This article originally appeared in the Rochester Business Journal.
Critics often compare metropolises and cities, commenting that all cities aspire to become a metropolis. My opinion is that small and mid-sized cities, specifically rust-belt ones, are very comfortable separating from that idea, and, I would further argue, are poised to be more resilient, human scaled, and environmentally conscious. I would also add that they further eschew a comparison to towns and villages which are charming but limited in dynamism and mostly have a singular pulse or vibe.
I am without a doubt taking the “glass half full” approach here. Sure, we could see a more aggressive approach to mixed-use zoning, taxing carbon emissions and disallowing fossil fuels and petroleum-based products in buildings. We could also provide more equitable, safe living and improve city school systems in urban areas. I am choosing not to focus on these subjects and will simply point out that this is where mid-sized cities are primed to learn from the metropolises and from the towns and villages.
Large cities have extensive bureaucracy that moves at a glacial pace for innovative forward-thinking legislature. Towns are nimbler, but don’t quite reach as wide a demographic and the cost to provide new infrastructure for larger interventions is fiscally irresponsible from a tax base.
I will say, though, that NYC leads the way — on paper — in reducing greenhouse gas emissions with Local Law 97. This will reduce GHG emissions in existing buildings by 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. I am not quite sure why this wasn’t adopted statewide as this law could be meaningful for mid-sized cities with large amounts of existing building stock to adapt, and perhaps be more aggressive in their goals to combat climate change and make real, measurable results.
Catherine Tumbler, author of “Small, Gritty, and Green,” introduces that these once vibrant American cities like Worcester, Cleveland, and Rochester have seen a mass exodus since the 1950’s due to “deindustrialization, outsourcing and middle-class flight”. Add to this the introduction of massive freeway systems that ripped apart the urban fabric and displaced the working poor. Tumbler provocatively argues that these rust belt cities now could play a central role in a ”greener, low carbon, relocalized world.”
It was nowhere more apparent than in 1964 with the opening of the Rochester Inner Loop. At that time, the roadway was probably an honest intended solution to what middle America thought was a problem. Something of this scale always creates a negative before creating a positive. That positive most likely happened a long time ago. Now with the “Freeways Without Futures” movement, the sunken freeway that was the eastern Inner Loop has been transformed into six acres of an at-grade complete fully built out street with mixed-use development.
Rochester is a success — touted nationally as one of the first cities to restitch its street grid and reconnect neighborhoods. Inner Loop North is the next, more ambitious phase of this transformation to bring back the public realm and be more sensitive to the adjacent context.
So, what do these rust belt cities have that make them so appealing? For one thing, there is available space — mostly parking lots but lots of space (I will expand on this later). Space was the short-sighted logical choice once buildings were demolished during times of population decrease and making it convenient for suburbanites to work and visit the city centers.
Because these cities were once way more populated, they still have the infrastructure and public realm to accommodate. We are starting to see healthy infill and incremental development that allows for a scale of the pedestrian to walk or bike and scooter to get necessary amenities. These “15-minute cities” are defined by their ability to provide access to all human needs by walking or bicycling for a quarter hour or less.
We are also seeing a mix of population migration from the suburbs to the urban areas. Fifty five percent of the world’s population live in urban areas. By 2050, it is estimated to be 68%. In 1950, 30% were living in urban areas. I would also argue that, in the aftermath of the Pandemic, those people living in metropolises who were already questioning the burden of ultra-high-density living have made the move to more accommodating, livable cities in search of a sustainable lifestyle. What is becoming apparent is metropolitan areas like Manhattan are becoming one big, gated community — fun to visit for a weekend but out of touch for many to live there, especially if you have a family.
The interesting thing is that many of the office buildings in downtown Rochester and other rust belt cities are now being converted into housing, and with the increased housing demand people are moving to the center of the city. The critical mass is such that more businesses want to relocate from the suburbs and office parks to the cities where life is more vibrant, and districts are mixed use. This leads to the re-creation of office space and a resurgence of city living. On the downswing, retail is slow to gain momentum (as is seen nationally) with competition by Amazon and other virtual shopping platforms. Regardless, urban neighborhoods are reviving with a live/work/play theme that focuses on entertainment and experiential spaces.
As mentioned before, rust belt cities have an overabundance of parking lots. Click on Google maps and it’s shocking. It’s a burden that I believe will remedy itself when we start to seriously think about light rail or some reliable built-in mass transit alternative and developers push the boundaries of what parking is needed for their tenants.
I realize the latter is a controversial subject and any developer will tell you that providing insufficient parking is not good marketing. Cities like Buffalo have a green code that specifies no off-street parking for any land use. Rochester also has this in its Center City Zoning District. So, the burden now falls to the developer, but they’re building housing and spaces for people, not cars, right? Developers could reduce the cost of building housing by not providing parking. This is a bit of a chicken and egg problem and until we see extensive and reliable mass transit and land becomes so expensive it favors less parking and more housing; we won’t see a massive change.
Don Sharp, in his book “The High Cost of Free Parking,” had three items for success in right-sizing parking in cities. He urged cities to charge the right price for curb parking so that there are always one or two spaces available. He then said to spend that revenue to pay for added public services on the metered block, i.e., free Wi-Fi in that zone. He then urged the zoning department to remove off-street parking requirements; if there is always a spot open, there is not a shortage of parking. Take a walk in the center city of Rochester and you will see many curb parking spaces available. Challenge reliance on the vehicle.
As these mid-sized cities prepare for increased density, traffic, and vibrancy, it’s important to realize that, with the proper zoning, legislature, and creative development teams, they are well-suited to achieve desirable destinations for eco-conscious people with a holistic quality of life in mind. Already fit out with proper street grids and well-defined neighborhoods, these cities have authentic stories and history that make it meaningful for infill and incremental growth. As Daniel Herriges of Strong Towns points out, “taking the part of the city that already has that form, and letting its radius grow, makes natural sense to me.” Small investments over a broad area, over a long period of time.