Affordable Housing in US Shrinking Cities: From Neighborhoods of Despair to Neighborhoods of Opportunity? 9781447327592

Citation preview

R O B E RT M A R K S I LV E R M A N K E L LY L . PAT T E R S O N L I Y I N & M O L LY R A N A H A N

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN US SHRINKING CITIES From neighborhoods of despair to neighborhoods of opportunity?

POLICY PRESS

SHORTS

RESEARCH

ROBERT MARK SILVERMAN KELLY L. PATTERSON LI YIN MOLLY RANAHAN LAIYUN WU

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN US SHRINKING CITIES From neighborhoods of despair to neighborhoods of opportunity?

POLICY PRESS

RESEARCH

First published in Great Britain in 2016 by Policy Press North America office: University of Bristol Policy Press 1-9 Old Park Hill c/o The University of Chicago Press Bristol 1427 East 60th Street BS2 8BB Chicago, IL 60637, USA UK t: +1 773 702 7700 t: +44 (0)117 9​ 54 5940 f: +1 773 702 9756 [email protected] [email protected] www.policypress.co.uk www.press.uchicago.edu © Policy Press 2016 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested. ISBN 978-1-4473-2758-5 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4473-2760-8 (ePub) ISBN 978-1-4473-2761-5 (Mobi) The right of Robert Mark Silverman, Kelly L. Patterson, Li Yin, Molly Ranahan and Laiyun Wu to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Policy Press. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the author and not of the University of Bristol or Policy Press. The University of Bristol and Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design by Andrew Corbett Front cover: image kindly supplied by iStock Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners

Contents

List of tables iv List of figures vi List of acronyms viii About the authors x Acknowledgments xii Preface xiii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Social equity and siting affordable housing in shrinking cities Present-day Detroit Present-day New Orleans Present-day Cleveland Present-day Pittsburgh Present-day Buffalo, New York Lessons learned and recommendations for siting affordable housing

References Index

1 23 47 71 97 119 147 165 183

iii

List of tables

1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Population, employment, and housing characteristics of the case study cities 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for metropolitan Detroit census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for metropolitan Detroit census tracts 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for Detroit census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for Detroit census tracts 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for metropolitan New Orleans census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for metropolitan New Orleans census tracts 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for New Orleans census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for New Orleans census tracts 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for metropolitan Cleveland census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for metropolitan Cleveland census tracts 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for Cleveland census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for Cleveland census tracts

iv

19 26 31 37 41 51 55 62 64 74 77 86 89

LIST OF TABLES 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for metropolitan Pittsburgh census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for metropolitan Pittsburgh census tracts 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for Pittsburgh census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for Pittsburgh census tracts 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for metropolitan Buffalo census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for metropolitan Buffalo census tracts 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for Buffalo census tracts 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for Buffalo census tracts

v

100 103 109 112 122 126 135 138

List of figures

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Detroit’s Midtown neighborhood Percent of total housing units HUD subsidized, City of Detroit Percent of subsidized units from the HCV program, City of Detroit Percent of subsidized units that were traditional public housing, City of Detroit Percent of subsidized units from the Section 236 program, City of Detroit Percent of subsidized units from the Section 8 NCSR program, City of Detroit The New Orleans downtown medical district Percent of total housing units HUD subsidized, City of New Orleans Percent of subsidized units from the HCV program, City of New Orleans Percent of subsidized units that were traditional public housing, City of New Orleans Percent of subsidized units from the Section 236 program, City of New Orleans Percent of subsidized units from the Section 8 NCSR program, City of New Orleans Cleveland University Circle Cleveland Campus District Percent of total housing units HUD subsidized, City of Cleveland Percent of subsidized units from the HCV program, City of Cleveland Percent of subsidized units that were traditional public housing, City of Cleveland

vi

36 42 43 43 44 45 61 66 66 67 68 68 84 86 90 91 92

LIST OF FIGURES 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

Percent of subsidized units from the Section 236 program, 93 City of Cleveland Percent of subsidized units from the Section 8 NCSR program, 93 City of Cleveland The University of Pittsburgh Medical Campus (UPMC) area 108 Percent of total housing units HUD subsidized, City of Pittsburgh 113 Percent of subsidized units from the HCV program, City of Pittsburgh 114 Percent of subsidized units that were traditional public housing, 114 City of Pittsburgh Percent of subsidized units from the Section 236 program, 115 City of Pittsburgh Percent of subsidized units from the Section 8 NCSR program, 116 City of Pittsburgh The Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus (BNMC) area 134 Percent of total housing units HUD subsidized, City of Buffalo 139 Percent of subsidized units from the HCV program, City of Buffalo 140 Percent of subsidized units that were traditional public housing, 142 City of Buffalo Percent of subsidized units from the Section 236 program, City of Buffalo 143 Percent of subsidized units from the Section 8 NCSR program, City of Buffalo 144

vii

List of acronyms

ACA AFFH AYP BNMC BPS CBA CDC CDI CHC CHN DOE eGIS GAO HCV HOME HSM HUD LISC NCSR NHL NPI OPEC

Affordable Care Act affirmatively further fair housing adequate yearly progress Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus Buffalo Public Schools community benefits agreement community development corporation Campus District Inc. Greater Buffalo Community Housing Center Cleveland Housing Network US Department of Education enterprise geographic information system United States Government Accountability Office Housing Choice Voucher program Housing Opportunities Made Equal housing suitability model US Department of Housing and Urban Development Local Initiatives Support Corporation Section 8 new construction and substantial rehabilitation program National Hockey League Neighborhoods Progress Inc. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

PHA PPGIS UCI UN UPMC

Public Housing Authority public participation geographic information system University Circle Inc. United Nations University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

ix

About the authors

Kelly L. Patterson is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at the University at Buffalo. Her research focuses on rent vouchers, fair housing, discrimination, social policy, and the African American experience. She has published in the Journal of Community Practice, Journal of Urban Affairs, Housing Policy Debate, Housing and Society, Journal of Social Service Research, Journal of Black Psychology, and other peer reviewed journals. She is co-author of Qualitative Research Methods for Community Development (Routledge, 2015). She is also co-editor of Schools and Urban Revitalization: Rethinking Institutions and Community Development (Routledge, 2013) and Fair and Affordable Housing in the US: Trends, Outcomes, Future Directions (Brill, 2011). Molly Ranahan is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University at Buffalo. Her research focuses on aging and housing needs across the life course in LGBT communities. She also studies urban planning strategies for inclusive design and equity planning, and linked community development policies. Robert Mark Silverman is a Professor and Ph.D. program director in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University at Buffalo. His research focuses on community development, the nonprofit sector, community-based organizations, education reform, and inequality in inner-city housing markets. He has published in Urban

x

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Affairs Review, Urban Studies, Urban Education, National Civic Review, Action Research, Community Development, Journal of Black Studies, Journal of Social History, and other peer reviewed journals. He is co-author of Qualitative Research Methods for Community Development (Routledge, 2015). He is co-editor of Schools and Urban Revitalization: Rethinking Institutions and Community Development (Routledge, 2013) and Fair and Affordable Housing in the US: Trends, Outcomes, Future Directions (Brill, 2011). He is also editor of Community-Based Organizations: The Intersection of Social Capital and Local Context in Contemporary Urban Society (Wayne State University Press, 2004). Li Yin is an Associate Professor and Director of the GIS and Spatial Modeling specialization in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University at Buffalo. Her research focuses on practical applications of spatial models, joining amenities and location theory with applied GIS and simulation methods. She studies the impact of amenities on urban growth and the built environment to help understand location choices and the dynamics of growth and decline. She has published in the Journal of Urban Affairs, Applied Geography, Urban Studies, Environment and Planning B, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, and other peer reviewed journals. Laiyun Wu is a doctoral student in the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University at Buffalo. His research interests focus on distressed urban neighborhoods, transportation planning, and shrinking cities. He applies spatial modeling, GIS analysis, and other planning methods to his research. He has published in the Journal of Community Practice, Community Development, and other peer reviewed journals.

xi

Acknowledgments

The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under a grant with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The authors are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the government.

xii

Preface

This book grew out of research conducted for our 2013 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities Research Grant (SCRG) titled, “Sustainable affordable housing in shrinking US cities: Developing an analytic tool for siting subsidized housing and evaluating HUD program outcomes.” In that study we developed a comprehensive database for the ten metropolitan regions which contained the fastest shrinking core cities in the US between 2000 and 2010. The cities included: Buffalo, NY; Cleveland, OH; Dayton, OH; Cincinnati, OH; Youngstown, OH; Toledo, OH, Detroit, MI; Pittsburgh, PA; Birmingham, AL; and New Orleans, LA (Frey 2012). Our database included measures of: population and housing characteristics, school performance, transit access, neighborhood amenities, anchor institutions, local job bases, and other spatial attributes. One goal of the project was to identify criteria for siting affordable housing in shrinking cities. Our focus was on identifying emerging neighborhoods of opportunity where sustainable affordable housing could be developed. Through the course of doing that research we learned that the siting of affordable housing is a context-specific process. Although general patterns for siting affordable housing were identified across the cities we examined (Silverman et al 2015b), the criteria for identifying the institutional composition of emerging neighborhoods of opportunity was dictated by local conditions in each core city. This finding led us to reconsider our recommendations for how local

xiii

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

communities approach the siting of affordable housing. Rather than recommending that those processes be driven by a general housing suitability model (HSM), we moved in the direction of recommending that siting decisions be driven by a grassroots decision-making process informed by open source data. The mechanics of this process are outlined in the final chapter of this book. Another dimension of our research involved the identification of boundaries for neighborhoods of opportunity in shrinking cities. Through our analysis, we became increasingly aware of how these boundaries were shaped by development initiatives pursued by anchor institutions in those cities. Historically, the exact make-up of anchor institutions has ebbed and flowed between coalitions of actors from: private industry, local government, philanthropic organizations, hospitals, institutions of higher education, and other local institutions. However, the boundaries of emerging neighborhoods of opportunity tended to form in proximity to the anchor institutions engaged in local economic development activities. In the contemporary period, the most visible example of the nexus between anchor-based development and emergent neighborhoods of opportunity was the eds and meds strategy for urban revitalization. This strategy linked revitalization efforts to the expansion and upgrading of university and medical campuses. Regardless of contextual distinctions between shrinking cities, each of the cities examined in this book followed an eds and meds strategy in its efforts to create neighborhoods of opportunity. This book was written to explore the context-specific aspects of urban revitalization in shrinking cities with a particular focus on how affordable housing fits into anchor-based urban revitalization strategies. To achieve this goal, we shifted our focus from aggregate analysis to broader descriptions of individual case studies of shrinking cities. The case study approach highlights the nuances of urban revitalization across the cities examined. It also emphasizes the need for local context to be central to the process-driven equity-based model for siting affordable housing that we recommend at the end of the book. Although the individual case studies will be of interest to scholars and practitioners based in the respective cities that they examine, we believe the lessons

xiv

PREFACE

identified across them form the foundation for the adoption of the approach to siting affordable housing recommended in the final chapter of the book. The strengths of this approach are that it focuses on: increasing the level of transparency in local decision making related to urban revitalization, using open-source data and evidence-based approaches in deliberations about local development policy, and empowering disenfranchised groups in negotiations designed to link community benefits to anchor-based development. Robert Mark Silverman, Kelly L. Patterson, Li Yin, Molly Ranahan, Laiyun Wu, March 2016

xv

1

SOCIAL EQUITY AND SITING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SHRINKING CITIES Introduction This introductory chapter provides an overview of issues concerning social equity in the siting of affordable housing in US shrinking cities. The chapter begins with a discussion of US shrinking cities in the context of globalization. This discussion highlights how the sustained decline of older industrial cities in the US is the byproduct of their increased integration in the global economy. After establishing the emergence of US shrinking cities as a byproduct of globalization, the chapter turns to a discussion of the shift from an urban growth paradigm to one based on rightsizing in US shrinking cities. This discussion argues that globalization has led to the breakdown of urban growth regimes in shrinking cities and they are being replaced by rightsizing regimes led by hospitals, universities, and other nonprofit anchor institutions. In response to sustained shrinking, these rightsizing regimes adopt place-based urban revitalization strategies which focus on concentrating urban development in areas near anchor institutions. The chapter then turns to a more focused discussion on emerging equity issues associated with rightsizing in shrinking cities. Empirical

1

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

research examining the distribution of benefits that grow out of anchor-based revitalization is surveyed, with a specific focus on the implications of rightsizing for minority and low-income residents of inner-city neighborhoods. This discussion identifies the preservation and development of affordable housing as a linchpin for equitable anchor-based urban revitalization. In addition to identifying the provision of affordable housing as an essential ingredient in equitable anchor-based strategies, emerging tools for siting affordable housing are examined. The final section of the chapter outlines the remainder of the book. It includes summaries of Chapters 2 through 6, which include case studies of: Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. Each case study examines the relationship between emerging anchor-based strategies and a city’s distribution of governmentsubsidized housing. After presenting the case studies, the final chapter elaborates upon tools for siting affordable housing in US shrinking cities.

US shrinking cities in a global context The proliferation of shrinking cities is a global phenomenon. It is found in places experiencing sustained population decline coupled with the deterioration of the built environment. Although the processes driving urban decline differ from place to place, shrinking typically involves: the loss of manufacturing and industrial employment, population contraction and demographic change, increases in vacant and abandoned property, weakening public finance systems, shifting local governance structures, and a lack of sufficient policy and planning tools needed to address urban decline (Großmann et al 2012; Haase et al 2014). Shrinking is most visible in cities with economies that have historically been dependent on manufacturing employment. As global production has become more integrated, older centers of production have lost industry and employment to new manufacturing hubs where: labor costs are lower, government incentives are more generous, environmental regulations are less stringent, and other

2

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

conditions are more attractive to business interests (Bluestone and Harrison 1984; Sassen 1990). Cities left behind by globalization are at a distinct disadvantage. Unlike global cites that have emerged as hubs for financial services, banking, real estate, and trade (Sassen 1992; Abrahamson 2004), shrinking cities have lost their economic base and are left with few options to replace it. The body of scholarship focused on shrinking cities in a global context has explored a spectrum of issues related to declining urban areas in Europe, the United States, Latin America, Asia, Africa, and other parts of the developed and developing world (Pallagst et al 2009; Martinez-Fernandez et al 2012; Pallagst et al 2014; Richardson and Nam 2014). The overarching theme that cuts across this body of work is that shrinking cities in the global North and South are subsumed by an increasingly integrated system of global production. More and more, the fate of cities is tied to their position in the broader system of global production. Consequently, urban decline is no longer viewed as a cyclical process that ebbs and flows with regional and national economic trends. Instead, it is a more sustained phenomenon. Once it takes hold, the downward trajectory for a shrinking city becomes self-perpetuating. Economic decline and fiscal stress lead to population losses and the decay of the built environment. As a result, shrinking cities become increasingly impoverished and distressed. As private investment and the flow of capital slows, residents who possess more human capital and financial resources leave.

Shrinking cities and the demise of American exceptionalism Although the emergence of shrinking cities is a global phenomenon, the appearance of a subgroup of cities experiencing sustained decline presents the US with a particular set of challenges. Historically, the US has been relatively insulated from socio-political critique due to: its genesis as an experiment in democratic governance during the Enlightenment, its robust economic growth during the Industrial Revolution, and its emergence as a hegemon during the Cold War. However, economic globalization and the phenomenon of shrinking

3

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

cities in the US suggests that the chapter of American exceptionalism described by de Tocqueville (2000) and contemporary scholars like Lipset (1997) has come to a close. Under globalization, the presence of shrinking cities highlights the contradictions of the culture of American exceptionalism that is argued to be rooted in: democracy, universal rights, individualism, egalitarianism, meritocracy, and economic liberalism. Shrinking cities expose the soft underbelly of globalization in the global North and South. Their presence, and the contradictions they entail, are visible in all countries. This is particularly true in the case of the US, since it is consistently listed by the World Bank as the country with the largest gross domestic product (GDP) and it is arguably the richest economy in the world. Despite the country’s relative wealth, there is rising concern about growing income inequality within the US (Heathcoate et al 2010; Stiglitz 2013; Thompson and Smeeding 2013). This inequality is magnified across race lines and it plays out geographically due to entrenched patterns of segregation in the US (Lipsitz 2011; Troutt 2014). Urban decline, physical decay, poverty, the ghettoization of the poor, retrenchment in the social welfare system, failing urban schools, and weakened local governance structures are often associated with US shrinking cities. Despite its growing visibility, shrinking is an uneven process in urban America. At the metropolitan level, there is a geographic imbalance between central cities and their suburbs, since core cities tend to decline while their surrounding suburbs remain relatively stable. More striking, shrinking takes place unevenly within core cites. In the contemporary context, patterns of investment and decline occur unevenly inside of US cities. Often, segregated inner-city neighborhoods experience the most acute impacts of shrinkage, while revitalization is concentrated in the gentrifying downtowns and civic centers. In the past, scholars have identified the imbalance between public investments in downtown areas and surrounding inner-city neighborhoods (Squires 1989; Kotler 2005; Squires and Kubrin 2005). This imbalance remains and is most visible in shrinking cities. Adams (2014) described how shrinking exacerbated spatial inequality

4

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

in Philadelphia since it created incentives to concentrate urban revitalization efforts near the city’s civic center. This led to increased gentrification of the city’s downtown and a growing schism between it and racially segregated, inner-city neighborhoods. Silverman et al (2013) observed a similar pattern in Buffalo and argued that a distinct form of rightsizing was occurring in the city where new development was concentrated near the urban core while vacant and abandoned properties proliferated in segregated, inner-city neighborhoods.

Emerging urban revitalization patterns in shrinking US cities The rightsizing paradigm and regime change The proliferation of shrinking cities has prompted planners and policy makers in the US to reconsider the urban growth paradigm (Greer 1962; Molotch 1976; Logan and Molotch 1987; Gottdiener 1994; Wilson and Jonas 1999; Dreier et al 2013). This paradigm emerged during the postwar era and it predicted relatively unfettered urban development which was only limited by fiscal constraints brought on by: cyclical downturns in the economy, underdeveloped systems of urban governance, environmental degradation, and resistance by antigrowth coalitions. Despite the resilience of the urban growth paradigm, there is a growing consensus that there is a need to shift away from it in shrinking cities and toward more appropriate strategies based on rightsizing (Shilling and Logan 2008; Hollinder 2010; Silverman et al 2015a). The guiding principle behind rightsizing is that there is an oversupply of land and supportive infrastructure in shrinking cities. As populations decline and municipal tax bases contract, cities lose the capacity to provide public services and maintain infrastructure within their existing geographic boundaries. In response, rightsizing calls for shrinking cities to reduce their development boundaries. Shrinking the development footprint of a city becomes a tool to ration scarce resources and deliver vital services to a smaller population. From a policy perspective, rightsizing strategies entail policy decisions focusing on actions like: changes to existing zoning

5

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

and land-use regulations, the removal of infrastructure, land banking, placing moratoriums on development in declining areas, and other proactive measures to address population decline and neighborhood abandonment (National Vacant Properties Campaign 2006; Schilling and Logan 2008; Shetty 2009; Anderson 2011; Mallach 2012; Dewar et al 2013; Schatz 2013; Thomas 2013; Hackworth 2014; Hummel 2015). The goal of such policies is to create a smaller, more sustainable footprint for development that takes long-term population decline into account. Rightsizing also entails a shift toward other planning imperatives focused on sustainable development, such as the expansion of: green infrastructure, renewable energy, mixed-use development, walkable neighborhoods, recreational amenities, and the preservation of parks and greenspace. Taken as a whole, rightsizing represents a paradigm shift that focuses on re-scaling the scope of urban development and enhancing the quality of life. Under the rightsizing paradigm, urban revitalization takes on a distinct form in shrinking cities. It focuses on targeting public, private, and nonprofit resources to stimulate revitalization around dense nodes of development. By focusing revitalization efforts in geographically centralized nodes, public sector improvements to infrastructure, transit, parks, and other neighborhood amenities can be coordinated with private and nonprofit investments. This place-based urban revitalization strategy targets investments near large institutions and infrastructure hubs in order to produce planning outcomes that promote things like: transit oriented development, the conversion of public housing and vacant property into mixed-income developments, and other mixeduse development projects (Center for Transit Oriented Development 2007; Joseph et al 2007; Cisneros et al 2009; Cowell and Mayer 2013; Vidal 2013). A distinguishing feature of this revitalization strategy is that it coordinates development efforts across the public, private, and nonprofit sectors in order to increase neighborhood density within the boundaries of a smaller urban footprint. The rightsizing paradigm is also distinguished from the urban growth paradigm, since it is driven by a different type of regime. Molotch (1976) and others argued that urban development was driven

6

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

by a growth regime composed of: private real estate developers, local elected officials, organized labor, local industry, and the local media. These groups formed growth regimes that benefited from urban growth and population expansion. Population growth and real estate development increased the size of: the skilled labor force, the public sector workforce, political constituencies, and consumer markets for locally produced goods and services. However, the growth coalition became unstable with the expansion of the global economy. In a globalized context, local industry was integrated in the system of global production. As a result, it was no longer place-based or dependent on local markets for its survival. The globalization of production also decoupled industry from urban regimes, decreasing incentives to collaborate with other members of traditional growth coalitions. The decline of urban growth regimes in shrinking cities created a vacuum in local leadership, which is being filled by emerging rightsizing coalitions. These coalitions are led by larger nonprofits like hospitals, universities, cultural institutions, and local foundations. These nonprofits are critical anchor institutions in shrinking cities, since they are place-based and lack the same level of geographic mobility associated with private firms. Thus, they have a vested interest in pursuing urban revitalization in areas near their offices, facilities, physical plants, and campuses. In her research, Birch (2009) discusses the emergence of urban regimes led by nonprofit anchor institutions, and she argues that rightsizing in older American cities is driven by them. According to Birch (2009: 149): The new paradigm for downtown (dense, walkable, mixed use with a heavy component of housing) is quite established in many of the nation’s cities. While this downtown still has considerable commercial activity, its employment base is more diverse, with jobs in anchor institutions (universities; hospitals; and entertainment including arts, culture, and sports) rising as a proportion of the total.The residential component has become significant and is shaping the demand for neighborhood-serving retail, schools, and open space.

7

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

The rightsizing paradigm places nonprofit anchor institutions at the center of the contemporary urban revitalization process. According to Rae (2006), the ascent of regimes led by anchor institutions represents a shift away from urban policies that dispersed development across the metropolitan landscape to policies focused on channeling investments into dense nodes surrounding anchor institutions. This regime change entails an emergent downtown comprised of anchor-based employment centers, gentrifying residential neighborhoods, linked entertainment and recreational amenities, and supportive infrastructure.

Eds and meds Urban revitalization projects linked to the expansion and upgrading of university and medical campuses are among the most mentioned forms of anchor-based development in the US (Harkavy and Zuckerman 1999; Adams 2003; Bartik and Erickcek 2008; Birch 2010; Hobor 2013; Mallach and Brachman 2013). Some examples of this form of redevelopment include: the Yale–New Haven hospital expansion project (Daniel and Schons 2010), hospital and university expansion in Philadelphia (Adams 2003; 2014), the expansion of Columbia University in the Bronx (Hirokawa and Sarkin 2010; Gregory 2013); and the expansion of the University of Illinois – Chicago’s campus (Perry et al 2009). In shrinking US cities like the ones examined in this book, the eds and meds strategy has emerged as a blueprint for urban regeneration (Deitrick and Briem 2007; Nelson 2009; Gaffikin and Perry 2012; Vidal 2013; Silverman et al 2014; Piiparinen et al 2015). Hospitals, universities and other anchor institutions have been identified as core actors in urban revitalization (Gaffikin and Perry 2012). They are considered to be uniquely positioned to lead innercity revitalization efforts due to their substantial investments in urban real estate and their vested interest in promoting redevelopment. The eds and meds strategy, and anchor-based revitalization more generally, has been portrayed as a relatively benevolent process. For instance, Gaffikin and Perry (2012: 718) portray anchor institutions as “civic ambassadors”, with an “interdisciplinary capacity that permits

8

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

a multidimensional civic participation.” Some, like Imbroscio (2013) and Lenihan (2014), go even further, arguing that eds and meds revitalization strategies can foster the creation of worker-owned cooperatives and other community benefits. More conventional analyses of the impact of hospitals and universities on urban economic development have also focused on employment and wage benefits that anchor institutions bring to metropolitan areas (Harkavy and Zuckerman,1999; Bartik and Erickcek 2008). However, many of these studies lack a critical assessment of the impact of anchor institutions on the distribution of costs and benefits resulting from urban revitalization. This is particularly noticeable when development initiatives are led by hospitals and universities. The underlying assumption is that the benefits of urban revitalization efforts that follow the eds and meds strategy will trickle down to inner-city residents. An emerging body of empirical research has begun to evaluate the eds and meds strategy more systematically. On balance, these works suggest that the benefits from anchor-led urban revitalization are not as far reaching as proponents suggest. For instance, Deitrick and Briem (2007) examined the concentration of tax exempt properties associated with eds and meds revitalization in Pittsburgh. They concluded that the tax exempt status of many nodes for new development had weakened the broader municipal tax base and increased stress on the delivery of local public services and social welfare programs. Similarly, Nelson (2009) suggested that the development of specialized hospitals targeting non-residents seeking state-of-the-art medical treatments could reduce access to general health care services for local indigent populations. She found that in New Orleans, the growth of export oriented medical services placed the availability of emergency services to under-insured or indigent local populations at risk. Daniel and Schons (2010) examined the Yale–New Haven eds and meds strategy and found only anecdotal evidence of employment gains, enhanced services, and other benefits spilling over to neighborhoods surrounding areas where urban revitalization was pursued. Silverman et al (2014) analyzed the planning process for university-led medical campus expansion in Buffalo and concluded that it was mired by grassroots

9

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

concerns about gentrification, residential displacement, and the lack of community benefits that anchor-based revitalization would bring. On a broader scale, there is growing concern about the applicability of the eds and meds strategy to shrinking cities. Renn (2012), Chatterji (2013), Florida (2013), and Russell (2013) suggest that the eds and meds strategy has peaked, and its potential as a driver for economic development in the future is limited due to growing pressures from government and the general public to reduce the cost of health care and higher education. From this perspective, cities like Boston and Houston, with large and nationally recognized education and health care sectors are expected to reap continued benefits, while the prospects for new entries into the eds and meds arena are relatively paltry. These concerns are borne out by empirical studies. For instance, Hobor (2013) found that when the eds and meds strategy was adopted in rust belt cities that were the most negatively impacted by deindustrialization, only a subset of those cities were able to successfully implement them. In large part, successful anchor-based urban revitalization was dependent on heavy public subsidies and a critical mass of well insured pensioners who were in need of medical services. Likewise, Vidal (2013) examined the eds and meds model adopted in Detroit, a city with some of the advantages suggested by Hobor, and concluded that revitalization efforts had produced modest successes against the broader backdrop of decline in the city. What is suggested across these and other studies is that the scope of benefits produced by eds and meds revitalization is relatively circumscribed when considered in the broader context in which shrinking cities are embedded.

Siting affordable housing in neighborhoods of opportunity Addressing growing inequality Many of the emerging critiques of rightsizing and anchor-based strategies for urban revitalization have focused on concerns about growing inequality in shrinking cities. In particular, these critiques

10

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

focus on inequalities between institutions and their constituents that benefit from these strategies and groups that do not. Namely, the poor, minorities, and other disenfranchised groups that have been left out of urban revitalization processes. Inequalities that grow out of anchorbased revitalization constitute a social equity issue since many anchor institutions, particularly hospitals and universities, are heavily subsidized by the public. These subsidies take the forms of: direct infusions of funds, tax-exemptions, tuition subsidies and health care expenditures, and the underwriting of public infrastructure to support development. Because anchor institutions are heavily subsidized and embedded in the social welfare system, it is increasingly argued that they have an obligation to address the needs of the indigent. Unfortunately, this obligation is not always acknowledged or met. Recent changes to policies in the US have begun to identify the need to increase the level of anchor institution accountability and responsiveness to underserved constituencies in the communities they serve. For example, the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) included requirements for nonprofit hospitals to conduct community health needs assessments every three years and identify strategies to meet the health needs of indigent groups in their service areas (Ross 2014). Similarly, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Education (DOE), and other federal agencies have added requirements that applicants to many of their grant-in-aid programs demonstrate some level of anchor institution engagement in their proposed projects in order to receive funding (Ross 2014). These changes have led to increased pressure for the development of evaluation tools to measure outcomes from anchorbased development and their impact on indigent groups. These changes have also bolstered calls from other levels of government and the grassroots for linkages between anchor-driven development and investments in affordable housing and other community benefits. Increased public interest in anchor-based development strategies reflects a growing recognition of the relationship between neighborhood stabilization and investments in the expansion of hospitals, universities, and other place-based nonprofits. This interest

11

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

has also raised concern about how equitably benefits from anchor-based development are distributed in communities targeted for downsizing and revitalization. This is a particularly salient issue in shrinking cities, since the availability of resources to deliver public services and promote economic development is more limited. Decisions by elected officials and public administrators to provide subsidies for anchor-based development are often made as an alternative to other investments and expenditures. In shrinking cities, these decisions are also increasingly made in the context of rightsizing. As a result, investments in anchor-based development strategies can aggravate inequities that exist between areas of a city slated for revitalization and others where plans for future development are not pursued due to sustained population decline and a consequent lack of market demand. For instance, Adams (2014) observed that eds and meds revitalization in Philadelphia’s civic center led to a reduction in the availability of resources for housing and community development projects in inner-city neighborhoods. This resulted in increased levels of isolation for poor and minority residents living in inner-city neighborhoods. Silverman et al (2013) came to similar conclusions and they argued that, because of this outcome, there is a need to enhance the degree to which disenfranchised groups are incorporated into decision-making processes that determine urban revitalization policies. They suggested that if public subsidies are used to support anchor-based projects, linkages should be in place to connect low-income and minority residents with jobs, educational opportunities, and other resources tied to new development. To them, the preservation and expansion of affordable housing is a critical element to include in anchor-based revitalization strategies.

Housing equity and neighborhoods of opportunity The expansion and preservation of affordable housing is a key element of equitable neighborhood revitalization. It is a foundational component that provides minority and low-income residents with access to benefits that grow out of anchor-based development

12

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

strategies. When anchor-based revitalization is pursued without an affordable housing component in place, there is an increased risk of gentrification and displacement. This risk is elevated in shrinking cities. Recent studies have found that race and income segregation are aggravated in shrinking cities (Großmann et al 2013, 2015). When anchor-driven revitalization occurs without an affordable housing plan in place, marginalized groups in the population become increasingly concentrated in peripheral, unattractive neighborhoods of shrinking cities. From an equity standpoint, the creation of sustainable affordable housing near anchor institutions is a necessary precondition for the creation of neighborhoods of opportunity in shrinking cities. This is because new development tends to cluster near anchor institutions, while inner-city neighborhoods continue to decline in shrinking cities. In this new urban landscape, it is increasingly important for affordable housing to be located near jobs, educational resources, and other anchor-based amenities. Under the logic of a rightsizing paradigm, neighborhoods of opportunity take a distinct form. The concept of neighborhoods of opportunity was introduced in a 2011White House report (White House 2011). It described a comprehensive strategy for community development that channeled resources into high-poverty urban neighborhoods. This strategy involved a neighborhood transformation approach that linked investments in urban revitalization and physical redevelopment with enhanced social services and public assistance. It involved a variety of components such as: infrastructure improvements, downtown revitalization, housing development, school reconstruction, tax incentive strategies, housing assistance, education reform, comprehensive health and social services, and other improvements to the built environment. An underlying theme of the neighborhoods of opportunity approach is that inner-city revitalization should be geographically targeted and built on public–private–nonprofit partnerships (White House 2011). In shrinking cities, the neighborhoods of opportunity strategy fits into the broader approach to urban revitalization that seeks to leverage the resources of hospitals, universities, and other anchor

13

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

institutions to promote inner-city revitalization. By wedding anchorbased strategies to the neighborhoods of opportunity approach, social equity is brought back to the forefront of the dialogue concerning inner-city revitalization. The adoption of this framework allows advocacy planners to argue that public subsidies and support for anchor-based revitalization should include linkages to community benefits, particularly in relation to affordable housing. The rationale for such an advocacy stance is well established in the disciplines of urban planning, social work, and public administration (Davidoff 1965; Needleman and Needleman 1974; Krumholz and Forester 1990; Patterson and Silverman 2014a; Silverman 2014; Silverman et al 2014).

Analytic tools for siting affordable housing in neighborhoods of opportunity There is a growing body of research focused on designing siting tools for affordable housing in neighborhoods of opportunity. Largely, these efforts are focused on developing affordable housing suitability models (HSMs). The construction of an HSM entails: the identification of variables measuring desirable neighborhood characteristics, the construction of a weighted index of those variables, and the mapping of areas with high scores on the index using geographic information systems (GIS). Although the literature on HSMs is relatively emergent, it forms the foundation for the development of more refined tools for siting affordable housing in shrinking cities. One example of this work is Jennings’s (2012) model, which was used to identify distressed neighborhoods in Boston. It included measures of housing market instability, household poverty and distress, unemployment, and crime as proxies for neighborhood distress. Based on his model, an index was constructed that could be used to advocate for place-based urban revitalization strategies in areas with: high housing foreclosure rates, low incomes, high unemployment, high poverty, large proportions of households that were female headed, low educational attainment, high proportions of foreign-born residents, and high crime.

14

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

A second example of the development of an HSM for urban revitalization was Ackerson’s (2013). Her model was used to site affordable housing in Iowa City. It identified sites for affordable housing development within the municipality’s boundaries that leveraged anchor institutions and other neighborhood assets. In particular, this model emphasized school quality and treated schools as neighborhoodbased anchors that could leverage revitalization efforts. An index was constructed that favored the siting of affordable housing in areas where: other site-base affordable housing was not concentrated, school quality was high, child poverty was low, crime was low, household income was high, and housing prices were stable. In this model, school characteristics were heavily weighted in the siting criteria. Another HSM designed to leverage core city revitalization was developed by Aldrich and Crook (2013). This model was used to evaluate the outcomes from the siting process for temporary housing in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. This model represented a third variant of a place-based strategy designed to site affordable housing in areas where urban revitalization was most likely to occur. In this case, areas of the city least vulnerable to flooding were identified as places that were most likely to be redeveloped as neighborhoods of opportunity. The purpose of the model was to determine if sites selected for temporary housing were inside of areas targeted for urban revitalization. Variables used in their analysis included: measures of flood vulnerability, educational attainment, income, unemployment, poverty, housing values, and voter turnout. In addition to HSMs focused specifically on inner-city revitalization, there are a number of regional models for siting affordable housing. Advances on this type of modeling are exemplified by work done at two university-based research organizations, the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida and the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University. Researchers at the Shimberg Center developed a regional HSM and applied it to the analysis of five counties in Florida (Thompson et al 2012; Wang et al 2012). Their model emphasized the identification of sites for affordable housing development where residents had access

15

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

to amenities and resources that enhanced their quality of life. Their model included variables measuring: infrastructure, land-use and environmental conditions, poverty, educational attainment, household income, rental cost and other population and housing characteristics, school performance, crime, proximity to transit stops, schools, child care, police and fire stations, health care, recreational areas, retail, and travel data. Researchers at the Kirwan Institute developed a similar HSM and applied it to the analysis of affordable housing options in several regions across the US, including the metropolitan areas surrounding: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and New Orleans (powell et al 2005, 2007; Reece et al 2008; Tegeler et al 2011). Like other HSMs, their models measured components of: school performance, population and housing characteristics, and neighborhood conditions. The emphasis of their approach to identifying sites for affordable housing was on affirmatively furthering fair housing and promoting socioeconomic mobility for residents living in affordable housing. Like the researchers at the Shimberg Institute, the Kirwan studies focused on identifying locations for affordable housing in places where amenities and opportunities for mobility already existed. Ultimately, decisions about what variables to include in HSMs and how to weight them are driven by local context. One would expect models designed for growing cities and regions to look different than those designed for shrinking cities and regions. In cities where a rightsizing paradigm has taken hold, one would expect that HSMs would take eds and meds strategies for urban revitalization into consideration. In such cases, characteristics associated with anchorbased revitalization would be more heavily weighted in siting criteria.

Outline of the book This book presents five case studies of shrinking cities in the US. The case study analysis focuses on the relationship between emerging eds and meds strategies and the distribution of government-subsidized housing in them. Three types of subsidized housing are focused upon

16

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

in the analysis: rental units subsidized under the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, traditional public housing, and site-based subsidized housing managed by private and nonprofit developers under the Section 236 and Section 8 new construction/substantial rehabilitation (NCSR) programs. The focus on the relationship between anchor-based development and government-subsidized housing was selected since it provides a reference point for assessing the need for affordable housing planning in emerging neighborhoods of opportunity in shrinking cities. After presenting the case studies, the criteria for future efforts to site affordable housing in shrinking cities are explored. Drawing from the case studies, tools for siting affordable housing are elaborated upon in the final chapter of the book. The design of these tools was informed by contextual factors identified in the cities linked to the composition of their rightsizing regimes and the dynamics of their population and housing characteristics. The case study analysis draws from a unique database developed to measure neighborhood characteristics in shrinking US cities. That database was developed for a 2013 HUD Sustainable Communities Research Grant (SCRG) titled, “Sustainable Affordable Housing in Shrinking US Cities: Developing an Analytic Tool for Siting Subsidized Housing and Evaluating HUD Program Outcomes.” This comprehensive database was assembled using data for the ten metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) which contained the fastest shrinking cities in the US between 2000 and 2010. It included measures of: population and housing characteristics, school performance, transit access, the built environment, neighborhood amenities, anchor institutions, local job bases, and other spatial attributes. Data were collected at the census tract level from the following sources: US Census, American Community Survey (ACS) 2012 5yr estimates; US Census, 2011 LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES); US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2012 HUD Picture of Subsidized Households Database; and the National Center for Education Statistics, 2012. Address-level data points and lines for various institutions, parks, and transit lines were collected and verified using the following sources:Environmental Systems Research

17

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

Institute (ESRI); respective state’s health department, 2012; respective state’s education department, 2012; National Center for Education Statistics, 2012; respective state and regional transit authorities, 2012; the Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2012; Google Maps and Google Street View. Five cities were selected from the database for the case study analysis in this book. They were: Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. These cities were selected because of nuances in the composition of their rightsizing regimes and their population and housing characteristics. Table 1.1 summarizes selected population, employment, and housing characteristics for the case study cities. All of the case study cities experienced sizable population losses during the postwar era. With the exception of New Orleans, which lost 45.6% of its population after peaking in 1960, each of the other case study cities lost over half of its population. In terms of employment, all of the cities had noticeable job losses between 1990 and 2012. During that same period, manufacturing employment declined at a more rapid pace, with individual cities losing from one-third to two-thirds of their manufacturing base. These trends shaped income and housing profiles in the cities. By 2012, median household income was well below national averages and poverty rates were well above national averages of $53,046 and 10.9% respectively. Similarly, owner-occupied units made up 65.5% of all housing units nationally and 12.5% of all units were vacant in 2012. In contrast, owner-occupancy levels were noticeably lower and vacancy rates were higher in the case study cities. Finally, the magnitude of housing abandonment was acute in the case study cities. This was reflected in the high vacancy rates coupled with substantial percentages of vacant housing categorized as “other” in the US Census. Vacant units categorized as “other” in the US Census are composed of units that are not being offered for rent, held for future occupancy, or limited to seasonal or occasional uses. This category has been used as a proxy for properties suspected as being abandoned in the past (Silverman et al 2013). Detailed analysis of the case study cities is presented in Chapters 2 through 6 of this book. The first case study is presented in Chapter

18

1,849,568 (1950) -61.7

Percent change since peak year

19

11.9 335,462 68,830 20.6 -35.6 -62.6

Percent manufacturing in 2012

Total employment in 1990

Manufacturing employment in 1990

Percent manufacturing in 1990

Percent change in total 1990–2012

Percent change in manufacturing 1990–2012

51.9 62,621 29.4 58.8

Percent owner occupied in 2012

Median value ($) in 2012 Percent vacant in 2012

Percent vacant “other” in 2012

54.3

208,198 23.2

46.5

186,987

40,250 28.8

-49.6

-18.3

6.8

12,728

186,036

4.2

6,419

151,904

-45.6

627,525 (1960)

341,406

New Orleans, LA 306,430

Pittsburgh, PA

112,519 15.4 54.3

59.0

49.8

157,228

40,601 24.0

-38.2

-5.1

7.5

13,073

153,991

5.5

8,037

146,133

-54.9

80,005 22.6

44.1

214,584

26,757 35.8

-55.4

-17.7

23.1

42,137

182,225

12.5

18,776

149,904

-56.5

914,808 (1950) 678,806 (1950)

398,157

Cleveland, OH

Sources: US Census, American Community Survey 2012 5yr estimates; 1950, 1960, and 1990 US Census.

363,010

Housing units in 2012

Housing

Median household income ($) in 2012 Percent below poverty in 2012

27,610 39.3

25,732

Manufacturing employment in 2012

Income and poverty

216,137

Total employment in 2012

Employment trends

721,459

Peak population (year)

Detroit, MI

Population in 2012

Population trends

Table 1.1: Population, employment, and housing characteristics of the case study cities

61.1

85,152 17.6

42.1

135,623

31,313 30.9

-54.9

-17.4

16.2

21,200

131.001

8.8

9,560

108,190

-54.8

580,132 (1950)

261,955

Buffalo, NY

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

2. It examines the relationship between anchor-based revitalization and the location of affordable housing in Detroit. The chapter begins with a description of outcomes from sustained shrinking in the city, focusing on housing, land-use, population, and economic characteristics. This is followed by an analysis of the geography of emerging eds and meds strategies to promote urban revitalization and the spatial distribution of HUD-subsidized housing in Detroit. After considering where affordable housing is located, the degree to which it has been sited in neighborhoods of opportunity is assessed and recommendations are made for improving siting practices in the future. These recommendations take factors such as Detroit’s historic role as a world center for automobile manufacturing and industrial activity into account, considering how this and other local contextual factors influence its future trajectory. Detroit is also significant because it is the site of one of the worst race riots in US history, the 1967 Detroit Riot. The implications of this event – and race relations more generally – for subsequent rightsizing is considered in the chapter. The second case study is presented in Chapter 3. It examines the relationship between anchor-based revitalization and the location of affordable housing in New Orleans. The chapter begins with a description of outcomes from sustained shrinking in the city, focusing on housing, land-use, population, and economic characteristics. This is followed by an analysis of the geography of emerging anchor-based strategies to promote urban revitalization and the spatial distribution of HUD-subsidized housing in New Orleans. After considering where affordable housing is located, the degree to which it has been sited in neighborhoods of opportunity is assessed and recommendations are made for improving siting practices in the future. These recommendations take factors such as New Orleans’s historic role as a center for the petrochemical industry and shipping into account, considering how these and other local contextual factors influence its future trajectory. In addition to its industrial heritage, New Orleans is situated in the Gulf of Mexico, and the impact of natural disasters, particularly hurricanes, on rightsizing are considered. As the only

20

1. SOCIAL EQUITY AND WHAT SITING  YOUTH AFFORDABLE  WORKERS HOUSING  DOIN SHRINKING CITIES

southern city examined, the impacts of race and segregation on urban processes in New Orleans’s will also factor into the analysis. The third case study is presented in Chapter 4. It examines the relationship between anchor-based revitalization and the location of affordable housing in Cleveland. The chapter begins with a description of outcomes from sustained shrinking in the city, focusing on housing, land-use, population, and economic characteristics. This is followed by an analysis of the geography of emerging anchor-based strategies to promote urban revitalization and the spatial distribution of HUD-subsidized housing in Cleveland. After considering where affordable housing is located, the degree to which it has been sited in neighborhoods of opportunity is assessed and recommendations are made for improving siting practices in the future. These recommendations take factors such as Cleveland’s historic role as a diversified manufacturing center that produced iron, steel, and chemical products into consideration. More recently, Cleveland has emerged as a leading center for health care services and research in the world. Its experience with deindustrialization and emerging industries is considered in relation to the city’s future trajectory. The fourth case study is presented in Chapter 5. It examines the relationship between anchor-based revitalization and the location of affordable housing in Pittsburgh. The chapter begins with a description of outcomes from sustained shrinking in the city, focusing on housing, land-use, population, and economic characteristics. This is followed by an analysis of the geography of emerging anchor-based strategies to promote urban revitalization and the spatial distribution of HUD-subsidized housing in Pittsburgh. After considering where affordable housing is located, the degree to which it has been sited in neighborhoods of opportunity is assessed and recommendations are made for improving siting practices in the future. These recommendations take factors such as Pittsburgh’s historic role as a center for steel production in the US into consideration. Pittsburgh’s emergence as a center for higher education, particularly in the area of computer sciences, will also be considered in relation to the city’s future trajectory.

21

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

The fifth case study is presented in Chapter 6. It examines the relationship between anchor-based revitalization and the location of affordable housing in Buffalo. The chapter begins with a description of outcomes from sustained shrinking in the city, focusing on housing, land-use, population, and economic characteristics. This is followed by an analysis of the geography of emerging anchor-based strategies to promote urban revitalization and the spatial distribution of HUD-subsidized housing in Buffalo. After considering where affordable housing is located, the degree to which it has been sited in neighborhoods of opportunity is assessed and recommendations are made for improving siting practices in the future. These recommendations take factors such as Buffalo’s historic role as a center for diversified manufacturing into account, considering how this and other local contextual factors influence its future trajectory. In addition to its industrial heritage, Buffalo is situated in the Snowbelt of the US, and the impact of extreme weather on rightsizing decisions is considered. The final chapter if the book begins with a synopsis of lessons learned from the case studies. The goal of this synopsis is to identify tools for siting affordable housing in neighborhoods of opportunity. This discussion is followed by recommendations for applying HSMs to advocacy for fair and affordable housing policies. A core tenet of those recommendations focuses on the need to make siting tools accessible to community-based groups through the use of public, open source data, and appropriate technologies.

22

2

PRESENT-DAY DETROIT Introduction This chapter examines Detroit, the quintessential shrinking city in the US. It begins with a discussion of the structural causes of the city’s population decline. This discussion highlights how postwar deindustrialization and suburbanization set the stage for Detroit’s decline. The acceleration of these processes helped to form the conditions that sparked the 1967 Detroit riots. In response to it and other urban unrest during the 1960s, national affordable housing reforms and other policies were proposed to address race and class inequality in American cities. After reviewing the foundations for Detroit’s inequality and decline, data are presented which show persistent race and class segregation in the metropolitan area. It is argued that these conditions continue to impact residents’ access to housing and institutional resources into the contemporary period. After examining regional population and housing characteristics, the chapter explores conditions in the area of Detroit where eds and meds revitalization strategies have been adopted. The neighborhood characteristics where anchor-based strategies have been applied are contrasted with the rest of the city. This analysis includes an examination of the composition of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-subsidized housing in areas slated for eds and meds revitalization. This focus is used in order to gain insights into the

23

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

degree to which the preservation and expansion of affordable housing was factored into anchor-based revitalization strategies. This topic is explored in greater detail in the final section of the chapter.

Detroit in the wake of sustained shrinking Where things stand in Detroit In his book The Origins of the Urban Crisis, Surgue (1996) chronicled the fall of Detroit during the postwar era. He vividly describes the city’s decline in these terms: In the 1940s, Detroit was America’s “arsenal of democracy,” one of the nation’s fastest growing boomtowns and home of the highest-paid blue-collar workers in the United States. Today, the city is plagued by joblessness, concentrated poverty, physical decay, and racial isolation. Since 1950, Detroit has lost nearly a million people and hundreds of thousands of jobs.Vast areas of the city, once teeming with life, now stand abandoned. (Surgue 1996: 3) When Surgue wrote his account of Detroit’s collapse, the city was still in a tailspin. In the decades that followed, population continued to decline, poverty remained concentrated, property abandonment was endemic, and racial segregation was entrenched. After Surgue published his book, the city’s population fell by more than 220,000. In 2012, the US Census Bureau estimated Detroit’s population to be 721,459. This represented a 61% drop from the city’s peak population of 1,849,568 in 1950. The stresses of sustained shrinkage in Detroit climaxed in 2013 when the city entered into bankruptcy (McDonald 2014; Farley 2015). Eisinger (2013) reviewed recent scholarship focusing on Detroit’s decline. He argued that the emphasis that some scholars have placed on the city’s population contraction, job losses, and physical decay have clouded the nuances and complexities of the Detroit’s dilemma.

24

YOUTH  W2. ORKERS PRESENT-DAY AND DETROIT NEOLIBERALISM

Perhaps one of the most recurrent and oversimplified rationales offered to explain the city’s decline is that the 1967 Detroit Riots triggered a mass exodus of white residents and capital from Detroit. Eisinger (2013: 3) dispels the myth that the city’s decline was triggered by accelerated white flight and disinvestment in response to the 1967 Detroit Riots, pointing out that it was, “a function of crippling structural changes, including severe and long-term loss of population and jobs that began long before 1967.” Although popular perceptions tend to gravitate toward the riots as a turning point in Detroit’s history, depopulation, disinvestment, and other preconditions of the 1967 riots were entrenched decades earlier. Galster (2014) offers a similar critique to Eisinger’s, arguing that the city’s decline can be traced back to the end of the Second World War, when regional growth patterns were transformed by the decentralization of industry and suburbanization. During the same period that the city hemorrhaged people and jobs, the surrounding suburbs of Detroit experienced unprecedented growth and development. These regional development patterns resulted in the hollowing out of the urban core and the emergence of suburban dominance (Darden et al 1987; Galster 2012, 2014). The transformation of Detroit occurred against a backdrop of public policies that provided little relief for discrimination in employment and housing markets (Surgue 1996; Farley et al 2000). One result of these policies was that race and class segregation became entrenched in Detroit during the late 20th century, and these regional development patterns continue to impact the city in the early 21st century. Contemporary Detroit is arguably the most extreme expression of a shrinking US city. An examination of demographic and institutional characteristics of the city highlights the impacts of over six decades of sustained shrinking on the built environment and the lives of Detroiters. Table 2.1 includes census tract level data for the 2012 population and housing characteristics of Detroit and its surrounding metropolitan area. In addition to variables measuring population and housing characteristics, Table 2.1 includes data for the institutional characteristics of Detroit census tracts.

25

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

Table 2.1: 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for metropolitan Detroit census tracts (N=1,301) Detroit (N=297)

Other tracts (N=1,004)

Population1

721,459

3,583,158

Average household size

2.8

2.6

Percent white

11.1

81.7

Percent black

83.4

11.4

Percent Latino

5.9

3.5

Percent 17 years and under

25.8

23.1

Percent 18 to 63 years

62.3

62.9

Percent 64 years and over

11.9

14.0

Percent of the population 25 and over with less than a high school education

23.6

10.4

Percent of the population 25 and over whose highest level of education is a high school diploma

32.9

28.3

Percent of the population 25 and over with some college or more

43.5

61.3

Median household income ($)

27,610

61,837

Median gross rent as a percent of household income

43.2

31.8

Median monthly owner cost as a percent of household income

26.1

22.0

Percent of the population below poverty

39.3

12.2

Percent of households with social security income

32.0

30.3

Percent of households with supplemental security income (SSI)

12.4

4.1

Percent of households with public assistance or food stamp/SNAP income

40.3

11.1

Percent of the civilian population 16 and over unemployed

29.0

12.2

Total number of jobs 20112

243,979

1,473,934

Percent of jobs in education, medical, and social service sectors in 2011

21.9

20.4

6.7

4.8

Institutional characteristics Percent of tracts with a hospital3 college/university3

3.0

2.5

Percent of tracts with a public library3

7.4

12.3

Percent of tracts with a park3

35.7

5.2

Percent of tracts with at least one school meeting AYP in 20124

18.2

59.1

Percent of tracts with at least one school not meeting AYP in 20124

29.6

5.5

Percent of tracts with a

26

YOUTH  W2. ORKERS PRESENT-DAY AND DETROIT NEOLIBERALISM Detroit (N=297)

Other tracts (N=1,004)

Housing units1

363,010

1,524,138

Median year built

1946

1970

Median value ($)

62,621

153,394

Percent owner occupied

51.9

75.4

Percent renter occupied

48.1

24.6

Percent vacant

29.4

8.7

Percent vacant “other”

58.8

37.7

Percent single-family homes

72.8

79.3

Percent in structures with 2 to 9 units

13.6

9.4

Percent in structures with 10 or more units

13.1

8.0

1

Source: US Census, American Community Survey 2012 5yr estimates. Source: US Census, 2011 LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES). Source: ESRI supplemented with sources from: respective federal, state, and local agencies, 2012; and Google Maps. 4 Source: Respective state’s education department 2012. 2 3

The demographic characteristics of census tracts in Detroit and its surrounding metropolitan area reflect the outcomes of sustained core city shrinking. Despite the city’s drastic loss of population since it peaked in 1950, the surrounding metropolitan area’s population has remained relatively stable. This pattern of regional development reflects the outmigration of industry and the hollowing out of the core city. Although many of the features summarized in Table 2.1 align with patterns of shrinking in other cities, others stand out as markers of the unique challenges that sustained shrinking pose for Detroit. Foremost, the scale of decline is unparalleled in the city. Detroit has lost over 1 million people since its population peaked in 1950, leaving a path of abandonment and other visible scars across the city’s urban landscape. Entire neighborhoods are littered with boarded up property, and in some cases demolition has reverted entire streets to post-apocalyptic prairieland. The contrast between the emptied core city and its relatively stable suburbs forms a backdrop for the region’s demographic patterns. Detroit’s decline has exaggerated the scope of segregation and socioeconomic inequality in the region. By the late 1970s scholars

27

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

predicted that, “Detroit [was] becoming a black city imbedded in a white suburban ring, or as a pop tune [described] it, a ‘chocolate city with vanilla suburbs’” (Farley et al 1978). By 2012, this prediction had come to fruition. The racial contrast between contemporary Detroit and its suburbs is striking, with over 80% of the city’s population black and over 80% of the suburban population white. Census data suggests that black and white people live separate and unequal lives in metropolitan Detroit. The city’s predominantly black population had lower levels of educational attainment than the predominantly white population in the suburbs, with over 13% more residents lacking a high school education and almost 18% fewer residents with some college or more. More striking, the city of Detroit’s median household income was 55.4% below its suburbs and the poverty rate was more than 27% higher in the city. Similar contrasts between the city and its suburbs were found in terms of unemployment, relative expenditures on housing, and dependence on disability insurance and public assistance. Census data also revealed that socioeconomic disparities were embedded in a built environment composed of urban and suburban contrasts. This was particularly apparent with respect to housing and neighborhood conditions. The housing stock was noticeably older in the city and 23.5% less likely to be owner occupied. Vacancy rates were 3.4 times higher in Detroit, with close to one-third of all housing units vacant in the city. The city’s vacant housing was also 21.1% more likely to fall into the “other” vacant category. Housing units falling into the “other” vacant category include all units that are not being offered for rent or sale, being held for future occupancy, or limited to seasonal or occasional use. In essence, the “other” category serves as a proxy for abandoned housing units. In addition to having a greater concentration of vacant and derelict structures, city neighborhoods were also blighted by an abundance of vacant lots. According to the 2010 Detroit Residential Parcel Survey, 27% of all residential parcels were composed of vacant lots.1 Thus, the built environment of many city neighborhoods was overwhelmed by a critical mass of vacant and abandoned property.

28

YOUTH  W2. ORKERS PRESENT-DAY AND DETROIT NEOLIBERALISM

There were also disparities between the institutional contexts of city and suburban neighborhoods. For instance, there were almost 5% more census tracts in the suburbs with access to libraries, while access to parks and greenspace was noticeably higher in the city. Despite the larger concentration of parks in city census tracts, their maintenance and upkeep remained a challenge to local government. Helms (2013) reported that Detroit considered closing nearly half of its neighborhood parks and was rationing resources for their maintenance due to the deterioration of existing greenspace and recreational amenities. Helms et al (2014) reported that ultimately about one-quarter of the city’s parks were closed and the maintenance of remaining parks was paid for with corporate donations or assumed by nonprofit and neighborhoodbased sponsors. The contrast between city and suburban school performance was even more striking. State education data showed that, in 2012, Detroit census tracts were noticeably less likely to have schools that met the Department of Education’s (DOE) criteria for adequate yearly progress (AYP) on standardized tests of mathematics and English proficiency. In essence, failing schools were concentrated in the city of Detroit. In the US, one of the primary mechanisms used to address unequal access to neighborhood-based amenities is fair and affordable housing policy. Augmenting access to housing in amenity-rich neighborhoods is viewed as a tool for the promotion of economic mobility and the amelioration of segregation and inequality. It is no coincidence that many of the core components of contemporary fair and affordable housing policy were introduced in response to urban riots and unrest during the 1960s. These policies were offered as tools to address inequalities stemming from uneven regional growth (Hayes 1995; Thomas-Houston and Schuller 2006; Silverman and Patterson 2011). In many respects, recommendations coming out of the Kerner Commission’s report, which was a direct response to the 1967 Detroit Riot, served as a blueprint for affordable housing policies designed to address racial disparities in American cities (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968). Although the policy goals of the Kerner Commission’s report were not fully realized in the decades

29

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

following its publication, a few programs that it spawned and reformed continue to dominate the affordable housing landscape in the US. Among them are: portable rent voucher policies like the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, reforms aimed at deconcentrating traditional publicly owned and managed affordable housing projects, and subsidies for lower density, multi-family affordable housing developments like HUD’s Section 236 program and Section 8 new construction/substantial rehabilitation (NCSR) program. Today, these types of affordable housing programs are the most prevalent in metropolitan Detroit, as well as in other large metropolitan areas in the US. Although they were designed to address unequal access to affordable housing for minorities and the poor, these policies continue to be implemented in a manner that falls short of reaching their goals. Table 2.2 includes data for HUD-subsidized housing units. It illustrates the degree to which affordable housing programs tend to reproduce inequalities rather than ameliorate them. The data in Table 2.2 compares HUD-subsidized programs in Detroit and its suburbs. Combined, the four programs examined comprise a fraction of the total housing units in the metropolitan area. They constituted only 6.8% of Detroit’s units and 2.7% of suburban units respectively. The remainder of the metropolitan area’s housing was primarily composed of unsubsidized market-rate units. Despite the relatively small size of the subsidized segment of the housing market, there were clear racial disparities in terms of where low-income households were able to access housing. These disparities translate into divergent access to neighborhood amenities and services. The largest housing subsidy program in Detroit, as well as the US, was the HCV program. The data indicates that there were clear disparities between voucher recipients in Detroit and its suburbs. Although voucher recipients in both places had household incomes falling below the federal poverty line, HCV recipients in the city were poorer. They were also slightly more likely to live in female-headed households and less likely to be disabled. Most striking, 98% of Detroit’s HCV holders were minorities while less than two-thirds of suburban voucher recipients were minorities. In essence, rent vouchers appeared to be

30

YOUTH  W2. ORKERS PRESENT-DAY AND DETROIT NEOLIBERALISM

Table 2.2: 2012 characteristics of HUD-subsidized housing for metropolitan Detroit census tracts (N=1,301) Detroit (N=297)

Other tracts (N=1,004)

HUD-subsidized housing units 2012 1

25,115

43,104

Percent of all units in tract subsidized

6.8

2.7

Percent of subsidized units receiving Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs)

74.9

77.9

Average size of HCV households

2.7

2.4

Average annual household income for HCV units

11,202

12,325

Percent of HCV households female headed

85.0

83.8

Percent of HCV households female headed with children under 18 years

54.8

49.4

Percent of HCV households disabled

20.6

25.4

Percent of HCV households minority

98.0

62.1

Percent of subsidized units that were public housing

5.6

5.1

Average size of public housing households

2.3

1.8

Average annual household income for public housing units

10,599

11,291

Percent of public housing households female headed

80.1

73.3

Percent of public housing households female headed with children 53.2 under 18 years

46.4

Percent of public housing households disabled

23.1

33.3

Percent of public housing households minority

99.4

51.7

Percent of subsidized units that were Section 236 multi-family

2.7

2.1

Average size of Section 236 households

1.3

1.4

Average annual household income for Section 236 units

11,052

14,079

Percent of Section 236 households female headed

62.6

73.3

Percent of Section 236 households female headed with children under 18 years

21.9

23.3

Percent of Section 236 households disabled

32.5

18.7

Percent of Section 236 households minority

88.5

44.4

Percent of subsidized units that were Section 8 new construction/ substantial rehabilitation (NCSR)

8.6

8.8

Average size of Section 8 NCSR households

1.5

1.3

Average annual household income for Section 8 NCSR

10,848

12,549

Percent of Section 8 NCSR households female headed

71.7

76.1

Percent of Section 8 NCSR households female headed with children under 18 years

28.3

26.7

Percent of Section 8 NCSR households disabled

25.1

19.0

Percent of Section 8 NCSR households minority

94.0

26.9

1 Source:

US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2012 HUD Picture of Subsidized Households Database.

31

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

relatively ineffective tools for deconcentrating minority poverty in the Detroit metropolitan area. Instead, patterns of regional segregation were reproduced within the voucher program. The second form of subsidized housing examined in Table 2.2 was traditional public housing in metropolitan Detroit. Despite perceptions about the scale of public housing in US cities, it only accounted for a fraction of all subsidized units in the metropolitan area. Notwithstanding, there were differences between residents of public housing in the city and their counterparts in the suburbs. Residents of public housing located in the city were poorer, more likely to live in female-headed households, and less likely to be disabled. The most visible difference between the city and the suburbs was that Detroit’s public housing was over 99% minority, while non-whites made up about half of the residents living in suburban public housing. Like the HCV program, traditional public housing continued to reproduce patterns of segregation in Detroit and its suburbs. Although not identical to HCVs and public housing projects, there were also noticeable distinctions in the composition of urban and suburban residents living in Section 236 and Section 8 NCSR multi-family units. Section 236 and Section 8 NCSR residents located in the city were poorer, less likely to live in female-headed households, and more likely to be disabled. This was distinct from the composition of HCVs and public housing. However, like other affordable housing programs, residents in Detroit’s Section 236 housing were over 88% minority while non-whites made up about 44% of the program’s residents living in the suburbs. Similarly, residents in Detroit’s Section 8 NCSR housing were 94% minority while non-whites made up about 27% of the program’s residents living in the suburbs. Like HCVs and traditional public housing, the Section 236 and Section 8 NCSR programs reinforced patterns of racial segregation in Detroit and its suburbs, rather than curbing them.

32

YOUTH  W2. ORKERS PRESENT-DAY AND DETROIT NEOLIBERALISM

Reimagining Detroit The downward trajectory of Detroit coincided with the intensification of race and class segregation in the region. Beginning with the Kerner Commission’s report (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968), policy recommendations were put forward to address race and class inequalities linked to deindustrialization and accelerated core city shrinkage. However, race and class segregation has not disappeared in Detroit. In many respects, it has endured and intensified. In part this resulted from continued opposition to fair and affordable housing policies, the underfunding of existing programs, and their inconsistent implementation (Sidney 2003; Patterson and Silverman 2011; Silverman and Patterson 2012). Race and class segregation has also endured in shrinking cities because it has become increasingly peripheral in contemporary discussions of rightsizing. This is even the case in an overwhelmingly majority–minority city like Detroit. In response to the city’s socioeconomic implosion, there has been increased interest in rightsizing strategies. Gallagher (2010) explored several rightsizing strategies that could be applied to Detroit’s shrinking neighborhoods. Among them were urban agriculture, vacant property remediation, increasing greenspace, reforesting, and other urban design approaches. The thrust of his recommendations focused on reducing the development footprint of the city and creating an urban core similar to Birch’s (2009) notion of a 24/7 downtown that was dense, mixed-use, and economically diversified. The rationale for this strategy for revitalizing the city was to use a vibrant, compact central business district as a catalyst for core city renewal. In his critique of such rightsizing strategies, Eisinger (2015) reviewed other proposals to reimage downtown Detroit as an engine for central city rebirth. He identified three models for downtown revitalization that have been pursued simultaneously. The first was the effort to recast Detroit as a convention and tourism destination. During the 1990s and early 2000s a cluster of entertainment venues was developed in the downtown area including: a new baseball stadium for the Detroit Tigers, a new football stadium for the Detroit Lions, three new Las Vegas style casinos, the

33

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

restoration of the Fox Theatre and other entertainment venues, and the expansion of downtown museums and cultural venues. A second model for revitalizing Detroit’s downtown identified by Eisinger involved the creation of: a downtown that would function not only as a white collar employment center for the metropolitan region, but as a “24/7” city, a residential and commercial locus for the workers in office towers, empty nesters, and millennials seeking urban culture. (Eisinger 2015: 111) Most of the momentum behind this effort came from the relocation of technology and financial services jobs to the city by Compuware and Quicken Loans, as well as private sector investments in greenspace and amenities geared toward the city’s white-collar workforce. These investments led to modest gentrification of commercial property and retail in the city, but a 24/7 city did not emerge and the majority of the new downtown workforce continued to commute from the region’s more affluent suburbs (Eisinger 2015). The third model for revitalizing Detroit that was critiqued by Eisinger was one based on promoting an influx of young, collegeage entrepreneurs and artists to lead a movement of pioneering gentrifiers (Binelli 2013). This model was reminiscent of Zukin’s (1989) description of the transformation of lower Manhattan during the 1980s. In Detroit’s rendition, revitalization was expected to be led by millennials and avant-garde hipsters pursuing self-help strategies to repurpose abandoned and derelict property in the city. Despite the romantic image of a cadre of artists and entrepreneurs lifting the city up by its bootstraps, Eisinger (2015) concluded that the critical mass of pioneering gentrifiers necessary to catalyse the city’s rebirth did not form.

34

YOUTH  W2. ORKERS PRESENT-DAY AND DETROIT NEOLIBERALISM

The eds and meds strategy in the Motor City Midtown The effort to revitalize Detroit’s downtown as a 24/7 place for urban pioneers and gentrifiers to live, work, and play fell short of expectations. In response, the eds and meds approach to revitalization was introduced to augment strategies based on tourism, commercial expansion, and entrepreneurialism led by millennials. This strategy is identified as a centerpiece of the city’s urban revitalization strategy in planning documents like the 2012 Detroit Strategic Framework Plan: Detroit Future City (Detroit Works Project 2013). Under this approach, an anchor-based strategy for urban revitalization was adopted that centered around a cluster of medical and educational institutions including: the Henry Ford Hospital, the Detroit Recovery Hospital, the Children’s Hospital of Michigan, the Wayne State University Medical School, the John D. Dingell Veteran Affairs Medical Center, and Wayne State University. The boundaries for the redevelopment area comprised what became known as Midtown (Mohamed 2012; Vidal 2013; Ross 2014). Midtown is an area comprising 11 census tracts, roughly bordered by Holbrook Avenue to the north, the Fisher Freeway to the south, US Interstate 75 to the east, and the John C. Lodge Freeway to the west (see Figure 2.1). In addition to the medical and educational institutions located in Midtown, some of the city’s largest cultural institutions are located within its boundaries. Among them are the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History, and the Michigan Science Center. A centerpiece of the anchor-based strategy for the area was the Live Midtown initiative (Mohamed 2012; Vidal 2013; Ross 2014). This five-year, $10 million initiative was introduced in 2011 and supported by hospitals and universities in Midtown. It offered financial incentives to employees of local anchor institutions who rent and purchase homes in Midtown. In addition to the Live Midtown initiative, anchor institutions have provided technical assistance to nonprofit developers and engaged in neighborhood planning activities. Although there is a

35

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK

general consensus that these programs have produced modest results, they have raised some concerns about gentrification since they target employees of anchor institutions rather than low-income households more generally (Ross 2014). An examination of demographic and institutional characteristics of Midtown compared to the rest of the city highlights the degree to which the eds and meds approach to revitalization addresses concerns Figure 2.1: Detroit’s Midtown neighborhood

36

YOUTH  W2. ORKERS PRESENT-DAY AND DETROIT NEOLIBERALISM

about equity in the revitalization process. Table 2.3 includes data for 2012 population and housing characteristics of Detroit census tracts located inside and outside of Midtown. In addition to variables measuring population and housing characteristics, Table 2.3 includes data for the institutional characteristics of Detroit census tracts. T-tests were conducted for the variables in the table in order to identify attributes that were significantly different in Midtown when compared to the rest of the city. The findings from this analysis are discussed below. The data in Table 2.3 show that Midtown was significantly different from the rest of Detroit along a number of measures. In terms of population characteristics, Midtown appears to be a residential Table 2.3: 2012 population, housing, and institutional characteristics for Detroit census tracts (N=297) Midtown (N=11)

Other tracts (N=286)

Population1

23,336

701,123

Average household size

2.0

2.8

T-value

-4.961***

Percent white

18.4

10.8

1.518

Percent black

71.2

83.9

-1.712

Percent Latino

1.3

6.1

-.953

Percent 17 years and under

16.5

26.2

-3.926***

Percent 18 to 63 years

73.6

61.8

3.153**

Percent 64 years and over

9.9

12.0

-1.282

Percent of the population 25 and over with less than a high school education

17.0

23.9

-1.931

Percent of the population 25 and over whose highest level of education is a high school diploma

26.9

33.1

-2.434*

Percent of the population 25 and over with some college or more

56.1

43.0

2.966*

Median household income ($)

16,981

28,024

-3.155**

Median gross rent as a percent of household income

38.0

43.4

-2.146*

Median monthly owner cost as a percent of household income

29.8

25.9

.994

Percent of the population below poverty

47.7

38.9

2.138* continued

37

FOR AFFORDABLE YOUTH WORKERS HOUSING IN US AND SHRINKING YOUTH CITIES WORK Midtown (N=11)

Other tracts (N=286)

T-value

Percent of households with social security income

25.5

32.3

-2.275*

Percent of households with supplemental security income (SSI)

15.5

12.2

1.719

Percent of households with public assistance or food stamp/SNAP income

39.7

40.3

-.159

Percent of the civilian population 16 and over unemployed

24.4

29.1

-1.376

Total number of jobs 20112

64,223

179,756

Percent of jobs in education, medical, and social service sectors in 2011

57.7

20.5

4.709***

Percent of tracts with a hospital3

36.4

5.6

2.015

Percent of tracts with a college/university3

9.1

2.8

.688

Institutional characteristics

library3

9.1

7.3

.217

Percent of tracts with a park3

45.5

35.3

.687

Percent of tracts with at least one school meeting AYP in 20124

45.5

17.1

1.781

Percent of tracts with at least one school not meeting AYP in 20124

27.3

29.7

-.174

Percent of tracts with a public

Housing units1

15,015

347,995

Median year built

1949

1947

.478

Median value ($)

115,500

60,529

2.975*

Percent owner occupied

17.2

53.2

-6.798***

Percent renter occupied

82.8

46.8

6.798***

Percent vacant

33.1

29.3

1.067

Percent vacant “other”

46.1

59.3

-1.806

Percent single-family homes

26.3

74.6

-7.285***

Percent in structures with 2 to 9 units

14.9

13.5

.706

Percent in structures with 10 or more units

58.5

11.3

5.430***

*p