Growth. The city has to grow in terms of taxpayers, residents, infrastructure and diversity, and by diversity I don't mean just black and white. We have to figure ways to attract diverse populations, income levels, ages, sexual orientation. Cities have to define themselves as special places to grow and become more interesting.

Q&A WITH THE MAYORS

• What separates good cities from great cities? Mayors of the region's major cities answer Enquirer questions on how to become "great" cities. • How have you defined success for your city? • What does it take to raise a good city into a great city? • Do you try to run your city as a business? What investments are needed in housing, commercial development, industrial development, technological development and tourism to make a great city? • What do you need from partners to make a great city? • How do you reduce city vs. suburban rivalries and build a more united metro area? • Who is your competition for development and tourism? Each other? Out-of-state cities? Who are your benchmarks? • Would additional mayoral powers help you make your city more successful, and if so, what powers? • What action do you need to take if city "product lines" (housing, etc.) don't meet their goals? • What's your impression of Cincinnati, and what advice would you give Cincinnati? • Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken • Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell • Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman • Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson • Louisville Mayor Jerry E. Abramson • Enquirer editorial: Great development strategies

It's almost the same thing. We must define Cincinnati as unique, unlike surrounding jurisdictions. It's about supporting the market that exists here, not creating some new market. I would love to attract back more families with children but our natural market is young professionals and empty-nesters. This city is particularly challenged because of is smaller size compared to other cities usually described as great. The city and county in cities such as Charlotte or Indianapolis are about the same thing. Because of Cincinnati's size, we set up battles between the city and the suburbs.

I think Cincinnati is close to being the kind of tourist destination we want. We're still lacking development of the (central) riverfront. The casinos idea was just one component of creating diverse attractions to draw people from various walks of life. We have made investments in stadiums, the Freedom Center, the Convention Center expansion. For housing you feed a market, not create a market. We have focused on the center city because that's where there's an appetite and the greatest growth. Our 2001 survey showed the main reason families leave is for schools.

You need regional cooperation from governments and business. People in other cities are astounded to hear about 3CDC and that top business leaders take responsibility for development here. We need better partnerships across demographic lines. The racial polarization makes it difficult to succeed. Cincinnati is taking on those challenges with police reform, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, and the Chamber of Commerce's supplier diversity initiative.

Good question. I think the best defense is a good offense. Build your infrastructure and assets so you keep corporations and they want to be here. I think the problem is more acute here now with Northern Kentucky, high-growth areas just across from Hamilton County, and radio talk shows stirring things up. The challenge is to keep people identifying themselves as Cincinnatians. This is the right time for our branding initiative not just to tell the country what a great place Cincinnati is, but it also can help develop the regional concept.

I think our competition is regional. It's more Columbus than Kansas City. Cincinnati and I get caught up in the latest magazine rankings. Probably the most challenged city in our region is Dayton, and Cleveland second. Columbus with Ohio State University may have a strategic advantage. In the 1980s we didn't worry about Louisville. We were the regional leader, and our challenge is to get there again. The lead city doesn't worry. It sets the standard.

I've thought since the 1980s that the mayor should be the chief executive officer of the city, and continue to think that. It's part managerial and part political. It's difficult for a city manager to perform the political role. A CEO mayor is better for the purpose of accountability and for one-stop contacts. I don't think it solves everything. There aren't a whole lot of city managers left. I think the "stronger mayor" reforms helped some. But in this system the mayor can end up being very isolated officially. On paper there's not a great deal of oomph to this position.

It's easier to say what we are doing. We have restructured economic development with a one-stop shop and strike force and we are revamping our community development department. Cincinnati is getting a better sense of what it needs to focus on, its growth sectors.

The most difficult challenge is we have been down on ourselves. Negative perceptions make it difficult to progress. We need to get our own region more excited about the prospects of the city and why they should be interested. There's no reason Cincinnati cannot be in the next wave of great cities.