The stunning election of Donald Trump as president throws the future of urban policy into doubt. During the campaign he promised to bring new jobs and improved infrastructure to the inner cities, but so far he has furnished no details. Some of the strategies carried out by cities and states in the past may offer the incoming administration some guidance.
Part II: How to Stop Digging the Legacy City Hole Deeper
Written by The Economic Development CurmudgeonPart II of Legacy Cities: Stop Digging the Hole Deeper draws from an earlier review of the Lincoln Institute's Report "Regenerating America's Legacy Cities" by Alan Mallach and Lavea Brachman. In that review, the Curmudgeon suggested that the conventional view of regionalism, represented by the Lincoln Institute Report did not facilitate the revitalization of legacy cities. Rather, the Lincoln Institute approach to regionalism can seriously impede legacy city revitalization. The Lincoln Institute approach to regionalism involves a fair amount of redistribution as it makes the suburbs responsible for social equity and legacy costs of the central city. This is justified, they feel, because it was the suburbs, after all they created the legacy city dilemma. No unsurprisingly, the Curmudgeon believes this will turn off the suburbs and inhibit their partnership with the legacy city. In addition. the Lincoln Institute Report rationale regionalism carries strong overtones of restoring the good old days of central city hegemony/primacy/leadership of its metropolitan area. The Curmudgeon is concerned that most legacy cities exist in a multi-nodal metropolitan area and that notions of restoring the primacy of the central city at expense of the suburbs does nothing to attract them into a revitalization partnership. Soften the rhetoric and seek a partnership with suburbs based on mutual interests is his perspective. Continue Reading...