THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM Does Sprawl Really Matter? MetroBusinessNet...

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM

Does Sprawl Really Matter?

MetroBusinessNet Annual Convening

February 17, 2005

Metropolitan Policy ProgramBruce Katz, Director

The Brookings Institution



What is the nature of metro growth in the U.S.I

What are the consequences of these trends?

What policy solutions are available to affect positive change?

III

II

Why is this happening?

III


I What is the nature of metro growth in the U.S.

Cities are growing, but metros are still sprawling

Regional variation is substantial

As people go, so do jobs

1.

2.

3.

Metros remain stratified by race, class, and ethnicity4.


6.3%

9.8%

-1.6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

1970s 1980s 1990s

Large cities grew faster in the 1990s than they did in the 1980s and 1970s

50 largest cities, population 1970-2000Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

Cities


-7.4%-5.1% -5.5%

5.7% 6.5%

-7.3%

4.0%

18.6%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Atlanta Chicago Denver Memphis

1980s 1990s

Several large cities gained population during the 1990s after losing population in the 1980s

Selected cities, population growth 1990-2000Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Cities


4%

19%

7%9%

44%

15%17%

6%

33%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Atlanta Chicago Denver Memphis Top 100

City Suburbs

Still, population is decentralizing in nearly every U.S. metropolitan area

Selected cities and suburbs, population growth 1990-2000Source: HUD State of the Cities Data Systems

Suburbs


17.0%

8.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Cities Suburbs

Suburbs

Suburbs grew faster than cities in the 1990s

Percent population growth, 100 largest cities and suburbs1990-2000Source: U.S. Census Bureau


Source: William Frey. “A Census 2000 Study of City and Suburb Household Change.” Brookings, Forthcoming

-5%

15%

35%

Central City 8.6% -1.9% 5.5% 10.4% 19.0% 12.9%

Suburbs 18.0% 10.3% 11.8% 20.1% 41.2% 26.9%

All Households

Married - no children

Married - with

children

Other Family - no

children

Other Family -

with Nonfamily

Suburbs

Every household type grew at faster rates in the suburbsthan in cities

Population growth,1990-2000






1.

2.

3.



In the Northeast/Midwest stagnant growth and sprawl are common

Change in population and density, 1982-1997Source: Fulton et al, 2001

0.4%5.0%

-23.8%-18.7%

-35.5%

-8.0%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Cleveland, OH Detroit, MI Pittsburgh, PA

Change in Population Change in Density


In the South/Southeast, many cities are growing and spreading out


60.80%

38.80% 38.80%

-20.20% -20.20%-11.40%-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Atlanta, GA Charleston, SC Charlotte, NC



In the West, some cities are growing and densifying


47.30%31.20%

72.90%

2.80% 5.50%

21.90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Los Angeles, CA Ft. Collins, CO Phoenix, AZ







1.

2.

3.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nation

3-mile radius

10-mile radius

Outside 10-mileradius

Nationally, one-third of jobs are located outside a 10-mile radius of the central business district

Share of jobs within 3-, 10-, and greater- than-10-mile radius of center, 1996


57%

29%

21%24%

30%32%

35%

41%

13%

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

New York Washington Dallas Atlanta Miami

In Central Business District In Edgeless Locations

Employment decentralization

In many metros, an exit ramp economy dominates office development.

Share of metropolitan office space (SQ FT), 1999



But the level of employment decentralization varies widely across metropolitan areas.

Share of metropolitan employment, 1999

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

U.S. Miami Washington,DC

Los Angeles

3-mile radius 10-mile radius outside 10-mile radius


Consequently, the highest share of metropolitan commutes begin and end within suburbs

Share of commuters100 Largest Cities, 2000

31%

17%

36%

7%8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Cen City -Cen City

Cen City -Suburb

Surburb -Central

City

Suburb -Suburb

WithinMSA -

OutsideMSA

Source: U.S. Census Bureau







1.

2.

3.



Higher job sprawl is associated with higher levels of job mismatch for blacks and Latinos

Source: Stoll, 2005

Blacks/jobs mismatch versus job sprawl in U.S. metros, 2000

Job Sprawl

Blacks/Jobs M

ismatch Index


Concentrated poverty remains overwhelmingly in inner cities

Population of high-poverty neighborhoods by location, 2000

900k

1 mil.

6 mil.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Central City

Suburbs

NonMetropolitan

Popoulation (in millions)


High-poverty tracts, 2000

For example, in Chicago, almost all high-poverty tracts are inside the city limits


And minorities remain disproportionately in the inner-city and the Southern suburbs…

Non-Asian

minority students,

1997


…while jobs move North and West

Jobs by Zipcode, 2001






III

II


IV


Decentralization is Costly

Diminishes Economic Competitiveness &

Quality of Life

Unbalanced growth is costly


Density contributes to economic performance through:By decentralizing, metros are foregoing the economic benefits of density:

Productivity gains

Innovation gains


Density contributes to productivity

Average labor productivity increases with more employment density

“Accessible” cities with efficient transportation systems had higher productivity than more dispersed places (47 metro areas)

Compared to others, growth management metros were likely to see improvements in metropolitan level personal income

Ciccone and Hall (1996)

Cervero (2000)

Nelson and Peterman (2000)


Density contributes to innovation by attracting young, educated workers

High density brings with it amenities that create a high “quality of place” that attracts young knowledge-workers

Ideas, innovation, and creativity now drive the economy

Economic success requires large numbers of people with a college education and high skills


Educated metro areas win in the new economy

Each additional year of education of workers in a metro area leads to another 2.8 percent growth in productivity

The cities and metros with highly skilled workers in the 1990s also had high population and income growth

The metro areas that have high proportions of skilled, educated labor are better able to reinvent themselves and adapt to changing economic needs

Rauch (1993)

Glaeser et al (2000)

Glaeser et al (2003)


Density enhances innovation by increasing interactions and knowledge-sharing among workers

Dense labor markets, efficient transport, and high clustering of jobs lead to knowledge spillovers, both within and across industries

Denser local economies have been linked to increased patenting

Carlino (2001)


Increases Costs on Communities and Taxpayers



Low density development imposes greater costs on state and localities

Low density development increases demand for:

Low density development increases the costs of key services:

• New schools• New roads • New public facilities • Sewer and water extensions

• Police• Fire• Emergency medical



Studies estimate the degree of capital cost savings from denser development…

$0

$4,000

$8,000

$12,000

$16,000

$20,000

Low-DensitySprawl

Low-DensityPlanned

Sprawl Mix Planned Mix High-DensityPlanned

Community Prototypes (10,000 units)

UtilitiesRoads/StreetsPublic FacilitiesSchoolsRecreation

Estimated cost by community prototype

Source: Real Estate Research Corporation (1974)


Florida Growth Patterns Study Total Public Facilities Costs by Development Type (Per Dwelling Unit 1989 Dollars)

...an idea substantiated by Florida case studies

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

Average of Case Studies UnderSprawl

Average of Case Studies UnderCompact

Other

Schools

Utilities

Roads

Source: Duncan (1989)


Kansas City is the 28th largest metro Studies estimate the service delivery savings from more compact development

Dollar costs of new services (including police, fire, highway, schools, and solid waste) per 1,000 new residents for a family of 4 in Kentucky

Development Pattern Cost

Central city counties

Fayette (more concentrated) ($1.08)

Jefferson (more spread out) $37.55

Suburban counties

Shelby (more concentrated) $88.27

Pendelton (more spread out) $1,222.39

Counties with small towns

Warren (more concentrated) $53.89

Pulaski (more spread out) $239.93

Outer ring and rural

Garrard (more concentrated) $454.51

McCracken (more spread out) $618.90

Source: Bollinger, Berger, and

Thompson (2001)


The density-related fiscal savings are estimated to be substantial

Source: Muro & Puentes (2004)

Nationwide, more compact development could save governments 11% on capital outlays over the long term

More compact development could save governments almost 4% on service provision


Leads to Fiscal Disparities



For example, in Philadelphia, tax capacity per household…

Tax capacity per household, 1998


… correlates with educational expenditure per pupil

Expenditure per pupil, 1997


Strains the TransportationSystem and Increases

Travel Costs



Sprawling growth patterns are straining states’ transportation systems and increasing travel costs

Decentralization:

• Widens the area that needs to be served by roads and increases road building costs.

• Generates more driving miles adding to congestion.

• Adds to household costs.

• Deepens the state’s road-maintenance crisis.



For example, commuting patterns in Chicago have become inordinately complex

County-to-county worker flows, 2000


Isolates Minorities and Low-Income Residents

From Opportunities



Decentralization isolates low-income residents & minorities from opportunities.

Decentralization:

• Exacerbates social isolation in the core.

• Reduces educational opportunities in cities and older suburbs.

• Distances poor people from job opportunities.



Miami

Hialeah

Fort Lauderdale

In areas such as Miami, a spatial mismatch has arisen between high-poverty neighborhoods and areas of high job growth

Poverty is concentrated

here

While job growth occurs here

Major Cities

Poverty Rate > 20%

Job Growth > 50%

0 2010

Miles






III

II


IV


Major federal and state policies facilitate sprawl and impede city revitalization

A recent Brookings report on Pennsylvania found 5 specific types of state policies that favor greenfield development and undermine city economies


Unlevel Tax System

Skewed Investments

Weak Planning

Barriers to Reinvestment

Fragmented Governance

Why is this happening?III


Major state spending programs have skewed funding to greenfields


Share of population versus share of transportation investment, 1999-2002Source: U.S. Census Bureau,Anne Canby and James Bickford, 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania newer suburbs received 58 percent of classifiable spending during this period, although they represent only 42 percent of the state’s population

58.3%

41.7%

Share of Population

57.5%

42.5%

Share of Transportation Spending

Older PennsylvaniaOuter Townships


Elk

Tioga

Erie

York

Potter

Centre

Berks

Butler

Bradford

PikeLycoming

Bedford

Clinton

MckeanWarren

Clearfield

Blair

Crawford

Indiana

Somerset

Luzerne

Wayne

Fayette

PerryBucks

Lancaster

Mercer

FranklinChester

Clarion

Schuylkill

Cambria

Monroe

Huntingdon

Greene

Venango

Allegheny

Adams

Washington

Westmoreland

Jefferson

Mifflin

Fulton

Forest

Dauphin

Armstrong

Beaver

Susquehanna

Sullivan

Juniata

Union Carbon

Lehigh

Columbia

Snyder

Cumberland

Wyoming

Cameron

Lebanon

Montgomery

Lawrence

Lackawanna

NorthumberlandNorthampton

Delaware

Montour

Philadelphia

PIDA, OFP, and IDP investments,1998-2003

At the same time, Pennsylvania is spreading its economic development money “all across the map”

Municipal Type

City

Borough

1st-class township

2nd-class township

DCED Programs

PIDA RecipientsOGP RecipientsIDP Recipients

Source: Keystone Research Center


Unlevel Tax System

Skewed Investments

Weak Planning





State tax systems are biasedagainst cities

City revenue bases are small (e.g., large numbers of tax exempt properties)

City expenses are high(e.g., concentrated poverty, union contracts)


Unlevel Tax System

Skewed Investments

Weak Planning





In most states, cities lacks effective regional- or state-level planning, strategizing, and coordination capacity

• Disparate state agencies do not plan in accordance with a coherent, unified vision

• Disparate state agencies plan separately and often act at cross-purposes

• As a consequence, there is a lost opportunity to use policies to generate markets and create wealth


A lack of consistency requirements ensures land use planning remains essentially optional and frequently uncoordinated

• In many states local zoning ordinances do not conform to local or regional plans

• Required county plans remain advisory


Unlevel Tax System

Skewed Investments

Weak Planning





• Barriers to brownfield development hinder their productive reuse

• Information gaps, limited marketability, and ineffective acquisition processes keep many vacant and abandoned industrial properties idle

• Barriers to the rehabilitation of older buildings perpetuate their deterioration

Barriers to reinvestment


Unlevel Tax System

Skewed Investments

Weak Planning





Total local governments, 2002

Many rustbelt states have large numbers of local governments

General Governments* RankIllinois 2,824 1Minnesota 2,734 2Pennsylvania 2,633 3Ohio 2,338 4Kansas 2,030 5Wisconsin 1,922 6Michigan 1,858 7North Dakota 1,745 8Indiana 1,666 9New York 1,602 10

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Census of Governments

*Includes county governments


The profusion of local governments undermines city and state competitiveness in several ways

• CMU’s Jerry Paytas concludes that fragmented regions saw their share of the total income generated in 285 metro areas slip between 1972 and 1997

• Paul Lewis concludes fragmentation results in decreased shares of office space in central business districts, less “centrality,” longer commute times, more “edge cities,” and more sprawl






III

II


IV


What policy solutions are available to affect positive change?IV

Smart growth involves efforts to change the governmental “rules of the development game” that facilitate sprawl and concentrate poverty

Smart growth efforts are designed to slow decentralization, promote urban reinvestment, and enhance access to opportunity

Smart Growth


1.Regional

Governance

2.Land UseReform

3. Infrastructure

5.Access To

Opportunity

4.Taxation

What policy solutions are available to affect positive change?IV

The SmartGrowthAgenda


Smart Growth Reforms: State Examples

Maryland Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act (1997)

Regional Governance

Land Use Reform

Infrastructure

Taxation Minnesota Fiscal Disparities Law

Access to Opportunity California Tax Credit Allocation Committee

Clean Ohio Fund

Metropolitan Suballocation in California


Smart Growth Reforms: Local and Regional Examples

Transit-Oriented Development – Arlington County, VA

Regional Governance

Land Use Reform

Infrastructure

Access to Opportunity

Inclusionary Zoning – Montgomery County, MD

Philadelphia Neighborhood Transformation Initiative

Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Council


www.brookings.edu/metro

Date post:	27-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	brianna-mcnulty
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM Does Sprawl Really Matter? MetroBusinessNet...

Documents