June Thomas, UM Taubman College of Architecture + Urban Planning, Wolverine Caucus power point presentation. 2/12/10

1. Urban Revitalization:
Rationale and Status
Wolverine Caucus
February 12, 2010
June Manning Thomas, Ph.D., FAICP
Centennial Professor
Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning
The University of Michigan

2. Overview
• The importance of cities
• Implications of city underdevelopment
• The status of cities and metropolitan areas in
Michigan
• Michigan’s policy response

3. Why are Cities Important?
• Traditional wisdom (cities are no longer
needed) turned out to be wrong
• Recent thinking
– Saskia Sassen
– Michael Porter
– Richard Florida
– Terry Clark
– Thomas Hutton
Vancouver, B. C.

4. The Importance of Cities
• Cities are essential for economic
functions in the global “new
economy,” because of
• The nature of advanced services,
• Both social and economic
agglomeration, and
• Resulting attraction of key
populations and economic activities. Vancouver, B.C.
• They are also an effective way to
safeguard public investment in
infrastructure, and help ensure
• Both social equity and
environmental sustainability.

5. Implications of City
Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key
factor in economic development.

6. City of Chicago Population Change
1980‐2006; Positive Effects of Hispanics
3500000
3 million
3000000
2500000
2000000
Total
White
Hispanic
Black
1500000
1000000
500000
0
1980 1990 2000 2006 2006
1980 1990 2000
Source: U. S. Census. White and black population
numbers have declined steadily.

7. Implications of City
Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key
factor in economic development.
• Constantly increasing development of urban
land and cost of infrastructure improvement
on the fringes.

8. Population Static but Land Use
Increases, S.E. Michigan
1990 2000 % Change
Undeveloped 2,018,784 1,855,150 ‐8.1
Land
Developed 926,486 1,090,120 17.7
Land
% Developed 31.5 37.0 17.7
Population 4,590,468 4,833,493 5.2
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), “Land Use in Southeast
MI: Regional Summary,” April 2004

9. Metro Detroit, 1965‐2020
SEMCOG, 1995
Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, “Land Use and Land
Development in Southeast Michigan,” March 1999

10. Metro Detroit, 1990‐2030
SEMCOG 2000
Source: SEMCOG, at http://www.semcog.org/data.aspx?id=4614&terms=Developed+Land+1990+2030. Accessed Feb ‘10

11. Selected City Population Decline, MI
Cities vs. Their Counties 2000‐2005
Ann Arbor
Detroit
Kalamazoo
Muskegon
Source: Michigan Higher Education Land Policy Consortium (MIHELP), “State of Michigan
Cities: An Index of Urban Prosperity,” February 2007.

12. Implications of City
Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key
factor in economic development.
• Constantly increasing development of urban
land and cost of infrastructure improvement
on the fringes.
• Fiscal crisis. Example: Roads.

13. Inability to Match Federal Aid
MDOT Highway and Maintenance Program
State Revenue Shortfall and Federal Aid Lost
* Resulting program amount with declining state revenues and inability to match federal
aid.
MDOT 2009

14. 2010 Is the Last Year We Will Be Able to Fully Match
Federal Funding for Highway and Maintenance
Program.
MDOT 2009

15. Implications of City
Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key
factor in economic development.
• Constantly increasing development of urban
land and cost of infrastructure improvement
on the fringes.
• Fiscal crisis. Example: Roads. Another ex.:
fiscal crisis for diverse municipalities.

16. Detroit metro tax base vs. change in
tax base
Myron Orfield and Thomas Luce, “Michigan Metropatterns: A Regional Agenda,” 2003.
http://www.ameregis.com/maps/region_maps/michigan_1c.pdf

17. Implications of City
Underdevelopment
• Inability to attract recent immigrants, a key factor
in economic development.
• Constantly increasing development of urban land
and cost of infrastructure improvement on the
fringes.
• Fiscal crisis. Example: Roads. Another ex.: fiscal
crisis for diverse municipalities.
• Hindrances in ability to attract “new economy,”
increase employment.
• Debilitating inequities, abandonment, decay.

19. Michigan’s Policy Responses
• 1977: “Cities in Transition: Report of the
Urban Action group to Michigan Gov. William
G. Milliken”
• 1990 catalog of “Working with our Cities”
• 2003 Michigan Land Use Leadership Council
(MLULC) and related initiatives

20. Some Key Theories about the Best
State Actions
• The Orfield Approach
• The Vey and Brookings Institute Approach
• The Creative Cities Approach
• The Land Use Approach

21. Key Theories about Best State Actions:
Strengths, Shortcomings
• The Orfield/ Vey Approach—tax reform,
regional land use planning, metropolitan
partnerships, and (Vey, Brookings) major
central‐city and human investment initiatives
• The Creative‐class Cities Approach—attract
creative class, young people, creative activities
• The Land Use Approach—improve land use, in
particular via urban containment or “smart
growth”

22. 2003 Michigan Land Use Leadership
Council
Looked at four major areas; specific
recommendations for change:
– Urban revitalization
– Land resource‐based industries
– Planning and development legislation
– Infrastructure and community services

23. Summary of 2003 MLULC Recommendations for
Urban Revitalization “Fully addressed”
ORIGINAL MLULC RECOMMENDATIONS Implementation
•Site additional public offices in already‐ Yes
urbanized areas
•Establish a technical assistance capacity in Yes, CAT
state government for urban revitalization
(community assistance)
•Reuse of brownfields P.A. 252, 253, ‘03
•Land Bank Fast Track Authority P.A. 258‐263, ’03
•Promote reuse of historic buildings P.A.s 2008
•Urban blight legislation P.A. 316‐21, ’03

24. Summary of 2003 MLULC Recommendations for
Urban Revitalization “Fully addressed”
ORIGINAL MLULC RECOMMENDATIONS Implementation
•Site additional public offices in already‐urbanized areas Yes
•Establish a technical assistance capacity in state govt for urban Yes, CAT
revitalization (community assistance)
•Reuse of brownfields P.A. 252, 253, ‘03
•Land Bank Fast Track Authority P.A. 258‐263, ‘03
•Promote reuse of historic buildings P.A.s 2008
•Urban blight legislation P.A. 316‐21, ’03
•Housing and Community Development Trust Fund .
•Michigan IDA for home ownership .
•Safe Routes to School .
•Cool Cities and related actions
•Neighborhood Enterprise Zone amended
Source: Kellogg “People and Land” tally, MLULC web page,
Updated March 3, 2009; accessed Feb. 2010
http://www.peopleandland.org/MLULC_Recommendations/index.cfm

25. MLULC Land Use Recommendations
Overall (Four Categories)
RECOMMENDATIONS NUMBER
ADDRESSED BY MARCH 2009
FULLY 22
PARTIALLY 39
IN PROGRESS 3
NOT ADDRESSED 149
Source: Kellogg Foundation “People and Land” tally, MLULC web page, updated March
2009, accessed February 2010.
http://www.peopleandland.org/MLULC_Recommendations/index.cfm

26. Key Theories about Best State Actions:
Michigan’s Record Reviewed
• The Orfield/ Vey Approach—tax reform, regional land use
planning, metropolitan partnerships, and major central‐city
and human investment initiatives
• The Creative‐class Cities Approach—attract creative class,
young people, creative activities
• The Land Use Approach—improve land use, in particular via
urban containment or “smart growth”
More detail: June M. Thomas, “Michigan’s Urban Policies in
an Era of Land Use Reform and Creative‐class Cities,” in
Richard Jelier and Gary Sands, editors, Sustaining Michigan:
Metropolitan Policies and Strategies (East Lansing:
Michigan State University Press, 2009), pp. 261‐80.

27. Conclusions
• Cities are important in
the new global
economy
• Many of Michigan’s
cities are suffering
• Actions thus far are not
addressing the problem
sufficiently