F

or an afternoon, in 2015, residents temporarily transformed an aging business district in Akron, Ohio’s North Hill neighborhood. Local business owners and leaders worked with the Better Block Foundation to demonstrate what more was possible for the intersection of North Main Street and Cuyahoga Falls Avenue. Pop-up businesses, parklets, bike lanes, and art installations erased vacancies and reinvigorated a space that, in the early 20th century, had been a pioneering route for the city’s streetcar.

But today, despite the much-lauded 2015 vision, there are still several vacant lots and storefronts for every heavily trafficked Nepali grocery store, Italian restaurant, or church lining the four-lane thoroughfare, which drives a wedge through the central business district.

The city is focused on revitalizing North Hill as part of a six-month pilot project that is convening local leaders with their counterparts in Rochester, New York, and Lansing, Michigan. This community of practice, organized by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Rose Center for Public Leadership in Land Use in partnership with Enterprise Community Partners and the American Planning Association, seeks to explore the challenges of equitably revitalizing midsize postindustrial cities—sometimes known as legacy cities. The project includes visits to each city, coaching, webinars, and technical guidance.

Concentrated most heavily in the Midwest and New England, legacy cities were once essential to building American middle-class prosperity. Yet as the national economy has transitioned away from manufacturing, many of these communities have struggled with entrenched poverty, disinvestment, population loss, vacancies, and a workforce with skills that do not match employers’ needs.

Small and midsize legacy cities face even greater challenges because they often lack major corporate headquarters or significant anchor institutions, assets that have been leveraged successfully in larger postindustrial cities such as Pittsburgh. 

“These cities are often overlooked in national efforts at revitalization,” said Jessie Grogan, senior policy analyst at the Lincoln Institute. “While researchers and community leaders have identified strategies to revitalize places like Detroit and Baltimore, less attention has been paid to how these approaches might transfer to communities like Akron.”

Challenges in North Hill  

By many measures, Akron is a typical smaller legacy city. After earning recognition for having the nation’s fastest growing population in 1916 and for being home to Goodyear and other manufacturing giants, the city has lost about a third of its residents since the 1960s, recently stabilizing at around 200,000.  

North Hill has fared better than many parts of Akron, due in part to the new wave of immigrants who have followed in the footsteps of the Italian, Polish, and Irish who arrived a century ago. The tracts of single-family rental homes surrounding the central business district now house a more diverse population than 80 percent of U.S. urban neighborhoods. These immigrants from countries such as Nepal, Myanmar, and Bhutan have helped to populate homes and storefronts in a city trying everything to bounce back from decades of population loss. They have found opportunities in business ownership and jobs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

In 2017, the Knight Foundation recognized North Hill as an up-and-coming neighborhood at a “tipping point,” and provided funding for the North Akron Community Development Corporation to pursue concentrated business development. Yet, the city has found it difficult to guide North Hill because of aging infrastructure, speculative landowners, and difficulty engaging local residents in leadership and decision-making. 

During a recent convening of the community of practice in Akron, participants visited the Exchange House, a permanent product of Better Block’s pop-up experiment. With $155,000 from the Knight Foundation’s Knight Cities Challenge, Better Block rehabilitated a single-family home into a space that now includes an upstairs AirBnB; space on the first floor for health clinics, sewing classes, and spiritual group meetings; and a pocket park in the backyard. 

As manager, Katie Beck helps to organize events like Multilingual Meals, during which attendees discuss community issues in nine different languages. She sees the potential for groups to interact across ethnic and socioeconomic lines, but also the challenges of building a sense of community among such a diverse population. 

“North Hill has silos, lines, and boundaries between different communities,” Beck said. “At the Exchange House, we are able to observe and reflect on those boundaries, while we aim to cross those lines through diverse programming in our space.”

While North Hill has always been a neighborhood of immigrants, it has also long been home to a large African American population, which experienced devastating urban renewal in the mid-20th century. Revitalization efforts often focus on branding the area as an international district, but doing so leaves these residents out of the narrative, Beck says.

As part of the tour of North Hill, participants from Lansing and Rochester joined Beck, Akron city officials, and other local civic leaders, including representatives from Asian Services in Action, Bridging the Gap Ministries, and Urban Vision Ministry, for a roundtable at the Exchange House.

“Having that conversation in that broad of a group really brought to the forefront that there are a lot of different views about how the community should move forward,” said Heather Roszczyk, innovation and entrepreneurship advocate for the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development in Akron. “It firmed up the message that we need to have additional community conversations, even among the leaders, to figure out a collective way forward.”

The cohort walked through North Hill’s business district, site of the 2015 Better Block project. Roszczyk said that promoting the business district can be challenging: business owners not only have to come up with the capital to get their businesses off the ground, but also the funding to rehab and repair aging infrastructure. In addition to vacancies, the business district has a number of lots where businesses have been torn down. 

“Although North Hill has had a lot of energy, this hasn’t translated to construction,” said Jason Segedy, Akron’s director of planning and urban development.

In some cases, landlords who own properties on the stretch have been unresponsive to interested buyers. “To some extent, we have a landlock on economic development,” Beck said.

North Hill’s business district is part of Akron’s Great Streets Initiative, which aims to enhance the city’s business districts through community engagement, business development, and improved public spaces. While only a handful of business owners have reached out about the vacant spaces on the main street, programs like the forthcoming Rubber City Match are designed to help fill this pipeline. The city will work with community leaders to assess the needs of the North Hill business district and use neighborhood data to direct business owners to promising locations.

“We are really the testing ground for different economic development methods, of what could be successful in other parts of the country,” Beck said.

Finding a Way Forward in a Community of Practice

While each city is still finding its way forward, lessons are already migrating from place to place. In Lansing, a visit with the Capital Area Housing Partnership left a lasting impression on Akron’s Segedy because of the organization’s strong community presence. It inspired him to think about how the Exchange House could expand its offerings and potentially open up additional centers throughout North Hill. Segedy was also inspired by the transformation of an abandoned auto warehouse into the Lansing Brewing Company, and of a former school building into the Liberty Hyde Bailey Center, which contains affordable senior housing, day care, and space for performances and other activity.

“There haven’t been any huge revelations, but it has been very valuable to compare notes and see the different approaches these cities have taken to redevelopment,” Segedy said.

Where organizers see the cities’ common challenges, such as community engagement, the community of practice brings in experts to facilitate a conversation.  

At the convening in Akron, participants learned how a larger legacy city—Detroit—engaged residents in long-term planning. Charles Cross, director of landscape architecture for the nonprofit Detroit Collaborative Design Center, described how his team collaborated with residents in the Detroit Works Project, a planning process that produced the Detroit Future City Strategic Framework, a comprehensive document intended to guide Detroit’s revitalization.

Cross’s team traveled around Detroit with a roaming table to stimulate discussion, created a home base for drop-in conversations, held Twitter town halls, built a mobile phone app, and sought out residents in public spaces throughout the city. Through the work of the design center and other partners, an estimated 30,000 conversations helped shape the framework.

“Each of the cities, to varying degrees, seems to feel that, ‘we are the city so we can’t do that; we are distrusted by the immigrant population or the longstanding African American population,’” said Amy Cotter, associate director of Urban Programs for the Lincoln Institute. “Through the conversation, presentations, and programming, we aimed to focus on how city governments can forge unconventional partnerships to achieve more.”  

Emma Zehner is communciations and publications editor at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Photos in order of appearance:

In 2015, residents worked with the Better Block Foundation to temporarily transform North Hill’s business district, adding bike lanes, parklets, and pop-up businesses. Credit: Better Block Foundation.

The owners of Dhimal’s Mini Marts stand outside the grocery store, which is located in North Hill. Credit: Shayne Wynn.

The Exchange House has become a central gathering space for residents of many ethnicities in North Hill. Credit: Exchange House.

North Hill residents gather for Multilingual Meals, an event at the Exchange House. Credit: Shayne Wynn.

Jason Segedy, director of planning and urban development, at the City of Akron, speaks to community of practice participants from Akron, Lansing, and Rochester. Credit: Amy Cotter.

As part of the meeting in Lansing, participants stopped at Akronym Brewing. Credit: Amy Cotter.

Though frequently seen as an urban liability, brownfields can be an asset. The cost to remediate these formerly developed properties is often high, but they present valuable opportunities for revitalization and redevelopment. According to the EPA, waterfront brownfields “can play an important role in bolstering local resilience to increased flooding, storm surge, or temperatures from a changing climate.” In Providence, brownfields are a top priority in the ongoing effort to revitalize river corridors and riverfront areas.

View the PDF version of this map for more detail and a key.

Sources: Brownfield Revitalization in Climate-Vulnerable Areas, U.S. EPA, 2016; Woonasquatucket Vision Plan, City of Providence, 2018.

Map Credit: The Place Database. www.lincolninst.edu/research-data/data/place-database

By 2050, the planet will be 70 percent urban, as we add some two billion residents to the world’s cities. As we consider the history and future of these areas, our biggest challenge may be redeveloping land that is already used or occupied. Maintaining, managing, and growing a city where buildings and people already are rooted is much harder than creating one from scratch. Where and how we accommodate new populations will set the stage for human habitation for the rest of this millennium. In this century of the city, we must find ways to build the cities we need.

Future urban growth will not take place in megacities. All indications suggest that popula­tion growth is plateauing in the 30 or so places with more than 10 million residents. The fastest-growing cities are the ones with current populations between 100,000 and one million. These cities do not and will not have the capacity to manage growth. How will they pay for the infrastructure—highways, bridges, gas lines, and the like—to double or treble their size? Will they be choked with unplanned development, adding to the one billion people already living without public services?

Beyond the logistical and financial challenges, a separate concern relates to the identity of cities. How much do we care about the relation­ship between people and their places? Are we prepared to protect the integrity of cities and the people who live in them by preserving their “character”? Will we have the luxury of forgoing expedience for individuality? If we accept that most of the world’s cities do not have the resources to plan and manage their own future growth, then we concede the design and form of future cities to market forces. This portends a future of urban sameness, a dystopia straight from Le Corbusier: all cities looking like forests of “towers in the park,” expedient and soulless.

If recent and historic efforts to redevelop urban neighborhoods are any indication, urban residents might not be so quick to accept expedient solutions. In Dharavi, a Mumbai neighborhood made famous in the movie Slumdog Millionaire, 700,000 people live on less than one square mile of land. In 2006, an advocacy group decided to “improve” the living conditions of thousands of people who lived in the slum by building high-rises and trying to persuade people to move. Despite offering indoor plumbing, secure roofs, and the like, this group was stunned to have few takers. They were mystified that no one wanted to leave for modern accommodations. But they hadn’t done their homework: Dharavi produces an estimated 25 percent of the gross domestic product of Mumbai. The residents didn’t just live there, they worked there. They weren’t willing to trade their livelihoods and shelter for better shelter, no matter how much better.

Plans are still afoot to develop Dharavi, which sits on the most valuable real estate in Mumbai. It will be difficult for its poor residents to protect themselves from the inexorable power of the market. But if we were committed to defending the rights and interests of the residents, could we imagine a future centered not on high-rises, but on more creative land use providing shelter and promoting livelihoods? What would that take? Where can we look for good examples of respon­sive redevelopment?

In the United States, our history is not replete with successful examples of urban redevelopment. Early attempts at slum clearance through the construction of public housing are eerily similar to the efforts in Mumbai. Ironically, building public housing was not a housing strategy. Congress passed it as a livelihood strategy, designed to reemploy idle construction labor during the Great Depression.

In the postwar era, the federal government devolved redevelopment to local authorities through Urban Renewal. A famous case involved the redevelopment of Boston’s West End in the mid-1950s. Using (or misusing) eminent domain, the city obtained hundreds of homes that were owned by middle-class white families, citing their poor condition and the need for “higher and better use.” Neighborhood residents tried to stop the process through local organizing, protest, and the courts. They failed. The neighborhood was replaced by market-driven development. By 1964, more than 18,000 historic buildings in the United States were lost to urban renewal, says the Trust for Historic Preservation.

Informed by the Boston experience and the demolition of New York’s original Penn Station, an “improvement” against which she had protested, activist and author Jane Jacobs organized others to prevent the wholesale destruction of the urban fabric of New York City when developer Robert Moses proposed a crosstown highway through Greenwich Village. Jacobs ushered in a multipronged approach to oppose abusive, top-down, centralized planning. Organized resistance was the first prong; coalition-building was the second; but it was land use policy that created the framework for hundreds of others to defend their cities.

Jacobs’ coalitions enlisted New York house­wives and powerful allies such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Lady Bird Johnson, who not only found the human toll of urban renewal intolerable, but also mourned the loss of culture and history. Mobilizing others can help us protect urban history and culture. Including powerful allies helps even more. But to scale up one’s efforts requires more powerful tools—policies that prevent what one wants to prevent and promote what one wants to promote. It requires carrots and sticks.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, was the stick, requiring review of historic structures before demolishing them to redevelop neighborhoods. The Historic Tax Credit, enacted in 1978, provided the carrot. Because it might be costlier to redevelop historic buildings and adapt them for new uses, the tax credit sweetened the pot—paying for the public good that was preserved in the historic structures and making redevelopment financially feasible. Thirty-five states have followed suit with their own historic tax credit programs to supplement federal funding. Thus began the rebound of American cities. More than $120 billion was invested in adaptive reuse of buildings from 1981 to 2015, says the Trust for Historic Preservation.

What are the challenges of urban redevelop­ment today? One is the persistence of “highest and best use” planning. In a talk I gave last year in Guangzhou, China, planners could not conceive of why Jacobs’ prevention of a highway across lower Manhattan was considered a success. They argued that achieving highest and best use was the planner’s job. Keeping old buildings and neighborhoods intact was not. Top-down planning predicated on narrow objectives is almost guaranteed to reproduce the results of urban renewal, at the expense of culture and history.

Urban communities everywhere are at risk of displacement from a second, bigger challenge and a faceless new villain: global capital capturing real estate in cities across the globe, making them less livable and less affordable. In spite of the global financial crisis of 2008, urban real estate is considered a safe harbor for capital, especially in places with stable curren­cies like the United States. In the 12-month period ending in March 2017, foreign investors purchased 284,455 U.S. homes, spending more than $150 billion, according to CNBC. According to Statistica, 52 percent of foreign real estate purchases are in the suburbs, while 27 percent are in central cities. In some cities, more than 20 percent of all real estate investment comes from outside the country. Global investment includes domestic capital as well, and it flows not only to U.S. destinations, but also to growing cities around the world. This capital distorts housing markets and makes urban areas, from California to China, unaffordable for the people who live there. It also distorts supply markets, dictating what will be built based on the tastes of part-time residents and speculators.

What can be done? What would Jacobs do? I am sure she would mobilize local residents to reclaim power over land control and teach about the consequences of treating housing as a tradable commodity. Part of mobilizing is to get more stakeholders to the table. She would no doubt use new tools to engage citizens in urban planning, like the tools that helped build the Detroit Future City plan. By using everything from online games to data visualizations, Detroit planners secured input from more than 100,000 residents.

To scale this effort, she would need new land policy tools, sticks and carrots, to motivate developers to build the cities residents need, not the real estate investors want. Sticks might include surcharges on outside investment, like those recently enacted in Vancouver and Toronto. They might include significantly higher property tax rates combined with very high homestead exemptions to increase holding costs for properties owned by nonresidents. Buildings might be protected from speculation using devices like community land trusts. Carrots might include approval for additional develop­ment through density bonuses for developments that preserve urban character, offering residents the opportunity to live and work in closer proximity. And the carrots should also include subsidies to motivate developers to build the right developments—those that preserve the character of the city by supporting residents and their livelihoods.

As a society, we have made, and continue to make, lots of mistakes. But those of us who want to help create more sustainable and equitable cities must do two things: find more effective ways to engage and mobilize people and find the policies to work at scale. This is a time to ask, “What would Jane Jacobs do?” While she did not get it all just right every time, she did compel us to find creative ways to make cities work while preserving their culture and history. Cities that were more welcoming, that could provide both shelter and work. Cities that facilitated social interaction, not just commerce. That is a tall agenda, but it’s one that we should aspire to achieve. It is critical if we are going to survive beyond this century of the city.

George W. McCarthy is the President and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Photograph: In Dharavi, a one-square-mile neighborhood in Mumbai, India, that’s home to 700,000 people, tensions have existed between externally designed “improvements” and the actual needs of residents. Credit: Flickr/Adam Cohn