Many of America’s large coastal cities are prospering. Large, industrial rust-belt cities have struggled in recent decades, but some have begun to recover, making up for lost factories and shrinking populations with high-tech jobs that attract younger workers. But what about small to midsize industrial cities – places like Youngstown, Dayton, Trenton, and Harrisburg?
In their new report, Greening America’s Smaller Legacy Cities, Joseph Schilling, Catherine Tumber, and Gabi Velasco make the case that an equitable and sustainable low-carbon future is essential for smaller and midsize legacy cities to thrive. The path to this type of “green regeneration,” they suggest, requires a focus on three areas: (1) climate resilience; (2) environmental justice and equity; and (3) green economic development.
Cities are big polluters. Small (30,000-75,000 people) and midsize (up to 300,000 people) legacy cities lack the resources to address the pollution challenge and often have more pressing priorities to worry about. These cities tend to be older, and, while they are often more walkable and less dependent on automobiles, they frequently contain contaminated industrial property and typically lack the staff to focus on environmental issues.
Fortunately, government and philanthropic funding is available for smaller legacy cities that wish to tackle their environmental problems. These locales also have legal mechanisms at their disposal, particularly the ability to use land use policy productively.
When the authors turn their focus to legal levers, they observe, “Comprehensive land use planning, development processes, and zoning codes provide the policy foundation for smaller legacy cities to address the intersections of climate resilience, environmental justice and equity, and green economic development.” (P. 23.)
More specifically, the legal tools that cities can employ include climate action plans, climate equity plans, local resilience plans, green development codes, and equity zoning, each of which the authors explain and examine. These legacy cities can also increase their emphasis on transit-oriented development.
Many of these older cities retain the basic infrastructure that successful green cities need. Some have well-established transit systems. Many have older buildings that are still structurally sound, though often in need of significant rehabilitation. Small parks are also prevalent in these older cities. However, they need to fend off other urban problems that older cities face, such as the presence of heat islands in neighborhoods that formerly were redlined.
One concern that the increasing use of these methods may raise is that cities will gentrify, forcing out incumbent residents who can no longer afford to remain in their old neighborhoods. Given how challenged some of these smaller legacy cities are, however, the authors view this as only a modest concern, citing Buffalo’s success as an example.
Midway through their report, the authors address the question of how to begin the process of greening a smaller legacy city. In order to obtain access to outside funding, these jurisdictions will need to hire grant writers and sustainability coordinators to help increase their access. Unlike larger legacy cities, these smaller counterparts may not possess the necessary skills within their existing staffs.
In addition, these communities will need to determine what their baseline is so they can harness their existing strengths. These smaller cities need to engage the community in ways that ensure equity. They must encourage the development of new small businesses. And they can look to sister cities that have progressed further along with the greening process.
Moreover, given that these smaller cities lack the resources of larger communities, “[l]ocal governments cannot always directly access policy levers at the right scale for mitigating and adapting to climate change, so smaller legacy cities must take advantage of strategic collaborations and practical opportunities to prepare for historic transitions.” (P. 54.) They must customize their approach, working with local partners on initiatives that meet local needs. In short, they are too small and under-resourced to “go it alone” and must collaborate with funders and other partners.
Allies, such as the federal government and state governments, can help. The authors use two brief case studies from New York and Massachusetts as illustrations of successful collaborations of this type.
In sum, “Smaller legacy cities can be innovators in green regeneration, drawing on their regional land and water assets, surplus infrastructure, culture, and history.” (P. 64.) But for smaller cities to accomplish these goals, they must pursue “a new generation of policies and resources that respond to their socioeconomic and capacity constraints and that center equity and justice alongside economic development and sustainability.” (P. 64.)
Unlike traditional law review articles, the report is laid out in a visually appealing fashion, complete with color photos, maps, charts, graphs, tables, and sidebars. The report also makes frequent use of examples from smaller legacy cities that have succeeded in accomplishing some of these goals.
This report provides a useful analysis of a problem that has not received as much attention as it merits, given the more frequent focus by academics and the media on larger cities. But these less populous cities can have an enormous impact on the greening of America, as demonstrated by the growing success some of them have achieved.
While these smaller legacy cities can take some lessons from larger communities, other experiences are not as readily transferrable. Smaller cities can become leaders in the greening movement, attracting industry, aiding their residents, improving the local quality of life, and enhancing equity among their citizens.
