Presentation on theme: "The New Metropolitan Reality Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Bruce Katz, Director The Brookings Institution Presentation to the 17th Annual Colloquium."— Presentation transcript:
The New Metropolitan Reality Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Bruce Katz, Director The Brookings Institution Presentation to the 17th Annual Colloquium on City and Regional Planning February 6, 2002
Major Questions What are the general trends affecting metropolitan areas? What is the emerging metropolitan agenda? Where do we go from here?
I. What are the general trends affecting metropolitan areas?
Metropolitan areas continued to decentralize during the 1990s
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; cities and suburbs in the 100 largest metro areas - Metropolitan Decentralization - Suburbs grew faster than cities during the 1990s
- Metropolitan Decentralization - Decentralization is apparent in nearly every metropolitan area Source: U.S. Census Bureau
- Metropolitan Decentralization - Counties outside of Memphis grew rapidly during the 1990s; the city grew moderately Source: U.S. Census Bureau
- Metropolitan Decentralization - Slow growing areas in the Northeast and Midwest consumed enormous amounts of land relative to population growth Source: Fulton et al., “Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.”; Brookings Institution, July 2001
- Metropolitan Decentralization - Strong growth in the South fueled land consumption. In the West, dense development accommodated population growth Source: Fulton et al., “Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.”; Brookings Institution, July 2001
- Metropolitan Decentralization - Every household type grew at faster rates in the suburbs than in cities Source: William Frey. “A Census 2000 Study of City and Suburb Household Change.” Brookings, Forthcoming
Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities 2000... Employment is also decentralizing. Cities gained jobs during the 1990s, but suburbs gained more 1 Aggregated data for 114 large cities. - Metropolitan Decentralization -
Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities 2000... Between 1992 and 1997, the majority of new jobs in metropolitan Memphis were located in the suburbs - Metropolitan Decentralization -
Source: Edward Glaeser. “Job Sprawl: Employment Location in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” Brookings, May 2001. Across the 100 largest metro areas, on average, only 22 percent of people work within 3 miles of the city center - Metropolitan Decentralization -
Source: Edward Glaeser. “Job Sprawl: Employment Location in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” Brookings, May 2001. In some areas, many people work further than 10 miles from the city center - Metropolitan Decentralization -
Office space is increasingly located in ‘edgeless’ locations 1 Source: Robert Lang. “Office Sprawl: The Evolving Geography of Business,” Brookings, October 2000. 1 Sample of 13 largest markets in 1999 - Metropolitan Decentralization -
Growth patterns of metropolitan areas like Washington reflect racial division Source: A Region Divided. Brookings Institution, 2000 - Metropolitan Decentralization - Minority Students by Elementary School in D.C. Area, 1996
The demographics of cities and suburbs have changed markedly
The 100 largest cities, as a group, became majority minority for the first time in 2000 Source: Alan Berube. “Racial Change in the Largest Cities: Evidence from Census 2000.” Brookings, Forthcoming - Demographic Change - 19902000
Memphis experienced considerable change in its racial and ethnic composition during the 1990s Source: Alan Berube. “Racial Change in the Largest Cities: Evidence from Census 2000.” Brookings, Forthcoming - Demographic Change - 19902000
Suburbs became diverse during the 1990s; now more than 1 in 4 households are minority Source: William Frey. “Melting Pot Suburbs: A Census 2000 Study of Suburban Diversity.” Brookings Institution. June 2001 - Demographic Change -
And every minority group grew at faster rates in the suburbs Source: U.S. Census Bureau; cities and suburbs in the 100 largest metro areas - Demographic Change -
The percent of each racial/ethnic group living in the suburbs increased substantially 1 Source: William Frey. “Melting Pot Suburbs: A Census 2000 Study of Suburban Diversity.” Brookings Institution. June 2001 1 Suburbs of the 102 most populous MSAs - Demographic Change -
The age picture of this country is changing from a pyramid to a pillar as we enter the 20th Century Source: Martha Riche. “The Implications of Changing U.S. Demographics for Housing Choice and Location in U.S. Cities” Brookings, March 2001 - Demographic Change -
Minority groups have younger age structures than whites Source: Martha Riche. “The Implications of Changing U.S. Demographics for Housing Choice and Location in U.S. Cities” Brookings, March 2001 - Demographic Change -
Suburbs are also becoming economically diverse; a number of working poor families live in suburban Los Angles Source: Alan Berube. “A Local Ladder for the Working Poor: The Impact of the EITC in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” Brookings, September 2001 - Demographic Change -
Decentralization leaves behind concentrated poverty in inner cities. The city of Baltimore’s share of the state welfare caseload increased significantly between 1994 and 1999 - Decentralization Is Costly - Source: Katherine Allen and Maria Kirby. “Unfinished Business: Why Cities Matter to Welfare Reform.” Brookings, July 2000.
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 - Decentralization Is Costly -
Older suburbs are home to the working poor. Recipients of the EITC are concentrated in Washington and its eastern suburbs Source: IRS, E-File Demographics. - Decentralization Is Costly -
Traffic congestion Air pollution Loss of open space Overcrowded schools Decentralization has had many negative consequences for newer suburban areas - Decentralization Is Costly -
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation In the Washington metro area, vehicle miles traveled increased by 16% between 1992 and 1997 - more than double the rate at which population increased over that time period - Decentralization Is Costly -
Source: Natural Resources Management and Environmental Code Commission 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. - Decentralization Is Costly -
The Metropolitan Agenda involves efforts to change the governmental “rules of the development game” that facilitate sprawl and concentrate poverty. The metro agenda is designed to slow decentralization, promote urban reinvestment, and enhance access to opportunity.
The New Metropolitan Agenda 2. LAND USE REFORM 3. INFRASTRUCTURE 4. TAXATION 1. REGIONAL GOVERNANCE 5. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Regional Governance 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 Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (1999)
Issue #1 - Clean Ohio Fund (2000) Land Use Reform: Preservation Voters authorized $200 million in general obligation bonds for the conservation and preservation of natural areas, open space, and farmlands $200 million in revenue bonds to remediate urban brownfields and promote economic development
Issue #1 - Clean Ohio Fund (2000) Land Use Reform States with statewide growth management or comprehensive planning States with recent gubernatorial or legislative growth related task forces
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 Pennsylvania Growing Smarter Law (2000) Land Use Reform: Growth Management
Infrastructure 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 Maryland Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act of 1997
Taxation Minnesota Fiscal Disparities Law Allocates 40% of the growth in property tax revenues from commercial industrial development to a metropolitan tax base pool Funds in the pool are redistributed to communities based on their commercial tax capacity While the law has narrowed fiscal disparities, growing suburbs continue to have 25 to 30 percent more tax base per household than central cities and inner suburbs
Access to Opportunity Approximately $450 million per year is awarded in federal and state tax credits to assist in the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing Priority is given to properties located within close proximity of transit corridors, parks, recreational facilities, retailers, grocery stores, schools and senior centers California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
Metropolitan Agenda: Local and Regional Examples
Louisville City/County Consolidation January 1, 2003 Regional Governance
Transfer of Development Rights Montgomery County, MD Land Use Reform: Preservation 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.
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
Access to Opportunity Inclusionary Zoning Montgomery County, MD Moderately- Priced Dwelling Unit Ordinance Return is a 22% density bonus Almost 11,000 units since 1973 Requires new developments of >50 units to set aside 12.5% - 15% of the units for low and moderate income households.
III. Where does the metropolitan agenda go from here?
Metropolitan Atlanta Low income housing is concentrated in the south Source: Moving Beyond Sprawl, Brookings Institution, 2000 Implementing Growth Strategies Growing smart means making housing affordable
2003 Federal Transportation Reauthorization Source: A Region Divided, Brookings Institution, 1999 Implementing Growth Strategies Growing smart means getting transportation policy right Expand metropolitan governance Make spending information transparent Enhance alternative transportation strategies Make spatial match a key objective Integrate transportation and land use decision
Growing smart means knowing the context Implementing Growth Strategies LA - Natural barriers Atlanta - Clean Air Act Some metro areas have more fragmented governments Some metro areas are growing more densely
Source: Moving Beyond Sprawl, Brookings Institution, 2000 Older Suburb Newer Suburb Rural Area The New Metropolitics Housing Schools Retail Quality of Life Congestion Conservation Farm Preservation Central City Implementing Growth Strategies Growing smart means building broad political coalitions
Metropolitan Washington Non-white students are concentrated in the east Source: A Region Divided, Brookings Institution, 1999 Implementing Growth Strategies Growing smart means grappling with racial division
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.