Shrinking CitiesPart II

Craig BensonGEO 53012/4/2015

Brief Research Review – Highlights from 11/6 /15 presentation• US/ European differences• Planning for shrinkage results

mixed• Neighborhood revitalization •Many cities not yet facing

reality, still in growth model• Business interests compete with

neighborhood redevelopment• Pittsburgh as a case study

Common Interventions

• Demolition – blight removal, can invite crime

• Revitalization – historic preservation, downtown, attempts to attract CC (R. Florida)

• Neighborhood redevelopment• Regionalism: shared use of resources/planning - smart planning/growth

• Planned Shrinkage: Right- sizing , – Youngstown, OH. Facing the truth, reduce municipal costs, displace residents

• Urban ecosystem/ greening: clean up brownfields, urban gardens urban agriculture

• Economic development: Rebranding – more attractive to business – tax incentives

• Land banking: can be co-opted by “growth planning” Buffalo example- acquiring land in growth rather than right sizing strategy

• Awareness: Creating a consensus that growth no longer likely, gain support, reorganizing how planning is done , paradigm shift

Questions Raised• What is the best thing to do? Planning for shrinkage, how to deal with

land use changes, how will urban planning change/respond. Attract business or accept fate• What issues are raised? How to pay for services, attract investment• What happens to a declining city? How best to serve those who are left• The tension between attracting business and serving low income

neighborhood development – Detroit, Youngstown, OH – Shrinkage co-opted by business interests• How to change the growth paradigm of planning?• What is the best model? Is there one, is it dependent on local

circumstances?

Research Questions

• Based on current research/ trends in urban shrinkage• 1. What should Upstate New York cities, Rochester and Buffalo do?• 2. What have they been doing?• 3. What recommendations can be made to the cities in how to

proceed – how to increase city/region-wide economic growth and improve individual residences experiences (especially those that have been marginalized and/or negatively effected by deindustrialization?

Literature Review - Categories

Main concepts in the study of urban decline/shrinkage

What is it? Causes Effects How prevalent/ where Challenges Trends identified Interventions attempted

Literature Review - Defining Urban shrinkage

Densely populated urban are with a minimum population of 10,000 residents that has faced population losses for more than two years and is undergoing economic transformations with some symptoms of a structural crisis. Multidimensional process – economic, demographic, geographic and social dimensions.It can be argued that definition tries to capture all shrinkage, therefore is not as useful, in that different types of shrinkage will have vastly different policy implementationsNot a new phenomenon, but exacerbated by globalization, effects more visible

Literature Review - Causes• Cheaper manufacturing arose (spatial shift) macro

economic changes, globalization – results in economic crises and outmigration

• Suburbanization – helped by FHA, Interstate highway act• Car based development• Environmental disasters• Cycles of capitalism – innovation then decline – creative

destruction• Regional restructuring – political, economic and land use

policies that promote sprawl pattern of development• The greying of Europe – falling birthrates• Life cycle theory – devaluation of city housing stock• Drivers of shrinkage operate at different spatial levels from

regional to global

Source: Haase, Bernt, Mykhnenko, 2014)

Causes II• Unemployment, decline of traditional industries• Trickle down/filtering• Lack of affordable housing• Polycentric development – edge cities result from many of the above trends• Fragmented metropolitan areas – lack of regional collaboration.

Additional WNY Causes• Transportation technology – loss of water -based advantage . Cities along the

Mississippi and Great Lakes effected by trucking and St. Lawrence Seaway• Improvements in electricity transmission• Mechanization – less workers needed

• Urban shrinkage reshapes the social settings for residents, planners, policy makers, entrepreneurs and service suppliers.• Large effect on land – increase in vacant/ abandoned properties, empty

overgrown lots, crimeI. Devalued property/ landII. Effect on buildings and infrastructureIII. Doughnut effect in US • Population increasingly impoverished – marginalized/minority• Effect on the social fabric, citizen moral, • Brain drain and loss of social capital from flight• Local revenue decrease = services lost

Literature Review - Effects

Literature Review Effects II• Smaller worker population affected Detroit's ability to pay pensions

- bankrupt• Emerging brownfield sites• Increased cost to provide services because density decrease• Many indirect effects a consequence of feedback loops

Effects Urban Shrinkage: Neighborhood Scale View

Vacancy/Abandonment

Deterioration

Property /land value decline

Lower tax base – less city services for

maintenance

Inviting crime, less investment in

neighborhoods

Literature Review – How Prevalent and Where

• 10% in US, >30% Germany, Eastern Europe, Japan’s smaller cities, several South Korean cities. China predicted by 2050• US Rust belt, Alabama,

Mississippi, New Orleans• 16 of the 1950 largest 20

cities have shrunk

Source: Cohen (2015)

Fastest Shrinking Cities

Buffalo 1950 580,132 Buffalo 2014 258,703

Literature Review Trends in Research

• Manufacturing jobs in US significant decline from 1950-2000, decreased by 30% more from 2000 to 2013• Design process should not be driven by construction, but by land

stewardship and management. Maintenance is a tool to shape physical space.• Shrinkage strategy cautions: loss of culture, space can be used for art,

attract creativity, use culture as an instrument of planning• Planning based on growth will not work, a change is recent urban policy –

more so in Europe than US• Use of modeling, combining different models, to predict land use changes• Inner suburb shrinkage – from 40 to 20% of population

Literature Review Trends in Research II

• Shrinkage in US usually in central cities while suburban areas continue to grow. Buffalo an exception.• Demolition in 80’ and 90’s had little effect on reducing crime. Demolition

of large housing projects did stabilize some neighborhoods• Planners seem to have little background or training, they are only

beginning to find ways to respond to it• Vacant land acquisition: de-densification vs. urban islands• Municipality needs to control vacant land acquisition, if city employs

market based system (selling to highest bidder) planning for is inhibited

Literature Review - The Challenges• Lost municipal revenue• Unexpectedly open space• Citizens affected by the lack of services, jobs• How to shift a regions way of thinking about its future• How to change planning for growth and accept reality (politically)• How to rethink transportation, energy, food options• How can cities respond without business interests co-opting the right sizing. Detroit's

use of demolition in some areas controversial. Use of funds to attract capital rather than public investment. Racial undertones. Mayor plan based on report from national business organization. Gentrify out marginalized groups remaking white space by disrupting black neighborhoods like urban renewal

• History of shrinkage rooted in discrimination – NYC in 1970’s withdrew services to most blighted areas. No redevelopment took place.

Literature Review – What Cities Do?• Smart Decline/ Right sizing -20 cities in 2010 drafting plans.• Acceptance – consensus that city will not return to former population• Art – turn eyesores into murals, encourage artists to relocate• Demolition – pro’s and con’s• Land banking• Urban agriculture• Improving foreclosure procedures – community advocacy, CDC’s• Ecological restoration – greening strategies, wind and solar farms,

ecosystem services

Ecosystem Services• Good amount of research advocating for less intense land uses in shrinking cities. Create

sustainability rather than chasing global mobile capital. Restore natural landscape• Increase quality of life by providing. 1. Fresh air2. Biodiversity3. Cooling4. Water infiltration5. Trees provide carbon storage6. Provide recreational and aesthetic value7. Green spaces, gardens8. Renewal energy facilities9. Pedestrian and bike paths to dense functional neighborhoods

• The key is providing access for all.

Interventions Gone Wrong

Source:http://ncpeaprofessor.org/detroit-2016/travel-in-detroit/

Source: deadmalls.com

Office parks, museums and attractions have been built on the assumption if you build it people will come. For the most part they will not

Literature Review – What Cities Do II

• Change zoning to slow decentralization, rezone depopulated neighborhoods• Fostering small neighborhood initiatives – often more effective• Reorganize municipal government – to increase efficiency• Reimaging for both local and outside interests• Use of predictor models, RLUAM, ABM, GIS to predict, make better decisions• Limiting the boundaries for urban development• Creation of new institutions (or expansion) that promote innovation so city can be

active in global knowledge – attraction of people: Oshawa – no effect yet. • Revitalization – gentrification, new urbanism – mixed use – helps walkability and

aesthetes but little for those who can not afford it. Questions of social equity• State/Federal assistance – Buffalo Billion

Some Intervention Results• Smart decline and right sizing did not reduce poverty and out migration in

Youngstown, Ohio. As of 2011 only a few small scale efforts in other cities attempted. Cleveland and Baltimore have built houses on vacant land, but their has ben little effect on the overall concentration of poverty.• Demolitions have not been used to help cities shrink, only to remove blight, thus not

as useful. Businesses try to accumulate large plots of land - Detroit• Urban redevelopment by development of attraction – no studies where it stopped

population loss• University development not successful in Ontario• Many cities focus on the attraction of private capital at the expense of their own poor,

neighborhoods• Crime relocates as smart decline/ rightsizing demolitions take place

Literature Review – Criticisms of Rightsizing

• Urban shrinkage as an excuse to underfund certain neighborhoods• Who decides where demolitions occur• Similarities to urban renewal?• Demolition does more than destroy blight. Many feel it erases

history of a city• Example of South Bronx in the 1970’s. 80’ and 90’s demolitions

failed to reduce crime or attract investment – created more displacement and out migration• Marginalized groups have endured urban renewal, Hope VI

displacements – would this be any different. Elite benefit from shrinkage

• Lack of successes in current literature• Creating density has brought back cities, not demolition. Adding instead of taking away.

Some of todays most desirable neighborhoods were once deteriorated neighborhoods: citizen –based regeneration has had small effects• Less funding to renovate existing structures then for demolition. Will be less able to

compete with suburbs• Austerity Urbanism: After studying five city right size plans, Hackworth felt the plans

lacked the utopia of urban renewal and only superficially engages with greening, housing goals language of greening deployed to sell virtues of demolition, but disappears from the narrative.. Reduction in government resources linked to evaporated tax revenue. Actively maintained by a host of political allies that divert the conversation away from tax increases, revenue sharing while focusing on perceived excesses of labor unions, dependent urban residents. It seeks to destroy not build.

Literature Review – Criticism of Rightsizing II

Mini Case Study- Rochester and Buffalo• Both cities population drops. Buffalo has lost 55%

since 1950. Buffalo 53,000 manufacturing jobs in 1970 to 9,500 in 2012. Rochester lost 40% between 200 and 2010 • Both among the poorest in nation• Both once centers of innovation, grain elevator, image

processing• Both in NY – historically not business friendly – high

taxes• Buffalo – tough adjustment to service industries,

lacked healthy private sector after Bethlehem Steel. Rochester lost more than 50,000 Kodak and Xerox jobs• Both have lost young people, Buffalo lost 1/3 of 20-40

year olds between 1990 and 2011• Both Fragmented metropolitan areas

Rochester and Buffalo Remain Poor

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S3981050.shtml?cat=565

Rochester• Shrinkage through regional redistribution• Planning for growth, but with a short

term management of decline• Embraces some aspects of rightsizing

while continuing development by building downtown. “Project Green: Growing Rochester in the right Direction” plan criticized by Hackworth – not specific on addressing funding for anything but demolition. No mention of displacement plan.• Housing being built downtown currently

all upscale Source: www.wxxi.com

• Better adjustment than Buffalo to economic restructuring. Kodak, Xerox engineers have started smaller optic-based companies• RIT and UR high tech incubator – rate of patent registration rising• MCC 100 non credit classes - workforce development• Educational and health care job growth areas• Federal help – Photonics grant to create center• Large development projects have not helped poverty rate. The fast Ferry one the most

noteworthy. The progress has been in citizen-based efforts in rebranding neighborhoods – renovation• Current city plan focused on developing center city, waterfront but no mention of

neighborhood development – left to the citizens• Anti-poverty Initiative 2015• College town, Citygate, Transit center

Rochester

Rightsizing Rochester Highways?

Source: www.whec.com

Before and after: rightsizing I-590 in RochesterSource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_590

Brief Review of Buffalo Interventions

• 5 in 5 plan for demolition: $10 million a year• Demolition results in land acquisition reflective of a pattern of growth. Results in

crime. Right strategy gone wrong.• History of ineffective revitalizations1. Ellicott district – displaced 2,0002. Waterfront development –Marine Midland Center, arena – public money did not

stem flight3. Metro Rail – Businesses left Main Street• Buffalo metro grew by 50% in developed land between 1982 and 1996 while

experiencing no population growth – sprawl• Since 2011 addition of 3,700 jobs – New focus on sustainable energy. Riverbend –

SolarCity. ECC partner with National grid to train

Spatial Pattern of Vacancy/ Demolition

Source: Fraizer, Bagchi-Shen, Knight (2013)http://www.oneregionforward.org/datastory/

where-are-vacant-homes-a-problem/

Buffalo Current• One Region Forward : Collaborative effort to promote sustainable development in Erie and

Niagara counties 9land, housing, energy, climate, food access) a lot of partners including UB• BNSC: Community development, acquire vacant properties and renovate. Increase access to

increase access to quality affordable housing• BUDC – Reclaim vacant land – mainly for business developmenthttp://www.buffalourbandevelopment.com/• Buffalo Billion : Economic development, workforce development, advanced manufacturing focus

SolarCity =$ 500 million: Facilities being constructed$44 Million = construct and fund eastside workforce development center

• Queen City comprehensive plan: very general, economic and built environment focus – not on neighborhoods, poverty, people, education. Focus on “ smart growth”

• Master plan for downtown streets: Goal to make downtown more vibrant• Waterfront plan/Green code: Improve accessibility, brownfield redevelopment

Buffalo – What it needs to do• Utilize some rightsizing tools, reduce reliance

on growth• Reconfigure education provision – a good way

to fight concentrated poverty• Combine redevelopment plans-Billion, 1 Region Forward, Queen City, Etc. Erie- Niagara framework for regional growth is still based on growth. Recognition that the larger region is where the real solutions lie

• Focus on people, not structures, social equity• More aggressive business attraction – NY

Start – but don’t give tax money away. Invest in institutions that are not leaving. Focus on regional assets

• Set up the conditions for innovation• Regional planning, growth boundaries,

end municipal competition• Long term rather than short focus• Transportation planning that reduces

spatial mismatch• Focus on the development of long

term institutions – college, medical, where growth has occurred

• Better use of physical location/assets - trade

Research Question – What should these cities do?• Embrace new regionalism- address urban problems regionally through regional government or

greater collaboration with existing governments. Regional planning should promote more equity – good for entire regions economy

• Focus on affordable, low income housing throughout metro areas.• Education, workforce development. Link training to employers needs• Land acquisition through demolition consistent with right sizing strategies. Market-based

approaches do not work. Reduce focus on demolition, more awareness of social equity needed• Use modeling, GIS to predict population movements and land change to create better planning• Tax incentives to individuals willing to reclaim vacant buildings instead of to redevelopers building

new• Capitalize on the trend of capturing millennials and the trend that they want to live in urban areas.• Use renovation along with demolition, increase funding for renovation so that it is not financially

easier to demolish.• Support community led renovation efforts

Concluding thought – What about the Federal Government?

• 2010 Brookings report listed specific actions that could be taken by The federal government to assist with

1) Strategic planning

2) Reutilizing urban land

3) Investing in transformative change

4) Revitalizing neighborhoods

5) Addressing affordable housing

By coordinating federal resources directed to shrinking cities, using federal resources to leverage state policy changes and to build the capacity of local government to carry out effective strategies for change.

Conclusion• Shrinking city research slowly developing in US• Causes and main effects well established• Rightsizing is a trend, results mixed especially for demolition• Many other interventions researched, no consensus on most• Fear that right size tools will be co-opted by elite further decreasing the fortunes of those

most affected by urban shrinkage• GIS and land modeling have begun to yield useful simulations• Based on current research a number of recommended actions for Rochester and Buffalo

were made. Buffalo is still in growth planning mode with a cumbersome amount of plans. Both cities banking on new industry, Solarcity and Photronics. Right course as innovation is what made these cities successful in the past• In the short term they both need to focus more on regionalism, education, workforce

development, low income housing, empowering neighborhoods, fostering community development, renovation and less on demolition.

References

• Frazier, A. E., Bagchi-Sen, S., & Knight, J. (2013). The Spatio-temporal impacts of demolition land use policy and crime in a shrinking city. Applied Geography, 41, 55-64.

• Pedroni, T. C. (2011). Urban shrinkage as a performance of whiteness: Neoliberal urban restructuring, education, and racial containment in the post-industrial, global niche city. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(2), 203-215.

• Haase, D., Haase, A., & Rink, D. (2014). Conceptualizing the nexus between urban shrinkage and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 159-169.

• Wiechmann, T., & Pallagst, K. M. (2012). Urban shrinkage in Germany and the USA: A comparison of transformation patterns and local strategies.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(2), 261-280.

• Silverman, R. M., Yin, L., & Patterson, K. L. (2015). Municipal property acquisition patterns in a shrinking city: Evidence for the persistence of an urban growth paradigm in Buffalo, NY. Cogent Social Sciences, 1(1), 1012973.

• Imbroscio, D. L. (2006). Shaming the Inside Game A Critique of the Liberal Expansionist Approach to Addressing Urban Problems. Urban affairs review,42(2), 224-248.

• Swanstrom, T. (2006). Regionalism, equality and democracy. Urban Affairs Review, 42(2), 249.

• Fitzgerald, J., Perry, D., & Jaffe, M. (2002). The new metropolitan alliances: Regional collaboration for economic development.

• Cahill, B. W. (2009). Urban shrinkage, smart decline, and the Erie-Niagara Framework for Regional Growth (Doctoral dissertation, TUFTS UNIVERSITY).

• Rhodes, J., & Russo, J. (2013). Shrinking ‘Smart’?: Urban Redevelopment and Shrinkage in Youngstown, Ohio. Urban Geography, 34(3), 305-326.

• Cohen, D. (2015, March). Population Trends in Incorporated Places: 2000 to 2013. Retrieved November 6, 2015, from Population Trends in Incorporated Places: 2000 to 2013

• Wilson, S. G. (2012). Patterns of metropolitan and micropolitan population change: 2000 to 2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

• Siemiatycki, E. (2013). A smooth ride? From industrial to creative urbanism in Oshawa, Ontario. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1766-1784.

• Krivý, M. (2013). Don't Plan! The Use of the Notion of ‘Culture’in Transforming Obsolete Industrial Space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1724-1746.

• Desimini, J. (2014). From Planned Shrinkage to Formerly Urban. Landscape Journal, 33(1).

• Haase, A., Rink, D., Grossmann, K., Bernt, M., & Mykhnenko, V. (2014). Conceptualizing urban shrinkage. Environment and Planning A, 46(7), 1519-1534.

• Tomàs, M. (2012). Exploring the metropolitan trap: the case of Montreal.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(3), 554-567.

• Martinez Fernandez, C., Audirac, I., Fol, S., & Cunningham Sabot, E. (2012). ‐ ‐Shrinking cities: urban challenges of globalization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(2), 213-225.

References

• Haase, D., Haase, A., Kabisch, N., Kabisch, S., & Rink, D. (2012). Actors and factors in land-use simulation: The challenge of urban shrinkage. Environmental Modelling & Software, 35, 92-103.

• Audirac, I. (2007). Urban shrinkage amid fast metropolitan growth (two faces of contemporary urbanism). Online [cit. 25. 9. 2009] Dostupné na http://www. coss. fsu. edu/durp/sites/coss. fsu. edu. durp/files/Audirac2009. pdf.

• Hollander, J. B., Pallagst, K., Schwarz, T., & Popper, F. J. (2009). Planning shrinking cities. Progress in Planning, 72(4), 223-232.

• Pallagst, K. (2009). The future of shrinking cities: problems, patterns and strategies of urban transformation in a global context. Institute of Urban & Regional Development

• Hackworth, J. (2015). Right-sizing as spatial austerity in the American Rust Belt. Environment and Planning A, 47, 766-782.

• Maheshwari, T. (2013, December 03). Redefining Shrinking Cities. Retrieved from http://ced.berkeley.edu/bpj/2013/12/redefining-shrinking-cities/

• Glaeser, E. (2007, Fall). Can Buffalo Ever Come Back?, City Journal Autumn 2007. Retrieved from http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_buffalo_ny.html

• Popper, F., & Popper, D. (2010, November). The Road to Right-Size Cities. Retrieved from http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/the-road-to-right-size-cities

• Gratz, R. B. (2010, April). Shrinking Cities: Urban Renewal Revisited? Retrieved from http://www.planetizen.com/node/43826

• Moule, J. (2015, February). Rochester's fighting chance for a turnaround. Retrieved from http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/rochesters-fighting-chance-for-a-turnaround/Content?oid=2500887

• Sharp, B. (2014, October). Transforming Rochester. Retrieved December 2, 2015, from http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/11/07/transforming-rochester-developments-brian-sharp/17833255/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

• Dudley, W. C. (2015, August). Workforce Development and Reinvention in the Rochester Economy - Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Retrieved from https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/dud150812.html