NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
THE REGION IN REGIONALISM:
THE CASE OF CHICAGO METROPOLIS 2020
A SENIOR THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE WEINBERG COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF ARTS
THE MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES PROGRAM
BY
RYAN AYRES
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS
JUNE 2016
Ayres 2
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ILLUSTRATIONS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
LITERATURE REVIEW
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
METHODOLOGY
PART I.
CHAPTER 1. What is Regionalism?
PART II.
CHAPTER 2. What Is the Chicago Region?
CHAPTER 3. What Could the Chicago Region Be?
CHAPTER 4. What Should the Chicago Region Be?
PART III.
CHAPTER 5. A Three-State Chicago Region?
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX
3
4
5
6
9
15
17
18
19
23
25
30
32
40
44
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Former MMSS Director Bill Rogerson, who introduced me to the MMSS Program.
• Former MMSS Program Assistant Sarah Muir Ferrer, who assisted him.
• MMSS Director Jeff Ely, who advises the MMSS Program.
• MMSS Program Assistant Nicole Schneider, who assists him.
• Prof. Carl Smith, who introduced me to the Burnham Plan.
• Prof. Bill Savage, who introduced me to the Chicago Comprehensive Plan.
• Prof. David Van Zanten, who introduced me to the Metropolis Plan.
• Prof. Joe Ferrie, who advised the MMSS senior thesis seminar.
• Prof. Henry Binford, who advised my American Studies and MMSS senior theses.
Ayres 4
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures.
1. The Metropolis Plan’s Chicago
region v. the RPA Plan’s New York
region.
2. The 15 counties in the Chicago
region v. the 34 counties in the New
York region.
3. The Metropolis Plan’s Chicago
region v. the 2000 Decennial
Census’s Chicago region.
4. The RPA Plan’s New York region v.
the 2000 Decennial Census’s New
York region.
24
29
39
39
Ayres 5
SUMMARY
This thesis studies the region in regionalism. The region that this thesis studies is the
Chicago region. The Chicago region that this thesis studies is the Chicago region in Elmer W.
Johnson’s 2002 Chicago Metropolis 2020: The Chicago Plan for the Twenty-First Century. The
regionalism that this thesis studies is planning on a regional, rather than local, state, or national
level. To study the region in regionalism, this thesis studies other Chicago regions and another
American region. The other Chicago regions that this thesis studies are the Chicago regions in
Federal statistics per the US Census Bureau. The other American region that this thesis studies is
the New York region. The New York regions that this thesis studies are the New York regions in
Robert D. Yaro and Tony Hiss’s 1996 A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New
York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area and in Federal statistics per the US Census
Bureau.
This thesis argues that the regions in regional plans matter. The regions in Federal
statistics include counties that either contain the core urban area or have a high degree of social
and economic integration with the urban core. The regions that the RPA Plan and the Metropolis
Plan include counties that contain the core urban area or have a high degree of social and
economic integration with the urban core, too. But some counties that have a high degree of
social and economic integration with the urban core, per the US Census Bureau, are excluded.
This thesis argues that they are excluded because the states in which the counties are contained
do not have a high proportion of social and economic integration with the urban core. Thus, in
Federal statistics, degree matters, but, in regional planning, proportion matters.
Ayres 6
INTRODUCTION
Chicago hosted the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893. The Fair showed what
Chicago could become, but Chicago had not become that a decade later; it had become the
Chicago in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 The Jungle and Jane Addams’s 1910 Twenty Years at Hull-
House. The Fair had appointed Daniel H. Burnham as a Director, and the Commercial Club of
Chicago commissioned him to create a plan that would create the Fair’s Chicago in Sinclair’s
and Addams’s Chicago in 1906.1 The Commercial Club published his and Edward H. Bennett’s
1909 Plan of Chicago, or the Burnham Plan.
Carl Smith’s 2006 The Plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the Remaking of the
American City argues that the Burnham Plan is “fascinating and significant.” It is fascinating
because “the imaginative and visual appeal of its stirring prose and stunning illustrations, which
combine to persuade the reader of the merits of its ideas.” It is significant because “it helped
convince so many people at the time and since, including some of its critics, of the truth of [its]
contention [that the boisterous Chicago required major alternations and that the creation of a
finer city was within reach].”2
The Commercial Club published another plan, Elmer W. Johnson’s 2002 Chicago
Metropolis 2020: The Chicago Plan for the Twenty-First Century, or the Metropolis Plan. The
Metropolis Plan is fascinating and significant, too. It is fascinating because it states that the
Burnham Plan precedes it. It is significant because regionalism underlies it. Regionalism is urban
planning on a regional, rather than local, state, national, or global, level.
This thesis studies the region in the regionalism in the Metropolis Plan. The Metropolis
Plan argues that the counties in the Chicago region should plan themselves as one region, rather 1 In 1906, the Merchant’s Club of Chicago commissioned Burnham to create the Burnham Plan, but, in 1907, the Merchant’s Club merged with the Commercial Club. 2 Smith, The Plan of Chicago, xv.
Ayres 7
than as multiple counties. This thesis studies the Chicago region in which the Metropolis Plan
argues that counties should plan themselves.
The Regional Plan Association published Robert D. Yaro and Tony Hiss’s 1996 A Region
at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area.
Similar to the Metropolis Plan, the RPA Plan argues that regions should plan themselves as one
region, too, and this thesis studies the New York region in which the RPA Plan argues that
counties should plan themselves.
This thesis argues that the regions in regional plans matter. This thesis studies regions
that are delineated in counties. The counties can be in one state or in more than one state. In
Federal statistics, in addition to the counties containing the core urban area, counties that have a
high degree of social and economic integration with the urban core are included in the metro or
micro area, i.e., the region. In the Metropolis Plan and the RPA Plan, in addition to counties that
containing the core urban area, counties in states in which a high proportion of the people living
in that state are integrated with the urban core are included in the region. This thesis argues that
the regions in regional plans matter because those regions show that proportion, rather than
degree, regarding social and economic integration matters to implement regional policies.
This thesis begins with the Metropolis Plan’s and the RPA Plan’s backgrounds. It
continues with scholars who have studied the Metropolis Plan. Scholars have analyzed the
Metropolis Plan’s recommendations and actions and evaluated its vision, but scholars have not
studied the region in which the recommendations, actions, and vision would come into being. It
continues with the research questions that this thesis answers. This thesis studies the region that
scholars have not studied. It continues with this thesis’s methodologies. This thesis’s
methodologies are both latitudinal and longitudinal. They are latitudinal because this thesis
Ayres 8
studies both the Chicago region and the New York region. They are longitudinal because this
thesis studies a time series.
This thesis continues with the regions in which the regional policies would be
implemented. It begins with what the regions are. It continues with what other regions are. This
thesis studies the 1990 Decennial Census, which Yaro, Hiss, and Johnson would have had, the
2000 Decennial Census, which approximates the RPA Plan and the Metropolis Plan, and the
2010 Decennial Census, which approximates the plan into action. It ends with what the regions
could be. The Metropolis Plan delineates a one-state Chicago region. This thesis envisions what
a three-state Chicago region would be. This thesis continues with the RPA Plan’s and the
Metropolis Plan’s policies. It studies the policies on multiple regional levels. It begins with the
one-state regional level in which the Metropolis Plan would implement the policies. It ends with
the three-state regional level that this thesis envisions.
Ayres 9
BACKGROUND
The Burnham Plan precedes the Metropolis Plan. But other things precede it, too. The
City Council empowered Mayor Fred A. Busse to create the Chicago Plan Commission to
implement the Burnham Plan in 1909. That Chicago Plan Commission become governmental in
1939.3 That governmental Chicago Plan Commission would not implement the Burnham Plan.
Rather, that governmental Chicago Plan Commission reviews proposals regarding Planned
Developments, The Lakefront Protection Ordinance, Planned Manufacturing Districts, Industrial
Corridors, and Tax Increment Financing Districts. The Chicago Plan Commission is under the
Land Use Planning and Policy Division, which “develops and implements citywide and
neighborhood land use plans.” The Land Use Planning and Policy Division is under the
Department of Planning and Development, or DPD, which “promotes the comprehensive growth
and well-being of the City and its neighborhoods,” under the City of Chicago. The DPD created
the 1966 The Comprehensive Plan of Chicago, or the Chicago Comprehensive Plan. That plan
planned Chicago but not the Chicago suburbs.
In the 1970s, Chicago created the Regional Transportation Authority, or RTA. The RTA
plans CTA trains and buses, Metra trains, and Pace buses in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,
McHenry, and Will Counties.4 Although not an elected regional government, the RTA
consolidates, integrates, and governs on a regional level.
The Commercial Club directed the 1984 Jobs for Metropolitan Chicago, or the Jobs
Report. The Jobs Report created the Civic Committee, a committee within the Commercial Club
whose “responsibilities are to consider the needs and plans for the development of the Chicago
3 Smith, The Plan of Chicago, 133. 4 Regional Transportation Authority, “About Us,” n. p.
Ayres 10
metropolitan area.”5 The Civic Committee created Johnson’s 1995 “The Dispersed and Stratified
Metropolis,” and that report created the Long Range Planning Committee, another committee
within the Commercial Club. Johnson, a Commercial Club and Civic Committee member,
chaired the Long Range Planning Committee and created another report, Johnson’s 1996 “Report
from the Long Range Planning Committee.” That report argued that the Chicago region should
create a plan, because no one else would.6 The Commercial Club did create it, it being the
Metropolis Plan.7
The Metropolis Plan contains 3 parts. “Part I: Goals, Challenges, and Guiding Principles”
states the principles that guided Johnson and the challenges that public education, child care,
transportation, land use, housing, governance, taxation, and economic well-being create. “Part II:
Recommendations” proposes recommendations for public education, child care, strengthening
the economy of metropolitan Chicago, governing metropolitan Chicago, meeting the educational
and employment needs of less-advantaged residents of the region, and enhancing the basic social
opportunities. “Part III: Outreach and Implementation” introduces Chicago Metropolis 2020, or
Metropolis Strategies, an organization that the Commercial Club created “to bring the resources
and participation of the business community together with other outstanding regional civic
organizations and governmental leaders that have both the expertise and the commitment to help
promote and implement the goals of the plan.”8
The Commercial Club created Chicago Metropolis 2020, whose “functions will be to
identify research needs and contract with appropriate institutions to meet these needs; create an
5 Johnson, Chicago Metropolis 2020, n. p. 6 Johnson, “Report from the Long Range Planning Committee,” 19. 7 The Commercial Club published the Metropolis Plan twice. In 1999, it published Chicago Metropolis 2020: Preparing Metropolitan Chicago for the 21st Century. In 2002, it published Chicago Metropolis 2020: The Chicago Plan for the Twenty-First Century. 8 Ibid., 113.
Ayres 11
outreach program to enlist further suggestions and support of other groups, and to create
awareness of the plan among the region’s residents; establish task forces to address specific
issues; build coalitions with other organizations and leaders in support of the recommendations
set forth in the plan; and develop and work toward adoption of definitive legislative reforms and
private sector proposals based on the plan’s recommendations.”9 Chicago Metropolis 2020 drew
an Executive Council. The Executive Council included multiple people who govern, including
Illinois Governor George H. Ryan, Lieutenant Governor Corrine Wood, and Chicago Mayor
Richard M. Daley.10
Multiple people who govern received the plan, too. Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives Dennis Hastert commented that “Chicago Metropolis 2020 reminds us that all of
our communities are inextricably linked and we must work together to achieve healthy growth in
our region.”11 Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich said that Chicago Metropolis 2020 “brings
extraordinary resources to bear on a broad range of issues that are crucial to the future of our
state.”12
The press received the plan, too. The Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, the
Chicago Reader, and Crain’s Chicago Business covered it. The Chicago Tribune wrote that
“Chicagoland’s top business leaders have hit the nail on the head. They’ve drawn an unflinching
picture of the present and an inspiring vision of our future.”13 Crain’s Chicago Business wrote
that “Metropolis 2020 correctly argues that city and suburbs must take a regional approach to
problem-solving.”14 The Chicago Sun-Times wrote that “lack of affordable housing, while
9 Ibid., 114. 10 “Chicago Metropolis 2020 Begins Operations,” 3. 11 Chicago Metropolis 2020, Envisioning a Better Region, n. p. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.
Ayres 12
defying easy solution, nevertheless can and should be addressed… Fix restrictive building and
zoning codes, as Chicago Metropolis 2020 has urged, and reform tax codes as well.”15 The
Chicago Sun-Times also wrote that “the governor’s task force on universal access to preschool,
working with Chicago Metropolis 2020, has mobilized business leaders to get the word out on
the urgent, immediate need for action on preschool.”16 Crain’s Chicago Business also wrote that
“Chicago Metropolis 2020, drawing inspiration from Daniel Burnham’s 1909 Plan of Chicago,
has a high-minded vision for the region. The big-business advocate wants to coordinate land use
and transit planning to rein in sprawl and make sure commercial development isn’t a proposition
that one community wins at the expense of its neighbors.”17 The Economist wrote that “Adele
Simmons, of Metropolis 2020 in Chicago, says it is time to invest in children as part of the
nation’s social infrastructure. ‘The increase in funding for roads and bridges has been far greater
than the increase in funding for kids,’ she says. ‘Kids who enter school not ready to learn never
catch up.’”18
The Commercial Club sponsored “Creating Tomorrow’s Green Region,” “Our Region,
Our Future,” and “The Plan of Chicago: A Regional Legacy,” reports that were published in
2008, 2009, and 2010 during the Burnham Plan Centennial on behalf of the Metropolis Plan. In
2011, Chicago Metropolis 2020 became Metropolis Strategies. In 2014, Metropolis Strategies
closed.
The RPA Plan is the Third Regional Plan, which built upon the Second Regional Plan,
which built upon the First Regional Plan. Business and professional leaders published the First
Regional Plan and incorporated the Regional Plan Association, or RPA, to implement it in 1929.
15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.
Ayres 13
But the RPA Plan dates to 1922. Business and professional leaders launched the initiative to
create the First Regional Plan in 1922. The First Regional Plan “presented a new way of thinking
about development and governance,” “inspired a whole movement of regional planning in the
country and abroad,” “put forth the idea that the creation of vibrant, livable and sustainable urban
communities didn’t stop at political boundaries,” and “built strong support for the principle that
big cities could improve their quality of life and efficiency as they grew and prospered, but only
if they planned ahead for growth.”19 The First Regional Plan created a coalition, and that
coalition combined the “…administration of three regional airports – Kennedy, LaGuardia, and
Newark – together under the Port Authority.”20
The RPA published the Second Regional Plan in the 1960s. The Second Regional Plan
“called for reigning in sprawl and investing in infrastructure and the region’s downtowns.”21 But
it didn’t do that. Between 1950 and 1990, the portion of American regions that were suburban
doubled.22 Between 1982 and 1992, “which included both the strong growth of the mid-1980s
and the 1989 to 1992 recession,” the New York region grew, but other American regions,
including “Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, [and] Boston,” grew more than it did.23 Suburbs
sprawled, but didn’t grow. The RPA commissioned Yaro and Hiss to write the RPA Plan, and, in
1996, the RPA Plan came into being.
The RPA Plan contains 4 parts. “Part I. Overview: A Region at Risk” introduces the other
3 parts, “Part II. Where We Are, Where We Are Headed,” “Part III. Five Major Campaigns,” and
“Part IV. From Plan to Action. The objectives of the RPA Plan are the three E’s, economy,
19 Regional Plan Association, Shaping the Region, 13. 20 Regional Plan Association, “Our History,” 5. 21 Regional Plan Association, Shaping the Region, 22. 22 Yaro and Hiss, A Region at Risk, 25. 23 Ibid., 7.
Ayres 14
equity, and environment, the intersection of which is quality of life.24 “The central concept of the
three E’s is that they define the goals of the plan.”25 Five initiatives, Greensward, Centers,
Mobility, Workforce, and Governance, anchor the plan, and each campaign addresses each E.26
24 Regional Plan Association, n. p. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.
Ayres 15
LITERATURE REVIEW
Scholars have studied the Metropolis Plan. Edwin S. Mills’s 2002 “Dreams, Plans, and
Reality: A Critique of Chicago Metropolis 2020” is “a critique [that] subjects some of the
report’s important hypotheses to economic analysis.” Mills argues that the Commercial Club’s
recommendations are too bureaucratic and “all that is needed is to let markets work.”27 Mills
concludes that the Metropolis Plan’s recommendations would “make things… worse.” David K.
Hamilton’s 2002 “Regimes and Regional Governance: The Case of Chicago,” analyzes Chicago
Metropolis 2020. Hamilton argues that the development of a regional regime would be cause
problems, given “political culture of local government and autonomy and the history of
antagonism between the central city and the suburbs.” Hamilton concludes that Chicago
Metropolis 2020 had “not made a convincing case that change is necessary or even desirable.”
Both Mills and Hamilton studied what the Metropolis Plan’s recommendations would do, but not
what underlies the Metropolis Plan’s recommendations, i.e., regionalism, which this thesis
studies.
One scholar studied the regionalism that underlies the Metropolis Plan. Larry Bennett’s
2006 “Regionalism in a Historically Divided Metropolis,” in the 2006 The New Chicago: A
Social and Cultural Analysis, evaluates the Metropolis Plan’s vision. Bennett argues that the
Metropolis Plan’s vision “is a clear expression of the emergent ‘new regionalist’ perspective on
urban development.” 28 Bennett concludes that it “is no clearer in the Chicago area than it is in
dozens of other metropolitan regions in the United States” that the city of Chicago and the
Chicago suburbs are a Chicago region.29 Bennett’s 2010 The Third City: Chicago and American
Urbanism studies contemporary Chicago. Bennett argues that there have been 3 Chicago’s. 27 Mills, “Dreams, Plans, and Reality,” 15. 28 Bennett, “Regionalism,” 277. 29 Ibid., 285.
Ayres 16
Between the Civil War and 1950, Chicago had been “the sprawling industrial center.” 30 Between
1950 and 1990, Chicago had been “the Rust Belt exemplar.”31 Between 1990 and 2010, and, this
thesis argues, 2016, Chicago had been, and, this thesis argues, is, “a new brand of American
urbanism.” 32 Although Bennett studied the regionalism that underlies the Metropolis Plan, he
studied it in the context of Chicago in late 20th and early 21st centuries, but not in the context of
regionalism in late 20th and early 21st centuries, which this thesis studies.
30 Bennett, The Third City, 7-8. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.
Ayres 17
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This thesis began with a question. What is the Chicago region? The Metropolis Plan
would answer that question that the Chicago region is 6 Illinois counties. But others would
answer that question that the Chicago region are other counties. One other are Federal statistical
agencies.
The US Census Bureau’s Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, delineates
metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, or metro and micro areas, which are geographic
entities that Federal statistical agencies use to collect, tabulate, and publish Federal statistics.33
The OMB states that “each metro or micro area consists of one or more counties and includes the
counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree
of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core.”34
That question raised another question. What could the Chicago region be? Between the
Metropolis Plan and the OMB, the Chicago region could include 15 counties, 10 in Illinois, 4 in
Indiana, and 1 in Wisconsin. But no Chicago region includes all 15 counties.
That question raised another question. What should the Chicago region be? In 2002, the
Metropolis Plan argues that the Chicago region should be one region, but, in 2000, the 2000
Decennial Census argues that it should be another region. This thesis assumes that the Chicago
region did not change between 2000 and 2002, and, given that assumption, this thesis compares
the Metropolis Plan’s Chicago region to the 2000 Decennial Census’s Chicago region. The
former is a one-state region, and the latter is a tri-state region. This thesis envisions the latter
region in the context of the regional policies that the Metropolis Plan created in the former
region.
33 US Census Bureau Office of Management and Budget, Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, n. p. 34 Ibid.
Ayres 18
METHODOLOGY
This thesis applies economic and social reasoning to arrive at new insights regarding
social policy. This thesis analyzes decennial census population and median household income
data. It studies the regional policies. It arrives at the insight that the regional policies in the
Metropolis Plan are based on a region in which counties are included based on proportion rather
than degree.
Yaro and Hiss state that the issues that the RPA Plan came to terms with were issues that
other North American metropolitan regions were coming to terms with, too, and that “the
approach taken by RPA to develop a comprehensive, long-range, region-wide plan could become
a model for other regions.”35 And the RPA Plan did become a model for the Chicago region.
Johnson acknowledges that the RPA Plan “sets forth a comprehensive plan for rebuilding the
quality of life and the economic competitiveness of this large metropolitan area,” a plan that
became a model for the Metropolis Plan.36
This thesis studies the Metropolis Plan. This thesis studies the RPA Plan to study the
Metropolis Plan. This thesis reaches conclusions about the Metropolis Plan. This thesis argues
that the RPA Plan provides evidence that the conclusions that this thesis reaches are ones that
can reach into regions other than the Chicago region. This thesis does not prove that the
conclusions that this thesis reaches do reach into regions other than the Chicago region.
35 Yaro and Hiss, A Region at Risk, 3. 36 Johnson, Chicago Metropolis 2020, i.
Ayres 19
CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS REGIONALISM?
The RPA Plan believed that their immediate campaign should be about governance,
rather than government. The RPA states that “a general purpose metropolitan government should
not be proposed for the Tri-State Metropolitan Region.”37 The RPA Plan stated it because
“government officials are too focused on the next poll or election.”38 The RPA Plan’s
Governance initiative recommends coordinating “state growth management plans, education
finance reform, service sharing, and new regional coalitions” on a regional level.39 The
Governance initiative would “require that local comprehensive plans and land use regulations be
consistent with state and county policies,” “make state agency plans and programs consistent,”
“provide assistance for local compliance,” “institute statewide planning entities,” and “create
partnerships between state and local governments,” among others.40 The RPA Plan believed that
the New York region should not have a regional government, but that people who governed on
local and state levels should govern with other people who governed on local and state levels.
Cisneros’s argues that one solution should be special districts, e.g., Denver’s special
district that shared revenue among Denver and the Denver suburbs, and that another solution
should be things-regionalism, i.e., negotiating agreements and balancing interests among local
communities. The Governance initiative would have both solutions through “municipal
government service sharing,” i.e., “inter-municipal service sharing and coordination agreements
can be instituted between the region’s cities and towns to create economies of scale,” which
some municipalities do, but which is not “standard operating procedure for municipal
37 Ibid., 17. 38 Ibid., 219. 39 Regional Plan Association, n. p. 40 Yaro and Hiss, A Region at Risk, 203.
Ayres 20
government.”41 Municipal government service sharing would create special districts, and the
special districts would negotiate agreements and balance interests among the municipalities
within them.
Orfield argues that the solution should be coalitions. The Governance initiative would
have that solution, too. Coalitions in the RPA Plan include a tri-state governors’ conference, a
Tri-State Congressional Coalition, a Tri-State Business Council, a Tri-State Regional
Transportation Authority, and a Tri-State Infrastructure Bank.42 The coalitions do not include a
regional coalition to do planning; the coalitions exclude it. The Governance initiative
recommendations are built upon “several basic guiding assumptions,” e.g., “local land use plans
should be guided by regional and state goals, “and “the home rule-based governance system
should be improved… rather than dismantled.”43 One could argue that the RPA Plan
recommends not to dismantle the governance system is because a “Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission collapsed in the early 1980s.”44
Similar to the RPA Plan, the Metropolis Plan believes in coalitions. The Metropolis Plan
cites CATS, the NIPC, and the RTA, coalitions that are similar to the ones that the RPA Plan
recommends. Different than the RPA Plan, which recommended that the New York region not
establish a similar coalition, the Metropolis Plan recommends “that the state of Illinois establish
a new Regional Coordinating Council,” or RCC, “a regional coordinating mechanism that can
deal effectively with the interrelationships among policies and practices concerning
transportation, land use, housing, and the environment.” 45 The RCC would issue bonds, “have
other powers and responsibilities to be exercised on its own initiative to advance the Purposes
41 Ibid., 203-204. 42 Regional Plan Association, n. p. 43 Yaro and Hiss, A Region at Risk, 200. 44 Ibid., 207. 45 Ibid., 95.
Ayres 21
and address critical regional issues that cannot otherwise be addressed,” and “be responsible for
developing and periodically revising a long-term strategic plan for the region.”46 It states that,
although the State of Illinois is a source of “regional and local planning,” it is not
comprehensive, and that it should “motivates counties and municipalities within the region to
correlate their local goals with the larger public interest of the region.”47 The Metropolis Plan
argues is “one of the most important recommendations in [the] plan.” 48
The RCC would be governed via “four criteria,” i.e., “which alternative will best ensure
that the board is composed of highly competent people of integrity and good judgment,” “which
alternative will best ensure that the trustees are held accountable for their performance,” “which
will best build a sense of the common good for the region and a sense of the interdependency of
its parts, both among elected local officials and among the public at large,” and “which will best
assure that local government plays a critical role in selecting the board members.”49
The Metropolis Plan states that the RCC should operate “for the streamlining of
government in the region, with an emphasis on reducing the number of special districts,” that it
should deal “with the interrelationships among policies and practices concerning transportation,
land use, housing, and the environment,” and that, “without such a mechanism, we cannot go
very far in meeting the challenges described in Part I.”50
The Metropolis Plan doesn’t state whether or not the RCC is modeled upon another
coalition. But the RCC is similar both to the Metro, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, and
the metropolitics coalition. It is similar to the Metro in that it would cooperate with local
governments to do planning, but different in that it would not be elected. It is similar to the Twin
46 Ibid., 95-97. 47 Ibid., 95. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid., 99. 50 Ibid., 95.
Ayres 22
Cities Metropolitan Council in that it would do regional planning. It is similar to the
metropolitics coalition in that it would build a coalition among the city and the suburbs, but
different in that it would not be legislative. Although not similar to Denver’s special districts,
Cisneros’s things-regionalism or the RPA Plan’s Governance initiative, it is different in the RCC
would reduce the number of special districts, which Denver’s special districts are and Cisneros’s
things-regionalism and the RPA Plan’s Governance initiative could be. Although not similar to
San Antonio’s and Albuquerque’s annexations or Charlotte-Mecklenburg Co.’s consolidation, it
is also different in that it “considered and rejected the alternative ‘command-and-control’
approach of a regional growth boundary or a regional authority to regulate municipal
annexations.” It argues that, although that approach had been successful in other regions, it
would not be appropriate in the Chicago region.”51
51 Ibid., 95.
Ayres 23
CHAPTER 2. WHAT IS THE CHICAGO REGION?
One question that the Metropolis Plan raises is what the Chicago region is. The answer is
that the Chicago region isn’t one region; it’s multiple regions. The Metropolis Plan delineates
one Chicago region. The region that the Metropolis Plan delineates includes 6 counties, 6 in
Illinois, Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties. The US Census Bureau
delineates other regions. The 2000 Decennial Census delineates the Chicago region to be 13
counties, 10 in Illinois, 2 in Indiana, and 1 in Wisconsin.
Similar to the Chicago region, the New York region isn’t one region; it’s multiple
regions, too. The RPA Plan delineates one New York region. The region that the RPA Plan
delineates includes 31 counties, 3 in Connecticut, Fairfield, Litchfield, and New Haven Counties,
14 in New Jersey, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris,
Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren Counties, and 14 in New York, the 5
boroughs, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, Dutchess, Sullivan, and
Ulster Counties. The 2000 Decennial Census delineates the Tri-State Metropolitan Region to be
30 counties, 4 in Connecticut, 14 in New Jersey, 12 in New York, and 1 in Pennsylvania.
Ayres 24
Figure 1. The Metropolis Plan’s Chicago region v. the RPA Plan’s New York region.
Ayres 25
CHAPTER 3. WHAT COULD THE CHICAGO REGION BE?
Thus, the question becomes what the Chicago region could be. Between the Metropolis
Plan and the OMB, Chicago regions include 15 counties, 10 in Illinois, 4 in Indiana, and 1 in
Wisconsin. No Chicago region includes all 15 counties. The Chicago regions that the 2000
Decennial Census and 2010 Decennial Census delineate include 13 counties; the 2000 Decennial
Census excludes 2 counties in Indiana, and the 2010 Decennial Census excludes 2 counties in
Illinois. The average Chicago region includes 8.1 counties, or 54%. 4 counties, or 27%, all in
Illinois, are included in all Chicago regions.
Between the RPA Plan and the OMB, New York regions include 34 counties, 4 in
Connecticut, 14 in New Jersey, 12 in New York, and 4 in Pennsylvania. Different than between
the Metropolis Plan and the OMB, the New York region that the 2010 Decennial Census
delineates includes all 34 counties. The average New York region includes 20.1 counties, or
59%. 7 counties, or 21%, all in New York, are included in all New York regions.
Thus, the answer to the question is that the Chicago region could be 15 counties. The
corollary is that no Chicago region is 15 counties.
The Chicago region that the OMB delineates change over time. The 1950 Decennial
Census delineates the Chicago region to be 6 counties, 5 in Illinois, Cook, Du Page, Kane, Lake,
and Will Counties, and 1 in Indiana, Lake County. The 1960, 1970, and 1980 Decennial
Censuses delineate the Chicago region to be that region plus 1 county in Illinois, McHenry
County, and minus 1 county in Indiana, Lake County. The 1990 Decennial Census delineates the
Chicago region to be that region plus 2 counties in Illinois, Grundy and Kendall Counties, 2
counties in Indiana, Lake and Porter Counties, and 1 county in Wisconsin, Kenosha County. The
2000 Decennial Census delineates the Chicago region to be that region plus 2 counties in Illinois,
Ayres 26
DeKalb and Kankakee Counties. The 2010 Decennial Census delineates the the Chicago region
to be that region plus 2 counties in Indiana, Jasper and Newton Counties, and minus 2 counties in
Illinois, Kankakee and Will Counties.
The New York region that the OMB delineates changes over time, too. The 1950
Decennial Census delineates the New York region to be 17 counties, 8 in New Jersey, Bergen,
Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties, and 9 in New York,
Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester
Counties. The 1960 and 1970 Decennial Censuses delineate the New York region to be that
region minus the 8 counties in New Jersey, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic,
Somerset, and Union Counties. The 1980 Decennial Census delineates the New York region to
be that region plus 1 county in New Jersey, Bergen County, and minus 2 counties in New York,
Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The 1990 Decennial Census delineates the New York region to be
that region plus 3 counties in Connecticut, Fairfield, Litchfield, and New Haven Counties, 11
counties in New Jersey, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean,
Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, and Union Counties, and 3 in New York, Nassau, Suffolk, and
Orange Counties. The 2000 Decennial Census delineates the New York region to be that region
plus 1 county in Connecticut, Middlesex County, 2 counties in New Jersey, Mercer and Warren
Counties, and 1 county in New York, Dutchess County, and 1 county in Pennsylvania, Pike
County. The 2010 Decennial Census delineates the New York region to be that region plus one
county in New York, Ulster County, and three counties in Pennsylvania, Lehigh, Monroe, and
Northampton Counties, and minus one county in Connecticut, Middlesex County.
That the delineations changed over time matters. The 1990 population in the Chicago
region that the 1990 Decennial Census delineated was 8,065,633, the 2000 population in the
Ayres 27
Chicago region that the 2000 Decennial Census delineated was 9,157,540, and the 2010
population in the Chicago region that the 2010 Decennial Census delineated was 8,783,545.
Thus, the population increased ~13.54% between 1990 and 2000 and decreased ~4.08% between
2000 and 2010. However, the delineations varied. The 1990 population in the Chicago region
that the 1990 Decennial Census delineated was 8,065,633, the 2000 population in the Chicago
region that the 1990 Decennial Census delineated was 8,239,820, and the 2010 population in the
Chicago region that the 1990 Decennial Census delineated was 7,824,763. Thus, the population
increased ~3.48% between 1990 and 2000 and decreased ~5.04% between 2000 and 2010. The
1990 population in the Chicago region that the 2000 Decennial Census delineated was 8,964,738,
the 2000 population in the Chicago region that the 2000 Decennial Census delineated was
9,157,540, and the 2010 population in the Chicago region that the 2000 Decennial Census
delineated was 8,596,050. Thus, the population increased ~2.15% between 1990 and 2000 and
decreased ~6.13% between 2000 and 2010. 2010 Decennial Census. The 1990 population in the
Chicago region that the 2010 Decennial Census delineated was 9,308,223, the 2000 population in
the Chicago region that the 1990 Decennial Census delineated was 9,526,832, and the 2010
population in the Chicago region that the 1990 Decennial Census delineated was 8,783,545.
Thus, the population increased ~2.35% between 1990 and 2000 and decreased ~7.80% between
2000 and 2010. Thus, the population increased ~2.66% between 1990 and 2000, on average,
rather than ~13.54%, and decreased ~6.32% between 2000 and 2010, on average, rather than
~4.08%.
Change in region over time could cause change in delineations over time. For example,
between 1950 and 2010, the Chicago region did include more counties, because suburban sprawl
and the urban decline. But other changes could cause change in delineations over time, too. One
Ayres 28
change could be change in standards. The OMB delineations are based on OMB standards, and
the OMB standards change over time, too. For example, the delineations in the 2010 Decennial
Census are based on the 2010 standards. The change in the delineations over time could interact
with change in standards over time. A region could change over time because the delineations
changed over time but the standards remained the same, because the standards changed over time
but the delineations remained the same, or because both the delineations and the standards
changed over time.
The OMB publishes the current delineations, the current standards, and the historical
delineations, but not the historical standards, and, thus, we cannot conclude which changes are
occurring. But the historical delineations provide evidence that both the delineations and the
standards are changing over time. We can assume that the delineations changed over time, and
the historical delineations provide evidence that the standards changed over time, too. For
example, the 1950 Decennial Census delineates the New York region to be 17 counties, 8 in New
Jersey and 9 in New York, but the 1960 and 1970 Decennial Census delineates it to be 9
counties, all in New York. Assume that the standards did not change over time. Based on that
assumption, in 1950, 8 counties were integrated in the urban core, but, in 1960, a decade later,
were not, i.e., between 1950 and 1960, 8 counties de-integrated in the urban core. Did the 8
counties de-integrate, or did the standards change over time? I would argue that the standards
changed over time.
Ayres 29
Figure 2. The 15 counties in the Chicago region v. the 34 counties in the New York region. The counties are shaded based on the number of times that the decennial censuses include them in the region.
Ayres 30
CHAPTER 4. WHAT SHOULD THE CHICAGO REGION BE?
Thus, the question becomes what the Chicago region should be. Each Chicago region
would argue that the Chicago region should be that region. This thesis provides evidence that
both the delineations and the standards changed over time. Thus, what the Chicago region should
be changed over time, too, and, thus, what the Chicago region should be at one time and what the
Chicago region should be at another time could change, too. We can argue that the Chicago
region should be one region at one time. This thesis studies what the Chicago region should be in
2000.
The 1999 and 2002 Metropolis Plans argue that the Chicago region should be 6 counties,
all in Illinois, but, in 2000, the 2000 Decennial Census argues that it should be 13 counties, 10 in
Illinois, 2 in Indiana, and 1 in Wisconsin.52 The 2000 Decennial Census’s Chicago region
contains the Metropolis Plan’s Chicago region, but not vice-versa. The Chicago region did not
change between the 1999 Metropolis Plan and the 2002 Metropolis Plan, and this thesis assumes
that the Chicago region would not have changed between either plan and a 2000 Metropolis Plan.
Given that assumption, this thesis assumes that we can compare the Metropolis Plan’s Chicago
region and the 2000 Decennial Census’s Chicago region without change over time.
The change between the Metropolis Plan and the 2000 Decennial Census matters. The
2000 population in the Chicago region that the Metropolis Plan delineated was 7,261,176. The
2000 population in the Chicago region that the 2000 Decennial Census delineated was was
9,157,540. Thus, the population was ~13.17% larger. The Chicago region that the Metropolis
Plan delineates equals the Chicago region that the 1960,1970, and 1980 Decennial Censuses
delineated. Thus, the Metropolis Plan’s policies exclude an approximate 1.9 million people who 52 The Commercial Club published both Johnson’s 1999 Chicago Metropolis 2020: Preparing Metropolitan Chicago for the 21st Century and his 2002 Chicago Metropolis 2020: The Chicago Plan for the Twenty-First Century.
Ayres 31
the 2000 Decennial Census argues have a high degree of economic and social integration with
the urban core.
The Metropolis Plan’s Chicago region and the 2000 Decennial Census’s Chicago region
change both within a state and among states. Within Illinois, the Metropolis Plan’s Chicago
region includes 6 counties, and the 2000 Decennial Census’s Chicago region includes the
Metropolis Plan’s 6 counties and 4 other counties. Among three states, the Metropolis Plan’s
Chicago region includes Illinois, and the 2000 Decennial Census’s Chicago region includes
Illinois and Indiana and Wisconsin. This thesis studies the 4 counties in Illinois and the 2 states,
beginning with the 2 states and ending with the 4 counties.
Ayres 32
CHAPTER 5. A THREE-STATE CHICAGO REGION?
Thus, another question becomes whether or not the Chicago region should be a one-state
region. The 1960, 1970, and 1980 Decennial Censuses, the Metropolis Plan, and GO TO 2040
and ON TO 2050 argue that it should be; the 1950 Decennial Census argues that it should be a
two-state region; the 1990, 2000, and 2010 Decennial Censuses argue that it should be a three-
state region.
Whether the Chicago region is a one-state region or a three-state region matters. It
matters because both the RPA Plan and the Metropolis Plan would build regional coalitions. The
RPA would build multiple regional coalitions, including a tri-state governors’ conference, a Tri-
State Congressional Coalition, a Tri-State Business Council, a Tri-State Regional Transportation
Authority, and a Tri-State Infrastructure Bank.53 The Metropolis Plan would build a regional
coalition, too, i.e., “a new Regional Coordinating Council,” or RCC, “a regional coordinating
mechanism that can deal effectively with the interrelationships among policies and practices
concerning transportation, land use, housing, and the environment.” 54
The Metropolis Plan argues that the RCC is “one of the most important recommendations
in [the] plan.” 55 The RCC would be governed via “four criteria,” i.e., “which alternative will best
ensure that the board is composed of highly competent people of integrity and good judgment,”
“which alternative will best ensure that the trustees are held accountable for their performance,”
“which will best build a sense of the common good for the region and a sense of the
interdependency of its parts, both among elected local officials and among the public at large,”
and “which will best assure that local government plays a critical role in selecting the board
53 Regional Plan Association, NP. 54 Johnson, Chicago Metropolis 2020, 95. 55 Johnson, Chicago Metropolis 2020, 95.
Ayres 33
members.”56 The Metropolis Plan states that “the chief incentive mechanism will be the RCC’s
bond-issuing function. In addition, the RCC will have other powers and responsibilities to be
exercised on its own initiative to advance the Purposes and address critical regional issues that
cannot otherwise be addressed.”57 “In addition to the incentive program outlined above, the RCC
would be responsible for developing and periodically revising a long-term strategic plan for the
region,” among other powers.58
The RCC would do the regional planning in the Chicago region that the Tri-State
Regional Planning Commission had collapsed doing, and that the RPA Plan did not recommend.
This raises a question, i.e., why would the Metropolis Plan recommend something that the RPA
Plan stated had collapsed?
The region in which the regional coalitions would be built matters. The RPA Plan
delineates a Tri-State Metropolitan Region, and the the regional coalitions that the RPA Plan
would build would be in a tri-state area. The Metropolis Plan delineates a one state metropolitan
region, and the regional coalition that the Metropolis Plan would build would be in one state.
The states in which a coalition would be built matter. The RPA Plan states that the three
states in the Tri-State Metropolitan Region have their “own transportation, housing,
environmental, and economic development policies” and “individual municipalities, authorities,
districts, and other units of government.”59 Thus, a regional coalition in one state and a regional
coalition in more than one state will have variations. E.g., a New York area plan and a New
York-New Jersey-Connecticut area plan would have variations, and an Illinois area plan and an
Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin area plan would have variations, too.
56 Johnson, Chicago Metropolis 2020, 99. 57 Johnson, Chicago Metropolis 2020, 95. 58 Johnson, Chicago Metropolis 2020, 97. 59 Yaro and Hiss, A Region at Risk, 197.
Ayres 34
Could the Chicago region be a tri-state region? The Metropolis Plan delineates a Chicago
region in Illinois. But the 2000 Decennial Census delineates a Chicago region in Illinois and
Indiana and Wisconsin. Although both the Chicago region and New York region could be tri-
state regions, a tri-state Chicago region and a tri-state New York region would have variations.
The Metropolis Plan delineates 6 Illinois counties; Illinois totals 102 counties. The 2000
population in the Illinois counties that the Metropolis Plan delineates equaled ~65.15% the 2000
population in Illinois. The 2000 Decennial Census delineates 10 Illinois counties, 2 Indiana
counties, and 1 Wisconsin county; Indiana totals 92 counties, and Wisconsin totals 72 counties.
The 2000 population in the Illinois counties that the 2000 Decennial Census delineates equaled
~67.45% the 2000 population in Illinois. The 2000 population in the Indiana counties that the
2000 Decennial Census delineates equaled ~10.38% the 2000 population in Indiana. The 2000
population in the Wisconsin county that the 2000 Decennial Census delineates equaled ~2.79%
the 2000 population in Wisconsin.
The RPA Plan delineates 3 Connecticut counties, 14 New Jersey counties, and 14 New
York counties; Connecticut totals 8 counties, New Jersey totals 21 counties, and New York totals
62 counties. The 2000 population in the Connecticut counties that the RPA Plan delineates
equaled ~55.46% the 2000 population in Connecticut. The 2000 population in the New Jersey
counties that the RPA Plan delineates equaled ~79.17% the 2000 population in New Jersey. The
2000 population in the New York counties that the RPA Plan delineates equaled ~67.26% the
2000 population in New York. The 2000 Decennial Census delineates 4 Connecticut counties, 14
New Jersey counties, 12 New York counties, and 1 Pennsylvania county; Pennsylvania totals 67
counties. The 2000 population in the Connecticut counties that the 2000 Decennial Census
delineates equaled ~60.01% the 2000 population in Connecticut. The 2000 population in the
Ayres 35
Connecticut counties that the 2000 Decennial Census delineates equaled ~79.17% the 2000
population in New Jersey. The 2000 population in the Connecticut counties that the 2000
Decennial Census delineates equaled 66.87% the 2000 population in New York. The 2000
population in the Connecticut counties that the 2000 Decennial Census delineates equaled
~0.38% the 2000 population in Pennsylvania.
Thus, neither the Metropolis Plan nor the RPA Plan delineate the regions that the 2000
Decennial Census do. Both plans delineate counties in states in the regions that contain
populations that equal more than 55% the populations in the states (in the Chicago region,
counties in Illinois; in the New York region, counties in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New
York) but not counties in states in the regions that contain populations that equal less than 15%
the population in the states (in the Chicago region, counties in Indiana and Wisconsin; in the
New York region, counties in Pennsylvania). (No counties in states that either the Metropolis
Plan, RPA Plan, or 2000 Decennial Census delineate contain populations between 15% and 55%
the population in the states.)
States build regional coalitions, and multiple states build multi-state regional coalitions.
For example, Illinois would build the RCC, and Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York would
build the tri-state regional coalitions. The 2000 Decennial Census raises the question, “Would a
state that contained a population in a region that equaled less than 15% the population in the state
build a regional coalition with a state that contained a population in a region that equaled more
than 55% the population in the state? The Metropolis Plan and RPA Plan answer that question
that no state would.
One variable that varies in a region is population; another is median household income.
This thesis studies median household income per the 2000 Decennial Census. The 6 Illinois
Ayres 36
counties that the Metropolis Plan delineates are a subset of the 13 Illinois, Indiana, and
Wisconsin counties that the 2000 Decennial Census delineates. This thesis studied the median
household income per the 2000 Decennial Census by county. The Metropolis Plan delineates all
of the 3 counties with the highest median household incomes and 5 of the 6 counties with the
highest median household incomes. 5 of the 6 counties that the Metropolis Plan includes are
among the 6 counties with the highest median household incomes, and 6 of the 7 counties that
the Metropolis Plan does not include are among the 7 counties with the lowest median household
incomes.
The exception is Cook County. Cook County is among the 4 counties with the lowest
median household income. Why is Cook County an exception? One explanation could be that
Cook County includes an urban area, the city of Chicago, that the other counties do not. The
RPA Plan raised the issue of suburban sprawl and urban decline. One thing that suburban sprawl
and urban decline create are urban areas that have lower median household incomes relative to
the median household incomes that the suburbs have. Cook County includes both an urban area
and suburban areas; other counties include suburban areas but not urban areas. Cook County
includes both areas that have lower median household incomes relative to the median household
incomes that the suburbs have and suburbs; other counties include suburbs but not areas that
have lower median household incomes relative to the median household incomes that the
suburbs have, which could explain why Cook County is an exception.
This raises a question about whether the results are causal or correlative. Some results
provide evidence that the results are causal. For example, suburbs in counties that border the
urban area tend to have shorter commutes that suburbs that do not, suburbs that have shorter
commutes tend to have higher prices than suburbs that have longer commutes, and suburbs that
Ayres 37
have higher prices tend to be home to households who have higher median incomes than suburbs
that have lower prices. Thus, counties that border the urban areas could approximate higher
median household incomes, and, thus, a regional plan could state that it included and excluded
counties on a geographic basis, but could have done it on a socioeconomic basis. That
socioeconomic basis could have another basis. Regionalism is a solution on a regional level to
the problems that suburban sprawl and urban decline have created. Excluding counties in the
region in that regional level excludes the problems that the counties that are excluded have.
Other results provide evidence that the results are correlative. For example, 3 of the 7
counties that the Metropolis Plan does not include are in Indiana and Wisconsin. Thus, the
Metropolis Plan could exclude them to exclude the states, rather than to exclude the lower
median household incomes. Also for example, the 6 counties that the Metropolis Plan includes
are either Cook County or share a border with Cook County. Thus, the 4 Illinois counties that the
Metropolis Plan does not delineate do not share a border with Cook County. For example,
counties that have a longer commute to the urban area in the region could have shorter commutes
to urban areas in other region. In the Chicago region, counties that have longer commutes to
Chicago could have shorter commutes to other regional centers. For example, a person who lives
in Kenosha County would have a longer commute to Chicago than a person who lives in Lake
County, but that person would have a shorter commute to Milwaukee. Given the assumption that
people prefer shorter commutes to longer commutes, we would expect that a greater proportion
who work in Milwaukee would live in Kenosha County than Lake County, and a greater
proportion who work in Chicago would live in Lake County than Kenosha County. Given the
assumption that incomes are higher in Chicago than in Milwaukee, we would expect that median
household income in a county in which a greater proportion work in Milwaukee would be lower
Ayres 38
than household income in a county in which a greater proportion work in Chicago. Thus, median
household income could be correlated with distance.
The New York region does not have the same results that the Chicago region does. The
RPA Plan excludes 1 county in Connecticut, Middlesex County, that the 2000 Decennial Census
includes. The median household income in that county is among the 13 highest median
household incomes, and one can guess that Yaro and Hiss excluded it not on a socioeconomic
basis but on a geographic basis. The RPA Plan includes 1 county in New York, Ulster County,
that the 2000 Decennial Census excludes. The median household income in that county is among
the lowest 5 median household incomes, and one can guess that that the planners included it not
on a socioeconomic basis but on a geographic basis, too. Given that the RPA Plan and the
Metropolis Plan were sponsored by different organizations and written by different authors, we
cannot assume that the bases on which the Metropolis Plan included and excluded counties are
correlated or caused by the ones on which the RPA Plan did.
Ayres 39
Figure 3. The Metropolis Plan’s Chicago region v. the 2000 Decennial Census’s Chicago region.
Figure 4. The RPA Plan’s New York region v. the 2000 Decennial Census’s New York region.
Ayres 40
CONCLUSION
Federal statistics include counties that have a high degree of social and economic
integration with the urban core in the region. It matters that the degrees within the counties are
high. In Federal statistics, proportion doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what that the counties’
proportions within the states are. But, in the Metropolis Plan and the RPA Plan, it matters. It
matters that the degrees within the counties are high. Neither the Metropolis Plan nor the RPA
Plan include counties that have low degrees, regardless what counties’ proportions within the
states are. But both the Metropolis Plan and the RPA Plan exclude counties that have high
degrees in states that have low proportions. Both the Metropolis Plan and the RPA Plan include
counties that the 2000 Decennial Census includes, based on degrees, in states that have 55% or
higher proportions, but exclude counties that it includes in states that have 15% or lower
proportions. The Decennial Censuses created degrees within counties as one dimension. The
Metropolis Plan and RPA Plan add proportions with states as another one.
The Metropolis Plan and RPA Plan show that proportion matters. The question becomes
whether or not it matters that proportion matters. This thesis argues that it does. It matters both in
Chicago and not in Chicago.
In Chicago, although Metropolis Strategies closed, the regionalism that the Metropolis
Plan opened remains open. Metropolis Strategies never implemented the Regional Coordinating
Council. But the Chicago region did implement a council that coordinated the region. In 2005,
the the Chicago region created the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, or CMAP, “the
official regional planning organization for the northeastern Illinois counties of Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will,” i.e., the six counties that the Metropolis Plan plans,
i.e., Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, and a seventh one, Kendall
Ayres 41
County. In 2010, the CMAP adopted GO TO 2040, “the comprehensive regional plan to help the
seven counties and 284 communities plan together for sustainable prosperity through mid-
century and beyond.” GO TO 2040 addresses transportation, housing, economic development,
open space, and the environment. In October 2014, CMAP updated GO TO 2040. In 2016, the
CMAP launched ON TO 2050, “a new comprehensive plan [that] will build on [GO TO 2040’s]
vision and major policy objectives.”60 Thus, in Chicago, it matters because regional planning
continues.
Not in Chicago, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, or the American Academy,
is associated with the Metropolis Plan. The American Academy is “an international learned
society with a threefold mission: to recognize excellence in science and scholarship, the arts, and
public affairs; to promote the life of the mind and the dissemination of knowledge; and to bring
together the resources of the intellectual community to address issues in the public interest.” The
American Academy “generated the idea of a study of the American metropolis using
metropolitan Chicago as the special focus.”61
The Metropolis Plan is both a plan to prepare the Chicago region and a plan to prepare
the intellectual community to study the American metropolis. In the Chicago region, proportion
matters because a one-state Chicago region and a three-state Chicago region have variations. Not
in the Chicago region, the proportion in the Chicago region matters because the Chicago region
is an American metropolis. Thus, not in the Chicago region, it matters because regional planning
in Chicago and regional planning in other American metropolises are correlated.
This thesis provides evidence that what matters in the Chicago region matters in another
American metropolis, the New York region. This thesis does not prove that what matters in the
60 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, ON TO 2050, n.p. 61 Johnson, Chicago Metropolis 2020, ii.
Ayres 42
Chicago region matters in all American metropolises. That raises a question, i.e., whether or not
it could be proven.
In statistics, statisticians will state that 30 samples should approximate the population.
But that requires that the population be 30 or greater. In American metropolises, the population
could be less than 30. The US Census Bureau states that “a metro area contains a core urban area
of 50,000 or more population.”62 The United States contains over 382 metro areas. Thus, the
population could be 382, and this thesis could sample 30. But the 382 metro areas contain
variations. The largest metro area by population, New York region contained an approximate 20
million people in 2010. The third largest one, the Chicago region, contained an approximate 9.5
million people in 2010. The 30th largest one, the Kansas City metro area, contained an
approximate 2 million people in 2010. The smallest one, the Carson City metro area, contained
an approximate 55,000 people in 2010. One could sample 30 metro areas and could conclude
something about 382 metro areas. But should one conclude that a sample that includes one metro
area with 20 million people and one with 2 million people is a good sample? Should one
conclude that a sample that includes that concludes something about a metro area with 55,000
people?
Thus, one could argue that metro areas are not equal to American metropolises, and,
although the United States contains 382 metro areas, it contains less than 382, or less than 30,
metropolises. This thesis argues that that argument is true. Although the RPA Plan provided a
model to the Metropolis Plan, neither the RPA Plan nor the Metropolis Plan could have been
implemented in the Kansas City metro area or the Carson City metro area. The RPA Plan and the
Metropolis Plan are plans to be implemented in the largest metro areas, the American
metropolises. 62 US Census Bureau Office of Management and Budget, Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, n. p.
Ayres 43
The Chicago region and the New York region are not the only American metropolises.
For example, the Los Angeles region is another American metropolis. And the RPA Plan and the
Metropolis Plan could provide a model to a plan in the Los Angeles region. That’s why what
matters in the Chicago region matters in other American metropolises, and that’s why it matters
that proportion, which varies among Federal statistics and regional planners, and the variations
among them, matter.
Ayres 44
APPENDIX
This thesis analyzes data from the US Census Bureau. This author downloaded data from
the National Historical Geographic Information System, or NHGIS. The data can be reviewed
via nhgis0004_csv. This author created calculations in Microsoft Excel. The calculations can be
reviewed via Counties-1, nhgis0004_ts_nominal_county, and nhgis0004_ts_nominal_state. This
author created figures in ArcGIS. The shape files can be reviewed via nhgis0004_shape.
