Creating a Vibrant Future for Michigan\'s Cities: Why Urban Revitalization Matters

Urban Revitalization: Rationale and Status Wolverine Caucus February 12, 2010 June Manning Thomas, Ph.D., FAICP Centennial Professor Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning The 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 Hutton Vancouver, 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. Vancouver, B.C. • They are also an effective way to safeguard public investment in infrastructure, and help ensure • Both social equity and environmental sustainability.

Implications of City Underdevelopment • Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key factor in economic development.

City of Chicago Population Change 1980‐2006; Positive Effects of Hispanics 3500000 3 million 3000000 2500000 2000000 Total White Hispanic Black 1500000 1000000 500000 0 1980 1990 2000 2006 2006 1980 1990 2000 Source: U. S. Census. White and black population numbers have declined steadily.

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 2,018,784 1,855,150 ‐8.1 Land Developed 926,486 1,090,120 17.7 Land % 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, 1965‐2020 SEMCOG, 1995 Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, “Land Use and Land Development in Southeast Michigan,” March 1999

Metro Detroit, 1990‐2030 SEMCOG 2000 Source: SEMCOG, at http://www.semcog.org/data.aspx?id=4614&terms=Developed+Land+1990+2030. Accessed Feb ‘10

Selected City Population Decline, MI Cities 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 Aid MDOT Highway and Maintenance Program State 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‐ Yes urbanized areas •Establish a technical assistance capacity in Yes, CAT state government for urban revitalization (community assistance) •Reuse of brownfields P.A. 252, 253, ‘03 •Land Bank Fast Track Authority P.A. 258‐263, ’03 •Promote reuse of historic buildings P.A.s 2008 •Urban blight legislation P.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 Yes •Establish a technical assistance capacity in state govt for urban Yes, CAT revitalization (community assistance) •Reuse of brownfields P.A. 252, 253, ‘03 •Land Bank Fast Track Authority P.A. 258‐263, ‘03 •Promote reuse of historic buildings P.A.s 2008 •Urban blight legislation P.A. 316‐21, ’03 •Housing and Community Development Trust Fund . •Michigan IDA for home ownership . •Safe Routes to School . •Cool Cities and related actions •Neighborhood Enterprise Zone amended 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 NUMBER ADDRESSED BY MARCH 2009 FULLY 22 PARTIALLY 39 IN PROGRESS 3 NOT ADDRESSED 149 Source: 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

Creating a Vibrant Future for Michigan\'s Cities: Why Urban Revitalization Matters

by umlansing

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

$Creating a Vibrant Future for Michigan\’s Cities: Why Urban Revitalization Matters$ Creating a Vibrant Future for Michigan\’s Cities: Why Urban Revitalization Matters Presentation Transcript