The strong complementarity between the Lincoln Institute’s expertise and China’s land policy challenges provided the rationale for the Lincoln Institute’s activities in the People’s Republic of China. China’s rapid economic growth over the past 35 years involved the usual structural changes in the economy (a declining share of agriculture; an expanding share of manufacturing and services; growing trade; and increasing urbanization), but it has also involved an institutional transformation, as the centrally planned economy moved pragmatically to a greater reliance on market mechanisms. This institutional change has been especially challenging in the case of land, because of the dual land tenure system whereby land is owned either by the state or collectively. China’s growth has produced many land-related problems ranging from property rights and urban growth, to property taxation and municipal finance reform, to land conservation and housing affordability. The Lincoln Institute’s extensive international experience with these issues and China’s impressive track record in using international expertise to inform its policy implementation led us in the early 2000s to believe that cooperation between the Lincoln Institute and China had great potential.

Lincoln Institute’s activities in the People’s Republic of China were initiated in 2001, and its China Program was formally established on July 1, 2003. Activities were originally carried out by staff and consultants based in the United States who travelled to China. Professors Chengri Ding and Gerrit Knaap of the University of Maryland were heavily involved in the China Program’s beginnings. These early years saw the initiation of training programs, sponsorship of research with government agencies, support of research fellowships, and the organization of research conferences and policy symposia. Early areas of focus were property taxation, farmland preservation, and urban planning. The idea of creating a center in partnership with a Chinese university soon emerged as the travel and logistical challenges of managing the program from abroad became evident. In addition, the Lincoln Institute’s change in status from an educational institution to a private operating foundation in 2006 required greater programmatic involvement of its own staff in all of its activities.

Preliminary discussions to explore a partnership with Peking University began in 2005 and continued through 2006, culminating in a formal agreement to establish the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) on October 9, 2007—one decade ago. On the university side, this process was overseen by the then-executive vice president of Peking University, Professor Lin Jianhua, who skillfully facilitated the establishment of the PLC. It provides support for education, training, and research in urban economics, urban policy, land management, land policy, property taxation, local government finance, urban and regional planning, and urban affairs. Its mission has been to study land, urban, and fiscal policies; to disseminate results from its studies and research; and to facilitate education, training, policy analysis, and research involving scholars, policy makers, and practitioners. In mid-2007, Joyce Man was appointed director of Lincoln Institute’s Program on the People’s Republic of China and became the founding director of the PLC. In late 2007, office space at Peking University was quickly prepared and local staff hired under her direction, enabling the PLC literally to open its doors in January 2008. Its establishment was memorialized in an inauguration ceremony on April 21, 2008 with featured speakers Arnold C. Harberger, distinguished professor at UCLA, and Gang Yi, vice president of the People’s Bank of China.

From its beginning, the PLC annually offered several specialized training courses for government officials on topics proposed by government departments. Involved government agencies have included State Administration and Taxation, Ministry of Land and Resources, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the Ministry of Transportation. Topics have ranged from real estate appraisal techniques and property tax administration, to transit-oriented development and affordable housing. In addition, the PLC has arranged many symposia attended by international experts and government officials to review international experience in particular public policy areas. Topics have included local public finance, property rights, urban transport, housing markets, and urban planning. Participating agencies, in addition to those just mentioned, include the Development Research Center of the State Council and the National Development and Reform Commission. Chinese officials have proved to be skillful at drawing on good practices from international experience and incorporating them in new policies adapted to the special conditions in China.

The Lincoln Institute has a long track record of providing education and training on land related issues directly to academics and practitioners. Given the scale of China, the PLC shifted audience to focus on those who train others. This approach, called Training the Trainers, aims to enhance the capacity and awareness of young scholars throughout China to address issues related to urban development and land policy. This annual PLC program targets assistant and associate university professors and professional researchers. It increases competence through intensive professional seminars. The one- to two-week sessions are generally attended by about 60 participants, the majority of whom have doctorate degrees and a high level of English proficiency. Instructors are leading international experts who offer participants an invaluable international perspective. The sessions have normally taken place in Beijing, but in recent years the sessions have also been offered by video conference to include participants in other locations. Since the PLC’s founding, nearly 600 scholars have benefitted from this training program.

In addition to training and education, the PLC has supported land-related research in a variety of ways. Using an open call for proposals and expert panels to review submissions, the PLC has annually granted about 10 dissertation fellowships to support the research of Ph.D. students in China and seven research fellowships to senior researchers in China. Similarly, the PLC has granted about three international research fellowships annually to scholars outside of China. All of these fellowship recipients have gathered to discuss their draft reports at an annual research conference in China, whose attendees include international experts and notable Chinese scholars of land policy. An overall objective of the training and research program has been to create a community of scholars knowledgeable about land-related policy issues and the state of current research on such topics, and these in-person conferences, training sessions, and symposia have contributed mightily to this objective.

Staff and faculty of the PLC have also carried out research on urban and land issues, and three contributions deserve special mention. First, in 2010 PLC staff realized that municipal indebtedness was growing and poorly understood. Many municipalities had created local government financing vehicles that used urban land as collateral to borrow funds from banks. This debt was not included in local government accounts. The PLC produced some of the first estimates of the surprising size of this indebtedness, and subsequent work by the National Audit Office confirmed the magnitudes. Second, although it was widely recognized that housing prices in China’s major cities had been rapidly rising, available housing price indices understated the increase. The PLC worked jointly with Professor Siqi Zheng, then of Tsinghua University, to develop a new housing price index based on the repeat sales method used in the Case-Shiller housing price index for the United States. Launched in 2014, this China Quality-Controlled Urban Housing Price Index is recognized as the most accurate index currently available. Third, Professor Canfei He, Associate Director of the PLC, has over the past several years produced a body of empirically based research on the economic geography of China’s cities, including how the restructuring of China’s export-oriented industries is affecting patterns of urban growth. His work has improved understanding of the determinants of urban growth across China’s provinces.

The PLC has done a very credible job in meeting its original objectives and it has proven to be a sustainable institution enduring through the many changes in China and the world that have occurred since its founding. One reason for its success is that the PLC is not the Lincoln Institute’s “office in Beijing” but was conceived of and operated as a true joint center between Peking University and the Lincoln Institute. Another reason is that it has been skillfully led, originally by Joyce Man and now by Zhi Liu. In addition, land-related issues in China have proven to be extremely challenging, not amenable to simple and quick solutions, and often linked to other policy issues. Accordingly, revenue from land—whether from conversion of rural to urban use or from land-based taxes—is inexorably linked to local fiscal health, and land conversion from rural to urban use is a key determinant of the location and speed of urban growth. My hope when the PLC was established was that it would work itself out of a job by helping Chinese policy makers resolve many land-related issues or at least dramatically reduce their salience. This hope has proven elusive, and it appears that the PLC still has much work to do.

On October 14, we will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy, more affectionately known as the PKU–Lincoln Center, or PLC. To commemorate the occasion, we are dedicating this issue of Land Lines to illustrate some of the PLC’s land policy work in contemporary China. While it is impossible to cover the broad set of activities and issues addressed by the PLC, we hope that the stories presented here will represent the relevance and rigor of our work. Since its founding, the PLC has both observed and participated in land policy formation in China. In this message, I will reflect on the future of the PLC in light of our experiences over the last decade and the current trends we’ve observed. In addition, we’ve asked Lincoln Institute President Emeritus Gregory K. Ingram to provide a retrospective reflection on the Lincoln Institute’s program in China. Dr. Ingram and Peking University President Lin Jianhua were the PLC’s principal architects, bringing the center to fruition in October 2007. 

It is hard to imagine a more extraordinary decade in China’s remarkable economic history than the last one. Ten years ago, China’s annual GDP growth was 14.2 percent, a near-peak in the post-reform era, culminating a 25-year run of double-digit average increases in real GDP. This growth rate, more than double that of global GDP, propelled the nation’s global economic stature so that China now challenges the United States for worldwide economic dominance. 

Importantly, this growth was fueled by land. Huge infrastructure investments facilitated industrial expansion around major cities, which grew by leaps and bounds using land-based financing. China now has more than 100 cities with over 1 million residents and some 15 “megacities” or urban agglomerations with populations over 10 million. In 2007, only Shanghai and Beijing were home to this many people, according to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.  

During the decade, the economy lost some momentum, and policy makers adjusted to a “new normal” of roughly 7 percent annual real GDP growth—but this is still twice the rate of global GDP growth, positioning China to double the size of its economy in the next decade. The dizzying performance of the last few decades drove major population migrations from rural to urban areas. When the PLC launched in 2007, China was urbanizing at an unprecedented pace, adding more than 20 million urban residents annually. In 2007, 45 percent of China’s population was urban, up from 20 percent in 1980. Today, the population is 57 percent urban and is expected to reach 60 percent by 2020. A significant share of new urban growth occurred in the increasing number of megacities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen.

China’s unprecedented growth and mass urban migration generated both intended and unintended consequences. For example, the rapid expansion of megacities is beginning to level off. Many young professionals have begun gravitating toward second- and third-tier cities instead. When surveyed, recent migrants indicated four main reasons for their moves: high housing costs in megacities, stress from the frenetic pace of life, difficulty managing the care of aging parents, and air pollution. Over the next decade, the PLC will observe and track this trend to determine the implications for land and housing policies in both the megacities and the second- and third-tier cities that are receiving new migrants. 

The housing market, a significant tailwind for economic development over the last decade, has become a major impediment to growth in recent years. China’s fast-rising house prices are an artifact of widespread speculation by a fast-growing middle class looking for good yields on long-term investments. In past years, this investment was encouraged by the national government, which recognized that property development would significantly drive up GDP. However, increasing shortages of affordable housing are now becoming a big problem in many cities, locking out first-time home buyers. This trend has been accompanied by a decline in land-based financing for municipalities as land reforms have curtailed the practice. Recently, the central government signaled a new policy direction when President Xi Jinping stated that “Houses are built for living, not for speculation.” At the same time, lenders have begun rationing credit to cool housing demand. The PLC will continue to track the housing sector to see whether it can help craft a “soft landing” for it. 

Urbanization in China, as in other countries, was accompanied by a dramatic decline in poverty as well as increased inequality in the early years. But in this regard, China departed from some international patterns: Although inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, rose steadily from the 1980s until 2010, it has been declining since 2012. We expect that this is not the only way that China’s transformation will break from common development patterns. The habit of breaking from common, historic development patterns is testament to China’s ability to study and learn from the experiences of other countries, a process in which the PLC has played a role.

In the last decade, the PLC contributed to policy debates by nimbly and quickly mobilizing international experts connected to global Lincoln Institute networks. In the coming decade, we expect to respond similarly to requests for high-level international exchange from government and institutional counterparts including the Budget Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress, Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Land and Resources, Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development, State Administration of Taxation, Development Research Center of the State Council, China Center for International Economic Exchange, and China Land Survey and Planning Institute in topical areas such as property taxation, municipal finance, land policy, housing policy, and land conservation.

A hallmark contribution of the PLC over the last decade has been knowledge dissemination and policy advice on the property tax law, property value assessment, and local tax administration. While the National Property Tax Law is not on the legislative timetable this year, there is mounting political pressure to introduce a property tax. We expect that the approval of the national property tax law will generate future demand for technical support to implement the new tax, particularly in smaller cities, especially for property value assessment and municipal administrative systems. The PLC will promote research to lighten administrative burdens on municipal governments by studying, for example, how combining drone technology and property registration data can quickly establish cadastral systems for cities with weak technical capacity. The PLC also will investigate the applicability of other land value capture instruments, such as negotiable developer obligations, as another way to build a fiscal base for local governments.

China has encountered the limits of carbon-fueled growth and is now becoming a world leader in renewable energy generation. This orientation toward “green growth” also characterizes new government policies that emphasize qualitative aspects of economic and urban development over quantitative measures. The “sponge cities” program, for example, illustrates the national commitment to use green infrastructure to improve water management in cities. The national government will pilot the program in a select group of cities, the way it introduces many new policies, before establishing it on a national stage. The PLC will participate in the pilot city programs, studying implementation and suggesting ways to improve policy approaches before the program is deployed nationally.

The PLC has helped advance the evolution of urban land and housing policies in China through its intellectual output—through research, dissemination of knowledge, and international exchange. In ten years, the PLC built a network of hundreds of urban development and land policy experts through its flagship Training the Trainers course. The program will remain a primary way that we expand our academic and policy networks in China. Currently, our networks heavily represent senior scholars and policy makers. This has exacerbated a bias in China’s research funding system, which favors established scholars, leaving young academics with very limited funding opportunities. Recently, we decided to cultivate a pipeline of young scholars in China using our domestic research support. Following recommendations from our board of directors, we plan to hire established academics to mentor our young scholars. Beginning this year, we will bring on affiliated research advisers on a part-time basis, to supervise projects and foster higher quality research from our young scholars. In addition, we will bring young PLC fellows and graduate students or affiliated scholars to the Lincoln Institute in Cambridge to conduct research as visiting scholars and work closely with the U.S. staff. Through these efforts, we hope to replenish academic and policy networks to serve China in perpetuity.

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is tremendously proud of the work of the PLC. The enormous role that land and land policy have played in China’s unprecedented transformation over the last decade has fascinated, daunted, challenged, and sometimes overwhelmed us. We are honored and humbled to have the opportunity to work with Peking University and its visionary leadership. We look forward to future decades of collective efforts to find the answers to some of our most vexing social, economic, and environmental problems in land.

Liderazgo local sólido, visión compartida por la comunidad, crecimiento inclusivo, resolución creativa de problemas, colaboración entre sectores y creación de entornos. Todos son ingredientes importantes para lograr buenos resultados en las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas de los EE.UU.

Durante generaciones, estos centros industriales fueron imprescindibles para que la clase media de los EE.UU. prosperara. En lugares como Scranton, Pensilvania, y Worcester, Massachusetts, se crearon oportunidades laborales que permitieron que grandes cantidades de inmigrantes rurales y extranjeros lograran tener un estilo de vida cómodo con un trabajo que exigía habilidades relativamente bajas. Sin embargo, al observarse una transición en la economía nacional, que se alejó de la producción, muchas de estas comunidades se enfrentaron a una pobreza afianzada, desinversión en los barrios y una mano de obra con destrezas incongruentes con las necesidades de los empleadores.

Las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas de los EE.UU. poseen economías tradicionales que se centran en la producción, su población alcanzó su punto álgido en el siglo XX y luego decayó a un rango de 30.000 a 200.000 habitantes. Aunque se las puede encontrar en todo el país, se concentran en su mayor parte en Nueva Inglaterra y la región de los Grandes Lagos, desde Gary, Indiana, hasta Lowell, Massachusetts (Figura 1). En las conversaciones nacionales suelen caer bajo la sombra de sus contrapartes más grandes. Si bien los investigadores y las fuerzas vivas han identificado estrategias para revitalizar lugares como Pittsburgh y Baltimore, se ha prestado menos atención a cómo se pueden transferir estos enfoques a comunidades como Dayton, Ohio, o Binghamton, Nueva York. Por lo general, estas ciudades no son sede de oficinas centrales de grandes empresas ni instituciones importantes, activos que se reforzaron en ciudades más grandes, con excelentes resultados. Esto quiere decir que incluso las estrategias que demostraron ser eficientes deberán adaptarse de forma creativa en lugares como Camden, Nueva Jersey, o Youngstown, Ohio.

En Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities (Revitalizar las antiguas ciudades industriales), un informe de 2013 del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo, Alan Mallach y Lavea Brachman plantean que la forma más segura de revitalizar este tipo de ciudades es mediante incrementos estratégicos o “la fusión de una visión estratégica a largo plazo con un proceso de aumento progresivo hacia el cambio”. Sugieren que, para establecer un método que obtenga buenos resultados, la comunidad debe tener una visión compartida del futuro de la ciudad y las fuerzas vivas locales deben persistir en sus esfuerzos para fomentar esa visión de largo alcance. Este proceso podría ser particularmente importante en las ciudades más pequeñas, que tienen menos activos y recursos locales, lo que deja menos margen para asumir riesgos.

Recientemente, junto con el Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC) hemos completado un estudio de 24 antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas en siete estados de las regiones centro oeste y noreste que evalúa su rendimiento y determina las estrategias que podrían ayudar a mejorar su vitalidad. Analizamos datos económicos, sociales y demográficos de tres años: 2000, 2009 y 2015. También entrevistamos a los dirigentes locales de cada ciudad para comprender qué ayudó a algunas de ellas a prosperar y qué causó un rendimiento bajo en otras.

Esta investigación se desarrolla a partir del informe de Mallach y Brachman, para demostrar que el liderazgo local sólido, la visión compartida por la comunidad, el crecimiento inclusivo, la resolución creativa de problemas, la colaboración entre sectores y la creación de entornos son ingredientes importantes para lograr buenos resultados. Este artículo se centra en cómo llegan las ciudades a ese punto y qué factores aumentan las posibilidades de obtener buenos resultados, y deriva de nuestro reciente Enfoque en Políticas de Suelo, Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Strategies for Postindustrial Success from Gary to Lowell (Revitalizar las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas de los Estados Unidos: estrategias para lograr el éxito postindustrial, desde Gary hasta Lowell), que el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo publicó en agosto de 2017.

Metodología

Para acceder a una perspectiva general de cómo les está yendo a las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas, el Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC) recopiló información sobre 65 ciudades de siete estados de las regiones centro oeste y noreste que cumplieran con las siguientes condiciones: población de entre 30.000 y 200.000 habitantes en 2013, que dicha población haya sido muy inferior en 2000 en comparación con este pico, aunque se hubiera recuperado un poco, y que la ciudad tuviera una historia de producción sólida; además, que no fuera principalmente universitaria ni un suburbio de una ciudad más grande.

Seleccionamos 24 ciudades representativas que se estudiarían con mayor profundidad y analizamos los datos del censo del 2000 en EE.UU. para cada lugar y los estimativos de cinco años de American Community Survey de 2009 y 2015 en las siguientes categorías: población, nacidos en el extranjero, jóvenes profesionales, porcentaje de residentes que trabajan en la ciudad, índice de desempleo, índice de participación de la mano de obra, mediana de la renta familiar, índice de pobreza, obtención de títulos universitarios, índice de viviendas vacantes a largo plazo, índice de viviendas ocupadas por sus dueños, porcentaje de venta de hogares con hipoteca, mediana del valor de los hogares, mediana de alquileres, industrias de empleo y ocupaciones.

Calculamos los cambios porcentuales en cada categoría para los años 2000 a 2015 y, luego, en dos subconjuntos, de 2000 a 2009 y de 2009 a 2015, con el objetivo de obtener un panorama más claro sobre el efecto de la Gran Recesión en la trayectoria de cada ciudad. Además, el GOPC recopiló datos sobre empleo y trabajos en 2002 y 2014 en el sitio web OnTheMap de la Oficina del censo de los EE.UU. Utilizamos estos datos y categorizamos cada lugar según un rendimiento alto, moderado y bajo, de acuerdo con sus condiciones actuales y las trayectorias a lo largo del tiempo. Esta agrupación sirvió para demostrar cómo se comparan las trayectorias de cada ciudad y para identificar desafíos y factores persistentes que contribuyen con la revitalización. 

—Torey Hollingsworth y Alison Goebel

Colaboración para una economía global

Las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas deben planificar para determinar cómo pueden adaptarse a los cambios de la economía global, y deben hacerlo incluso más que las ciudades más grandes. Por lo general, para las antiguas ciudades industriales el patrón que se consolida cada vez más, en el que las corporaciones se mudan a las ciudades globales prósperas, no es beneficioso. El nicho económico que le permitirá prosperar a una ciudad más pequeña depende de los activos locales, como la ubicación geográfica, los motores económicos, la demografía y el liderazgo local. Esto quiere decir que el nicho ideal de una ciudad podría no coincidir con el de otra.

Algunas de las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas supieron funcionar de forma independiente en el mercado global, pero en el futuro eso es mucho menos probable. Para algunas ciudades, el éxito a largo plazo dependerá de que el crecimiento económico se alinee con el de otras ciudades pequeñas de la región. En el Distrito Capital de Nueva York (que incluye Albany, Schenectady y Troy), las ciudades individuales mantuvieron su propia identidad y, al mismo tiempo, generaron sinergias. Se autodenominaron Tech Valley y buscan promover los activos de la región, como grandes empresas de tecnología, barrios efervescentes y un costo de vida relativamente bajo.

Otras ciudades pequeñas podrían alinearse con ciudades más grandes, como hicieron Akron y Canton con Cleveland para competir y lograr que los empleadores nacionales y mundiales se reubiquen ahí. Si la ciudad más grande no representa un motor económico fuerte por sí misma, varias ciudades más pequeñas pueden colaborar para crear una identidad regional que las ayude a atraer nuevas empresas y residentes.

En algunos estados, como Nueva York e Indiana, han adoptado un modelo regional de desarrollo económico mediante el cual las ciudades deben trabajar en conjunto para competir por subsidios e incentivos estatales. Estos programas son relativamente nuevos y podrían ayudar a que las ciudades más pequeñas se concentren en competir por empleos y residentes a la par de sus vecinas.

Si una ciudad más pequeña está cerca de una metrópolis que compite a nivel global con buenos resultados, puede formar un nicho como centro de logística, base de operaciones o ciudad dormitorio para un mercado principal. Una serie de ciudades pequeñas de la costa este cumplen estas funciones, como Bethlehem, Pensilvania, que se reposicionó como centro de envíos y logística para los mercados de Filadelfia y Nueva York tras el cierre de la planta de Bethlehem Steel.

Factores comunes del éxito

A raíz de nuestra investigación salieron a la luz varios factores que ayudan a determinar si las ciudades pequeñas y medianas progresan o siguen luchando:

Localización, localización, localización

El mayor indicador del desempeño de una ciudad es la región en la que se encuentra: casi todos los puntos de evaluación indican de forma sistemática que las ciudades del noreste tienen mejores resultados que las del centro oeste. Dentro de estas regiones, algunos estados demuestran tener más o menos éxito. Todas las ciudades de Ohio incluidas en nuestro estudio tenían problemas, en particular durante los años que siguieron a la Gran Recesión. Incluso las ciudades que disfrutaron trayectorias muy positivas entre 2000 y 2009, como Hamilton, cayeron al último lugar de la lista entre 2009 y 2015. Akron y Hamilton estaban entre las mejores en el 2000, pero hacia 2015 se habían desplazado al grupo de rendimiento moderado.

Las historias de ambas regiones dan una muy buena explicación de las fuerzas relativas que muestran hoy. Muchas economías de las ciudades del centro oeste se basaban en la fabricación de autos, que decayó durante décadas porque los trabajos se trasladaban a otros países o a otras zonas dentro del país, y cuyo punto más bajo fue durante la Gran Recesión. En muchas ciudades del noreste, la producción se había hundido por completo muchas décadas antes. Según el Banco de la Reserva Federal de Chicago, ambas economías regionales comenzaron a separarse de forma considerable en la década de 1980, porque el noreste se alejaba de la producción y el centro oeste experimentó un renacimiento breve en el sector. Este período de transición más largo podría haber creado una desventaja para las ciudades del centro oeste, ya que las del noreste tuvieron más tiempo para concentrarse en atraer nuevos empleos y volver a capacitar a su mano de obra para competir en la economía del siglo XXI. Además, históricamente muchas ciudades del centro oeste dependieron más de la producción que las de la costa este. Esto quiere decir que sus economías necesitaban (y tal vez todavía necesitan) una reestructuración más fundamental.

Esta situación podría presentar varios aspectos positivos. Si bien muchas ciudades del centro oeste están atrasadas respecto de las del noreste, tienen la oportunidad de aprender del éxito y los errores de sus pares al momento de reconstruirse para la nueva economía. Para lograr la revitalización, es necesario experimentar e innovar, pero las ciudades pequeñas y medianas del centro oeste pueden adaptar estrategias comprobadas desde el principio, en vez de depender de la prueba y error.

Cercanía a ciudades y mercados más grandes

Las ciudades cercanas a los grandes mercados de la costa este han observado más beneficios económicos y demográficos que las del centro oeste porque esos mercados son más grandes y más sólidos, y forman una concentración crítica. Camden, Nueva Jersey, y Scranton, Allentown y Bethlehem, Pensilvania, han demostrado el poder económico de posicionarse como ubicaciones de apoyo para la ciudad de Nueva York y Filadelfia. El beneficio de Worcester y Lowell es estar cerca de Boston, en particular porque se comunican mediante un tren comercial. Según las fuerzas vivas locales, hay 1.300 personas que viajan de Worcester a Boston a diario, y así vinculan las economías y los grupos de talento.

Los investigadores denominan “suerte de ubicación” a este beneficio económico por localización y destacan que las ciudades que están cerca de mercados sólidos obtienen beneficios económicos más notables. Sin embargo, la suerte de ubicación por sí sola no es suficiente. Las políticas públicas locales en relación con el delito, educación y servicios públicos son los factores más importantes al momento de cuidar la salud económica de una ciudad.

Tocar fondo

Es muy difícil revertir las dificultades de una ciudad, pero algunas de estas antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas lo están logrando. Las entrevistas con las partes interesadas locales revelaron un tema en común: las ciudades tenían que “tocar fondo” para poder revertir su situación.

Las partes interesadas de Lowell indicaron que la ciudad era demasiado pobre en los 50 y los 60 para embarcarse en programas de renovación urbana, con los que se habrían demolido partes del centro y los barrios históricos. Con el tiempo, se demostró que esto fue un gran beneficio para la ciudad. Cuando los molinos textiles vacantes del centro de la ciudad fueron declarados un sitio histórico nacional, la ciudad buscó renacer con la actividad turística. Sin embargo, nunca se observaron grandes flujos de turismo, y en los 80 el empleador local principal entró en bancarrota. En ese punto, Lowell estaba en grandes dificultades. Pero a fines de los 90, la ciudad decidió correr el riesgo de comprar los molinos y presentar convocatorias para convertirlos en viviendas. Años más tarde, Lowell dio forma a su renovación en torno a esa estrategia: convertir millones de metros cuadrados de espacio industrial vacante en departamentos, estudios de artistas y tiendas minoristas. El éxito que se observó en la reutilización de los edificios históricos para adaptarlos demuestra que los intentos de revitalización exitosos pueden tomar fuerza, incluso desde las profundidades de las dificultades económicas.

Estrategias de revitalización

Este proceso comienza con una evaluación sincera de la situación de la ciudad sobre la base de datos, hechos y las percepciones de los residentes, ya sean positivas o negativas, sobre cómo le está yendo a la ciudad. Con este panorama realista, las ciudades pueden tomar decisiones según su posición actual y empezar a formar una visión para el futuro.

En nuestro estudio, las entrevistas con los líderes locales nos ayudaron a determinar ocho estrategias de revitalización que estas ciudades desarrollaron con éxito. Cada una de una de ellas se construye a partir de un activo existente y un reconocimiento realista de las limitaciones. Ninguna debería ser considerada una “cura milagrosa” que puede rescatar a una ciudad con problemas graves. Cada estrategia se plantea con un ejemplo de buenas prácticas que ilustra cómo las ciudades pueden desarrollar prioridades para la revitalización dados sus recursos limitados.

1. Construir capacidad y talento cívicos.

Para diagramar un nuevo camino, debe haber dirigentes sólidos que puedan visualizar el cambio y trabajar para lograrlo. Las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas deben concentrarse en conservar el talento local y, a la vez, atraer a nuevos dirigentes externos para ocupar puestos esenciales, como administrador municipal, director de desarrollo económico y presidente de alguna institución importante. Una de las propuestas debería ser cultivar un grupo de jóvenes con talento para que puedan asumir cargos de liderazgo a medida que crezcan. Una población saludable de jóvenes profesionales es uno de los indicadores de que la ciudad forma de nuevo un grupo de líderes cívicos.

En Hamilton, Ohio, durante mucho tiempo los dirigentes trataron a la ciudad como si fuera un jardín cerrado y no permitieron que hubiera mucha colaboración e influencia externa para catalizar la creatividad. A medida que se retiraban los grandes empleadores y con la llegada de la Gran Recesión, algunos miembros del consejo de ciudadanos determinaron que una infusión de energía externa podría hacer que la ciudad volviera a encontrar su rumbo. Reclutaron a un administrador municipal externo que se concentró en fomentar una cultura de colaboración dentro del mismo gobierno municipal, entre los sectores público y privado, y entre gobiernos y organizaciones regionales. Hamilton también se concentró en atraer talentos y apoyar el desarrollo de la clase dirigente. La Russell P. Price Fellowship es un programa del sector público que comenzó en 2011 y atrae a los talentos recién graduados de la universidad para que se encarguen de proyectos a nivel gerencial dentro del gobierno municipal. Se les ofrece vivienda en el centro y se los alienta a ser parte de la red comunitaria de forma profesional y personal. Muchos permanecieron en Hamilton después de su mandato, y así se creó una nueva generación de líderes locales.

2. Promover una visión unificada en el sector público y el privado.

Los funcionarios del gobierno local y los altos cargos del sector privado deben “apropiarse” en conjunto de la necesidad de revitalizar el espacio urbano y colaborar para encontrar soluciones. En una investigación del Banco de la Reserva Federal de Boston sobre el renacimiento de las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas, se observó un denominador común: los dirigentes de varios sectores admitieron que “estaba en sus propios intereses evitar que continuara el deterioro de la economía local” y se hicieron responsables de las mejoras. Las historias de ciudades que lograron cambiar su estado demuestran que un grupo comprometido de dirigentes locales, entre ellos funcionarios electos, altos cargos de empresas, empleados públicos, defensores de base y contrapartes filantrópicas, pueden diagramar una nueva dirección para la ciudad y trabajar en conjunto para implementar su visión.

En 1984, RCA Corporation, Campbell Soup Company y la ciudad de Camden, Nueva Jersey, se unieron para debatir un nuevo desarrollo de los terrenos de la zona costanera que tenían en el centro. Juntos, lanzaron la asociación sin fines de lucro Cooper’s Ferry Development (CFDA) para crear una visión y un plan de ordenamiento territorial que le permitirían al público acceder a la costanera y promoverían la revitalización. La CFDA recaudó y coordinó más de 600 millones de dólares en inversiones públicas y privadas, y reunió las distintas partes fundamentales para lograr una comunidad costera enérgica con distintos usos, donde se establecieron lugares para entretenimientos familiares, oficinas y loft residenciales. Luego, la CFDA comenzó a trabajar con los residentes para encauzar las inversiones privadas y filantrópicas hacia los barrios de la ciudad. En 2011 la CFDA se unió a Greater Camden Partnership y así se formó Cooper’s Ferry Partnership, la organización más importante de la ciudad de trabajos de colaboración para el desarrollo de la economía, el arte y la cultura, y la preservación y creación de espacios abiertos.

3. Ampliar las oportunidades para trabajadores de bajos ingresos.

Los esfuerzos de revitalización no tendrán éxito si se concentran solo en los residentes con mayores ingresos. En las ciudades todos deben acceder a más oportunidades, entre ellos los residentes de bajos ingresos que necesitan trabajar. La pobreza y la desigualdad visibles crean una imagen negativa que puede ahuyentar a las empresas del centro urbano de la ciudad, lo que lleva a pérdidas en recaudaciones tributarias y un atraso masivo en las finanzas de la ciudad por tener que pagar los costos a largo plazo de reducir el deterioro urbano.

Siracusa ha demostrado cómo se pueden tratar de forma simultánea la revitalización urbana y la reducción de la pobreza. CenterState CEO, una cámara de comercio regional y organización de desarrollo económico, creó el Work Train Collaborative con un enfoque de “doble cliente”: encontrar trabajos buenos para empleados con bajos ingresos y capacitar a los empleados buenos para las empresas locales. Con la ayuda de trabajos comunitarios de base, CenterState CEO mantuvo una estrategia de desarrollo de mano de obra que relacionó el proyecto de un nuevo desarrollo cerca de un hospital local con trabajos bien pagos y capacitación en habilidades. Desde ese proyecto piloto, el programa se ha expandido desde la construcción a trabajos en salud, agregó empleadores y aumentó el alcance geográfico.

4. Construir sobre un sentido de pertenencia auténtico.

La creación de entornos (creación de espacios interesantes donde la gente quiera pasar el tiempo) es una estrategia para el desarrollo económico comprobada en muchas ciudades. Michigan posee varias antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y ha adoptado esta estrategia como herramienta para el desarrollo económico a nivel estatal. La creación de entornos debería basarse en los activos existentes, como barrios históricos, centros compactos que se pueden recorrer a pie e instituciones culturales que son un legado. Las ciudades deben considerar qué grupos demográficos estarían interesados en particular en estos activos, como los jóvenes que se fueron, pero quieren volver a su casa para comenzar una familia o cuidar de los padres, residentes regionales que buscan una vida más urbana, inmigrantes que buscan una vivienda barata y los que buscan casas para renovarlas que no pueden comprar una vivienda en una ciudad más grande. Los trabajadores muy capacitados suelen elegir primero dónde quieren vivir y luego buscan un trabajo en ese lugar. Las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas pueden construir sobre su identidad auténtica para atraer a trabajadores y los trabajos que los siguen.

Cuando cerró la planta Bethlehem Steel en 1999, la ciudad de Bethlehem, Pensilvania, se preparó para las consecuencias económicas devastadoras. Sin embargo, el sitio de los molinos, la antigua zona industrial en reconstrucción más grande del país, ofreció tierras con potencial de desarrollo a lo largo de la orilla del río. Un grupo de contrapartes, entre ellos Bethlehem Steel, la Universidad Lehigh, la ciudad misma y ArtsQuest, una organización artística sin fines de lucro, colaboraron para crear una nueva visión para el sitio. En 2007, el Sands Casino Resort adquirió un terreno designado para un distrito de entretenimiento con distintos usos, acondicionó el sitio y abrió un casino y un hotel. Mantuvo los altos hornos de uno de los molinos como guiño al pasado de la ciudad. Hoy, ArtsQuest mantiene un campus artístico y cultural ahí, que incluye un anfiteatro al aire libre. El campus se convirtió en un gran atractivo regional y recibió un millón de visitantes los primeros cinco años de actividad. También ofrece un nuevo emplazamiento para el Musikfest, el festival de música más grande del país, que se estima que genera 55 millones de dólares al año en la economía de la región.

5. Concentrar los esfuerzos regionales para reconstruir un centro sólido.

Varios estudios han demostrado que las regiones sólidas se construyen alrededor de ciudades centrales sólidas, y estas a su vez sobre centros sólidos. Un activo muy útil en muchas de las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas es que tienen un centro histórico. Aunque ya no funcionan como centro empresarial y comercial, son la cara pública de toda la región. Las nuevas tecnologías, la suburbanización y los patrones de traslados centrados en torno a los autos implican que muchas funciones económicas se llevarán a cabo fuera del centro. Pero los centros de las ciudades pueden seguir siendo centros regionales animados y zonas de uso mixto: residencial y de entretenimientos.

Muncie, Indiana, eligió concentrarse en atraer a jóvenes profesionales en particular porque ahí se encuentra la Universidad Ball State, con más de 20.000 alumnos. Como resultado, la población joven de la ciudad creció mucho entre 2009 y 2015. En otros lugares, un mejor blanco para el desarrollo residencial podría ser un grupo demográfico diferente, como los padres con hijos adultos que ya no viven con ellos. Al poseer mayores ingresos, debido a que se mudan desde los suburbios en busca de un lugar más chico, este grupo podría pagar valores más altos para vivir en el centro. Independientemente del grupo demográfico, construir centros de uso mixto con bares, restaurantes, tiendas minoristas y viviendas parece ser una estrategia exitosa para muchas ciudades.

Akron, Ohio, y sus contrapartes regionales han trabajado en conjunto para atraer empresas a la región. Los funcionarios de las cámaras de comercio de la ciudad, el condado y la región crearon una sociedad que atrajo a empresas de otras zonas. Pero las políticas de la ciudad no alentaban a las empresas a ubicarse en el centro o dentro de Akron misma, por lo que las oficinas en los suburbios y los parques industriales fueron el lugar de trabajo predeterminado para muchos nuevos empleados. Esto representó una dificultad para los trabajadores que dependen del transporte público a la hora de aceptar trabajos fuera de la ciudad, y aumentó los índices de oficinas vacantes en el centro. Si bien el crecimiento económico de la región es valioso para la ciudad en conjunto, gran parte de ese crecimiento se dio a costas de Akron misma. Ahora, la organización céntrica y otras partes interesadas desarrollaron un plan para el núcleo urbano de la ciudad, y algunos dirigentes políticos nuevos comprenden el valor de concentrar ahí las actividades que fomentan el desarrollo económico. Este enfoque renovado que ve al centro como núcleo de empresas, residencias y entretenimiento seguramente traerá beneficios para la ciudad a largo plazo.

6. Involucrarse en la planificación comunitaria y estratégica.

Una gran ventaja de estas ciudades pequeñas es que su escala permite obtener un consenso más amplio en la comunidad sobre el futuro de la ciudad. Pero la escasez de recursos hace que no todas las visiones se puedan cumplir. Todavía es necesario planificar de forma detallada, teniendo en cuenta los datos, para distribuir recursos de forma efectiva y asegurarse de que la comunidad apoye las estrategias de revitalización.

Grand Action, una coalición de dirigentes cívicos y de la comunidad de Grand Rapids, Michigan, lideró el desarrollo de la visión y la implementación de muchas de las acciones que revitalizaron el centro de la ciudad. El departamento de planificación de la ciudad se aseguró de que se incluyera a los miembros de la comunidad en los debates sobre el centro y los barrios. La ciudad crea “cuadernos de patrones de barrios” con zonificaciones superpuestas que capturan las necesidades y los deseos de la comunidad. Tanto los empleados de la ciudad como los emprendedores inmobiliarios admiten que el proceso ofrece un mejor panorama de las preocupaciones de cada barrio y reduce la probabilidad de encontrar dificultades en el proceso de aprobación pública.

7. Estabilizar barrios deteriorados.

Uno de los riesgos más grandes de las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas es la falta de inversión en los barrios, que provoca el deterioro de las estructuras físicas y la calidad de vida. En algunas ciudades, la Gran Recesión causó caídas graves, no solo en barrios que ya tenían dificultades, sino también en zonas de clase media y obrera que antes eran estables, dado que las ejecuciones hipotecarias y la oferta de viviendas redujeron el valor de las propiedades y activaron un ciclo de desinversión. Estabilizar un barrio deteriorado no es tarea fácil. Se necesitan muchas intervenciones solo para las viviendas: reparaciones críticas de casas ocupadas, rehabilitación de las vacantes y, en algunos casos, demolición seleccionada. Además de las viviendas, para lograr la estabilización hacen falta intervenciones para abordar los problemas sistémicos del barrio.

En Youngstown, Ohio, cuando la ciudad y la Fundación Raymond J. Wean crearon la empresa sin fines de lucro Youngstown Neighborhood Development Corporation (YNDC), más del 10 por ciento de las casas estaban vacías y probablemente abandonadas. El programa se concentra en barrios seleccionados y combina tareas de rehabilitación de viviendas seleccionadas y demolición con actividades como desarrollo empresarial, organización comunitaria y agricultura urbana. El valor de las viviendas es extremadamente bajo, por lo que el desarrollo de la tasa de mercado se hace muy difícil sin subvenciones. YNDC recopila muchos datos para analizar qué barrios podrían sostener este desarrollo y cuáles necesitarán intervenciones adicionales. En algunos casos, YNDC usa fondos de HOME Investment Partnership o de Community Development Block Grant para reparar casas ocupadas. En otros, trabaja junto con el banco de tierras del condado para adquirir propiedades vacantes, rehabilitarlas y volver a venderlas. YNDC tiene su propio equipo de construcción, lo que disminuye los costos y permite hacer las rehabilitaciones sin subvenciones más que la donación de hogares. Las unidades que están a la venta son muy populares y se venden más que nada a compradores precalificados que están en una lista de espera. Aunque ya estén prevendidas, todas las casas se ingresan en el Multiple Listing Service (Servicio de listado múltiple), para poder tener datos comparativos en futuros avalúos del barrio. El mercado privado se ha sumado a este programa, lo que ha aumentado los esfuerzos de modernización.

8. Aprovechar las políticas estatales de forma estratégica.

Pocas de las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas lograron revitalizarse sin algún tipo de apoyo de su estado mediante recursos directos, incentivos económicos o programas de formación. Por ejemplo, el programa Massachusetts Gateway Cities ofrece recursos para crear comunidades que la gente elegiría y atraer a emprendedores a las ciudades que tienen entre 35.000 y 250.000 habitantes y cuya media de ingresos y niveles de logros educativos están por debajo del promedio estatal. La Fundación Clean Ohio Revitalization ofreció subsidios a municipios para limpiar y volver a desarrollar antiguas zonas industriales en reconstrucción. GOPC descubrió que las ciudades podían aprovechar las inversiones del estado y convertirlas en beneficios económicos importantes en recaudaciones tributarias anuales, rendimiento económico y creación de puestos de trabajo. Vimos que, si bien el financiamiento y las políticas estatales por sí mismas no pueden revertir la situación de una ciudad, los programas estatales ayudaron al proceso de revitalización, y los dirigentes locales usaron estos recursos de forma estratégica para los proyectos más catalizadores.

Conclusión

Para reconstruir las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas en el siglo XXI, se debe aceptar y comprender que estos lugares no serán los mismos que en los 50. Crear lugares estables y animados a largo plazo requiere visión, paciencia y toma de riesgos. Algunas de las estrategias para lograr buenos resultados requieren que se traten los desafíos de equidad y, al mismo tiempo, que se apoye la expansión económica. Algunas ciudades más fuertes ya comenzaron a dar pasos agigantados: formaron la próxima generación de dirigentes de todos los sectores, invirtieron en capacitación para los trabajadores con menos habilidades o rediseñaron el centro de la ciudad. En las ciudades con más complicaciones, los dirigentes locales deberán trabajar en conjunto para determinar cuál será el mejor camino a seguir. Este proceso puede resultar doloroso cuando se hace evidente que la antigua forma de hacer las cosas y las visiones que tuvo la ciudad en el pasado ya no son realistas. Pero, para muchas ciudades, este proceso es la única forma de construir una comunidad sólida y alcanzar un futuro mejor.

Torey Hollingsworth es gerente de investigación y políticas, y Alison Goebel es directora ejecutiva en Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC), una organización estatal sin fines de lucro que aboga por la revitalización y el crecimiento sostenible de Ohio mediante la investigación, la defensa y la educación.

Renderizado por cortesía de: Industrial Realty Group, LLC

Strong local leadership, a shared community vision, inclusive growth, creative problem solving, cross-sector collaboration, and placemaking are all important ingredients for success in America’s smaller legacy cities.

For generations, these industrial centers were essential to building American middle-class prosperity. Places like Scranton, Pennsylvania, and Worcester, Massachusetts, created job opportunities that enabled massive numbers of rural migrants and foreign immigrants to achieve a comfortable life through relatively low-skilled work. Yet as the national economy has transitioned away from manufacturing, many of these communities have struggled with entrenched poverty, neighborhood disinvestment, and a workforce with skills that do not match employers’ needs. 

With traditional economies built around manufacturing and populations that peaked in the 20th century then declined to 30,000 to 200,000, America’s small to midsize legacy cities are found nationwide but concentrated most heavily in New England and the Great Lakes region, from Gary, Indiana, to Lowell, Massachusetts (figure 1). In national conversations, they frequently fall under the shadow of their larger counterparts. While researchers and community leaders have identified strategies to revitalize places like Pittsburgh and Baltimore, less attention has been paid to how these approaches might transfer to communities like Dayton, Ohio, or Binghamton, New York. Smaller legacy cities often lack major corporate headquarters or significant anchor institutions, assets that have been leveraged successfully in larger cities, meaning that even proven strategies will require creative adaptation in places like Camden, New Jersey, or Youngstown, Ohio.

In Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities, a 2013 report from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Alan Mallach and Lavea Brachman posit that the surest way to revitalize legacy cities is through strategic incrementalism—or “melding a long-term strategic vision with an incremental process for change.” Establishing a path for success, they suggest, requires a shared community vision for the city’s future and sustained efforts by local leaders to further that long-range view. This process may be especially important for smaller cities, which have fewer local assets and resources, leaving even less room for risk. 

Through the Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC), we recently completed a study of 24 smaller legacy cities in seven midwestern and northeastern states to assess how well they were performing and determine which strategies might contribute to their vitality. We analyzed economic, social, and demographic data from three years: 2000, 2009, and 2015. We also interviewed local leaders in each city to learn what helped some of them thrive and what contributed to poor performance in others. 

That research builds on Mallach and Brachman’s report to show that strong local leadership, a shared community vision, inclusive growth, creative problem solving, cross-sector collaboration, and placemaking are all important ingredients for success. How cities get there—the factors that increase the likelihood of success—is the focus of this article, which derives from our forthcoming Policy Focus Report, Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Strategies for Postindustrial Success from Gary to Lowell, scheduled for publication by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in August 2017.

Methodology

To gain a broad perspective on how well small and midsize legacy cities are faring, the Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC) collected data on 65 cities in seven states throughout the Midwest and Northeast that had a population of 30,000 to 200,000 in 2013; had a substantially smaller population in 2000 compared to its peak, even if it had rebounded to some extent; had a strong history of manufacturing; and was not primarily a college town or a suburb of a larger city.

After selecting 24 representative cities to study in greater depth, we analyzed data from each place’s 2000 U.S. Census as well as from American Community Survey five-year estimates for 2009 and 2015 in the following categories: population, foreign-born population, young professional population, percentage of residents working in the city, unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, median household income, poverty rate, college-degree attainment, long-term housing vacancy rate, owner-occupancy rate, percentage of home sales with a mortgage, median home value, median rent, employment industries, and occupations.

We calculated the percentage changes in each category for 2000–2015 and then in two subsets, 2000–2009 and 2009–2015, to gain a clearer sense of the Great Recession’s impact on each city’s trajectory. In addition, GOPC collected data on employment and jobs in 2002 and 2014 from the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap website. Using that data, we categorized places as high-, moderate-, and low-performing, based on their current conditions and trajectories over time. These groupings helped to convey how the cities’ trajectories compared to one another and to identify continued challenges and factors contributing to revitalization. 

—Torey Hollingsworth and Alison Goebel

Collaboration for a Global Economy

Small and midsize legacy cities, perhaps even more than their larger peers, must plan to determine how they can fit into the changing global economy. Legacy cities generally do not benefit from the pattern of increasing consolidation, in which corporations move to thriving global cities. A smaller city’s economic niche—one that will allow it to thrive—depends on local assets including geographic location, economic drivers, demographics, and local leadership. This means that the right niche for one city might not be right for another.

Some smaller legacy cities were once able to function independently in the global market, but that is much less likely in the future. For some cities, long-term success will hinge on aligning economic growth with that of other small cities in their region. In the Capital District of New York—which includes Albany, Schenectady, and Troy—the individual cities have maintained their own identities while building on synergies. They’ve branded themselves as the Tech Valley and they’re working to promote the region’s assets, such as strong technology companies, vibrant neighborhoods, and a relatively low cost of living.

Other smaller cities may align with larger legacy cities, the way Akron and Canton have aligned with Cleveland, to compete for national and global employers to relocate there. If the larger legacy city is not a strong economic engine on its own, several smaller cities may be able to collaborate to create a regional identity that helps draw new businesses and residents.

Some states, such as New York and Indiana, have embraced a regional model for economic development in which cities must work together to compete for state grants and incentives. These relatively new programs could help drive smaller legacy cities to focus on competing for jobs and residents alongside their neighbors.

If a smaller legacy city is near a large metropolis that is successfully competing on the global level, it can carve a niche as a logistics hub, staging ground, or bedroom community for a major market. A number of smaller legacy cities on the East Coast serve in these roles, including Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, which repositioned itself as a shipping and logistics hub for the Philadelphia and New York markets after the closure of the Bethlehem Steel plant.

Common Factors in Success

Our research revealed several factors that help determine progress or persistent struggle in small to midsize legacy cities:

Location, Location, Location

The greatest predictor of a city’s performance is the region in which it is located: cities in the Northeast consistently fare better than their peers in the Midwest, according to nearly all indicators. Within those regions, cities in certain states also appear to fare better or worse. All the Ohio cities in our study struggled, particularly in the years following the Great Recession; even those cities with very positive trajectories between 2000 and 2009, such as Hamilton, slipped to the bottom of the rankings from 2009 to 2015. Akron and Hamilton were among the top performers in 2000, but by 2015 they had slipped into the moderate-performing group.

The two regions’ histories explain a great deal of their relative strengths today. Many of the midwestern cities’ economies were based on auto manufacturing, which had been declining for decades as jobs moved offshore or to other parts of the country, hitting its lowest point during the Great Recession. In many northeastern cities, manufacturing had bottomed out many decades earlier. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, the two regional economies began to diverge substantially in the 1980s, as the Northeast continued to move away from manufacturing while the Midwest experienced a short-lived renaissance in that sector. The longer transition period may have placed midwestern cities at a disadvantage, as their northeastern counterparts had more time to focus on attracting new kinds of jobs and retraining their workforces to compete in the 21st-century economy. Many midwestern cities also were historically more reliant on manufacturing than their peers on the East Coast, meaning that their economies needed—and may still need—a more fundamental restructuring.

This situation may have some positive aspects. Although many midwestern cities lag behind those in the Northeast, they have the opportunity to learn from the successes and mistakes their peers experienced while remaking their cities for the new economy. Experimentation and innovation are necessary for revitalization, but small and midsize cities in the Midwest can adapt proven strategies from the outset instead of relying on trial and error.

Nearness to Larger Cities and Markets

Cities near major East Coast markets have benefited economically and demographically more than cities in the Midwest because the East Coast markets are larger, stronger, and form a critical mass. Camden, New Jersey; and Scranton, Allentown, and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, have all shown the economic power of positioning themselves as support locations for New York City and Philadelphia. Worcester and Lowell benefit from their proximity to Boston, especially via commuter rail. According to local leaders, 1,300 people commute from Worcester to Boston every day, linking the two cities’ economies and talent pools.

Researchers call the economic benefit of location “place luck,” noting that cities near strong markets do see some quantifiable economic benefits. However, place luck alone is not enough. Local public policies related to crime, education, and public services are the most important factors in shaping a city’s economic health.

Hitting Rock Bottom

Turning around a struggling city is certainly difficult, but some small and midsize legacy cities are doing just that. Interviews with local stakeholders revealed a common theme: Cities had to hit “rock bottom” before they could manage a turnaround.

Stakeholders in Lowell said that the city was too poor in the 1950s and 1960s to undertake traditional urban-renewal programs, which would have demolished parts of the historic downtown and neighborhoods. Eventually, this proved to be a boon for the city. When the empty downtown textile mills were designated a national historic site, the city hoped to revitalize through tourist activity. However, high levels of tourist traffic never materialized, and in the 1980s a major local employer went into bankruptcy. At that point, Lowell slid into very hard times. But in the late 1990s, the city decided to take the risk of acquiring the mills and putting out bids to redevelop them as housing. Years later, Lowell has shaped its renewal around that strategy, turning millions of square feet of vacant industrial space into apartments, artists’ studios, and retail stores. Lowell’s success in adaptive reuse of historic buildings shows that successful revitalization efforts can take hold, even from the depths of economic distress.

Revitalization Strategies

Revitalization begins with an honest assessment of the city’s situation, grounded in data and facts as well as residents’ perceptions, positive and negative, about how the city is faring. Using this realistic picture, cities can make decisions grounded in where they are right now and can begin to create a vision for the future.

In our study, interviews with local leaders helped us to identify eight revitalization strategies that small and midsize legacy cities have deployed successfully. Each strategy is built around existing assets and a realistic acknowledgment of limitations. None of these strategies should be seen as a “silver bullet” that can rescue a seriously challenged city. The strategies are paired with examples of best practices to illustrate how legacy cities can develop priorities for revitalization, given their limited resources.

1. Build civic capacity and talent.

Charting a new path requires strong leaders who can envision and work toward change. Small and mid-size legacy cities must focus on retaining local talent while also drawing new leaders from outside to fill critical roles such as city manager, economic development director, and head of a major anchor institution. Efforts should include cultivating a pool of talented younger individuals who can step into leadership roles as they arise. A healthy population of young professionals is one indicator that a city is replenishing its pool of civic leadership.

In Hamilton, Ohio, leaders had long treated the city as if it were a walled garden, allowing little collaboration and few external influences to catalyze creativity. As major employers left and the Great Recession took hold, some city-council members decided an infusion of outside energy could help put the city back on track. They recruited a city manager from outside, who focused on building a culture of collaboration within city government, between the private and public sectors, and among regional governments and organizations. Hamilton also focused on attracting talent and supporting leadership development. A 2011 public-sector program, the Russell P. Price Fellowship draws talented recent college graduates to take on management-level projects within the city government. The fellows are provided with housing downtown and encouraged to become part of the fabric of the community professionally and personally. Many have remained in Hamilton after their terms ended, adding to a new generation of local leaders.

2. Encourage a shared public- and private-sector vision.

Local government officials and private-sector leaders must jointly “own” the need for urban revitalization and work collaboratively to find solutions. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on resurgent smaller legacy cities found a common denominator: cross-sector leaders who recognized that “it was in their own interest to prevent further deterioration in the local economy” and took responsibility for improvement. Turnaround stories demonstrate that a committed group of local leaders, including elected officials, business leaders, civil servants, grassroots advocates, philanthropic partners, can chart a new direction for the city and work together to advance their vision.

In 1984, the RCA Corporation, Campbell Soup Company, and City of Camden, New Jersey, came together to discuss redeveloping the downtown waterfront land they owned. Together they launched the nonprofit Cooper’s Ferry Development Association (CFDA) to create a vision and master plan that would allow for public access to the waterfront and promote revitalization. CFDA attracted and coordinated more than $600 million in private and public investment and established the building blocks for a vibrant mixed-use waterfront community, anchored by family entertainment venues, office buildings, and residential lofts. CFDA then began working with residents to direct private and philanthropic investment in the city’s neighborhoods. In 2011, CFDA merged with the Greater Camden Partnership to form the Cooper’s Ferry Partnership, the city’s lead organization for collaborative efforts in economic development, arts and culture, and the preservation and creation of open space.

3. Expand opportunities for low-income workers.

Revitalization efforts won’t succeed if they focus only on higher-income residents. Cities must create greater access to opportunity for all, including lower-income residents who need jobs. Visible poverty and inequality create a negative image that can scare businesses away from the city’s urban core, leading to lost tax revenues and a massive drag on city finances to pay the long-term costs of reducing blight.

Syracuse has demonstrated how urban revitalization and poverty reduction can be addressed together. CenterState CEO, a regional chamber of commerce and economic development organization, created the Work Train Collaborative with a “dual client” approach: finding good jobs for low-income workers and training good employees for local businesses. With the help of grassroots efforts, CenterState CEO led a workforce development strategy that tied a redevelopment project near a local hospital to high-paying jobs and skills training. Since that pilot project, the program has expanded from construction into healthcare jobs, added employers, and increased its geographic reach.

4. Build on an authentic sense of place.

Placemaking—creating interesting places where people want to spend time—is a proven economic development strategy for many cities. Michigan, which has a number of smaller legacy cities, has embraced placemaking as an economic development tool at the state level. Placemaking should build on existing assets like historic neighborhoods, compact and walkable downtowns, and legacy cultural institutions. Cities should consider which demographic groups might be particularly interested in these assets, such as young people who have moved away but want to return home to start families or take care of aging parents, regional residents attracted to urban living, immigrants looking for inexpensive housing, and rehabbers who can’t afford to buy a home in a larger city. Highly skilled workers are likely to first choose where they want to live and then look for a job in that place. Smaller legacy cities can build on their authentic sense of place to attract workers and the jobs that follow them.

When the Bethlehem Steel plant closed in 1999, the city of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, braced for devastating economic impacts. However, the mill site, which was the largest brownfield in the country, offered developable land along the riverfront. A group of local partners, including Bethlehem Steel, Lehigh University, the City itself, and a local arts nonprofit called ArtsQuest, collaborated to create a new vision for the site. In 2007, the Sands Casino Resort purchased land zoned for a mixed-use entertainment district, remediated the site, and opened a casino and hotel, keeping one of the mill’s blast furnaces as a nod to the city’s past. ArtsQuest now maintains an arts and cultural campus there, including an outdoor amphitheater. The campus has become a significant regional draw, with one million visitors in the first five years of operation. It also provides a new venue for Musikfest—the nation’s largest free music festival, estimated to produce $55 million annually for the region’s economy.

5. Focus regional efforts on rebuilding a strong downtown.

Numerous studies have found that strong regions are built around strong central cities, and strong cities are built around strong downtowns. One great asset in many small and midsize legacy cities is a historic downtown. Even when they no longer serve as the center of business and commerce, downtowns are the public face of the entire region. New technologies, suburbanization, and car-centric commuting patterns mean that many economic functions will take place outside of the downtown. But downtowns can still be vibrant regional centers as mixed-use residential and entertainment areas.

Muncie, Indiana, chose to focus on attracting young professionals specifically because Ball State University, with more than 20,000 students, is located there; as a result, the city saw significant growth in its young professional population between 2009 and 2015. In other places, a different demographic group, such as empty nesters, may be a better target for residential development; that group, because of higher incomes related to downsizing from homes in the suburbs, can often pay more to live downtown. Regardless of the demographic, building mixed-use downtowns with bars, restaurants, retail, and housing appears to be a winning strategy for many cities.

Akron, Ohio, and its regional partners have worked together to attract businesses to the region. Officials from the city, county, and regional chamber of commerce created a partnership that has drawn foreign businesses to the area. But the city’s policies did not encourage businesses to locate downtown or within Akron proper, so suburban office and industrial parks became the default location for many new employers. This made it difficult for transit-dependent workers to take jobs outside the city and increased office vacancy rates in the downtown. While regional economic growth is valuable for the city as a whole, much of the new business growth has occurred at Akron’s expense. The downtown organization and other stakeholders have now developed a strategic plan for the city’s urban core, and some new political leaders understand the value of focusing economic development activities there. This renewed focus on downtown as a business, residential, and entertainment center is likely to pay long-term dividends for the city.

6. Engage in community and strategic planning.

One great advantage of smaller legacy cities is that their scale allows for greater community-wide consensus building about the city’s future. But the scarcity of resources means that not all visions can take root. Careful, data-driven planning is still necessary to allocate resources effectively and ensure community support for revitalization strategies.

Grand Action, a coalition of community and civic leaders in Grand Rapids, Michigan, spearheaded the visioning and implementation of much of the city’s downtown revitalization. The city planning department made sure that community members were included in discussions about downtown and their neighborhoods. The city creates “neighborhood pattern workbooks” with zoning overlays that capture community needs and desires. Both city staff members and developers appreciate that the process provides a clear sense of neighborhood concerns and reduces the likelihood of facing challenges in the public-approval process.

7. Stabilize distressed neighborhoods.

One of the greatest liabilities for smaller legacy cities is neighborhood disinvestment, resulting in the decay of physical structures and a decline in the quality of life. In some cities, the Great Recession caused severe declines, not just in neighborhoods that were already stressed but also in once-stable middle- and working-class areas as foreclosures and vacancies reduced property values and kicked off a cycle of disinvestment. Stabilizing a distressed neighborhood is no small task. Multiple interventions are needed just for housing: critical repairs of occupied homes, rehabilitation of vacant homes, and, in some cases, targeted demolition. Beyond housing, stabilization requires interventions to address the neighborhood’s systemic problems.

In Youngstown, Ohio, more than one in ten homes was vacant and likely abandoned when the city and the Raymond J. Wean Foundation created the nonprofit Youngstown Neighborhood Development Corporation (YNDC). The program, which focuses on targeted neighborhoods, pairs targeted housing rehabilitation and demolition with activities like business development, community organizing, and urban farming. Housing values are extremely low, making market-rate development very difficult without subsidies. YNDC collects extensive data to analyze which neighborhoods might support market-rate development and which will require additional interventions. In some, YNDC uses HOME Investment Partnership or Community Development Block Grant dollars to make repairs on occupied homes. In others, it works with the county land bank to acquire vacant properties for rehabilitation and resale. YNDC has its own construction crew, which lowers costs and allows rehabilitation without subsidy beyond the donation of homes. The for-sale units are very popular and are sold primarily to prequalified buyers on a waiting list. All homes are entered on the Multiple Listing Service, even if they are presold, to build comparable data for future appraisals in the neighborhood. The private market has moved in, furthering revitalization efforts.

8. Strategically leverage state policies.

Few successful smaller legacy cities have been able to revitalize without some assistance from their states via direct resources, economic incentives, or capacity-building programs. The Massachusetts Gateway Cities program, for example, provides resources to create communities of choice and attract entrepreneurs to cities with populations between 35,000 and 250,000 that have median incomes and educational attainment levels below the state average. The Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund made grants to municipalities for cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield sites. GOPC found that cities were able to leverage the state’s investments into significant financial benefits in annual tax revenues, economic outputs, and job creation. We found that while state policies and funding alone cannot turn cities around, state programs have helped revitalization, and local leaders have used these resources strategically for the most catalytic projects.

Conclusion

Remaking small and midsize legacy cities for the 21st century means accepting and embracing that these places will not look the way they did in the 1950s. Creating stable, vibrant places for the long term requires vision, risk-taking, and patience. Some of the strategies for success require addressing equity challenges while supporting economic expansion. Some stronger cities have already made important strides by building the next generation of leaders across sectors, making investments in training low-skilled workers, or reimagining their downtowns. In the most challenged cities, local leaders will need to work together to determine the best path forward. This process may be painful as it becomes apparent that older ways of doing things and earlier visions of the city are no longer realistic. But, for many cities, this process is the only way to build a strong community and achieve a brighter future. 

Torey Hollingsworth is manager of research and policy, and Alison Goebel is executive director of Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC), a statewide nonprofit organization that champions revitalization and sustainable growth in Ohio through research, advocacy, and education.

Rendering courtesy of: Industrial Realty Group, LLC