Urban Revitalization:Rationale and Status
Wolverine Caucus
February 12, 2010
June Manning Thomas, Ph.D., FAICPCentennial Professor
Taubman College of Architecture and Urban PlanningThe University of Michigan
Overview
• The importance of cities
• Implications of city underdevelopment
• The status of cities and metropolitan areas in Michigan
• Michigan’s policy response
Why are Cities Important?
• Traditional wisdom (cities are no longer needed) turned out to be wrong
• Recent thinking– Saskia Sassen
– Michael Porter
– Richard Florida
– Terry Clark
– Thomas HuttonVancouver, B. C.
The Importance of Cities • Cities are essential for economic
functions in the global “new economy,” because of
• The nature of advanced services,• Both social and economic
agglomeration, and• Resulting attraction of key
populations and economic activities.• They are also an effective way to
safeguard public investment in infrastructure, and help ensure
• Both social equity and environmental sustainability.
Vancouver, B.C.
Implications of City Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key factor in economic development.
City of Chicago Population Change1980‐2006; Positive Effects of Hispanics
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
1980 1990 2000 2006
TotalWhiteHispanicBlack
Source: U. S. Census. White and black population numbers have declined steadily.
3 million
1980 1990 2000 2006
Implications of City Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key factor in economic development.
• Constantly increasing development of urban land and cost of infrastructure improvement on the fringes.
Population Static but Land Use Increases, S.E. Michigan
1990 2000 % Change
Undeveloped Land
2,018,784 1,855,150 ‐8.1
Developed Land
926,486 1,090,120 17.7
% Developed 31.5 37.0 17.7
Population 4,590,468 4,833,493 5.2
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), “Land Use in Southeast MI: Regional Summary,” April 2004
Metro Detroit, 1965‐2020SEMCOG, 1995
Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, “Land Use and Land Development in Southeast Michigan,” March 1999
Metro Detroit, 1990‐2030SEMCOG 2000
Source: SEMCOG, at http://www.semcog.org/data.aspx?id=4614&terms=Developed+Land+1990+2030. Accessed Feb ‘10
Selected City Population Decline, MICities vs. Their Counties 2000‐2005
Ann Arbor
Detroit
Kalamazoo
Muskegon
Source: Michigan Higher Education Land Policy Consortium (MIHELP), “State of Michigan Cities: An Index of Urban Prosperity,” February 2007.
Implications of City Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key factor in economic development.
• Constantly increasing development of urban land and cost of infrastructure improvement on the fringes.
• Fiscal crisis. Example: Roads.
Inability to Match Federal AidMDOT Highway and Maintenance ProgramState Revenue Shortfall and Federal Aid Lost
* Resulting program amount with declining state revenues and inability to match federal aid.
MDOT 2009
2010 Is the Last Year We Will Be Able to Fully Match Federal Funding for Highway and Maintenance
Program.
MDOT 2009
Implications of City Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key factor in economic development.
• Constantly increasing development of urban land and cost of infrastructure improvement on the fringes.
• Fiscal crisis. Example: Roads. Another ex.: fiscal crisis for diverse municipalities.
Detroit metro tax base vs. change in tax base
Myron Orfield and Thomas Luce, “Michigan Metropatterns: A Regional Agenda,” 2003. http://www.ameregis.com/maps/region_maps/michigan_1c.pdf
Implications of City Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key factor in economic development.
• Constantly increasing development of urban land and cost of infrastructure improvement on the fringes.
• Fiscal crisis. Example: Roads. Another ex.: fiscal crisis for diverse municipalities.
• Hindrances in ability to attract “new economy,” increase employment.
• Debilitating inequities, abandonment, decay.
Michigan’s Policy Responses
• 1977: “Cities in Transition: Report of the Urban Action group to Michigan Gov. William G. Milliken”
• 1990 catalog of “Working with our Cities”
• 2003 Michigan Land Use Leadership Council (MLULC) and related initiatives
Some Key Theories about the Best State Actions
• The Orfield Approach
• The Vey and Brookings Institute Approach
• The Creative Cities Approach
• The Land Use Approach
Key Theories about Best State Actions: Strengths, Shortcomings
• The Orfield/ Vey Approach—tax reform, regional land use planning, metropolitan partnerships, and (Vey, Brookings) major central‐city and human investment initiatives
• The Creative‐class Cities Approach—attract creative class, young people, creative activities
• The Land Use Approach—improve land use, in particular via urban containment or “smart growth”
2003 Michigan Land Use Leadership Council
Looked at four major areas; specific recommendations for change:– Urban revitalization
– Land resource‐based industries
– Planning and development legislation
– Infrastructure and community services
Summary of 2003 MLULC Recommendations for Urban Revitalization “Fully addressed”
ORIGINAL MLULC RECOMMENDATIONS Implementation
•Site additional public offices in already‐urbanized areas•Establish a technical assistance capacity in state government for urban revitalization (community assistance)•Reuse of brownfields•Land Bank Fast Track Authority•Promote reuse of historic buildings•Urban blight legislation
Yes
Yes, CAT
P.A. 252, 253, ‘03P.A. 258‐263, ’03P.A.s 2008P.A. 316‐21, ’03
Summary of 2003 MLULC Recommendations for Urban Revitalization “Fully addressed”
ORIGINAL MLULC RECOMMENDATIONS Implementation
•Site additional public offices in already‐urbanized areas•Establish a technical assistance capacity in state govt for urban revitalization (community assistance)•Reuse of brownfields•Land Bank Fast Track Authority•Promote reuse of historic buildings•Urban blight legislation•Housing and Community Development Trust Fund•Michigan IDA for home ownership•Safe Routes to School•Cool Cities and related actions•Neighborhood Enterprise Zone amended
YesYes, CAT
P.A. 252, 253, ‘03P.A. 258‐263, ‘03P.A.s 2008P.A. 316‐21, ’03...
Source: Kellogg “People and Land” tally, MLULC web page, Updated March 3, 2009; accessed Feb. 2010 http://www.peopleandland.org/MLULC_Recommendations/index.cfm
MLULC Land Use Recommendations Overall (Four Categories)
RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSED BY MARCH 2009
NUMBER
FULLY 22
PARTIALLY 39
IN PROGRESS 3
NOT ADDRESSED 149Source: Kellogg Foundation “People and Land” tally, MLULC web page, updated March 2009, accessed February 2010. http://www.peopleandland.org/MLULC_Recommendations/index.cfm
Key Theories about Best State Actions: Michigan’s Record Reviewed
• The Orfield/ Vey Approach—tax reform, regional land use planning, metropolitan partnerships, and major central‐city and human investment initiatives
• The Creative‐class Cities Approach—attract creative class, young people, creative activities
• The Land Use Approach—improve land use, in particular via urban containment or “smart growth”
More detail: June M. Thomas, “Michigan’s Urban Policies in an Era of Land Use Reform and Creative‐class Cities,” in Richard Jelier and Gary Sands, editors, Sustaining Michigan: Metropolitan Policies and Strategies (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2009), pp. 261‐80.
Conclusions
• Cities are important in the new global economy
• Many of Michigan’s cities are suffering
• Actions thus far are not addressing the problem sufficiently
Top Related