Bruce Katz November 9, 1999

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


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Total Population Minorities

City of IndianapolisPercent in Concentrated Poverty 1990


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%




Vehicle Miles TravelSouth Bend/Mishawaka

Metropolitan Area

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

1992 1995 1997

VMT Growth Rate1992-1997 = 26.49%




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


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


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

Documents

Bruce Katz November 9, 1999