The New Metropolitan Agenda

1
The New Metropolitan Agenda
Center on Urban and Metropolitan PolicyBruce
Katz, Director
Presentation to the Southwest Pennsylvania Smart
Growth Conference June 2001
2
Major Questions

• What are the general trends affecting
  metropolitan areas?
• What is the emerging metropolitan agenda?
• Where does SW Pennsylvania go from here?

3
I. What are the general trends affecting
metropolitan areas?
4
1. Metropolitan areas are decentralizing
5
Population Is Decentralizing
Suburbs grew faster than cities during the 1990s
Source U.S. Census Bureau
6
Population Is Decentralizing
The city of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan
arealost population in the 1990s
Source U.S. Census Bureau
7
Population Is Decentralizing
Though the region lost population, the outer
suburban counties of Butler and Fayette grew.
Source U.S. Census Bureau
8
Population Is Decentralizing
Pennsylvanias other large cities were outpaced
by their metropolitan areas population growth
rates.
Source U.S. Census Bureau
9
Employment Is Decentralizing
Employment is also decentralizing. Cities gained
jobs during the 1990s, but suburbs gained more
1 Aggregated data for 114 large cities.
Source U.S Department of Housing and Urban
Development, State of the Cities 2000. ..
10
Employment Is Decentralizing
This trend was apparent in Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia
1 Based on changes between 1992 and 1997.
Source U.S Department of Housing and Urban
Development, State of the Cities 2000. ..
11
2. Demographics are changing
12
The largest 100 cities experienced strong growth
in minority population during the 1990s.
However, these same cities lost non-Hispanic
white residents
Source U.S. Census Bureau
13
An influx of Hispanics and Asians has fueled the
growth in big cities over the past decade and
slowed the population decline in cities that
experienced a flight to the suburbs.
Source DVera Cohen. Immigration Fueling Big
U.S. Cities, The Washington Post, March 16, 2001.
14
However Pittsburgh has experienced little
immigration
Source U.S. Census Bureau
15
Just like Pittsburgh, Allegheny County has
experienced little immigration
Allegheny County Racial and Ethnic Change
1990-2000
Does Not Include the City of Pittsburgh
16
3. Decentralization Is Costly
17
Decentralization Is Costly
Decentralization leaves behind concentrated
poverty in inner cities. The city of
Philadelphias share of the state welfare
caseload increased significantly between 1994 and
1999
Source Katherine Allen and Maria Kirby.
Unfinished Business Why Cities Matter to
Welfare Reform. Brookings, July 2000.
18
Decentralization Is Costly
Allegheny Countys share of the state welfare
caseload declined slightly between 1994 and 1999
Source Katherine Allen and Maria Kirby.
Unfinished Business Why Cities Matter to
Welfare Reform. Brookings, July 2000.
19
Older suburbs are beginning to take on many of
the challenges of central cities.
Decentralization Is Costly

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

20
Decentralization Is Costly
Older suburban population growth is highly uneven
Population Change in Select Older Suburbs in
Allegheny County
Older Suburb 1990 2000 Pop Change Wilkens Tw
7,585 6,917 -668 -8.8 West
Mifflin 23,644 22,464 -1,180 -4.9 Shaler Tw
30,533 29,757 -776 -2.5 Bethel Park Br
33,823 33,556 -267 -0.8 Scott Tw
17,118 17,228 110 0.6 Fox Chapel Br
5,319 5,436 117 2.1 Richland Tw
8,600 9,231 631 7.3 Robinson Tw
10,830 12,289 1,459 13.4 Pine Tw 4,048
7,683 3,635 89.7
21
Decentralization Is Costly
Older suburbs are becoming home to the working
poor. This map shows that recipients of the
EITC are concentrated in Washington and its
eastern suburbs
Source IRS, E-File Demographics.
22
Decentralization Is Costly
Percent of Elementary Students Eligible for Free
and Reduced Cost Meals in St. Louis County, 1998
St. Louis County
Source Metropolitan Area Research Corporation
23
Decentralization Is Costly
Decentralization has had many negative
consequences for newer suburban areas

• Loss of open space
• Overcrowded schools

• Traffic congestion
• Air pollution

24
Decentralization Is Costly
In the Pittsburgh metro area, vehicle miles
traveled increased slightly - 4.3 - despite
the 1.5 regional population loss.
Source U.S. Department of Transportation
25
Decentralization Is Costly
Nationally, Since 1978, there has been a 26
percent increase in urbanized land area.
Meanwhile, 18 percent of agricultural land and 8
percent of wetlands have been lost.
Source Natural Resources Management and
Environmental Code Commission
26
Decentralization Is Costly
The average annual conversion of developed land
in Pennsylvania quintupled
Source USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service
27
Decentralization Is Costly
The fringes of metropolitan areas areconsuming
excessive amounts of land
Pennsylvania ranked 2nd among all fifty states in
land development between 1992-1997.
Growth and Sprawl in 282 U.S. Metropolitan Areas,
The Brookings Institution, Forthcoming
28
II. What is the emerging metropolitan agenda?
29
The New Metropolitan Agenda
2. REGIONAL GOVERNANCE
3. LAND USE REFORM
1. KNOW THE CONTEXT
5. URBAN REINVESTMENT
4. INFRASTRUCTURE
30
State Reform Efforts
31
Know the Context
Recent Activity
1979 Ohio - Urban University Partnership 1997 Minn
esota - Subsidy Accountability Disclosure
Law 1998 Maine - Subsidy Accountability
Disclosure Law
32
Know the Context
Ohio Urban University Partnership (1979)

• UUP is a state funded collaborative that links
  the
• urban centers of 8 Universities. The
  partnership
• Assists local governments and policymakers by
  conducting research aimed at addressing Ohios
  urban problems
• Maintains shared databases, GIS Systems, and
  other information resources

33
Regional Governance
Recent Activity
1994 Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan
Reorganization Act 1996 Virginia Regional
Competitiveness Act 1999 Georgia Regional
Transportation Authority 2000 North Carolina
Metro Planning Organization Merger Law
34
Regional Governance
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (1999)

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

35
Land Use Reform Preservation
Recent Activity
1998 New Jersey Public Question 1 1 Million
Acres 1998 Clean Michigan Initiative 1998 Forever
Florida Program 1999 Pennsylvania Growing
Greener 2000 California Parks, Water, Air and
Coast Protection Bond 2000 Issue 1 - The Clean
Ohio Fund
36
Land Use Reform Preservation
Issue 1 - Clean Ohio Fund (2000)

• Voters authorized 200 million in general
  obligation bonds for environmental conservation
  and natural areas, open space, farmlands, and
  other land dedicated to agriculture
• 200 million in revenue bonds to remediate urban
  brownfields to promote economic development

37
Land Use Reform Preservation
New Jersey Public Question 1 Open Space Bond
Referendum (1998)

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

38
Land Use Reform Planning
Recent Activity
1998 Tennessee Growth Policy, Annexation, and
Incorporation Law 1999 Wisconsin Comprehensive
Planning Legislation 1999 Illinois Smart Growth
and Technical Assistance Act 2000 Pennsylvania
Growing Smarter Law 2001 New Hampshire GrowSmart
(pending)
39
Land Use Reform Planning
Pennsylvania Growing Smarter Law (2000)

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

40
Infrastructure
Recent Activity
1997 Maryland Smart Growth Act 1999 New Jersey
Fix It First Transportation Policy 1999 Illinois
12 billion public works investment - 4.1 to
transit
41
Infrastructure
Maryland Smart Growth and Neighborhood
Conservation Act of 1997

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

42
Urban Reinvestment
Recent Activity
1995 Vermont Downtown Program 1998 New Jersey
Rehabilitation Subcode 1998 Missouri Distressed
Communities Act 1999 Oregon Livable Community
Initiative 2000 Maine fund to locate state
agencies downtown
43
Urban Reinvestment
New Jersey The Rehabilitation Subcode of 1998

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

44
Local and Regional Reform Efforts
45
Know the Context
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

• Works to foster regional cooperation in a
  nine-county, two state region focusing on
  transportation, land use, environmental
  protection and economic development.
• Examines the effects of decentralization and
  disinvestment in older suburbs.
• Produces a series of reports on older suburban
  trends and policy recommendations.

46
Regional Governance
Regional Entities in the Pittsburgh Area

• Port Authority
• Airport Authority
• Conservation District
• Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
• Southwestern Pennsylvania Corporation
• Local COGs

47
Land Use Reform Preservation
Transfer of Development Rights Montgomery County,
MD
Allows owners to transfer the right to develop
their property to higher density receiving
areas in other parts of the County, this
program, perhaps the best in the nation, has
preserved roughly 47,000 acres of farmland since
its creation in 1980.
48
Infrastructure
Transit Oriented Development Arlington County, VA
Sector plans around each metro station establish
land use and development guidelines to ensure a
mix of commercial residential and office
uses. One third of all Metro transit riders get
on or get off in Arlington County
49
Infrastructure
Inclusionary Zoning Montgomery County, MD
Moderately- Priced Dwelling Unit Ordinance
Requires new developments of gt50 units to set
aside 12.5 - 15 of the units for low and
moderate income households.

• Return is a 22 density bonus
• Almost 11,000 units since 1973

50
Urban Reinvestment
Growth in Downtown Living The Denver Story

• Denver made living downtown a political and
  business priority in the 1990s. Major reforms
  were undertaken to make downtown clean and safe,
  to preserve and reuse old buildings, and to
  streamline and support residential
  growth.Efforts resulted in a fifty percent
  growth in residents.

51
Urban Reinvestment
Housing Enhancement Loan Program (HELP) Cuyahoga
County, Oh

• In return for county deposits, participating
  banks have agreed to allow homeowners in the
  county to borrow money to repair or remodel their
  homes or rental property at interest rates 3
  below the lowest rate a bank would normally
  offer.
• Loans can be used for code violation compliance,
  property upgrades, general maintenance, repair,
  remodeling, landscaping, etc.
• The municipality where the home is located will
  monitor the upgrades

52
III. Where does SW Pennsylvania go from here?
53
The New Metropolitan Agenda
2. REGIONAL GOVERNANCE
3. LAND USE REFORM
1. KNOW THE CONTEXT
5. URBAN REINVESTMENT
4. INFRASTRUCTURE
54
The Emerging Metropolitan Agenda
Metropolitics
Central City
Older Suburb
Retail
Housing
Schools
Newer Suburb
Rural Area
Quality of Life
Conservation
Congestion
Farm Preservation
55
The Emerging Metropolitan Agenda
Where does SW Pennsylvania go from here?
Know The Context

• Metropolitan policy analysis and trend research

Regional Governance
Improve existing metropolitan entities
Land Use Reform
Implement Growing Smarter Law and local land
preservation
Infrastructure

• State transportation reform

State and local renovation codes
Urban Reinvestment
56
www.brookings.edu/urban