O C T O B E R 27 , 2

0 1 6

THE STAT

E OF OHIO’S SMALL

AND MID-SIZED LEGACY

CITIES

ABOUT GREATER OHIO POLICY CENTERAn outcome-oriented statewide non-profit that champions revitalization and sustainable redevelopment in Ohio: • Revitalize Ohio’s urban

cores and metropolitan regions

• Achieve sustainable land reuse and economic growth

FROM AKRON TO

ZANESVILLE

OHIO’S SMALL

AND MID

-SIZED LE

GACY

CITIES

Photo: Shane Wynn

SMALL AND MID-SIZED LEGACY CITIESDEFINITION

More than 20,000 residents in the city Less than 1,000,000 residents in the surrounding

metropolitan area Industrial history Lost population since peak Not a college town or suburb of a larger city Most are located in the Midwest and Northeast

WHAT DISTINGUISHES SMALLER LEGACY CITIES? Similar challenges as larger cities,

but less high profile. Successful strategies for

revitalization in large cities may not be transferrable or may need adjustment.

Less financial and human capital resources.

Greater impact of negative land use like vacant properties or brownfields.

Small legacy cities: Remain significant

regional and statewide economic drivers

Present opportunities for innovation

Are emblematic of national concerns about inequality.

WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT SMALL LEGACY CITIES?

FROM AKRON TO ZANESVILLE:OHIO’S SMALL AND MID-SIZED LEGACY CITIES

Ohio has 20 small and mid-sized legacy cities.

These cities and their regions account for nearly a third of the state’s population and a third of the state’s GDP.

Long been drivers of the state’s and regional economies

FROM AKRON TO ZANESVILLE:METHODOLOGY

Collected data on population change, economic health of residents and housing markets in 2000, 2009, and 2014.

Compiled condition and trend data by city-type to create averages for large, mid-size, and small legacy cities across the state.

Also collected and compiled data on the metropolitan statistical area to compare

FINDING:

STUNTED

RECOVERY

FROM THE

GREAT REC

ESSION

OVERALL TRAJECTORY BY INDICATOR2000-2014, ALL CITIES

Columbus

Large Legacy Cities

Mid-Size Legacy Cities

Small Legacy Cities

State

Popu

latio

n

Labo

r For

ce

Parti

cipat

ion

Unem

ploy

men

t Re

duct

ion

Hous

ehol

d In

com

e

Per C

apita

In

com

e

Pove

rty

Redu

ctio

n

Hous

ing

Vaca

ncy

Hous

ing

Valu

es

Columbus City

Columbus Metro

Large Legacy Cities

Large Legacy Metros

Mid-Sized Legacy Cities

Mid-Sized Legacy Metros

Small Legacy Cities

Small Legacy Metros

State-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2000-20092009-2014

Rela

tive

Grow

th o

r Dec

line

(%)

RELATIVE CHANGE IN HOUSING VALUESPRE- AND POST-2009

FINDING:

COLUMBUS’ STRENGTH

MASKS

OTHER

CITIES’ C

HALLENGES

FINDING:

LARGE LEG

ACY CITIE

S HAVE D

EEP

CHALLENGES,

BUT ARE

EXPER

IENCING PROMISING SIGNS

OF REC

OVERY

Columbus Large Legacy Cities

Mid-Sized Cities

Small Cities State0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

POVERTY RATE CHANGE

Columbus Large Legacy Cities

Mid-Sized Cities

Small Cities State0.00%

50.00%

100.00%

150.00%

200.00%

250.00%

HOUSING VACANCY CHANGE

Columbus Large Legacy Cities

Mid-Sized Cities

Small Cities State-6.00%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE

CHANGE

FINDING: M

ID-SIZED LE

GACY

CITIES ARE H

ELD BACK BY

HOUSING MARKETS AND

SHRINKING W

ORKFORCES

2000 201458.50%

59.00%

59.50%

60.00%

60.50%

61.00%

61.50%

62.00%

59.70%

61.40%61.40%

60.30%

Large Legacy Cities Mid-Sized Legacy Cities

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION IN LARGE AND MID-SIZED LEGACY CITIES, 2000 TO 2014

HOUSING VACANCY IN LARGE AND MID-SIZED LEGACY CITIES, 2000 TO 2014

2000 20140.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

3.40%

7.73%

2.53%

8.12%

Large Legacy CitiesMid-Sized Legacy Cities

FINDING: SM

ALL LEG

ACY CITIE

S

FACING GROWING WORKFO

RCE

AND POVERT

Y CHALLE

NGES

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 201455

57

59

61

63

65

67

69

71

Columbus City Large Legacy Cities Mid-Sized Legacy Cities Small Legacy Cities

State

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OVER TIME

FINDING: N

EGATI

VE TREN

DS

EXTEN

D BEYOND CITY

BORDERS

OVERALL TRAJECTORY BY INDICATOR2000-2014, ALL METROS

ColumbusMetro

Large Legacy City

MetrosMid-Size

Legacy City MetrosSmall

Legacy City Metros

State

Popu

latio

n

Unem

ploy

men

t Re

duct

ion

Labo

r For

ce

Parti

cipat

ion

Hous

ehol

d In

com

e

Per C

apita

In

com

e

Pove

rty

Redu

ctio

n

Hous

ing

Vaca

ncy

Hous

ing

Valu

es

Jobs

New

Busin

esse

s

HOW DO OHIO’S SMALL

LEGACY CITIE

S COMPARE?

ASSESSING N

AT IONAL PEERS

NATIONAL PEER STUDY

OVERALL TRAJECTORY BY INDICATOR2000-2014, COMPARISON CITIES

Popu

latio

n

Labo

r For

ce

Parti

cipat

ion

Unem

ploy

men

t Re

duct

ion

Hous

ehol

d In

com

e

Pove

rty

Redu

ctio

n

Hous

ing

Vaca

ncy

Hous

ing

Valu

es

Allentown

Grand Rapids

Hamilton, OH

South Bend

Syracuse

Worcester

Gary

Munc

ieSo

uth

Bend

Flint

Gran

d Ra

pids

Kala

maz

ooPo

ntia

cAk

ron

Dayt

onHa

milt

onLim

aYo

ungs

town

Lowe

llSp

ringfi

eld

Wor

cest

erCa

mde

nAl

bany

Bing

ham

ton

Syra

cuse

Alle

ntow

nBe

thle

hem

Lanc

aste

rSc

rant

onYo

rk

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

Change Peak to 2000 Change 2000 to Today

INDIANAMICHIGAN MASS.OHIOMICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIANJ

GAIN OR LOSS OF PEAK POPULATIONNEW YORK

Gary

Munc

ieSo

uth

Bend

Flint

Gran

d Ra

pids

Kala

maz

ooPo

ntia

cAk

ron

Dayt

onHa

milt

onLim

aYo

ungs

town

Lowe

llSp

ringfi

eld

Wor

cest

erCa

mde

nAl

bany

Bing

ham

ton

Syra

cuse

Alle

ntow

nBe

thle

hem

Lanc

aste

rSc

rant

onYo

rk

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CHANGE IN YOUNG PROFESSIONAL POPU-LATION OHIOINDIANA MICHIGAN MASS. NJ NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA

Gary

Munc

ieSo

uth

Bend

Flint

Gran

d Ra

pids

Kala

maz

ooPo

ntia

cAk

ron

Dayt

onHa

milt

onLim

aYo

ungs

town

Lowe

llSp

ringfi

eld

Wor

cest

erCa

mde

nAl

bany

Bing

ham

ton

Syra

cuse

Alle

ntow

nBe

thle

hem

Lanc

aste

rSc

rant

on

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

CHANGE IN IMMIGRANT POPULATION

INDIANA MICHIGAN OHIO MASS. NJ NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA

SOLUTIONS,

RECOMMENDATIONS, A

ND

BEST PRACTIC

ES

Vision for the future must be grounded in a realistic assessment of the present.

Cities should consider their “niche” in the global, national, or regional economy.

Sufficient civic capacity to carry out change is critical.

Cities are most likely to be successful by blending a long-term strategic vision and an incremental process of change.

KEY FACTORS IN REPOSITIONING SMALLER LEGACY CITIES

Photo Credit: Phil Kidd

FOCUS ON CIVIC CAPACITY AND BUILDING TALENT

Strong cities have strong

leaders in all sectors

willing to “own the

problem” of the city’s

revitalization.

GROW HUMAN CAPITAL BY INVESTING IN LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS

Strong cities are places of

opportunity for residents of

varying incomes and educational

backgrounds. Photo Credit: Rowan Cabarrus Community College

Strong cities have

neighborhoods of

choice for people with

a range of incomes.

FOCUS ON SUSTAINING NEIGHBORHOODS

Photo: Citiwide Development

Strong cities have a strong sense of place

that encourages

diverse people to live, work,

and play there.

DEPLOY CREATIVE PLACEMAKING FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Photo: Better Block Foundation

Strong cities thrive when state policy

is responsive

to their specific needs.

AVOID “ONE-SIZE FITS ALL” POLICY SOLUTIONS

 March 7th & 8th, 2017

More information is available at: www.GreaterOhio.wix.com/2017-Summit

The Westin Columbus310 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215

Investing in Ohio's Future: Maximizing Growth in our Cities and Regions

GREATER OHIO PO

LICY

CENTER

Torey Hollingsworth,Researcherthollingsworth@greaterohio.org

399 E.

Main

Street,

Columbus O

H 43215

614-224

-0187