For immediate release
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Anthony Flint 617-503-2116 firstname.lastname@example.org
Will Jason 617-503-2254 email@example.com
Greater Ohio Policy Center
Michael McGovern 937-245-1232
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (August 29, 2017) – From Gary, Indiana, to Lowell, Massachusetts, smaller post-industrial cities are taking strategic steps to regenerate – with the chance to follow their larger rebounding counterparts like Pittsburgh and Cleveland – by building on downtowns, capitalizing on a unique sense of place, and focusing on workforce development, according to a new report published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in partnership with the Greater Ohio Policy Center.
These smaller cities, with populations of 30,000 to 200,000, are reeling from the same loss of population and manufacturing jobs as Baltimore or Detroit, but they often lack the big universities, hospitals, or philanthropies that have boosted larger cities. They gained national attention when President Trump’s message resonated with voters who had long supported Democrats in cities like Scranton, Pennsylvania, hometown of former Vice President Joe Biden. Once powerhouses of the American economy, some now conjure images of abandoned steel mills and factories, and vacant houses and storefronts.
“The challenges faced by smaller legacy cities loom large in the American imagination,” authors Torey Hollingsworth and Alison Goebel of the Greater Ohio Policy Center write in Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Strategies for Postindustrial Success from Gary to Lowell. “It’s no coincidence that Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen chose Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Youngstown, Ohio, respectively, as symbols of the demise of a certain kind of American dream.”
The report makes the case for reinvesting in smaller legacy cities and explores strategies that have shown promise in some places. It examines 24 cities across seven midwestern and northeastern states: Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. It measures each city’s progress from 2000-15 using a range of indicators, from employment to population change, and describes revitalization strategies that have succeeded thus far.
The cities differ greatly – some benefit from proximity to big cities like Philadelphia and New York, while others are more isolated – but they share much in common. They are grappling with persistent poverty, inequality, and blight, which were compounded by the Great Recession. They seek to attract young professionals and startups to become affordable alternatives to hot market cities, but they also need to nurture their existing populations across all incomes and skill levels. They first rose to prosperity amid a wave of immigration, and many recognize the role of immigrants in their resurgence a century later.
“No two places are alike, but smaller legacy cities can learn from each other as they reposition themselves, whether as a regional service center, a competitor on the national or global stage, or a tourism hub,” the authors said. “They will need to build teams from the public and private sectors who share a spirit of collaboration and the will to lead their communities through a period of great transformation.”
The report recommends eight strategies for revitalization that have shown promise in some places:
- Build civic capacity and talent: Cities like South Bend, Indiana, and Hamilton, Ohio, created fellowships to place talented young workers in management-level positions in the private and public sectors, and Hamilton recruited a city manager from outside the city to change the culture of City Hall.
- Encourage a shared public- and-private-sector vision: In Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the private sector led the deployment of a plan that reimagined the city as a tourist hub, and in Grand Rapids, Michigan, business leaders created an organization that revitalized the central business district.
- Expand opportunities for low-income workers: Lima, Ohio, has created an umbrella organization to coordinate workforce development efforts, and in Syracuse, New York, the regional chamber of commerce tied a redevelopment project to high-paying jobs and skills training.
- Build on an authentic sense of place: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, converted part of a closed steel plant into an arts and cultural campus, and Scranton encouraged former residents who had moved to New York or other large cities to return home, emphasizing quality of life.
- Focus regional efforts on rebuilding a strong downtown: Syracuse prioritized downtown revitalization efforts to help create jobs and attract talented workers, and York, Pennsylvania, created a business improvement district to re-create the downtown as a retail center.
- Engage in community and strategic planning: Grand Rapids encourages neighborhoods to create plans to guide new development, while Dayton, Ohio, and Flint, Michigan, have engaged residents in tough conversations about future land use after extreme population losses.
- Stabilize distressed neighborhoods: Youngstown used data to pinpoint struggling neighborhoods and prioritize funding to triage housing in poor condition.
- Strategically leverage state policies: Ohio authorized counties to create local land banks to respond to the vacancy and foreclosure crisis, and Massachusetts is collaborating with a statewide think tank to direct resources to targeted legacy cities.
Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities is a follow-up to the Lincoln Institute’s 2013 report, Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities, which focuses on larger cities such as Detroit, Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. It marks the latest step in the Lincoln Institute’s ongoing initiative to help build the capacity of legacy cities to thrive in the 21st century, and to ensure that all residents enjoy the benefits of revitalization.
About the Authors
Torey Hollingsworth is the manager of research and policy at Greater Ohio Policy Center, where she manages and carries out research projects, contributes to policy development, and works with partner organizations statewide. Her current work focuses on understanding the challenges and opportunities for revitalization in Ohio’s smaller legacy cities, and she is the author of multiple reports on the topic. She previously worked on community reinvestment and housing policy on the federal level. She holds a master’s in city and regional planning from The Ohio State University and a bachelor’s in anthropology from the University of Chicago.
Alison Goebel is executive director of the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She is responsible for charting the center’s strategic direction, directing the research, advocacy, and outreach teams, and securing resources for this work. She is the author of a number of research reports and policy briefs related to the revitalization of weak-market cities, transportation funding, and local governance structures in Ohio. She holds a doctorate and a master’s in anthropology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and a bachelor’s from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.
About Greater Ohio Policy Center
Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in Columbus and operating statewide, develops and advances policies and practices that value our urban cores and metropolitan regions as economic drivers and preserve Ohio’s open space and farmland. Through education, research, and outreach, GOPC strives to create a political and policy climate receptive to new economic and governmental structures that advance sustainable development and economic growth.
About the Lincoln Institute
The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy seeks to improve quality of life through the effective use, taxation, and stewardship of land. A nonprofit private operating foundation whose origins date to 1946, the Lincoln Institute researches and recommends creative approaches to land as a solution to economic, social, and environmental challenges. Through education, training, publications, and events, we integrate theory and practice to inform public policy decisions worldwide.