Lancaster and Harrisburg pursued different paths toward downtown revitalization, resulting in contrasting long-term outcomes. Lancaster's strategic and gradual planning fostered ongoing sustainable growth, making the city a hub of activity with thriving businesses such as cafes, restaurants, and galleries. In contrast, Harrisburg's revitalization, though initially successful with vibrant developments, ultimately fell flat as momentum dwindled. The disparity highlights the importance of methodical planning over rapid, reactionary growth in achieving enduring urban revitalization.
"By 2014, Lancaster was a city transformed... bringing in a steady stream of visitors. This fueled restaurants, art galleries, bars and coffee shops."
"It does feel that those first 10 years, there was so much change. All of a sudden, Lancaster City was the cool place to be."
Collection
[
|
...
]