This essay is adapted from the foreword to the forthcoming Lincoln Institute book Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives.  

The Lincoln Institute is preparing to launch a book about infrastructure, which you’ll find excerpted in the October print issue of Land Lines. It is one of the very few books about infrastructure published in the last decade. It could not come at a better time. 

Today, we are on the cusp of historic investments in global infrastructure. The World Bank estimates that we will need more than US$90 trillion in new infrastructure by 2030 to prepare cities for 2 billion new inhabitants, primarily in sprawling metropolises in low-income countries. This total investment exceeds the current annual gross domestic product of all the countries on the planet by around 20 percent. In order to formulate new sustainability strategies and policies for cities in regions where populations are growing rapidly—and in regions where city structures continue to evolve to adjust to innovations in technology and commerce—we need to understand the relationship between urbanization and infrastructure. 

The world also faces new challenges associated with the climate crisis, the sharing economy, and the fallout from COVID-19. If we want to protect ourselves from the impacts of the climate crisis, the World Bank suggests we add another US$1 trillion per year to the global investment noted above. If we are to live in a “new normal” shaped by global pandemics, infrastructure design and usage must be modified. 

For most people in developed countries, infrastructure is largely invisible, noticed only due to its absence or failure. We are chagrined when the power goes out or the Internet goes down. More distressingly, infrastructure failures can be catastrophic, such as when the Ponte Morandi collapsed into the Polcevera River in Genoa, Italy, in 2018; or when leaking, centuries-old gas pipes destroyed two apartment buildings in East Harlem, New York, in 2014; or when the levees failed and floodwater inundated New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. 

These awful events made headlines because infrastructure is supposed to be safe and reliable—and for a large portion of the world’s population, it usually is. But most people in developing countries live with inadequate roads, unreliable power supplies, and a lack of safe drinking water and basic sanitation. They have a diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancies as a result, and the growth of their local and national economies is constrained.  

When it works, infrastructure represents humanity at its best. Designing, developing, and financing infrastructure requires formidable technical expertise. But to get the job done, we also need to exercise our best social and political skills and work together to provide durable public goods that solve seemingly intractable social, economic, and environmental challenges. Colossal dams spanning treacherous canyons are a great example: they demand exceptional engineering acumen and provide decades of flood prevention, crop irrigation, drinking water, and electricity. Planning and financing infrastructure requires us to dispose of short-term thinking and make investments with benefits that will span generations. 

Infrastructure also represents humanity at its worst. We are at our worst when we allow opaque decisions about infrastructure to disadvantage or harm those without the economic or political power to influence those decisions—when new thoroughfares are forced through thriving communities of color to reduce drive times for suburban commuters, for example, or when public officials and beltway bandits strike sweetheart deals behind closed doors. Process is as important as, and sometimes more important than, outcomes. Infrastructure planning must include all stakeholders and account for their needs, aspirations, and rights.  

The stakes are high with infrastructure. We commit dizzying sums of money for decades to build and manage projects and systems of unimaginable scale and ambition. The very complexity of all aspects of infrastructure demands paramount integrity: conforming assiduously to engineering specifications, adhering to the rule of law, exercising fiscal discipline, and maintaining absolute transparency and accountability. Decisions to build infrastructure using public funds must be grounded in rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Although such methodologies are well developed in theory, in practice they can be abused with political pressure, intentional bias, or selective myopia. 

Moreover, public decision processes cannot always be trusted to produce optimal resource allocations. If we can understand the complexity of infrastructure within real-world constraints, we will make better spending decisions. Despite the obvious need for infrastructure, developing countries struggle to pay for long-term investments. While these constraints are real, there are many ways to finance infrastructure, even in the most impoverished places. These methods include land value capture mechanisms, which have been used for millennia and which involve recovering the increased value of land associated with infrastructure improvements. For example, betterment levies were used by the Roman Empire to build roads, bridges, tunnels, and viaducts connecting a vast area from Portugal to Constantinople. Land readjustment, in which parcels of land are pooled and improved with new infrastructure that is paid for through the sale of a small share of the land, has been used hundreds of times on multiple continents to build capital cities like Washington, DC, or rebuild towns and cities in countries ravaged by war. 

How effectively infrastructure meets economic and social goals depends critically on the way it is managed and regulated. Both the public and private sectors are active in infrastructure development and service provision. The infrastructure industry has gone through a cycle of domination by the private sector followed by public takeover and public provision, then to privatization, and to the increasingly popular public-private partnerships. Who gets served by infrastructure, and how they are served, is determined by regulatory structures that protect the public interest and require absolute transparency and accountability of vendors and public officials. 

We can learn a lot from international experiences related to the management and regulation of infrastructure. Some countries and regions develop and implement infrastructure plans and strategies to achieve specific social and economic objectives. The European Union used infrastructure grants and loans to help integrate new members both politically and economically through two rounds of expansion. Chinese policy makers advanced high-speed rail development strategies that supported the formation of several major city clusters (or megalopolises) to drive the growth of the national economy. In contrast, Japan’s rail policy relied mainly on the private sector to provide vital social services. The lessons from such experiences are important for countries that aspire to not only formulate effective infrastructure plans but also use infrastructure planning to achieve other important goals. 

It is hard to exaggerate the importance of infrastructure for sustaining human habitation on this planet. Without it, to quote Thomas Hobbes, “there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force . . . And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” 

At the Lincoln Institute, we have spent more than seven decades addressing social, economic, and environmental challenges using innovative land policies. Among those we have studied and recommended to address global challenges, none is more important than infrastructure. Without the lifeline goods and services delivered by effective and efficient infrastructure, human life would be nastier, more brutish, and shorter. If we can learn from the authors of this book, life will be better and longer for a multitude of people around the world. 

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

Image: Interstates 10 and 101 in Los Angeles. Credit: Art Wager via Getty Images. 

This content was developed through a partnership between the Lincoln Institute and the American Planning Association as part of the APA Foresight practice. It was originally published in APA’s Planning magazine. 

“The world turns and we get dizzy.” That’s how Bono would put it.

He’s right: the world’s accelerations, constant technological disruptions, social inequalities, and changing climate are only a few of the dizzying, mind-boggling challenges today’s planners face. Many of them have been with us for a while. But then came COVID-19, which has catalyzed technological disruptions, amplified our awareness of the effects and pervasiveness of social injustice, and sparked countless other challenges.

Some of these trends have such big implications, are so urgent, or are just moving so fast that planners and the profession have no choice but to stay on top of them. That’s where APA Foresight comes in. In partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, APA’s research team has been looking into existing and emerging trends in the profession so that we can understand the drivers of change, learn how we can prepare for them, and identify when it is time for planners to act. For this article, we explore what you need to know about seven of the most pressing trends for the profession today.

1. Transit ridership has dropped low. Planners will need to aim high. During the COVID-19 pandemic, transit ridership tanked. New York City saw a 60 percent decrease in subway riders, while San Francisco reported a 90 percent loss of passengers using Bay Area Rapid Transit. The national number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) has returned to pre-pandemic levels, but transit ridership is only slowly recovering (and in some places, barely so). There are other modes, like active transportation and shared micromobility options—plus potential newcomers in the next five to 10 years like autonomous vehicles and urban air mobility—that may seem like competitors to transit instead of promising partners.

A pandemic made it even more obvious that, in most cities, people who can afford to live close to transit are not always those who rely on it for mobility. Essential workers without the option to work remotely have faced service disruptions—and there were already access and quality issues before. On top of that, most cities’ transit systems were designed to serve downtown commuters working nine-to-five jobs, which captures a fraction of the transit need, and is even more clear as city centers continue to be underused.

As in-person activities resume, transit agencies and planners will need to rebuild confidence in local transit systems. Ridership patterns before the pandemic—and what became standard during the pandemic—should not be the baseline for transportation planning going forward. 

Agile transit solutions are needed to allow for more flexible options outside a nine-to-five work schedule and to accommodate changing mobility needs and behaviors. Equitable transit is imperative to serve those who need it. Partnerships and collaboration with emerging transportation systems will enable transit agencies to be nimble and ensure fair access for all. Meanwhile, transit systems need to expand their capabilities by making immediate improvements in service and reliability, as well as committing to long-term investments. 

2. Technology is transforming communities. Planners will need to adapt to capture the benefits. In the last two decades, we have moved from an information age to a digital era. Today, advances in digital technology affect almost every aspect in life: how people live, work, play, and move around town; how businesses communicate with their customers; and even how people make decisions on what jobs to apply for, who to befriend, or who to go on a date with. Though this digital era started only two decades ago, it has been accelerating at an unprecedented pace.

The concept of “smart cities” is a logical consequence and a development of this era, prompting the digital transformation of entire cities and communities. It includes not just the operation of a city and related processes, systems, and communication streams, but also the processes planners use to make plans for a community, collect and use data, and implement their plans.

In this digital era, it is vital that planners learn about smart city concepts and how they can use smart tech to achieve community goals so their communities can benefit from them instead of being harmed by them. Adjusting planning processes to this digital environment and adding new tools, relevant skills, and knowledge to the planner’s repertoire will be crucial for planners to be able to continue creating great communities for all. (A forthcoming PAS Report on smart cities will help fill the knowledge gap, defining smart cities as those that equitably integrate community, nature, and technology and that foster innovation, participation, and co-creation. The report, due later this year, also will explain the role of the planner and identify necessary skills, methods, and approaches. Stay tuned!)

3. Artificial intelligence is on the rise, but the human factor in planning is still crucial. Artificial intelligence has been in development since the 1950s. However, because of the availability of big data and increased computing power, the AI market has grown substantially over the last decade and is expected to grow 20 percent annually over the next few years. While the data-based automated decision-making capabilities of AI will create myriad opportunities to improve current planning processes, data gaps and algorithmic bias pose the risk of exacerbating existing inequalities—and even creating new ones.

Planners and allied professionals should have a strong understanding of the potential impacts and benefits posed by AI on the profession and their communities. AI is already reshaping the local landscape, and it is important to understand how planners can use AI equitably and sustainably. Some important issues to consider are privacy concerns, data quality, and the potential bias of AI.

Additionally, it will be important to emphasize the human factor of planning. While AI will enable us to automate repetitive and tedious tasks such as traffic counts, checking boxes on a list, or certain permitting processes, it won’t be able to replace the human being behind the planner, the change agent who can connect with the individual community members, and the facilitator who can listen to people’s needs and concerns.

4. High and varied demand on public space will require a balancing act. More and more activities are vying for a limited amount of public space. Sidewalks aren’t just pedestrian paths to a destination anymore (but were they ever?). They are also hubs for outdoor dining and farmers markets. When streets are too dangerous and bike lanes are nowhere to be found, sidewalks accommodate scooter riders and bicyclists. Soon, they might even become a path for little robots making autonomous deliveries. Meanwhile, plazas and parks are sites for public gatherings—from protests to picnics to concerts. Roads might handle automobile traffic on weekdays, but during weekends or evenings, they could seamlessly reconfigure into “no car zones.” And curbs are especially in high demand, whether they are for parking cars and micromobility vehicles, dropping off transit or rideshare passengers, or serving as zones for traditional or last-mile autonomous delivery.

People are always going to find a way to creatively shape the public realm. Planners need to foster spaces that are adaptable and responsive to the different types of people who use them. The key focus for planners will be to ensure accessibility and minimize exclusion when balancing these activities. Every community wants bustling public spaces, but planners understand that this should not come at the expense of people’s well-being.

With multiple players, functions, and purposes, planners need to redefine what “shared streets” can mean. They especially need to advocate for the most vulnerable (and traditionally, least protected) people who need and deserve access to public space, such as people with disabilities and those experiencing homelessness.

5. Climate action will take center stage—and have greater urgency. The first 100 days of the Biden administration established a promising policy environment for climate change action at all levels. Now, it’s up to planning practitioners to advance (or initiate) climate-related projects and plans.

Local and state officials have undoubtedly been leading the push for climate action in recent years. With renewed commitment at the national level, they can breathe a little easier. But the situation still requires urgent action. As hundreds of scientists recently announced, this is not a climate crisis anymore; it’s a climate emergency.

Planners can take advantage of federal and state funding, tools, and incentives to implement climate change mitigation and adaptation activities. This might include reducing carbon emissions by investing in renewable energy or supporting the green economy.

State and local governments can also expect more opportunities to engage with federal policy makers and to represent their unique perspective on climate action. And even though COVID-19 recovery might be a top priority in the short-term, climate action is compatible with these activities and can’t be pushed off any longer.

6. Communities are more diverse than ever. So are their needs and experiences. The increase in population diversity requires new planning approaches that can reflect the realities of people across various identities, such as race, age, gender, ability, or religion. This demands that planners view people as more than neat and tidy population groups, but rather as fully realized individuals with unique experiences and needs.

Most practitioners already recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to planning. But the profession also needs to start reconsidering the idea that planning is neutral.

Integrating the context and situation of a community when choosing effective practices and solutions can lead to more conscious, intentional planning. In other words, planning needs to be more dynamic—not neutral—in order to be ready for diversity in the communities that planners serve.

Practitioners should be able to quickly tailor planning solutions to the needs of the least supported, most vulnerable individuals in a community. By pursuing planning exercises that consider life at the individual level, the profession can be more mindful of those who exist at the intersection of multiple identities and how planning solutions might impact them. This can humanize the individuals within a community instead of assuming the experiences of population groups are homogenous, resulting in more dynamic planning with more equitable results.

7. The future of work and workplaces will impact how we use urban space. During the COVID-19 lockdown in the spring of 2020, more than 60 percent of the U.S. workforce was working from home, and many continue to do so. The pandemic has accelerated the digitalization of work. Meanwhile, companies are rethinking their office space needs and considering work-from-anywhere policies or hybrids that allow for smaller to no office space, which comes with significant cost savings. The shift from central business districts to a decentralized, work-from-anywhere approach could bring myriad opportunities to change how we use urban space for the better, if planners are ready.

Previously residential-only neighborhoods will have to accommodate their remotely working residents, adding retail, restaurants and coffee shops, parks, and other amenities typically adjacent to offices. For workers who don’t have the space for an office at home or simply don’t want to stay home all day, neighborhood coworking spaces will be needed. Homogenous places will shift to mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods that allow the community to socialize and connect with one another.

Vacant office and retail spaces can be repurposed to affordable housing or coliving and coworking spaces. Obsolete parking spaces can be converted into neighborhood parks. Creative thinking can lead to solutions to the housing crisis, as well as the mental health crisis that stems from extended isolation and other traumas experienced during COVID-19.

Ultimately, if jobs are not a reason to move to a city anymore, improved quality of life will become the main attraction. So planners may need to redefine what gets prioritized in their communities accordingly.

The world keeps turning and change stops for no one. That’s why APA Foresight is here. APA researchers, in partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, are already preparing for our next cycle of trend research to help the profession learn with and prepare for an uncertain future. 

Two hours east of the bustling metropolitan area of Shenzhen, China, a new city is taking shape in Guangdong Province. Formally known as the Shenzhen-Shanwei Special Cooperation Zone (SSSCZ), this 180-square-mile area is a national demonstration project that’s becoming something of a living laboratory for urban design, spatial planning, and land policy.

Initially established 12 years ago through a collaboration between Shenzhen, population 17 million, and the much smaller locality of Shanwei, population 500,000, the SSSCZ is located within the municipal boundaries of Shanwei. Home to about 80,000 people who live in scattered farming and fishing villages, the coastal area has been identified by the national government as a place that can accommodate industrial and residential overflow for Shenzhen, where developable land is extremely limited and expensive. The goal is to develop about 52 square miles of the area by 2035, when the population of the new city is expected to reach 1 million.

The Lincoln Institute recently helped organize a “Training the Trainers” course that included a field trip to the SSSCZ. One of the first Lincoln Institute programs to be held in person since the start of the pandemic, the course was organized jointly by the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) and Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School, and was designed to enhance the knowledge and skills of the participants in spatial planning and land policy. In addition to the SSSCZ field trip, participants attended lectures by prominent scholars and PLC specialists and took part in simulations aimed at finding land policy solutions.

“Part of the goal of the workshop was to brainstorm ways to design spatial policy for the area, and figure out how to pay for the costs,” said Shenmin Liu, a research analyst with the Lincoln Institute who helped organize the course. “We introduced land value capture tools and asked students to think creatively about the possibilities.”

The 37 participants, primarily young scholars, practitioners, and doctoral students from universities, research institutions, and planning institutions across China, met with local planners in the SSSCZ and learned about plans for the area. Those plans include developing a local harbor into a transportation hub and attracting companies involved in artificial intelligence, robotics, or other high-tech industries. Shenzhen already has firm footing in the technology sector, as the home of global companies including Tencent and Huawei.

The field trip helped the participants learn about the challenges of land policy reform in the context of a new spatial planning framework adopted in China, as well as the newly amended Land Administration Law. The latter requires better compensation for villagers whose land is taken for development, which should give farmers a fairer deal—but attaches higher costs to China’s rapid urbanization.

While the group was on site, Professor Shouying Liu of Renmin University delivered a lecture on land policy reform in China at the Office of the Administration Committee of the SSSCZ, attracting an audience of leaders and officials from various government agencies active in the cooperation zone in addition to the course participants. During the course, speakers also explored topics including land policy issues in the SSSCZ; spatial planning theory and practice; natural resource management and spatial planning; land value capture; property taxation; and smart-city development. Lincoln Institute President George W. McCarthy and Chair and Chief Investment Officer Kathryn J. Lincoln delivered virtual remarks.

Finally, the course introduced the methodology of gaming simulations for planning and land policy decisions, using the SSSCZ as a real-world case. The participants divided into five groups and took part in role-playing land use negotiations, then came up with various proposals to address the difficult land policy issues facing the SSSCZ. The gaming simulation methodology was first introduced to China by Dutch scholars through two training courses organized by the PLC and the Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School in 2018.

Each year, the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) offers a weeklong “Training the Trainers” course, with the goal of convening scholars and practitioners who can use the knowledge they gain to inform and develop materials for use in graduate and continuing education programs. The subject of the course varies, often targeting needs relevant to current policy reforms. Learn more about the PLC and its programs. 

Katharine Wroth is the editor of Land Lines.

Photograph: Training the Trainers course participants learn about urban planning strategies and challenges in China’s Shenzhen-Shanwei Special Cooperation Zone. Credit: Shenmin Liu. 

City planners are emerging from behind the scenes to help address some of society’s most complex challenges, including building equity and fighting racism. This summer a coalition of planners came together to acknowledge past discrimination in urban development policies and commit to becoming “change agents” to help create more racially equitable communities.

The new approach starts with a better community engagement process, says Eleanor Sharpe, executive director at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and a coauthor of the newly released Commitment to Change. Sharpe is one of 20 urban planners across the United States who have signed the statement; the group is inviting other planning directors, in cities and towns of all sizes, to sign on.

Sharpe joined Andrea Durbin, director of planning and sustainability for the city of Portland, Oregon, and a fellow signatory, on Land Matters, the podcast of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Sharpe and her colleagues have embraced the idea of “moving at the speed of trust,” she says, describing the process as “very slow, very intentional, very careful listening, hearing, learning. . . . We want to amplify the lived experience of the people, and that this is not just solely professional planners who are making determinations.”

The planners’ initiative is part of a reckoning about structural racism in American society—economic forces, institutions, and interactions that have discrimination baked in. That includes buying a home, for example, because of racial covenants and the practice of redlining, which saw federal lending guidelines deny loans to those in neighborhoods with people of color or immigrants. Such policies denied the wealth that comes with homeownership—an impact felt over generations.

Governments implemented other harmful policies: the bulldozing of Black neighborhoods during the time of urban renewal; plowing freeways through those same neighborhoods, casting shadows and blighting everything nearby; setting zoning to favor the white and wealthy in single-family homes; and designing poor-quality public housing in isolated locations.

The harsh treatment of these communities “wasn’t an afterthought,” said Sharpe. “It was deliberate.”

Although city planners were not directly or solely responsible for each of those decisions, the planning profession has been in some ways complicit in setting the stage for racial segregation, according to the planners’ statement.
 
“We’ve seen the impacts of past policies across our nation,” says Durbin. “The planning directors that we’re working with are coming together and saying . . . that we need to recognize that, we need to own that, acknowledge it, and make changes.”

Joining several other cities, Portland recently banned zoning that allows only single-family houses, opening the way for more affordable multi-family housing in prime neighborhoods. “Our first zoning code was adopted in 1924, and back then, single-family zoning was applied to the 15 highest quality neighborhoods . . . embedding exclusionary practices into our zoning policies from the very beginning,” Durbin says. “These are areas that are near transit and other key amenities, good schools. We needed to provide more [housing] choices for our residents.”

This kind of work can be fraught. Cities that change zoning to encourage more housing development, or take advantage of federal funding to dismantle urban freeways, face the specter of fueling gentrification.

“This is the ultimate conundrum, especially in cities that have challenging areas of poverty and disenfranchisement—the fear [that] any improvement will result in a completely new population moving in, displacing the existing population, some of whom have lived in these areas through all its challenges,” Sharpe says.

The planners acknowledge they are stepping out with more prominence than has generally been the case for the profession, but they say the moment calls for a new approach.

“We just need to flip the script,” says Durbin. “The question is, how do we use our tools, land use planning, zoning tools to advance racial equity, build community wealth, increase economic opportunities for Black, Indigenous, and communities of color? We need to be intentional about who benefits, who’s burdened, and ensure that community benefits and public good are centered in our planning processes, and that we’re planning for those who’ve been most underserved.” 

The new initiative emerged from a network of planners from major U.S. cities, who convene each year to exchange ideas, with facilitation by the Lincoln Institute, the American Planning Association, and the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. In this 75th anniversary year—the Lincoln Institute started as the Lincoln Foundation in 1946—the Lincoln Institute is exploring how this program and others have evolved over the years, and how they are being applied now to some of the world’s most pressing challenges.

You can listen to the show and subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor of Land Lines.

Lead Photograph: Eleanor Sharpe, executive director at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Credit: Altamira Film Co.

Related Content

Philadelphia 2035

Reimagine Philadelphia Steering Committee Begins Work

Philadelphia Department of Planning and Development Cultural Resources Survey Request For Qualifications

Portland 2035 Comprehensive Plan

Portland’s Residential Infill Project

Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Anti-Displacement Action Plan Foundation Report released

History of Racist Planning in Portland

American Planning Association, Equity Diversity Inclusion

Land Lines: Think Land Policy Is Unrelated to Racial Injustice? Think Again.

Land Lines: Race and Rezoning: Louisville Designs a More Equitable Future by Confronting the Past

CityLab: What It Looks Like to Reconnect Black Communities Torn Apart by Highways

Cleveland native Frank G. Jackson, the city’s longest-serving mayor, has been an advocate for building equity and opportunity in this postindustrial city since taking office in 2006. Mayor Jackson is a lifelong resident of the Central neighborhood, where he began his career in elected office as a City Council member. He later served as City Council president.

A graduate of Cleveland Public Schools, Cuyahoga Community College, and Cleveland State University—from which he earned bachelor’s, master’s, and law degrees—Jackson began his public service career as an assistant city prosecutor in the Cleveland Municipal Court Clerk’s Office.

During his tenure as mayor, Jackson has focused on helping residents and businesses benefit from investments occurring in the city and advancing the Downtown Lakefront Development Plan. He also spearheaded Sustainable Cleveland 2019, a 10-year initiative designed to build a more sustainable regional economy, encourage sustainable business practices, and improve air and water quality in this former manufacturing hub.

Mayor Jackson recently spoke with Senior Fellow Anthony Flint as part of a series of conversations with mayors of cities that are especially significant to the history of the Lincoln Institute. The series is part of the organization’s 75th anniversary celebration. An edited transcript follows; the full interview, along with others in the series, is available as a Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint: When our founder, inventor and entrepreneur John C. Lincoln, got his start in the late 1800s, Cleveland was a booming place, arguably right up there with New York and Chicago, an incredible mix of innovation and jobs and homes and neighborhoods. Could you reflect on how that legacy has been on your mind as you’ve governed Cleveland over the last 15 years?

Frank Jackson: Well, it’s always good to know history, so you can put yourself in the right frame of mind and have perspective. Cleveland was a booming place, with the Rockefellers and the [economic successes] of the Industrial Revolution . . . we were ideally located in terms of our ability to be a hub and for the distribution of goods and materials throughout the Midwest. So we reflect back on those heydays, fully recognizing that what brought us to that moment is no longer here . . . and that there needs to be a relooking at where Cleveland is now and what could position Cleveland to be in a similar situation as a hub for economic opportunity and prosperity and quality of life.

AF: At the statue in Public Square, former Mayor Tom Johnson is shown seated with his hand on a copy of Progress and Poverty by Henry George. Cleveland is where John Lincoln first heard George speak. Why do you think Cleveland was so receptive to the ideas of George, who believed the value of land should belong to everyone?

FJ: I couldn’t tell you for sure, but as you know, the body takes its direction from its head . . . and I think Tom L. Johnson was a mayor with progressive thoughts and with the fortitude to execute and implement [ideas]. So he wasn’t just a conversationalist, he actually did things.

This transition that Cleveland was in then—fast-forward, and we’re in the same transitional kind of period. The Industrial Revolution produced a certain level of prosperity and wealth, but also produced a certain social condition . . . that I believe that progressive era was attempting to change to create more equitable outcomes.

I admit, I didn’t really study Mr. George’s philosophy. But what I do understand is this progressive notion of land use, and how land should not be controlled by a few entities that determine what happens. There should be broader input into what happens on that land.

AF: As the city has steadily emerged from a period of decline and population loss during the second half of the 20th century, what have been the critical elements of its regeneration? What catalysts are you most hopeful about?

FJ: Well, it’s how you position yourself, how does Cleveland position itself for the future . . . . I look at it as, how do we have a sustainable economy? How do we deliver goods and services and how do we get into sustainable industries [like electric vehicles] . . . all of this includes technology, all of it includes education, all of it includes research and development. All these things are inclusive of each other. So there’s not just one thing we can pick and say we’re going to do.

I think we need to go back to what Mr. George was talking about, and what Tom L. Johnson was trying to do, which is to say that [progress] is only sustainable if we have equity, and if we eliminate the disparities and inequities in the way our social, political, and economic systems function. And as you know, particularly around the social unrest these days, if we fail to address issues of classism and racism, then all our efforts will be doomed.

AF: Race and economic development are very much on every mayor’s mind these days, especially now that the pandemic has revealed so much entrenched inequity. What are some of the most effective ways Cleveland has addressed historic segregation and racial disparities?

FJ: Before I answer that, let me just say that whatever we have done is not sufficient, because all of these things are institutionalized . . . . We’ve gone to the point of declaring violence and poverty as a public health issue. We’ve gone to the point of establishing a new division in the Department of Health around social justice. We’re trying to institutionalize some things.

We have also attempted to work with our private sector partners to address inequities, disparity, and racism within their organizations, helping to have a better outcome in terms of contracting for goods and services with lending institutions—even though redlining is illegal, the actual practice of how investments are made and moneys are lent and developments occur is basically redlining. So we try to work with them to help them . . . be able to take a risk where they normally would not take a risk. That can only happen if you allow for wealth to occur among those who have traditionally been denied wealth. If you have leadership and career opportunities for those who had traditionally been denied those opportunities. So those are the kinds of things that we work on.

The real thing is what is the culture of Cleveland. How does Cleveland function, and what is its attitude toward these things. And that’s a behavioral thing that bureaucracy cannot really regulate.

AF: Can you tell us about recent zoning reform measures aimed at reducing barriers to housing production and other local economic activity? How important are these rules and regulations to regeneration, and how has Cleveland made innovative use of vacant and abandoned land?

FJ: As you know, land use is key . . . . We’re moving toward having zoning more aligned with people and multiple mobility, the kind of approaches where there’s bikes, cars, scooters, walking, jogging. In that context, trying to create that type of city, it’s very important to have zoning that will accommodate that and will accommodate it in a way that [minimizes conflict].

When I first came into government, there was no new housing development in Cleveland . . . . As a result of the negative impacts of federal and state policy around redlining and urban renewal and then the social impact of riots, [we had] acres and acres of vacant land in the central city, predominantly in African-American communities . . . . Mayor [Michael White, who led the city from 1990–2001] was really a genius in this regard. He worked with the financial institutions and developers to create a network of neighborhood nonprofits whose primary purpose was to redevelop land for housing and to redevelop land at all price ranges, that would make it affordable. I’m familiar with it because I was councilman of Central, where I still live, which probably had the most negative impacts.

We continue this effort today with Recovery Act money; we’re getting $511 million and we’re working with the private sector to develop tools. We’re not talking about a project or initiative, we’re developing tools. What we’re working on now to really connect all these dots . . . a lot of that has to do with land and with the availability of land, whether it’s lakefront land or empty office space downtown or warehouses, old industrial sites that need environmental cleanup. It’s not just housing, but also, how do we create entrepreneurship, commercial strips, retail strips that still have the bones—how do we bring them back and have ownership of goods and services being provided to the community by the people in that community or someone who looks like the people of that community?

AF: Well, if there’s one thing that Cleveland has, it’s good bones, right?

FJ: That’s exactly right. One of the things that culturally came out of that period that you talked about, the heyday of Cleveland, was Severance Hall [home of the Cleveland Orchestra], the museums, the whole University Circle area . . . . Now we’re trying to use old industrial sites and lakefront or riverfront property in a new way since it’s no longer used for commerce . . . [but] a freeway, railroad tracks, those kinds of things [are] almost impossible to remove, but they’re barriers. So how do you overcome those barriers? One of the things we’re looking at is a land bridge that would allow for green space and access to the riverfront, the lakefront, and with that to always have public access and not have private ownership of the waterfront.

AF: Sounds like there’s a lot of reimagining going on.

FJ: That’s the advantage to where Cleveland is now. To have a blank canvas, so to speak, gives us that opportunity. Now the question is whether or not we mess it up . . . . I’ve maintained that whatever we do, it will never be sustainable if we don’t address the underlying issues that are really the issues of America: institutionalized inequity, disparities, racism, and classism, which has a lot to do with land.

This interview is also available as an episode of the Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute and a contributing editor to Land Lines. 

Photograph: Once an industrial powerhouse, Cleveland has had to reinvent itself after experiencing decades of economic decline during the 20th century. Credit: benkrut via iStock/Getty Images Plus.