 8) 7. Which ones? SHOW LIST OF BUSINESS, ASK THEM TO SAY LETTER OF BUSINESSES 8. Could Crescent City have supported new businesses in 1970? a. yes (go to 9) b. no (go to 10) 9. What kind? 10. Which businesses were doing particularly well in 1970? SHOW LIST OF BUSINESSES 11. Would you rank the top 5? (response card) (Of the ones you have chosen, which one was best, second best, third best, etc.) 12. Which businesses were mostly used by local people? 13. Which businesses attracted people from out of town? 14. Where do these people come from? 15. What percentage of your business came from Route 24? 16. What percentage of your business came from Route 49? 17. How was your own business doing in 1970? a. very poor (go to 20) b. poor (go to 20) c. fair (go to 20) d. good (go to 18) e. excellent (go to 18) 18. Did you have any plans for expansion in 1970? a. yes (go to 19) b. no (go to 20) 19. What were they? 20. Did anyone else own the business with you? a. yes (go to 21) b. no (go to 22) 21. Who owned it with you? (name) 22. What kinds of people used your business? (farmers, housewives, young people, etc.) 23. Did you own the building in 1970? a. yes (go to 24) b. no (go to 26) . 24. Did anyone else own the building with you? I a. yes (go to 25) b. no (go to 29) I 25. Who owned it with you? (name) 26. Were you renting the building? a. yes (go to 27) b. no (go to 29) 27. From whom did you rent? (names) 28. What type of lease did you have? 29. Did you own the lot in 1970? a. yes (go to 31) b. no (go to 30) 78 I ^ Financial (cont.) Taxes Insurance ^Debts requiring immediate action Business Availability of customers _Other businesses in town After the explosion, construction of first new buildings Competition with businesses outside town Social Family Local leaders (other than government) Other businessmen _Actlons of townspeople Advice from friends Availability of Construction Immediate availability of vacant buildings Availability of pre-fab buildings Availability of desired location Official ^Zoning Action of Crescent City Development Corporation Architect's plan Town government Personal ^Personal preferences Goals and aspirations Training and experience Length of time in business before explosion Other Specify, if possible CROSS OUT THE ONES THAT DON'T APPLY: THIS PERSON CHOSE NOT TO REBUILD. GO .? 51. THIS PERSON CHOSE TO REBUILD A DIFFEREN " BUSINES. GO TO 54. THIS PERSON CHOSE TO REBUILD THE SAME BUSINESS. GO TO 59. 51. Did you sell your land? a. yes (go to 52) b. no (go to 68) 52. To whom? 53. When? GO TO 68. 54. What influenced you to change your business? Please choose three of the following. (RESPONSE CARD) a. personal preference for type of business b. potentially greater market c. easier supply d. dissatisfaction with prior business e. advice or recommendation from others f. lower starting and operating cost g. greater ease of operation h. potentially greater profits i. other (specify) _^ RECORD LETTERS IN ORDER CHOSEN. 79 55. Which was most influential? 56. How? 57. Which was the second most influential? 58. How? BEFORE INTERVIEWING, CROSS OUT WHICHEVER OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DO NOT APPLY, 59. This person chose to rebuild on a new location. (go to 60) This person chose to rebuild on the same location. (go to 65) 60. What influenced your decision to move? Please choose three of the items on this list. (INTERVIEWER RECORD LETTERS OF THREE RESPONSES CHOSEN.) (RESPONSE CARD) 61. Of the items you've chosen, which was the most influential? 62 . How? 63. Which was the second most influential? 64. How? 65. What things did you do to begin rebuilding? (Prompts: Apply for a building permit? Hire a contractor? etc.) 66. Please tell me which of the following helped you finance your rebuilding. (INTERVIEWER READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.) a. insurance b. money from the TP&W c. savings d. income from other sources e. If there were any sources I have not mentioned, please tell me what they were. 67. Did you feel you had adequate financial backing to rebuild? EVENTS: READ INTRODUCTION 68. In this section of the interview, I will ask you questions about some events that took place after the explosion. 69. Did you attend the first meeting of Crescent City businessmen with destroyed business? a. yes (go to 69) b. no (go to 73) 70. How did you find out about the meeting? 71. What was decided at the meeting? 72. Was the meeting helpful in dealing with your own problems? a. yes b. no 73. Which of the following governmental agencies did you have personal contact with following the explosion? INTERVIEWER READ POSSIBLE ANSWERS. a. SBA (go to 74) b. IRS (go to 74) c. County Housing Authority (go to 74) d. local town government (go to 75) e. other (specify) (go to 74) f. none (go to 76) 74. How did you hear about the agency(s)? (go to 103) 75. Who did you talk to? When? Were you helped? a. yes (IF YES, READ FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.) How? What was the result of the assistance? b. no 76. Were you a member of the Development Corporation? a. yes (go to 77) b. no (go to 80) 80 ^ 77. How did you hear about it? 78. What influenced you to join it? 79. Did you attend meetings? a. yes (go to 81) b. no (go to 81) 80. Why did you decide not to participate? (go to 93) 81. Do you still participate in the Development Corporation? a. yes (go to 83) b. no (go to 82) 82. When did you decide to stop participating? (USE RESPONSE CARD AS PROMPT.) 83. What did you think the purpose of the Development Corporation was? 84. Did the purchase of lots in the business district by the Village Board influence your decision to rebuild (or not to rebuild)? a. yes (go to 85) b. no (go to 86) 85. How? 86. Who in Crescent City do you think would have benefitted most from the activities of the Development Corporation? 87. Do you think the Development Corporation was a good idea? a. yes (go to 88) b. no (go to 89) 88. Why? (go to 90) 89. Why not? (go to 90) 90. Did you hear about any plans for low income and elderly housing in Crescent City after the explosion? a. yes (go to 91) b. no (go to 93) 91 When did you first hear about this? (USE RESPONSE CARD AS PROMPT.) 92. What did you think of it? 93. Did you know that architects were drawing up plans for rebuilding Crescent City? a. yes (go to 94) b. no (go to 96) 94. Did you talk to any of the architects personally? a. yes (go to 95) b. no (go to 96) 95. Did you talk about plans for your own building or the town as a whole? (go to 9o) a. own building b. town as a whole c. both BRING OUT PHOTOS OF ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS AND SAY, Here are some drawings for rebuilding Crescent City. 96. Did you ever see any of these pirns? a. yes (go to 97) b. no (go to 98) 97. When? (go to 127) 98. If the Crescent City business district looked like this, how would your business be affected? (REPEAT FOR ALL NINE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS.) If yes, how? Drawing //I: Drawing //2 Drawing //3 REPEAT QUESTIONS 96-98 FOR ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS Drawing //4, //5, //6, //7, //8, //9. 99. If you were going to put a business in one of these buildings, which one would you choose? (SHOW ALL DRAWINGS; MARK ON OVERLAY.) 100. Did you go to the town meeting at the high school when the rebuilding plans were presented? a. yes (go to 101) b. no (go to 104) 101. How did you find out about the meeting? 102. After it was over what did you personally think about the meeting? 81 103. What did other people think about the meeting? (RESPONSE CARD — CIRCLE LETTER OF RESPONSE HERE) : (go to 106) a. liked the plan b. felt wary about the plan c. were undecided about the plan d. other (specify) 104. Did you know about the meeting? a. yes (go to 105) b. no (go to 106) 105. Why didn't you go? 106. When did you realize that the town would not get federal money for disaster assistance? (USE RESPONSE CARD FOR PROMPT IF NEEDED.) (go to 107) 107. Were you aware that the village board received $25,000 from Governor Ogilvie in the spring of 1971? a. yes (go to 108) b. no (go to 110) 108. Did it have any effect on your activities? a. yes (go to 109) b. no (go to 110) 109. How did it affect you? NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUSINESS DISTRICT IN CRESCENT CITY TODAY. 110. In your opinion how is the business district today? READ POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND CIRCLE RESPONSE GIVEN HERE: a. very poor b. poor c. fair d. good e. excellent 111. Do you think the Crescent City business community is doing better now than it was in 1970? a. yes b. no 112. In what way? 113. Can Crescent City support expansion of its present businesses? a. yes (go to 114) b. no (go to 115) 114. Which ones? 115. Can Crescent City support new businesses? a. yes (go to 116) b. no (go to 117) 116. What kind? 117. Which businesses are doing particularly well today? BRING OUT PHOTOS OF NEW TOWN. 118. Would you rank the top five? Rank one; rank two; rank three; rank four; rank five. 119. Which businesses attract people from out of town? 120. From where do they come? 121. Which businesses are used mainly by local people? 122. How is your present business doing? READ POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND CIRCLE LETTER OF RESPONSE GIVEN. a. poor (go to 124) b. fair (go to 124) c. good (go to 123) d. excellent (go to 123) 123. Do you have any specific plans for expansion? SHOW MAP OF TOWN TODAY AND PHOTO OPPOSITE IT. 124. Would you show me where the best locations are for business in Crescent City? INTERVIEWER WRITE LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS HERE, NOTING WHETHER OFF ROUTE 24. IF ON 24, NOTE WHETHER NORTH OR SOUTH, CENTER OF BLOCK OR CORNER, AND AT WHICH CROSS STREETS. 125. What percentage of your business comes from Route 24? I 82 126. What percentage of your business comes from Route 49? 127. Where is your major supplier? 128. What kind of people use your business? (PROMPT: farmers, housewives, young people, etc.) 129. Are you the sole ovmer of your business? a. yes (go to 131) b, no (go to 130) 130. Who owns it with you? 131. Do you own the building your business is in? a. yes (go to 134) b. no (go to 132) 132. Do you rent? a. yes (go to 134) b. no (go to 133) 133. What are the arrangements? 134. Do you feel you made the right decision about rebuilding (or not rebuilding)? 135. Is there anything else about the rebuilding that we haven't discussed that you feel is important? 136. Do you have any questions about this interview or the research project? Any suggestions? 81 BIBLIOGRAPHY Part I: Data Sources Ackerman, William. "Crescent City, Illinois, Water Supply." Unpublished report, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Illinois, 1970. Babcock, Steven D. Industrial-Community Profile: Watseka, Illinois . Bloom- ington, Indiana: Resource Development Internship Project, 1972. Beckwith, H.W. History of Iroquois County . Chicago: H.H. Hill & Co., 1880. Bergstrom, Robert E. "Geology for Planning at Crescent City, Illinois." Urbana: Illinois State Geological Survey, 1970. Bicentennial Historical Committee. History of Crescent City, Illinois . Crescent City: Glen Scheiwe, 1976. Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette . June, 1970 through August, 1971. Chase, Julia. "A Case Study: Crescent City, Illinois." Unpublished paper. University of Illinois, 1974. Crescent City Development Corporation. Financial Transactions, August, 1970 through July, 1977. Environetic Research. Iroquois County, Illinois: Ecological Impact Analysis, Physical Resource and Transportation System Characteristics . Chicago: Environetic Research, 1972. Iroquois County, Illinois: Housing, Solid Waste Disposal, and Continuing Planning Program . Chicago: Environetic Research, 1972. Iroquois County, Illinois: Human Resource Environmental Plan. Chicago: Environetic Research, 1972. Evans, Campbell K. "Economic Base Analysis of Crescent City, Illinois." Un- published report, Campbell Evans Real Estate Appraisals, Champaign, Illinois, 1970. Gilman Star . June, 1969 through June, 1971. "1967 Quadrennial Tax Assessments." 20 July 1967. "1971 Quadrennial Tax Assessments." 25 Nov. 1971. "1975 Quadrennial Tax Assessments." 4 Sept. 1975. Illinois Bell Telephone. Watseka/Crescent City Telephone Directory, 1970 . Watseka/Crescent City Telephone Directory, 1977 . Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs. Guide to Illinois State Services . Springfield: Office of Research and Planning, 1976. 84 BIBLIOGRAPHY Iroquois County, Illinois. Land Transfer Records, Crescent and Iroquois Townships, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977. Plat Book 1976: Index of Owners and City Street Maps . LaPorte, Indiana: Town and Country Publishing Co., Inc., 1976. Subdivision Regulations . Prepared by G.R. Justus and Associates, Ltd., Bowling Green, Kentucky, 1975. Tax Assessment Records, Crescent and Iroquois Townships, 1970, 1976. Technical Recommendations for a Recreational Area Licensing Ordinance . Watseka, 111., 1976. Triennial Atlas and Plat Book, 1969 . Rockford: Rockford Map Publishers, 1969. Year Book. 1974-75 . Compiled by Donald Pursley, Watseka, 111., 1975. Zoning Atlas . Prepared by G.R. Justus and Associates, Ltd., Bowling Green, Kentucky, 1974. Zoning Ordinance . Prepared by Environetic Research Corp., Bowling Green, Kentucky, 1974. Kankakee Dally Journal . June, 1970 through July, 1977. Laz-Edwards-Dankert and Associated Consultants, Rebuilding Crescent City . Champaign, Illinois: Laz-Edwards-Dankert and Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs, 1970. National Transportation Safety Board. Railroad Accident Report . Report No. NTSB-RAR-72-2. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board, 1972. Small Business Administration. "Key Features of SBA's Principal Lending Programs." Washington, D.C.: Office of Public Information, 1969. "Loans to Local Development Companies." Washington, D.C.: Office of Public Information, 1975. "Small Business Administration: What it is. What it does." Washington, D.C.: Office of Public Information, 1970. Village of Crescent City, Illinois. Minutes of Village Board meetings from April 4, 1960 through April 7, 1975. Revised Ordinances . Mllford, Illinois: Milford Herald-News, 1960. Zoning Ordinance . Crescent City, 1971. 85 BIBLIOGRAPHY Watseka Dally Times-Republic . June, 1970 through August, 1977. WCIA-TV (CBS). "CIA Reports: Crescent City Rebuilds." Video tape and tech- nical script of October 20, 1971 documentary. Champaign, Illinois: Dick Adams, WCIA-TV, producer. BIBLIOGRAPHY Part 2: Methodology Sources Bellman, Richard. "Dynamic Programming," Science (July 1966): 34-37. Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication Research . Glencoe: Free Press, 1952. Boudon, Philippe. Lived-in Architecture . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972. Cohen, Richard A. "Small Town Revitalization: Case Studies and a Critique," Journal of American Institute of Planners . 43 (January 1977): 3-12. Collier, John Jr. Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. Dean, Lois R. Five Towns: A Comparative Community Study . New York: Random House, 1967. Downs, Roger M. , and Stea, David, eds. Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1973. Gidel, Julie, ed. Evaluation of a Congregate Retirement Residence and Housing Preferences of Prospective Occupants . Urbana: Department of Architec- ture, University of Illinois, 1976. Glaser, Barney and Strauss, Anselm. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1967. Gottschalk, Simon. Rural New Towns: Toward a National Policy . Cambridge: Center for Economic Development, 1971. Haas, J. Eugene, Kates, Robert W. , and Bouden, Martyn, J., eds. Reconstruction Following Disasters . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977. Haggett, Peter. Network Analysis in Geography . London: E. Arnold, 1969. Hyland, Stanely E. et al. The East Urbana Energy Study, 1972-74: Instrument Development, Methodological Assessment, and Base Data . Urbana: Uhiversity of Illinois, 1975. Hyman, Herbert H. et al., Interviewing in Social Research . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970. Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry . San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964. 86 LaPiere, Richard T., ed. Methods in Social Research . New York: McGraw Hill, 1952. Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliott, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology , 2nd Ed. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. , 1968. Lynch, Devin. The Image of the City . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960. Parshall, Steven A, and Preiser, Wolfgang, eds. Proceedings of the Mobile Home Seminar . Urbana: Department of Architecture, University of Illinois, 1976. Parshall, Steven A., ed. Energy Consumption and Social Interaction in Mobile Home Parks, Champaign County, Illinois . Urbana: Department of Architec- ture, University of Illinois, 1974. Sullivan, Harry Stack, M.D. The Psychiatric Interview . New York: W.W. Norton and Co. , Inc. , 1970. Summers, Gene, et al. Before Industrialization: A Rural Social System Base Study . Bulletin 736, Agriculatural Experiment Station. Urbana: College of Agriculture, University of Illinois, 1969. Thayer, Ralph E. "Toward a Community Awareness of Growth and Development Problems," Small Town . Verona, John M. "Local Residents Plan the Process of Revitalization," Sma 1 1 Town . Vidich, Arthur J. and Bensman, Joseph. Small Town in Mass Society: Class, Power and Religion in a Rural Community . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. Schatzman, Leonard, and Strauss, Anselm. Field Research: Strageties for a Natural Sociology . Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Warnick, James P. "Small Communities Have Their Share of Problems," Champaign-Urbana Courier , 4 Nov. 1976. Winkelhake, Claude. "The Community Game," Objective , March 1976. 87 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 711 40973C864 C003 THE CRESCENT CITY DISASTER URBANA, ILL 12 02531