The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

I apologise if the following views are new to anyone, since I have been boring my friends, writing blogs, speaking at public presentations and service clubs about them for more than a decade. Recently, however, I was challenged by a friend that I should share them with the public. The subject is Downtown Development.

The first, and most important observation is that a downtown, any downtown, is a functional part of a city, not an isolated entity. While there is no general agreement on the boundaries of the City of Nassau, it is certainly not confined to the area north of Government House.

Any city is defined by its people, and the people for whom the Downtown of the City of Nassau functioned until thirty-odd years ago live mostly south of Government House in the area called “Over-the-Hill”.

While the owners of slaves may have had reasons to ignore the humanity of their slaves, and therefore defined the City in terms of their own residences north of the hill, there is no excuse for us making the same mistake.

It is curious that the only time there is recognition that Over-the-Hill is indeed the City of Nassau is when we report on social distress, when we describe the area as the “Inner City” (a term I personally despise because of the built-in social innuendo).

The Bay Street area was indeed once the centre of life and commerce for these very people, because the Market Wharf was once their lifeblood, their connection with the rest of the country, the centre of bringing and sending everything from produce to tools to family members.

It was moved to Potters Cay over 30 years ago, leaving a hole in the heart of the Downtown. Today, there is no relationship whatever between that area and the people of the City of Nassau, regardless of public pronouncements. The City of Nassau no longer has a Downtown.

The second point is that the purpose of the City is to facilitate the economic and social development of its people. Finding jobs may be considered an effort at economic development (I personally don’t think so), but the greater issues of development are the issues of building a communal family, the development of self-image and the building of dreams for the creation of a future.

These require attention to the details of the built environment, not merely clean-up or paint-up campaigns or occasional “plans”. Communities are built by people sharing their similarities, like their histories, their belief systems, their accomplishments and the uniqueness of their lifestyles.

Those who understand the language of the built environment know that a primary function of a downtown is to express and reinforce these important elements.

The telling of the people’s story is not a feature of the downtown, the downtown must be the telling of the people’s story. Above all, it must provide inspiration for the children and grandchildren of those people.

These are issues the best planners understand, yet in a quarter century of proposals for the development of the existing tourism zone along Bay Street and the waterfront they have either been ignored altogether or merely given lip service in favour of concerns for servicing a cruise ship mall.

The term Master Plan is used to describe the cosmetic development of this tourism zone while the people of the city are left to fend for themselves in a deteriorating, uninspiring environment that speaks more of their differences than their similarities.

In this environment, disassociation is the norm, and not the strengthening of communities.

The third point is that while we make public commitment to the idea, we are not even serious about the development of the tourism zone. While there are speeches promising “sustainable” development in the area, apparently driven by scheduled entertainment and “bringing people back Downtown”, there is no real discussion about making money.

All governments have known that cruise tourists bring us just 10% of our tourism revenue while making up two thirds of our visitors, yet there is never discussion about the strategies to rebuild the stopover business that once fed us.

Instead, we encourage business owners to tailor their businesses to the restricted timetables of short, daytime visits, and to dream of the day when a visitor that presently spends one twelfth the amount of a stopover visitor and only a few hours will spend more time and money.

I believe there is an opportunity to develop a world-class destination with 24-hour business opportunities, but the Master Plan for Old Nassau must begin with an understanding of the way tourist destinations make money.

It is not only important to bring in lots of customers, there must be a focus on having product to sell, or it doesn’t matter how many customers there are, little money will be made (sound familiar?). The development of the tourism zone must begin with a clear understanding of the business model for a tourist destination.

In summary, then, I believe we should entirely revise the approach to the area I call Old Nassau, and re-plan it as a major source of income for the people of New Providence, and as reinforcement for our national brand.

Meanwhile, I believe it is also time to build a Downtown for the City of Nassau, one that addresses the social as well as economic development of its people while providing the children of the city with an opportunity to craft an environment not limited to the scale and texture of the technologies of three centuries ago. I don’t believe they can coexist in Old Nassau. There, I said it.

PAT RAHMING

Nassau,

December 5, 2014.