Adjusting to Change

Adjusting to Change:

The Face of Downtown Oneonta, 1945-2005

January 8, 2007

Alexander R. Thomas, Ph.D.

SUNY College at Oneonta

Polly J. Smith, Ph.D.

Utica College

Project Directors

Peter A. Dai

Suzanne Coletti

Veronica Coletti

Research Assistants

CSSR

Center for Social Science Research

http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/ssr/

State University of New York

College at Oneonta

c/o Sociology Department

418 Fitzelle Hall

Oneonta, N. Y. 13820

INTRODUCTION

The City of Oneonta has undergone considerable change during the past fifty years, and this change has affected the central business district. Much of this change is consistent with wider trends found across the state and the nation. Since the early 1970s there has been a shift away from manufacturing and toward the service sector (Scott, 2002). This shift has been largely due to a combination of improved manufacturing technologies, increased corporate concentration, and the outsourcing of manufacturing to low wage facilities outside of the United States (Bluestone & Harrison, 1982; Sassen, 2002). In Oneonta, such trends have favored the education industry.

The impact of such restructuring in the American economy has affected rural areas and small cities as well as larger cities (Ames & Ellsworth, 1997; Beaulieu & Mulkey, 1995; Fitchen 1991; Mattson, 1997). Rural areas in particular face issues related to development being combined in some areas even as large swaths of territory go without similar development. In the Oneonta area, Oneonta is a beneficiary of the regional economy being largely and increasingly concentrated in and around Oneonta itself, with retail found in the suburban Town of Oneonta and many white collar services found in the city – particularly downtown. This is consistent with other regions, as the less “rural” an community is the better it often fares (Thomas, 2003; Thomas et al, 2005). Typically, rural communities with ready access to cities or along interstate highways also fare well (Lichter & Fuguitt, 1980; Aronoff, 1997). This often results in larger towns, such as Oneonta, experiencing faster growth than much smaller communities, with many very small communities often losing enough economic vitality that their very community structure is at stake (Brown et al, 1996; Thomas, 1999).

Many communities attempt to adapt to economic restructuring by attempting to attract urban corporations for investment. Historically, such strategies have involved manufacturing and other industrial firms, but retail firms are often the target of economic developers as well (Aronoff, 1997). In many other cases, such as in Cooperstown, local officials attempt to attract urban tourists to their communities (Matsuoka & Benson, 1996; Springwood, 1996; Thomas, 2003).

Communities that have survived economically have typically done so because they have a high degree of inshopping – residents tend to shop in their local community. This relationship is a dynamic one as inshopping by local residents can aid retailers in providing consumers with a diverse array of goods and services that satisfies residents, leading to more inshopping (Miller & Kean, 1997; Miller, Kim & Schofield-Tomschin, 1998). Similarly, residents dissatisfied with local retail choices are more likely to shop outside the community (Miller & Kean, 1997) – a pattern called outshopping. As with inshopping, the relationship between community attachment and outshopping behavior is also dynamic: low community attachment begets outshopping which in turn results in less community attachment. Similar trends are also evident in Otsego County, with Oneonta as a primary community for shoppers from throughout the region (Thomas, Mansky, Frimer & Natale, 2002).

METHOD & DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA

Data was collected by first developing a list of addresses in the downtown area. By use of surface survey, historical maps and photography a list of addresses existing in the downtown area between 1947 and 2005 was developed. Considerable changes occurred during this time period, particularly during the era of urban renewal when a large swath of downtown was cleared and partially redeveloped.

Using “city directories,” plus occasional historical records and, in 2005, surface survey, a list of businesses residing at each address was developed. Due to limitations of the source data, there are years in which a given address does not have a listing. In many cases this reflects an actual vacancy, but in other instances it is unclear whether it is simply a failing on the part of the data or if a vacancy is to blame for the discrepancy. In any case this serves as a limitation on the data, and as such the calculation of vacancy rates is not possible. For each address for which an occupant was listed, the occupant was coded by the function of the occupant. For earlier years, interviews with local residents and members of the business community were interviewed and their answers compared and recorded.

Businesses classified as “general” sell goods that are of use to the general population on a regular basis. This definition is inclusive of grocery, pharmaceutical supply, and other such general merchandise. Such businesses often sell items related to tourism, but the primary purpose of such stores is the sale of general merchandise. General stores that supply automotive fuel are designated “General-Fuel” (Thomas, 2003, 163-4).

Specialty stores sell goods that are intended for aesthetic or symbolic use, such as works of art or souvenirs. Boutiques that sell clothes in addition to a number of other specialty items were classified as specialty stores, although the store selling only clothes is classified “general.” Businesses which do not have as a primary orientation baseball related merchandise were classified “specialty, non-baseball.” A “Specialty, baseball” designation is applied to those stores that do have a primary orientation toward baseball related items (Thomas, 2003, 164).

Food Service establishments include businesses whose primary purpose is the preparation and service of food for consumption (Thomas, 2003, 164).

Local (and General) Services include businesses whose primary purpose is to provide a specific service, such as financial services, real estate, or minor production services such as printing, photocopying, or customer service.

A sixth category – art galleries – was also coded.

Bars and taverns were coded separately from food service establishments. In addition, adult oriented retail outlets, such as “head shops,” were also separately coded. Similarly, amusements, such as pool halls and movie theaters, were given separate codes.

Civic institutions, such as the Post Office, city offices, and the offices of non-profit community groups (such as Opportunities for Otsego) were classified as “civic.” Private clubs, such as the Elks Club, were classified as Private Clubs.

Car dealers and automobiles service shops were classified under “Car/Implement Dealer.” Manufacturing and milling was classified under “Industrial,” whereas warehousing was classified separately.

During statistical analysis the various classification were combined into seven categories. “Basic Retail” includes Car/Implement Dealers, General and General-Fuel retailers. “Specialty Retail” includes Specialty-Non-Baseball and Specialty baseball retailers as well as art galleries and supply stores. “General Entertainment” includes food service establishments and amusements. It should be noted that many restaurants serve primarily the daytime market of office workers. “Adult Entertainment” includes bars and other adult oriented retail. Together with general entertainment, the entertainment sector in downtown Oneonta has grown considerable in the past fifty years. Local services, such as attorneys and financial services, are classified on their own as “General Services.” Civic institutions and private clubs are combined into “Civic institutional.” Industrial and warehousing classifications are combined into one “Industrial” classification.

A surface survey of the area revealed six distinct districts within the downtown area. The farthest south is Neawah Park. It is likely that most Oneonta residents do not consider the park as part of “downtown,” but its proximity to the central business district is an asset to the area that should be considered in the future.

The Clinton Plaza area consist of a “point” at the corner of Main and Market Streets, and as such is dominated by Clinton Plaza in the middle of this area. Although the plaza itself is clearly oriented toward retail, the streetscape across the street on both main and Market is quite diverse. As the gateway to downtown from the west, this area could be better integrated into the aesthetics of the shopping district with enhanced sidewalks, lighting, and perhaps a public artwork at the corner itself.

Further down Market Street is the urban renewal area dominated as it is by the parking garage and largely vacant lot with associated parking lots. The Catskills Performing Arts Center is being built in this area, but the character of the area alternates from pedestrian friendly streetscapes consistent with the shopping district to suburban style businesses with parking. Particular attention should be paid to deciding on the future character of this area: if “suburban,” then certain uses that are intended to increase pedestrian traffic should be discouraged; if it is to be consistent with the urban character of the shopping district, then future development should be brought in line with that goal in mind.

The shopping district itself is arguably the “healthiest” area of downtown Oneonta, with a rich historical architectural legacy and considerable pedestrian traffic. Thee character of this area could be expanded into nearby districts, such as the urban renewal area, and thereby extend the feeling of “health” into a wider area of the central business district. The historical character of Main Street is particularly useful for future tourism and

specialized retail efforts, but the surrounding areas that have by and large lost this character (such as the urban renewal lot) could benefit from architectural innovation that adds a more “modern” feel to the city.

The Downtown North area is marked by the presence of an historic city park (Huntington Park) and a parking lot. The area is quite diverse in terms of its streetscape, with architecture ranging from 1970s era modernism to 1980s “faux rural” to the historic character of the neighborhood in terms of both commercial and residential architecture. It is worth noting that the parking lot is unadorned.

The Downtown West area consists primarily of a string of residential houses adapted as commercial properties along Chestnut Street. Although some commercial properties have been built in the area, the overall effect is one of “hodge podge” in the area.

In each area, there is an apparent need to consider the future character of downtown Oneonta. Should downtown have a more “suburban feel” characterized by strip malls and parking lots. Several properties in the urban renewal area and in Downtown North and Downtown West already have this aesthetic. On the other hand, one might argue that the urban feel of Main Street in the shopping district is quite successful and gives the city a unique character – in such a case one might propose an extension of this character into nearby areas. In either case, the actual culmination of such efforts would take many years.

For statistical purposes, the Oneonta “Metro Area” was defined as the City of Oneonta, the Town of Oneonta, as well as the surrounding towns of Davenport, Milford, Laurens, Otego, and Franklin. (Oneonta is not classified by the federal government as a metropolitan area). As noted below, much of the population growth in the area since 1950 has taken place in the suburban towns at the expense of the City of Oneonta. The “metro area” population is shown in Table One.

Table 1 Population of Oneonta “Metro Area” by Municipality, 1950-2000

Year	Davenport	Franklin	Laurens	Milford	Otego	Oneonta (town)	Oneonta (city)	TOTAL
1950	1233	2133	1447	1913	1769	3508	13564	25567
1960	1261	2133	1498	2055	2008	4068	13412	26435
1970	1617	2202	1730	2485	2249	4185	16030	30498
1980	1971	2431	2101	2685	2801	4665	14990	31644
1990	2438	2471	2349	2845	3128	4963	13954	32148
2000	2774	2621	2402	2938	3183	4994	13292	32204

FINDINGS

Table 2 Number of Businesses in Downtown Oneonta, by Type, 1955 & 2005

Number in 1955 (%)		Number in 2005 (%)
55 (34.2)	Basic Retail	19 (9.3)
22 (13.7)	Specialty Retail	41 (20.1)
44 (27.3)	General Services	78 (38.2)
15 (9.3)	General Entertainment	22 (10.8)
0 (0)	Adult Entertainment	20 (9.8)
22 (13.7)	Civic Institutional	24 (11.8)
3 (1.9)	Industry	0 (0)
161	*TOTAL*	204

An examination of Table 2 shows the basic changes that have taken place in downtown Oneonta. The absolute number of basic retail establishments declined substantially during this period, constituting less than ten percent of the enlarged downtown in 2005. In its place was an increase in specialty retail, general services, and especially entertainment. When included as one genre, entertainment (constituting both general and adult oriented) nearly tripled its numbers and today accounts for about one fifth (20.6 percent) of downtown establishments. The relationships among these sectors are also shown over the time period in Table 3.

Table 3 Trends in the Number of Businesses of Various Types, 1951-2005

A frequently cited cause of such changes encountered in the local community is the presence of college students associated with the city’s two colleges. Such a hypothesis is understandable as the colleges have been shown to have a significant impact on the local economy (Warren, 2001). This trend has been found in other communities as well (Harris, 1997; Maurrasse, 2001). Indeed, area residents acknowledge this effect: a 2002 survey found that about three-fourths of area residents believe the college students to have a positive impact for business (Thomas et al. 2002). Nonetheless, the correlation between the student population and the downtown economy is a complicated one.

There is an axiom in statistics that is at this juncture an important one to remember: correlation does not equal causation. That is to say that although the increase in the number of students in the city correlates with a sharp decline in general retail shops such as clothing stores and an increase in the number of specialty retail shops (such as bookstores) and adult entertainment (such as tattoo parlors, bars, and “head shops”), we must be careful not to quickly presume that the increased student population caused such changes.

During the 1960s Oneonta developed a niche economy based on the increasing numbers of college students. Due to growth at both colleges, particularly at SUNY, the city population grew to 16,030 – an increase of 2,618. Such an increase in population, especially one that even today is more dependent upon walking, bicycle and public transportation, should have favored downtown by increasing demand for general retail establishments. The continued viability of such businesses would have precluded the establishment of too many specialty and entertainment establishments by “holding” storefronts. Instead, we see the noted decline in general retail and increase in specialty retail and entertainment. Of course, we also see an increase in general services, such as medical clinics, law offices, and financial services – not services often associated with college-age students.

We should instead look to other variables for the transformation of downtown Oneonta between 1960 and 1990. Of note is that the pattern of decline in general retail and the increase in services has been noted in central cities of all sizes nationwide (Palen, 2005). Locally, recent unpublished research in Little Falls, a small city of similar size to Oneonta in the Mohawk Valley, is shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Number of Businesses in Downtown Little Falls, by Type, 1957 & 2006

Number in 1957 (%)		Number in 2006 (%)
22 (47.8)	Basic Retail	16 (31.4)
6 (13.0)	Specialty Retail	10 (19.6)
8 (17.4)	General Services	12 (23.5)
2 (4.3)	General Entertainment	7 (13.7)
1 (2.2)	Adult Entertainment	2 (3.9)
7 (15.2)	Civic Institutional	4 (7.8)
46	*TOTAL*	51

Perhaps the first difference between the two cities is the difference in the number of establishments. Oneonta has in both time periods approximately four times as many establishments even given its only slight population edge over Little Falls. Little Falls was home to 5,188 residents in 2000; Oneonta was home to approximately 6,501 residents when the student population of 6,791 (1,450 Hartwick students plus 5341 SUNY students) is excluded. In addition to a larger city population, Oneonta has a larger suburban population in the surrounding town with 4,994 compared to 1,544 in the town of Little Falls. Perhaps more importantly, Oneonta has historically been, since 1900, the major urban center for northern Delaware and southern Otsego County – hence its robust general services economy. Little Falls, in contrast, has historically faced stiff competition from the more populous region immediately to its west: the eastern suburbs of Utica including Herkimer, Mohawk, and Ilion, as well as Utica and its inner suburbs as well. Under such circumstances, such extreme differences in downtowns are quite understandable.

There was less growth in Little Falls than in Oneonta, and virtually no suburban growth outside of Little Falls. Suburban style “big box” businesses gravitated toward Herkimer during the 1960s-1980s, and most residents of Little Falls were quite willing to drive the five miles to arrive at K-Mart and, more recently, Wal-mart. Herkimer also historically had a more substantial retail economy and, as county seat, a more robust general services and entertainment economy. In other words, we have in Little Falls an economy in the periphery of the regional system, whereas in Oneonta we see an economy that serves as the “core” of the regional system. The Basic Retail sector in Oneonta was thus larger than that of Little Falls but, as a “core” economy, constituted a lower percentage of the total downtown economy. Due to this status, Oneonta thus attracted early on (starting the 1960s) the “big box” stores of the era: Jamesway, Ames, Nichols, K-Mart, and more recently Wal-Mart. Such business competed directly with downtown merchants, some of whom moved out of downtown, others of whom failed to compete effectively and closed, and others who retired and did not find buyers of their businesses. This pattern was established by the 1960s and 1970s and, after the 1982 opening of Southside mall, culminated in a period of considerable instability for downtown.

It is notable that Oneonta and Little Falls both have similar numbers of basic retail establishments even though the proportion of each to the remainder of the downtown economy is quite different in each city. This implies an ability of downtown to maintain at least a minimal basic retail economy, particularly that oriented toward the resident population of the city. Nevertheless, downtown Oneonta has experienced change based on two distinct trends: 1) its position as the “core” of the regional economy, and 2) the development of a “niche” economy provided by presence of the colleges as well as other institutions (e.g., the hospital and schools) that attract large numbers of educated workers.

Table 6 Oneonta Population with and without SUNY Students, 1950-2000*

Year	City Population	SUNY Enrollment	Remainder	Percent Change
1950	13564	717	12847
1960	13412	2026	11386	- 11.4
1970	16030	4747	11283	- 0.9
1980	14990	5843	9147	- 18.9
1990	13954	5703	8251	- 9.8
2000	13292	5341	7951	- 3.6

*NOTE: Excludes Hartwick College enrollments

We see the influence of Oneonta’s status as the core community in the regional social system in the increase in general services downtown. Whereas Little Falls increased the number of such establishments by four, Oneonta increased by 34 during approximately the same period. Similarly, some of the entertainment economy is likely based on this status as well (see below). Oneonta has also managed to maintain this status as it is an attractor point for new area residents despite population decline in the city that has been persistent since 1950. For instance, when we consider the proportion of the city’s population that was SUNY students, we see that the resident population of the city has been declining since 1950, as in Table 6.

During this same time period, the population of the entire Oneonta “metro” area increased by nearly 7,000 residents. We see the results of a restructuring in the railroad industry and manufacturing between 1950 and 1970 as the region grew by 4,931 people – nearly all of whom are accounted for by the increase in the student population. During this time the suburban population, including the town of Oneonta and the “outer towns” (Davenport, Franklin, Laurens, Milford, and Otego), increased by over 2,400 residents. Around 1975, the suburban population overtook the city population and by 2000 city residents accounted for only 41 percent of the “metro” population. In addition, as the Oneonta market in fact attracts shoppers and workers from more far afield than the immediate townships, including more distant towns such as Hartwick, Worcester, and Meredith, the overall effect has been to place a greater emphasis on the need to accommodate the automobile and the concomitant emphasis on suburban style growth. It is thus not surprising that Oneonta has maintained, and even enhanced, its status as a “core” community within the region even while suffering a decline in basic retail in the downtown area. As the area is highly suburbanized, this trend is not likely to reverse itself in the foreseeable future.

The second major trend impacting the downtown area is the growth of the niche economy occasioned by the increase in college enrollments and employment. As noted earlier, the growth of a niche population in the city should have favored downtown businesses. We see during this period, however, a decline in basic retail that was by and large the result of patterns of suburbanization. The rise in the number of college students thus was accompanied by an increase in the niche businesses that serve them and other aligned populations. The rise of a niche economy also has a local precedent.

In Cooperstown, the rise of tourism was a persistent theme of the last half of the last century (Thomas, 2002; 2003; 2003b). Tourism at the Baseball Hall of Fame increased dramatically, particularly between 1985 and 2000, resulting in a true niche economy centered on baseball. However, although many local residents perceived the decline of basic retail in downtown Cooperstown to be the result of baseball tourism, the decline was in actuality the result of competition with big box stores in greater Oneonta and Metropolitan Utica, as well as mail order catalogs and internet sales. The result was a dramatic decline in downtown basic retail during the late 1980s and 1990s, with tourism-oriented businesses filling the void left by the demise of local oriented stores. Similar to Oneonta., Cooperstown also experienced a surge in general services in downtown. More recent data, including unpublished data from 2005, suggests a suburbanization of some economic functions, including some attractions, food service, and increasingly lodging.

In Oneonta, the decline in basic retail was similarly met with an increase in the number and proportion of niche businesses filling the void of older stores. Entertainment options have nearly tripled, and although many are taverns and other such shops, others include more general options such as pool halls, restaurants, and even maintaining the Chestnut Street theater. As a result, downtown Oneonta now offers a variety of entertainment options – over 20 percent of storefronts in 2005 – that appeals not only to college students but to college and school faculty, hospital employees, and a variety of other individuals from a broad spectrum of the community. Downtown Oneonta likely, but there are no studies to definitively prove this, attracts people from many miles in any direction. The entertainment industry is thus not a universally damnable feature of downtown Oneonta, and in fact represents a significant opportunity for the region’s future should residents and city officials choose to emphasize it.

Specialty retail, and by extension the arts as well, have also done well. Downtown Oneonta features several art galleries, small gift shops, and other businesses that appeal to the college population as well as to potential tourists in the region. As the tourism economy centered in Cooperstown expands, Oneonta could develop its own infrastructure to better appeal to those in come to the area every year. Indeed, as Cooperstown has focused increasingly on baseball tourism during the past ten years, Oneonta is well placed to focus on the arts and crafts tourists who historically have constituted a major tourist population visiting the area. This has the potential of offsetting the drain of population (and market) when students leave during the summer. Combined with the significant entertainment options, of which the new performing arts center will be a major contribution, Oneonta could assume the role of “college town” during the academic year and “arts community” during the summer. The niche economy created by the colleges is consistent with this vision.

In the meantime, it is important not to “give up” on basic retail in downtown Oneonta. Basic retail continues to be a force in downtown, and there is no reason to believe that it cannot continue to have a place downtown – it just will not be the dominant force downtown.

CONCLUSION

The overall trend in downtown Oneonta since the 1950s has been quite typical for urban centers, large and small, found nationwide. Oneonta has experienced growth due to its favorable position in the regional economy. Much of this growth in the retail sector has taken place in the suburban town of Oneonta. In the city of Oneonta, the central business district has restructured itself to take advantage of an increase in white collar workers associated with the general services industry, both in government and private business. This has included an increase in restaurants and specialty retail. In addition, the niche economy that has grown due to the colleges has reinforced the restaurants and other entertainment options in downtown. Indeed, the two economic niches appear quite compatible with one another as they extend business hours downtown from morning until fairly late at night.

It is notable that change in downtown Oneonta has stabilized. In 1963, 28.7 percent of storefronts had changed businesses in the previous five years; in 1983 that figure was 32.6 percent. In contrast, the percent of storefronts changing businesses between 1998 and 2003 was 17.7 percent. Such stability implies that Oneonta has transitioned through the rough times of the last century and is well poised for the future.
REFERENCES

Ames, L. J. & Ellsworth, J. (1997). Women Reformed, Women Empowered: Poor Mothers and the Endangered Promise of Head Start. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Aronoff, M. W. (1997). Changing Rural Communities: Reconstructing the Local Economy of a Nonmetropolitan community. In N. E. Johnson, & C. Wang, (Eds.), Changing Rural Social Systems: Adaptation and Survival (pp. 230-248). East Lansing, MI.: Michigan State University Press.

Beaulieu, L. & Mulkey, D. (Eds.). (2002). Investing in People: The Human Capital Needs of Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Brown, R. B., Hudspeth, C. D., & Odom, J. S. (1996). Outshopping and the Viability of Rural Communities as Service/Trade centers. Journal of the Community Development Society, 27, 90-112.

Fitchen, J. M. (1991). Endangered spaces, Enduring places. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.

Harrison, B. & Bluestone, B. (1988). The great U-turn. New York: Basic Books.

Lichter, D. T. & Fuguitt, G. V. (1980). Demographic response to transportation innovation: The case of the interstate highway. Social Forces, 59, 492-512.

Matsuoka, J. K. & Benson, M. (1996). Economic Change, Family Cohesion, and Mental Health in a Rural Hawaii Community. Families in Society, 77, 108-116.

Mattson, G. A. (1997). Redefining the American Small Town: Community Governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 13, 121-130.

Miller, N. J. & Kean R. C. (1997). Factors contributing to Inshopping Behavior in Rural Trade Areas: Implications for Local Retailers. Journal of Small Business Management, 35, 80-94.

Miller, N. & Kim, S. (1999). Importance of Older Consumers to Small Business Survival: Evidence from Iowa. Journal of Small Business Management, 37, 1-15.

Miller, N., Kim, S. & Schofield-Tomschin, S. (1998). Effects of Activity and Aging on Rural Community Living and Consuming. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32, 343-368.

Palen, J. J.. (2005). The Urban World. Sixth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill

Sassen, S. (2002). Global Networks, Linked Cities. New York: Routledge.

Scott, A. J. (2002). Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Springwood, C. F.. (1996). From Cooperstown to Dyersville: A Geography of Baseball Nostalgia. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press.

Thomas, A. R. (1999). Untowning Hartwick: Restructuring a Rural Town. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 4, 1.

_____. In Gotham’s shadow: Globalization and community development in central New York. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Thomas, A. R., Mansky, M., Frimer, D., & Natale, C. (2002). Hartwick retail practices survey: General report. Oneonta, NY: SUNY Center for Social Science Research.

Thomas, A. R., Thalheimer, J., Cook, M., & Malfitani, P. (2003). Economic Activity in Downtown Cooperstown, 1979-2003. , NY: SUNY Center for Social Science Research.

Thomas, A. R., Dai, P. A., & Martin, S.L. 2005. Rural Retail Redux: Supermarket Pricing in Rural Central New York. Oneonta, NY: SUNY Center for Social Science Research.

U. S. Bureau of the Census. 2006. Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. Retrieved from American Factfinder.