The New Metropolitan Agenda

1
The New Metropolitan Agenda
Center on Urban and Metropolitan PolicyBruce
Katz, Director
Presentation to the Council of Michigan
Foundations November 2, 2001
2
Major Questions

• What are the general trends affecting
  metropolitan areas?
• What is the emerging metropolitan agenda?
• Where do we go from here?

3
I. What are the general trends affecting
metropolitan areas?
4
1. Population is Shifting
5
Population is Shifting
The 1990s presented the strongest growth in four
decades
Source U.S. Census Bureau
6
Population is Shifting
The south and west grew the fastest
Source U.S. Census Bureau
7
Population is Shifting
Michigan and other Midwestern states experienced
modest growth during the 1990s
Source U.S. Census Bureau
8
2. City Growth is Uneven
9
City Growth is Uneven
Overall, city population grew during the 1990s
8.1 INCREASE
Source U.S. Census Bureau, largest 100 cities
in 1990
10
City Growth is Uneven
Some cities grew, but many cities lost population
1
1 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
11
City Growth is Uneven
There was a noticeable downtown rebound in some
cities
Source Rebecca Sohmer and Robert Lang. Downtown
Rebound. Fannie Mae Foundation, May 2001
12
City Growth is Uneven
Michigans cities grew at varying rates during
the 1990s
Source U.S. Census Bureau
13
City Growth is Uneven
Some of Michigans smaller cities are
experiencing population loss
Source U.S. Census Bureau
14
City Growth is Uneven
Job growth was also uneven. Detroit lost jobs,
while Grand Rapids gained them 1
1 Based on changes between 1992 and 1997
Source U.S Department of Housing and Urban
Development, State of the Cities 2000
15
3. City demographics are changing
16
Demographics are Changing
Cities experienced major demographic change
during the 1990s
Source U.S. Census Bureau 100 largest cities
17
Demographics are Changing
Hispanics and Asians fueled the growth in big
cities
Source DVera Cohen. Immigration Fueling Big
U.S. Cities, The Washington Post, March 16, 2001.
18
Demographics are Changing
Michigans largest cities lost white residents
at the same time, their Hispanic population
soared
Source U.S. Census Bureau
19
Demographics are Changing
Growth in the Hispanic population was apparent in
Grand Rapids
1990
2000
White
Black
Hispanic
API
Source US Census Bureau
20
Demographics are Changing
And Detroit to a lesser extent
1990
2000
White
Black
Hispanic
API
Source US Census Bureau
21
4. Metropolitan areas are decentralizing
22
Population Is Decentralizing
Suburbs grew faster than cities in almost every
metropolitan area
1 Aggregated data for all Census defined central
cities
Source U.S. Census Bureau
23
Population Is Decentralizing
In Michigan, strong suburban growth during the
1990s contrasts with particularly weak growth in
central cities
Source U.S. Census Bureau
24
Population Is Decentralizing
While Grand Rapids grew moderately, counties
north and south of the city experienced very
strong growth
Source U.S. Census Bureau
25
Population Is Decentralizing
Detroit lost a significant amount of population,
but counties to the north and west of the city
grew
Source U.S. Census Bureau
26
Population Is Decentralizing
The counties outside of Lansing also grew despite
the citys population loss
Source U.S. Census Bureau
27
Population Is Decentralizing
The five counties with the largest growth in the
1990s were all located on the fringes of
Michigans metro areas
Source U.S. Census Bureau
28
Population Is Decentralizing
Regions in the Midwest are de-densifying or
sprawling
Source Fulton et al., Who Sprawls Most? How
Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.
Brookings Institution, July 2001.
29
Population Is Decentralizing
Michigans metropolitan areas de-densified
rapidly during the 1990s
Source Fulton et al., Who Sprawls Most? How
Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.
Brookings Institution, July 2001.
30
Employment Is Decentralizing
Employment is decentralizing. Cities gained jobs
during the 1990s, but suburbs gained more
1 Aggregated data for 114 large cities
Source U.S Department of Housing and Urban
Development, State of the Cities 2000
31
Employment Is Decentralizing
This trend was apparent in Michigans largest
metropolitan areas 1
1 Based on changes between 1992 and 1997
Source U.S Department of Housing and Urban
Development, State of the Cities 2000
32
Employment Is Decentralizing
Metropolitan Detroit has a very limited amount of
office space in the central city compared to
other regions
Source U.S. Census Bureau
33
5. Decentralization Is Costly
34
Decentralization Is Costly
Decentralization leaves behind concentrated
poverty in inner cities. Wayne Countys share of
the state welfare caseload increased
significantly between 1994 and 1999
Source Katherine Allen and Maria Kirby.
Unfinished Business Why Cities Matter to
Welfare Reform. Brookings, July 2000.
35
Older suburbs are beginning to take on many of
the challenges of central cities.
Decentralization Is Costly

• Increasing school poverty
• Growing racial and ethnic diversity
• Declining fiscal capacity.
• Declining commercial corridors and retail malls

36
Decentralization Is Costly
EITC receivers are concentrated in Detroit.
Small pockets are also appearing in other parts
of Wayne County and southern parts of Macomb and
Oakland County
Source IRS, E-File Demographics.
37
Metropolitan Areas Are Decentralizing
Decentralization has had many negative
consequences for newer suburban areas and
businesses

• Traffic congestion
• Air pollution
• Job/housing mismatch

• Loss of open space
• Overcrowded schools
• Fragmented governance

38
Decentralization Is Costly
In the Detroit metro area, VMTs increased by 8
percent between 1992 and 1999 (population
increased by 3)
Source U.S. Department of Transportation
39
Decentralization Is Costly
In the Lansing metro area, VMTs increased by 16
percent between 1992 and 1999 (population
increased by 2)
Source U.S. Department of Transportation
40
Decentralization Is Costly
In the Grand Rapids metro area, VMTs increased by
20 between 1992 and 1999 (population increased
by 8)
Source U.S. Department of Transportation
41
Decentralization Is Costly
The fringes of metropolitan areas areconsuming
excessive amounts of land

• In the state of Michigan, 364,000 acres of land
  were developed between 1992 and 1997
• The state ranked ninth in land consumption
  during this period. Most states that exceeded
  Michigan had much greater population growth
• The average annual conversion of developed land
  was nearly 60 percent higher in the 1990s than in
  the 1980s

Source USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service
42
Decentralization Is Costly
Since 1978, there has been a 26 increase in
urbanized land area. Meanwhile, 18agricultural
land and 8 percent of wetlands have been lost
Source Natural Resources Management and
Environmental Code Commission
43
II. What is the emerging metropolitan agenda?
44
The New Metropolitan Agenda
3. INFRASTRUCTURE
2. LAND USE REFORM
1. REGIONAL GOVERNANCE
5. URBAN REINVESTMENT
4. TAXATION
45
Regional Governance
Recent Activity
1994 Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan
Reorganization Act 1996 Virginia Regional
Competitiveness Act 1999 Georgia Regional
Transportation Authority 2000 North Carolina
Metro Planning Organization Merger Law
46
Regional Governance
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (1999)

• Combats air pollution, traffic congestion and
  sprawl development
• Mandates approval for major highway and
  development projects that affect the metro
  Atlanta region
• Requires local governments to cooperate with GRTA
  or face loss of state and federal funds for
  road-building

47
Land Use Reform Preservation
Recent Activity
1998 New Jersey Public Question 1 1 Million
Acres 1998 Clean Michigan Initiative 1998 Forever
Florida Program 1999 Pennsylvania Growing
Greener 2000 California Parks, Water, Air and
Coast Protection Bond
48
Land Use Reform Preservation
New Jersey Public Question 1 Open Space Bond
Referendum (1998)

• 1 billion dollars over 10 years to preserve 1
  million acres of resource lands
• Authorizes 16 counties (92 municipalities) to use
  property taxes or revenues from the sale of bonds
  for preservation and conservation

49
Land Use Reform Growth Management
Recent Activity
1998 Tennessee Growth Policy, Annexation, and
Incorporation Law 1999 Wisconsin Comprehensive
Planning Legislation 1999 Illinois Smart Growth
and Technical Assistance Act 2000 Pennsylvania
Growing Smarter Law 2001 New Hampshire GrowSmart
(pending)
50
Land Use Reform Growth Management
Pennsylvania Growing Smarter Law (2000)

• Clarifies authority of counties and
  municipalities to create Locally Designated
  Growth Areas
• Encourages transfer of development rights from
  open space to planned growth areas
• Facilitates regional planning
• Gives local governments greater ability to
  withstand legal challenges while planning growth

51
Infrastructure
Recent Activity
1997 Maryland Smart Growth Act 1999 New Jersey
Fix It First Transportation Policy 1999 Illinois
12 billion public works investment - 4.1 to
transit
52
Infrastructure
Maryland Smart Growth and Neighborhood
Conservation Act of 1997

• Targets major state funding (e.g. transportation,
  housing, state facilities) to Priority Funding
  Areas.
• Priority Funding Areas include municipalities,
  inner beltway areas, enterprise zones, industrial
  areas and new planned growth areas.

53
Taxation
Minnesota Fiscal Disparities Law

• Allocates 40 of the growth in property tax
  revenues from commercial industrial development
  to a metropolitan tax base pool
• Funds in the pool are redistributed to
  communities based on their commercial tax
  capacity
• While the law has narrowed fiscal disparities,
  growing suburbs continue to have 25 to 30 percent
  more tax base per household than central cities
  and inner suburbs

54
Urban Reinvestment
Recent Activity
1995 Vermont Downtown Program 1998 New Jersey
Rehabilitation Subcode 1998 Missouri Distressed
Communities Act 1998 Massachusetts Subsidy
Accountability Law 1999 Oregon Livable Community
Initiative 2000 Maine fund to locate state
agencies downtown
55
Urban Reinvestment
New Jersey The Rehabilitation Subcode of 1998

• Smart codes reduce the cost of redeveloping in
  older areas.
• Newark experienced a 60 increase in such rehab
  projects in the first year after smart codes were
  in place.

56
The New Metropolitan Agenda
3. INFRASTRUCTURE
2. LAND USE REFORM
1. REGIONAL GOVERNANCE
5. URBAN REINVESTMENT
4. TAXATION
57
III. Where do we go here?
58
What Can Funders Do Locally
Regional Governance

• Metropolitan transit entities

Land Use Reform
Growth management practices Systemic land
preservation
Infrastructure
Enact transportation reform
Taxation
Metro tax sharing
Building codes
Urban Reinvestment
59
www.brookings.edu/urban