Bruce KatzNovember 9, 1999
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy
The Brookings Institution
Presentation to the Indiana Land Use
Consortium
The New Metropolitan Agenda
“The sign of a truly educated person is to be deeply moved by statistics.”
- George Bernard Shaw
• What are the major trends affecting metropolitan areas today?
• How do cities and counties in Indiana reflect these trends?
• Where do we go from here?
Major Questions? ?
What are the major trends affecting metropolitan areas today?
Major Questions? ?
Decentralization is the dominant trend
in U.S. metropolitan areas.
Population Shifts in Top 10 American Cities, 1980-1997
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Detroit
Philadelphia
New York City
Chicago
Baltimore
Los Angeles
Houston
San Diego
DallasPhoenix
Central City Metro Area
Outer suburbs are experiencing
a population boom.
-40000
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
Denver City Adams County Douglas County Jefferson County Arapahoe County
1980s 1990s
Population Change, Denver Metropolitan Area
1980-1998
Denver population (1998) = 499,055
-250000
-200000
-150000
-100000
-50000
0
50000
100000
150000
Chicago Cook Co. McHenryCo.
Kane Co. Lake Co. Will Co. DupageCo.
1980s 1990s
Population Change, Chicago Metropolitan Area
1980-1998
Chicago population (1998) = 2,802,079
Population Change, Baltimore Metropolitan Area
1980-1998
-100000
-80000
-60000
-40000
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
Baltimore City Baltimore County Anne Arundel Harford County Carroll County Howard County
1980s 1990sBaltimore population (1998) = 645,593
Outer Suburbs Continue to Garner the Lion’s Share of New Housing and New Homeowners.
Suburbs Consistently Outpace Cities In New Housing Permits,
1986-1998
18.414.4 14.8 17.2
81.685.6 85.2 82.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1986 1991 1996 1998
Perc
ent S
hare
CitySuburbs
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Construction Reports
Outer suburbs are experiencing
substantial job growth.
Job Location in Washington, D.C. Region, 1990
Outer Suburbs38.7%
District of Columbia33.1%
Inner Suburbs28.2%
Job Location in Washington, D.C. Region, 1997
Outer Suburbs50%
District of Columbia
24%
Inner Suburbs26%
Net Job Growth in Seven Metropolitan Areas* in Ohio,
1994-1997
636 8874 10000
186410
0
40000
80000
120000
160000
200000
City CentralDistrict
City ResidentialAreas
City BusinessDistricts
Suburbs
Source: Edward Hill & John Brennan, Where is the Renaissance: Employment Specialization within Ohio’s Metro Areas, Sept. 1998.
* Includes Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown MSAs
is becoming more concentrated in central cities.
Poverty
Between 1970 and 1990, the number of people living in neighborhoods where 40% or more of the residents are poor
nearly doubled:
from 4.1 million to 8 million people.
Source: Paul Jargowsky, Poverty and Place, Russell Sage, 1997.
Percentage of City Population Living in High Poverty Neighborhoods,
199041.3%
33.4%
19.9%
7.7%5.5% 4.8% 3.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Miami New Orleans Cleveland Los Angeles Boston Seattle Washington,DC
Source: Paul Jargowsky, Poverty and Place, Russell Sage, 1997; U.S. Census data.
General Population & Welfare Caseload, Four Urban Areas
13% 16%12%
43%
56%
24%
47%
67%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Baltimore City Shelby Co.(Memphis)
Philadelphia Co. Cook Co.(Chicago)
% state population 1996 % state TANF caseload 1998
Urban Public School Achievement Percent of 4th grade students at “basic” level on NAEP, 1996
23%
33% 31%
43% 42%38%
63%66% 65%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Reading Mathematics Science
Urban High Poverty All Urban All Non-Urban
Source: Diane Ravitch, A New Era in Urban Education, Brookings Policy Brief #35, August 1998.
Growth and decentralization are re-making suburbs,
changing suburban politics and fueling metro coalitions.
Older suburbs are beginning to take on many of the challenges of central cities.
• Increasing school poverty
• Growing racial and ethnic diversity
• Declining fiscal capacity.
• Declining commercial corridors and retail malls+
Percent of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Cost Lunch, 1997
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Newer suburbs are also experiencing severe challenges, such as:
• Choking congestion
• Overcrowded schools
• Loss of open space
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled Philadelphia Region, 1980-1997
68.5
106.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1980 1997
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
VMT in Millions
+55%
Regional Population Increase 1980-1997: 3%
Loss of Open Space:
• The Washington region is losing 10,300 acres a year (28 acres a day) to development: that is equivalent to an area four times the size of Rock Creek Park.
• The United States has lost nearly 30.5 million acres of productive farmland to development since 1970, at an average rate of 2 acres per minute.
Source: Washington Post; American Farmland Trust.
Why is this Happening?
1. Interstate Highway Act / Automobile dominance
2. FHA mortgage financing
3. De-industrialization of central cities
4. Urban renewal
5. Levittown (mass produced suburban tract house)
Source: Bob Fishman,”1999 Fannie Mae Foundation Annual Housing Conference Survey: The American Metropolis at Century’s End: Past and Future Influence,” September 1999
Why is this Happening?
6. Racial segregation / job discrimination
7. Enclosed Shopping Malls
8. Sunbelt-Style Sprawl
9. Air Conditioning
10. Urban riots of the 1960s
Source: Bob Fishman,”1999 Fannie Mae Foundation Annual Housing Conference Survey: The American Metropolis at Century’s End: Past and Future Influence,” September 1999
How do Cities and How do Cities and Counties in Indiana Counties in Indiana
reflect these trends?reflect these trends?
POPULATION
-20000
-10000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
City ofIndianapolis
HamiltonCounty
Marion County(Remainder)
Madison Hancock Hendricks Boone Tipton
1980s 1990s
Population Change, Indianapolis Metropolitan Area
1980-1998
Indianapolis population (1998) = 741,304
-20000
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
City of FortWayne
Adams County Allen County(Remainder)
De Kalb County HuntingtonCounty
Wells County Whitely County
1980s 1990s
Population Change, Fort Wayne Metropolitan Area
1980-1998
Fort Wayne population (1998) = 185,716
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
City of Evansville Posey County Vanderburgh (remainder) Warrick County Henderson County, KY
1980s 1990s
Population Change, Evansville Metropolitan Area
1980-1998
Evansville population (1998) = 122,779
-40000
-30000
-20000
-10000
0
10000
20000
City of Gary Lake County (remainder) Porter County
1980s 1990s
Population Change, Gary Metropolitan Area
1980-1998
Gary population (1998) = 108,469
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
City of South Bend St. Josephs County (remainder)
1980s 1990s
Population Change, South Bend Metropolitan Area
1980-1998
South Bend population (1998) = 99,417
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
India
napolis
Hamilt
on County
(Rem
inen
t)
Mar
ion C
ounty
Mad
ison
Hanco
ck
Hendric
ks
Boone
Tipto
n
Gra
nt
Share of Population
Share of Minority Population
Indianapolis Metropolitan Area’s 1990 Share of Population
1990 Share of Minority Population
JOBS
0
60000
120000
180000
240000
300000
360000
420000
480000
1 2
Change 1993-96City 4.7%Suburbs 17%
City vs. Suburb Job Location
Job Growth
City of Indianapolis
Source: John Brennan, Edward Hill, Where are the Jobs: Cities, Suburbs, and the Competition for Employment Cleveland State University, August 1999 Draft
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
City Suburb
Net Change in Pay Indianapolis vs. Suburbs
1991-1993
City 3.7%
Suburb .1%
1993-1996
City 0.7%
Suburb 8.9%
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: State of the Cities Report, 1999
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
91-93 93-96
Indianapolis
Suburbs
Percent Change in Total Establishments1991-93 & 1993-96
3.5%
-2.9%
9.0%
24.7%
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development: State of the Cities Report, 1999
CONCENTRATEDPOVERTY
Percentage of City Population Living in High Poverty Neighborhoods, 1990
41.3%
33.4%
19.9%
7.7%5.5% 4.8% 3.4% 2.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Miami New Orleans Cleveland Los Angeles Boston Seattle Washington,DC
Indianapolis
Source: Paul Jargowsky, Poverty and Place, Russell Sage, 1997; U.S. Census data.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Total Population Minorities
City of IndianapolisPercent in Concentrated Poverty 1990
Source: Paul Jargowsky, Poverty and Place, Russell Sage, 1997; U.S. Census data.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Share of WelfareCaseload
Share of Population
Marion County, Indiana1998 Share of Welfare
Caseloads vs. Population
Balanced Growth
City Share of Metro Housing Permits for Cities 200-500 Square Miles, 1986-1998
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
1986 1991 1996 1998
Source: Alexander Von Hoffman, Home Building Patterns in Metropolitan Areas, August 1999 Draft
City Share of Metro Housing PermitsIndianapolis, 1986-1998
64.8%
35.9%
26.6%34.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1986 1991 1996 1998
Source: Alexander Von Hoffman, Home Building Patterns in Metropolitan Areas, August 1999 Draft
Vehicle Miles TravelIndianapolis Metropolitan Area
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
1992 1995 1997
VMT Growth Rate1992-1997 = 30.87%
Population Growth Rate1990-1996 = 8.1%
Source: United States Census
United States Department of Transportation
Vehicle Miles TravelFt. Wayne Metropolitan Area
4400000
4600000
4800000
5000000
5200000
5400000
5600000
5800000
1992 1995 1997
VMT Growth Rate1992-1997 = 17.28%
Population Growth Rate1990-1996 = 4.2%
Source: United States Census
United States Department of Transportation
Vehicle Miles TravelSouth Bend/Mishawaka
Metropolitan Area
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
1992 1995 1997
VMT Growth Rate1992-1997 = 26.49%
Population Growth Rate1990-1996 = 4.3%
Source: United States Census
United States Department of Transportation
65%
65%
66%
66%
67%
67%
68%
68%
69%
1 2
68.0%
65.8%
Farm Land as aPercent of State’sTotal Land Area
1992 1997
Average Operator Age1992 1997
52 53
Percentage with Farming as Principal Occupation1992 1997
50.3% 46.6%
Farms, Farmers, Farming
Source: United States Department of Agriculture
How are states and the federal
government responding?
The New Metropolitics
Leaders of Older Communities
• Political• Downtown Business• Civic • Community
Newly Developing Suburbs• Political Leaders• Environmentalists• Farmland Preservation
Advocates• No Growth Citizens
Other•Regional Business Alliances•Regional Media•Religious Leaders
The New Metropolitan Agenda
1. Metropolitan Governance
2. Land Use Reform
Acquisition of Open Space
3. Smart Growth
Infrastructure Spending
4. Tax Policy
Fiscal Disparities
5. Access to Opportunity
Welfare-to-Work Workforce Development Housing
State Responses
State Responses: Regional Governance
Created by the State Legislature in 1999 to combat air pollution, traffic congestion and sprawl developmentAuthority currently lies only in the metro Atlanta area which is currently out of compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act. The Authority has the power to move into other areas of the state if and when they fall out of compliance with the Federal regulations.
GRTA approval is required for major highway and development projects that affect the metro Atlanta region. Governments that do not cooperate with GRTA face a cutoff of many state and federal funds, including money for road-building.
State Responses: Growth Management/Land Use
11 states
Requires the development of countygrowth plans which must identify urbangrowth boundaries, planned growth areas, and rural areas in each county large enoughto account for anticipated growth for thenext twenty years or risk losing access to state transportation funds
Urban Growth Boundaries
State Responses: Acquisition
of Open Space
9 states passing state-wide ballot referenda in 1998
Op
en S
pac
e B
ond
Ref
eren
du
m Passed in 1998.
Sets aside $1 Billion over 10 years to permanently save a million acres of resource lands.
Financed by State setting aside $98 million a year of state sales tax revenues for 10 years and the allocation of $1.0 billion in bond proceeds to preserve open space and historic resources
16 Counties and 92 municipalities are now authorized to dedicate a portion of their property taxes or sell bonds to fund open space and farmland preservation and/ or park development and maintenance.
State Responses: Smart Growth
3 states
Targets major state funding (e.g. transportation , housing, state facilities) to Priority Funding Areas.
Priority areas include all municipalities, inner beltway areas, enterprise zones, industrial areas and new planned growth areas with water/
sewer.
SMA
RT
grow
thMaryland
State Responses: Tax Sharing
•Allocates 40% of the growth in property tax revenues from commercial industrial development to a metropolitan tax base pool.•Funds in the pool are then redistributed to communities based on commercial tax capacity.•Narrows but does not eliminate fiscal disparities; growing suburbs continue to have 25 to 30 percent more tax base per household than do central cities and inner suburbs
Minnesota Fiscal Disparities Law
The Federal Response
The Federal Response
Better AmericaBonds
TEA-21
Clean Air Act
Capital Gains Relief
Where do we go from here?
General Observations • State governments are key to set rules of
development game• Metropolitan agenda is mutually consistent and
reinforcing• Composition of metro coalitions varies state to
state• Immediate point of policy intervention also varies• Not necessarily about consensus• Land use/environmental agenda will be most
successful when coupled with urban reinvestment effort
Ten Next Steps for Regional and State Reforms
1. Fill empirical holes
2. Identify policy reforms- top-down
3. Identify policy reforms- bottom-up
4. Develop strategies for achieving policy reform
5. Market & disseminate ideas
6. Understand consumer/voter/business
7. Build capacity of key constituencies
8. Support network of key constituencies
9. Convene10. Cross-pollinate
The New Metropolitan Agenda
1. Metropolitan Governance
2. Land Use Reform
Acquisition of Open Space
3. Smart Growth
Infrastructure Spending
4. Tax Policy
Fiscal Disparities
5. Access to Opportunity
Welfare-to-Work Workforce Development Housing
“Why not go out on a limb? That’s where the fruit is.”
-Will Rogers
www.brookings.edu/urban
Top Related