on: 19 february 2012, at: 07:57nl14/japa_w2012_sgsprawl_leighhoel...encouraging industrial...

19

Upload: others

Post on 16-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart
Page 2: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

This article was downloaded by: [American Planning Association ]On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning AssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Smart Growth's Blind SideNancey Green Leigh a & Nathanael Z. Hoelzel aa School of City and Regional Planning, Georgia Institute of Technology

Available online: 09 Feb 2012

To cite this article: Nancey Green Leigh & Nathanael Z. Hoelzel (2012): Smart Growth's Blind Side, Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 78:1, 87-103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.645274

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be completeor accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified withprimary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Page 3: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

87

Problem: For many cities and planners,adopting smart growth sprawl-containingstrategies is associated with the conversion ofrelatively inexpensive industrial-zoned land toland zoned for mixed-use commercial andresidential redevelopment. This can weakenthe urban economic base, reduce the supply ofgood-job producing land, and contribute toindustrial-sector suburban sprawl.

Purpose: We expose smart growth’s blind sideby revealing the lack of attention to urbanindustrial revitalization in planning practice. Weexpand the smart growth dialogue by describinga) the impacts on productive urban industrialland of adopting smart growth policies, and b) local government measures to protect urbanindustry while pursuing smart growth.

Methods: We review the recent localindustrial policies of 14 cities and 10 practice-oriented smart growth publications with localeconomic development components to revealthe disconnect between urban industrialdevelopment and smart growth approaches.We compare elements of adopted localindustrial policies from selected cities withcommonly accepted smart growth principlesto illuminate the challenges smart growthpolicies pose for protecting and revitalizingurban industrial areas.

Results and conclusions: Our review ofcities initiating local industrial policiesreveals that significant amounts of industrialland have been converted to other uses ascities pursued smart growth. The smartgrowth literature provides little to noacknowledgment of the need to coordinateurban industrial development practices withother mainstay smart growth activities.Although development pressures to convert

Smart Growth’s BlindSide

Sustainable Cities Need Productive UrbanIndustrial Land

Nancey Green Leigh and Nathanael Z. Hoelzel

Smart growth has a policy blind side, that is, as a planning framework forguiding sustainable urban development, it fails to recognize connectionsbetween urban industrial land and the activities it supports with smart

growth goals of limiting sprawl and revitalizing central cities. In this article, we support our claim of a policy blind side by documenting

the smart growth movement’s omission of policies for revitalizing urbanindustry. We find, in general, that smart growth discourse in planning practicenarrowly perceives sustainable land use and economic development as promot-ing nonindustrial activities over industrial activities. On the one hand, smart

industrial land to higher densities and otheruses persist, the national economic crisis hasled to a call for strengthening manufactur-ing. There has also been a decline in thenonindustrial infill development thatepitomizes smart growth projects. Togetherthese trends present opportunities andchallenges for city and regional planners tochange smart growth approaches.

Takeaway for practice: Industrial land isat risk in cities. Recent efforts to reduce thisrisk, such as explicit local policies to preserveindustrial land and jobs while also pursuingsmart growth, illustrate how challenging it isto attract new manufacturers and preventfurther industrial decline in urban neighbor-hoods. Pursuing smart growth and sustain-able urban industrial development should notbe an either/or proposition, and requiresapproaches that explicitly safeguard produc-tive urban industrial land and discourageindustrial sprawl.

Keywords: urban manufacturing, smartgrowth, industrial sprawl, local industrialpolicies

Research support: This research wassupported by the NSF Grant Program:

CMMI–Materials Use: Science, Engineering,and Society (MUSES) Grant #0628190. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recom-mendations expressed in this material are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the National Science Foundation. TheAtlanta Development Authority also providedsupport.

About the authors:Nancey Green Leigh, FAICP([email protected]), is a professor inthe Georgia Institute of Technology’sSchool of City and Regional Planning. Shespecializes in economic developmentplanning and urban revitalization, and isthe director of the Ph.D. program.Nathanael Z. Hoelzel ([email protected]) is a third-year Ph.D. student inthe Georgia Institute of Technology’sSchool of City and Regional Planning, andthe former Brownfield Programs Managerfor the City of Cleveland, Ohio.

Journal of the American Planning Association,

Vol. 78, No. 1, Winter 2012

DOI 10.1080/01944363.2011.645274

© American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 4: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

88 Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2012, Vol. 78, No. 1

growth promotes compact, dynamic development intendedto improve urban neighborhoods by creating jobs, attract-ing residents, and increasing local tax revenues. On theother hand, smart growth predominately views urbanindustry as hindering future growth and, ultimately, sus-tainability (Bronstein, 2009). Smart growth policies, inturn, offer little guidance to cities that are losing produc-tive industrial land essential to supporting industrial firmsand jobs and preventing industrial sprawl. Likewise, by notencouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart growthpolicies overlook a significant economic sector that con-tributes to diverse, innovative, and more resilient localeconomies. The resulting narrowing of cities’ economicbases may inadvertently place them in vulnerable positionsduring economic recessions and slow economic recovery.We argue that planning practitioners and academics shouldrectify smart growth’s blind side by acknowledging the lackof attention to issues and priorities for revitalizing urbanindustry in the smart growth movement and by promotingthe fact that, for sustainable cities and regions, a vitalindustrial presence in urban neighborhoods is as importantas a dynamic commercial and residential presence. This is aparticularly compelling time to recognize and correct smartgrowth’s blind side. The lingering impacts of the GreatRecession have significantly diminished growth pressuresthat created the impetus for the smart growth movement,and there is growing interest in the potential for revitaliz-ing U.S. manufacturing to generate jobs and hasten economic recovery.

Urban Deindustrialization

Before proceeding with our analysis of smart growth’streatment of urban industrial land, we will briefly discusswhy vacant industrial land became a major urban problem.First, we need to identify the two major private sectors thatuse industrial land: manufacturing and warehousing. Priorto suburbanization, manufacturing in cities tended to belocated in multistory buildings. City warehouse facilitieswere located along rail spurs. Historical pre-auto buildingdensity patterns made it more likely that these propertieswere bounded on all sides and unable to expand (Fitzgerald& Leigh, 2002).

Suburbanization of manufacturing the decades imme-diately after World War II coincided with shifts to massproduction layouts in one-story buildings that had verylarge footprints, were surrounded by parking lots, and wereadjacent to major road networks. The predominant pro-duction mode associated with these locations was a manu-

facture-to-stock or just-in-case system. Large inventories ofproducts requiring large warehouse spaces were created.However, the last two decades saw a return to manufac-ture-to-order or just-in-time modes of production. Theseapproaches can be adapted to existing central-city indus-trial facilities that have smaller footprints and multiplestories (Leigh, 1996).

A number of factors have made city warehouses lessdesirable. The increased use of trucking and air over railfor freight transport decreased the demand for centralizedurban warehouse space along rail spurs. The shift to con-tainerization made older warehouses with smaller loadingbays unusable, as did the increasing use of larger tractortrailers, which were difficult to navigate through central-city streets. Trucking deregulation resulted in transporta-tion costs being minimized when goods were shipped froma national location that minimized distance to all cus-tomers. Thus, products were no longer stored in the citiesthat manufactured them; instead, they went to marketfrom major regional distribution centers in the midsectionof the United States (e.g., Memphis). The centralization ofwarehousing, along with advances in storage and disburse-ment of products, required much larger warehouse spaceswith high ceilings for automated racking systems.Nonetheless, there will still be demand for warehouse spacethat supports the efficient distribution of products specifi-cally created for inner-city markets. Further, firms thatproduce products more easily transported on smaller trucks(due to small size or smaller volumes) can also use inner-city warehouse space (Fitzgerald & Leigh, 2002). Addi-tionally, industrial space that is obsolete for warehousinghas the potential to be converted to manufacturing.

With manufacturing production moving overseas,some may wonder whether there is a need for more manu-facturing space, particularly in light of the decline inmanufacturing jobs over the last three to four decades.(Today, for the first time since 1941, there are fewer than12 million people employed in the U.S. manufacturingsector.) There are, however, reasons to think positively.First, manufacturing activity has expanded over the pasttwo years (Institute for Supply Management, 2011), andthe sector added 250,000 jobs since its low point in December 2009 (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau ofLabor Statistics, 2011). Second, the United States remainsthe largest manufacturing economy. It produced 21% ofthe world’s total manufactured goods, generating $1.72trillion as of 2010 (National Association of Manufacturers,2011). Manufacturing value added increased 21.3% in thelast decade, and the sector accounted for 11.7% of thenation’s GDP (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, 2011). Lastly, there are a number of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 5: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Leigh and Hoelzel: Smart Growth’s Blind Side 89

initiatives to strengthen and grow the manufacturingsector, including the Obama Administration’s AdvancedManufacturing Partnership and Obama’s initiative todouble U.S. exports within five years.

Urban Industry in the Smart GrowthMovement

The smart growth movement is generally viewed as analignment of multiple policy networks advocating particu-lar planning policies for curtailing sprawl and revitalizingurban areas. The smart growth movement emerged fromtwo networks: the Smart Growth Network (SGN), estab-lished in 1996, and Smart Growth America (SGA), estab-lished in 2000. APA was an original member of both. In2002, APA adopted a policy position on smart growth thatincluded seven goals and focused on five broad policythemes (APA, 2002b).1 Additionally, APA promoted 13core principles of smart growth, including targeting areasfor compact development and reinvestment, creating asense of place, and involving diverse interest groups in theplanning process. APA’s stance on social equity as a smartgrowth goal called for reversing the negative effects of jobsprawl and improving access to a range of quality jobs incentral cities. However, while APA’s smart growth focuspromoted mixed-use areas, infill development, reuse ofexisting buildings and infrastructure, as well as brownfieldredevelopment, it failed to mention specific policies forencouraging industrial uses or reinvesting in industrial landfor new manufacturing. Likewise, while APA supportedredeveloping former industrial areas in order to improvecentral-city vitality and encourage new job opportunities indistressed neighborhoods, it did not consider industrialactivity a means to achieve these goals in its smart growthpolicy statement. This was the case even though industrialactivity typically produces higher wages and more jobsthan commercial activity. Manufacturing, for example,remains the largest export sector and still has the highesteconomic multiplier of any sector (The ManufacturingInstitute, 2009).

To assist localities in implementing principles withinthe policy guide, APA (2002a) also published the GrowingSmart Legislative Guidebook, a 1,400-page document thatdescribes best practices in legislating and implementinglocal smart growth policies. The Guidebook included areview of 47 neighborhood plans adopted between 1980and 1996. Only 6% of the plans mentioned industrial landuse and activities, and then only in the context of limitingor removing existing industrial development, rerouting

industrial traffic, and protecting human health and theenvironment from industrial activities (see pp. 7-273). Inthe 36 common practices for preparing effective smartgrowth policies that the Guidebook discussed, industrialdevelopment was not mentioned once. Indeed, while APAidentified planning as an advisory activity that improvedthe quality of places and supported balanced economicviability in central-city neighborhoods, its Guidebook didnot consider the possibility of expanding or revitalizingindustrial areas in its analysis of common smart growthelements or its reviews of best practices.

In the nearly two decades since the smart growthmovement began, planning scholars have put considerableeffort into defining smart growth and advancing its policiesand goals. Typologies in academic literature havefrequently been used to convey how smart growth’s corevalues were incorporated within urban development poli-cies. Ye, Mandpe, and Meyer (2005) offered a set of pro-grammatic elements organized under six main dimensionsof smart growth. Downs (2005) provided a set of nineprinciples that have been reflected in smart growth policies,and asserted that political pressure to adopt these principlestypically came from nongovernmental environmentalists,local public officials and planners, and innovative develop-ers that had found a market niche.2 The emphasis placedon public-private partnerships by these actors was one ofthe most notable shifts during smart growth’s evolutionfrom earlier policies of urban growth control and manage-ment policy (Burchell, Listokin, & Galley, 2000).

These public-private partnerships have subsequentlydetermined how smart growth policies are framed. Toillustrate, Burchell, Listokin, and Galley (2000) consideredpublic-private partnerships to be invaluable in overcomingthe challenges of revitalizing urban industrial areas. Localgovernments could inventory their industrial land, providethis information to private developers, streamline approvals,and reduce redevelopment costs in an effort to spark conver-sion of industrial land to residential and other nonindustrialuses. Edwards and Haines (2007) recommended that localplanners, developers, and communities make smart growthobjectives more explicit in comprehensive plans that haveoutcomes such as sustainable economic development. Weare interested in the apparent lack of policy directions, eitherimplicit or explicit, for industrial development in APA’spolicy guide and its typologies of smart growth principlesand key concepts. In other words, planning’s professionalbody and its key academic research neither emphasize posi-tive benefits of industrial development for urban revitaliza-tion, nor do they make connections with local industrialplanning in the smart growth movement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 6: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Background

This article is motivated by our involvement in ongo-ing efforts to develop the first industrial land and sustain-able industry policy for the City of Atlanta, Georgia.During the course of preparing background studies and animplementation framework, we conducted a nationalsearch for cities that were already focusing on issues andpolices for industrial land preservation. The 13 cities weidentified were Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles,Minneapolis–Saint Paul, New York, Oakland, Philadel-phia, Portland (OR), San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, andWashington, DC.3 All of the cities expressed concernabout the loss of productive industrial land to other uses,and the subsequent ramifications for local economic devel-opment. Local planners and cities worried they would nothave enough productive industrial land and building spacelocated in the right areas, and supported by the right typeof urban infrastructure, to meet the needs of industrialbusinesses. They feared they would consequently miss outon significant new economic development opportunitiesfrom advanced and sustainable manufacturing and relatedindustries. Several cities were also grappling with theshortage of strategically located industrial land necessary tomeet growing demands in public services.

In response to these overarching issues, local industrialpolicies implemented any or all of the following measures:

• protecting and enhancing industrial areas by restrict-ing nonindustry uses;

• curtailing market-driven overpricing of industrial landby fostering an industrial business climate and limitingcompeting land uses within existing industrial areas;

• eliminating ad hoc conversions by establishing stricterrezoning criteria and processes;

• improving linkages between workforce training andquality local industrial jobs;

• redeveloping brownfields for industrial reuse; • integrating public capital and infrastructure priorities

with industrial land protection and revitalization; and • undertaking strategic communications to change

smokestack perceptions of modern industry whilecommunicating urban industry’s challenges, opportu-nities, and impacts to policymakers and the public.

Our research identifies a recurring theme in localindustrial policies: Industrial development is pitted againstmixed-use, retail, commercial, office, high-technology, andresidential development. The often-cited explanation thatmany U.S. cities, including most of those in our review,have shifted from an industrial-based to a service-basedeconomy over the recent decades as a consequence of

broad economic and industrial restructuring does not fullyexplain this planning conflict. In fact, it obscures the roleof local planning policies in converting industrial land,productive or otherwise, to new uses. In our assessment,city planning tends to be conducted in proverbial silos. Inone silo, planners pursue industrial land protection andfirm attraction and retention through local industrialpolicies. In another, planners focus on redeveloping indus-trial land to meet local demands for other uses. We turn tosmart growth, the most prominent planning approach forsustainable land use and urban development, for insightinto why these divisions exist.

Research Approach

Our exploration of smart growth’s blind side focuseson practice-oriented literature intended to guide localeconomic development planners. The APA smart growthpolicies and academic literature we discussed above cap-tured smart growth’s key concepts and principles. Propo-nents of smart growth will obviously set forth their ownissues and priorities, but we are interested in getting a senseof whether and how smart growth directs planners todiscourage industrial suburban sprawl and revitalize cen-tral-city industrial areas.

In the APA and academic literature, we specificallylook for evidence of whether smart growth, in framingresponses for sustainable cities, considers the diminishingsupply of urban industrial land and its implications forlocal land use and economic development planning. InTable 1, we summarize and classify smart growth’s view ofmajor economic development planning responses affectingurban industrial development, and present issues andpriorities identified by the 14 local industrial policies westudied.

We draw attention to six specific issues and prioritiesin order to demonstrate how strategies can conflict whenurban industrial revitalization and smart growth planningare pursued in isolation from each other. The comparisonhighlights the division between the two approaches. Yet, italso shows that land use planning and local economicdevelopment have shared interests, which, if recognized,would help to dismantle the silos between smart growthplanning and urban industrial planning.

We reviewed 10 additional publications, eight ofwhich were written by SGN members and are among themost popular on the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA) Office of Sustainable Communitieswebsite (http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/publications.htm). We selected this subset because it

90 Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2012, Vol. 78, No. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 7: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Leigh and Hoelzel: Smart Growth’s Blind Side 91

included practice-oriented publications with local eco-nomic development components. We also reviewed twoPlanning Advisory Service (PAS) reports on smart growthpolicies published by APA. Combined, these ten publica-tions include praxis recommendations for planning, policychecklists and evaluation matrices, case studies, and re-search, as well as outreach publications on smart growthbest practices and tools. While the authors of these docu-ments shared smart growth’s core principles of limitingsprawl and revitalizing urban areas, they held varied posi-tions on the role of industrial land and activities in urbanareas, particularly in central cities. Our final selection ofpublications is listed in Table 2.

In the next section, we discuss our review of the 10popular smart growth policy publications. We organize ourfindings according to the classification scheme presented inTable 1. Under each of set of issues and priorities, wediscuss specific policy recommendations that speak directlyto urban industrial development concerns. We identify theextent to which the publications addressed concerns; wealso identify moments when they appeared to be in conflictwith the issues and priorities set forth in the 14 localindustrial policies.

Evidence of Smart Growth’s Blind Side inPractice-Oriented Literature

To be clear from the outset, the following review doesnot suggest that smart growth explicitly directs communi-ties and planners to push out existing industrial employersor prohibit new industrial activities in urban areas. Rather,the evidence from the 10 smart growth publications revealsthat smart growth and urban industrial developmentpolicies, while sharing a desire for sustainable development,

differ in their views of industrial land and of the signifi-cance of industry in central cities. Urban industrial areaswere generally perceived in the publications to be function-ally obsolete, underutilized, or otherwise insufficient tosupport the dense, mixed-use development smart growthadvocates to combat sprawl and improve urban neighbor-hood quality. Subsequently, the publications’ authorsplaced greater emphasis on improving local conditions(including the conversion of industrial land) in order toattract the type of real estate development that wouldsupport the mix of residential and service- and knowledge-based economic activities more consistent with the popularconception of the new economy.

The view of urban industrial areas as unproductive andunattractive dominated the discourse in the publications.This narrow view, in turn, provides little incentive toconsider local industrial policies such as those of the 14cities reviewed in this article. Identifying specific instanceswhen smart growth issues and priorities conflicted with orsupported the planning activities taken in local industrialpolicies may help to broaden this view.

Land Use Planning Issues and PrioritiesThe loss of industrial land to other uses was the most

prevalent issue in the 14 local industrial policies we re-viewed. Atlanta, for instance, lost 800 acres or 12% of itsindustrial land between 2004 and 2009. More industrialland is at risk. In the new urbanist-inspired GlenwoodPark neighborhood, a cement plant is under pressure fromthe encroaching mixed-use development and has recentlyput 20 acres up for sale (see Figure 1). Table 3 displays thereduction of industrially zoned land in seven cities over thepast several years.

Table 1. Local industrial issues and policies and smart growth planning.

Summary of urban industrial development Summary of smart growth issues and priorities issues and priorities in 14 local industrial policies impacting urban industrial development

Land use planning issues and priorities1. Loss of industrial land and ad hoc zoning conversions threatening 1. Rezone land for functionality and compatible mixes of use.

productive industrial areas.2. Market-driven overpricing of industrial land and competition from 2. Facilitate transit-oriented development (TOD) and greater access to jobs.

other land use alternatives.3. Encroachment and compatibility of uses within and surrounding 3. Foster compact and dense infill development.

industrial areas. Local economic development planning issues and priorities

1. Lack of available productive industrial land for advanced 1. Balance jobs and housing.manufacturing and sustainable industrial businesses.

2. Link workforce training to quality, local industrial jobs. 2. Reduce job sprawl and job-resident spatial mismatch.3. Foster supportive and innovative business climates for industry. 3. Improve employment diversity, quality, and wages in urban job centers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 8: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Since the 1990s, San Francisco lost nearly half of itsindustrial land, mostly to mixed-use development designedto accommodate growing demand for residential and officespace. During the recent planning process for San Fran-cisco’s Eastern Neighborhoods, the conversion of over 600acres of industrial land to mixed-use housing developmentwas intensely contested (San Francisco Planning Depart-ment, 2002a, 2002b, 2008). Local advocacy for retaining abalanced mix of industrial land and activities led to theprioritization of industrial land use in the community’sinfill redevelopment strategy, which was included in theBay Area’s regional smart growth project, FOCUS (Associ-ation of Bay Area Governments, 2011).

In Portland, OR, the expansion of the metropolitan area’surban growth boundary by 310 acres to accommodate acurrent shortfall of urban industrial sites was first granted, andthen denied, over concerns about losing productive farmlandto industry (Bjork, 2011; Christensen, 2010; Metro RegionalGovernment, 2010; SGN, 2010). Although Portland’s indus-trial sanctuary-zoned districts have protected nearly 14,000acres of industrial land from new residential and large-scalecommercial development since 1980, industrial land remainsunder conversion pressure in part because of the perceived

successes of smart growth projects such as the Pearl District(Stout, 2003) and the need to construct infill housing becauseof the region’s urban growth boundary ([UGB]; City ofPortland, Portland Bureau of Planning, 2003). Since 1991,industrial land loss in Portland has mostly been to mixed-useprojects that did not include industry in their mix (City ofPortland, Portland Bureau of Planning, 2004).

Baltimore’s industrial land, especially the land around itsharbor and port facilities, has been under constant conversionpressure for new mixed-use housing and office space. Theperceived uncertainty with regard to the city’s commitment tosupporting industrial activity placed Baltimore at a disadvan-tage for retaining and attracting industrial companies (BayArea Economics, 2004). In 2004, the City of Baltimoreresponded with a comprehensive industrial study and estab-lished a maritime industrial zoning overlay district, whicheventually became recognized as a smart growth success story(Maryland Department of Planning, 2010).

Seattle’s industrial land has been under pressure fromspeculative real estate development driven by demand forresidential and commercial land. In 2007, the City of Seattlecompleted an extensive survey of industrial businesses,current and future land use demands, and existing industrial

92 Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2012, Vol. 78, No. 1

Table 2. Ten selected smart growth publications (2002–2009).

Author Title Year In-text abbreviation

1. American Planning Association Smart growth audits (PAS No. 512) 2003 APA, 2003(Prepared by J. Weitz & L. Waldner)

2. American Planning Association Smart codes: Model 2009 APA, 2009(Prepared by M. Morris) land-development

regulations (PAS No. 556)3. Congress for the New Urbanism Smart scorecard for 2002 CNU & U.S. EPA, 2002

& U.S. EPA (Prepared by W. Fleissig development projects& V. Jacobsen)

4. International City/County Getting to smart growth 2002 ICMA & SGN, 2002Management Association, & I: 100 policies for Smart Growth Network implementation

5. International City/County Getting to smart growth II: 100 2003 ICMA & SGN, 2003Management Association, & more policies for implementationSmart Growth Network

6. International Economic Economic development 2006 IEDC, 2006Development Council and smart growth

7. National Association of Local Smart growth is smart business: 2004 NALGEP & SGLI, 2004Government Environmental Professionals, Boosting the bottom line & & SmartGrowth Leadership Institute community prosperity

8. Smart Growth Leadership Institute Implementation tools 2007 SGLI, 20079. Smart Growth Network, International This is smart growth 2006 SGN, ICMA, & U.S. EPA, 2006

City/County Management, & U.S. EPA10. U.S. EPA (Prepared by Jonathan Rose Smart growth guidelines for 2009 U.S. EPA, 2009

Companies &Roberts and Todd) sustainable design and development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 9: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Leigh and Hoelzel: Smart Growth’s Blind Side 93

zoning codes. The efforts resulted in changes to zoningordinances that limited nonindustrial activities in the city’sindustrial employment centers. Furthermore, after assessingwhether there was enough land in Seattle’s designated urbanvillages to accommodate both housing and nonindustrialemployment growth over the next decade and half, the Citydetermined it did not need to convert industrial land inorder to curb sprawl (City of Seattle, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c;Seattle Planning Commission, 2007).

Pressure for residential development was by far themost prevalent cause of industrial conversion in Min-neapolis’s central area. Fifteen industrial buildings wereconverted to new city-living lofts between 2000 and 2005alone (Maxfield Research Inc., 2006). Saint Paul has alsoexperienced its share of industrial land conversion: 387acres between 2000 and 2005 (CDC Associates, 2008).The Twin Cities took note of these losses and determinedthat preserving productive industrial areas was necessary if

Figure 1. Industrial land under pressure (including pressure for zoning changes) from new smart growth mixed-use development in Atlanta. Theconcrete company has a 20-acre batch plant (A) for sale. The smaller sand plant (B) is also experiencing pressure. Heavy truck traffic raisesincompatibility issues with the development’s new residents and businesses located east of the industrial area. Aerial image source: Google Earth, 2010 (image used in accordance with Google Permission Guidelines,http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html). Photograph credits: N. Z. Hoelzel.

(Color figure available online.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 10: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

they wanted to meet the growing demands in new manu-facturing and maintain a balanced and sustainable econ-omy. Recently, the Mayors’ Initiative on Green Manufac-turing was established.

As previously discussed, a number of factors havemade central cities less attractive locations for manufactur-ing and other industrial activities over the decades (e.g.,obsolete facilities, limited space for expansion, less con-ducive urban infrastructure, competition from suburbanand overseas localities, and overall national decline in thenumber of manufacturing firms and employees). The localindustrial policies we reviewed specifically identified otherfactors, particularly increased conversion pressures onindustrial land. Together these influences posed formidablechallenges to planners attempting to revitalize urban indus-tries. However, the smart growth movement, as portrayedin the 10 publications we reviewed, has as yet been unre-sponsive to these concerns.

Several of the publications promoted rezoning existingurban industrial areas to accommodate a mix of land uses(APA, 2003, 2009; Congress for the New Urbanism &U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [CNU & U.S.EPA], 2002; Smart Growth Network, InternationalCity/County Management, & U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency [SGN, ICMA, & U.S. EPA], 2006; U.S.EPA, 2009). Without mentioning industrial reuse, theysuggested that redeveloping single-use areas (such as indus-trial parks and large industrial buildings) as dense, mixed-use and live–work developments was critical to the success

of regional development strategies for promoting efficientuse of transportation networks and other infrastructure,increasing housing options and opportunities to achievethe American dream, and protecting farmland. It is strik-ing that smart growth considers preserving productivefarmland a viable means to sustainable urban development,while virtually ignoring the contribution of urban indus-trial land and the activities industry supports. The citiesthat have created local industrial policies argue that losingproductive industrial land is similar to losing productivefarmland: Once it is converted it is often difficult, if notimpossible, to reclaim it.

The 10 smart growth publications we examined paidlittle attention to the necessity of industrial land in provid-ing public services. Cities’ own governments are among theheaviest users of industrial land, and local industrial poli-cies revealed that some cities had an immediate need foradditional industrial space, especially for public works,waste management, and parks and vehicle fleet mainte-nance. This demand for new space was partially attributedto the demand generated by the sort of dense, nonindus-trial developments promoted by smart growth, and thegrowing demand for alternative, more sustainable forms ofpublic services. The smart growth publications providedsome guidance on recycling construction and demolition(C&D) debris, incorporating local recycling programs inend uses, and integrating onsite renewable energy sources(CNU & U.S. EPA, 2002; U.S. EPA, 2009). However,they failed to connect where these activities take place withthe type of land necessary to support them. Recycling,composting, remanufacturing, and alternative energyproduction and distribution are activities that usually occuron industrial land, but the publications did not directplanners to ensure that industrial land would be availablefor local facilities. They failed to mention that the localproduction of these products and services would be rele-vant for meeting sustainability goals. The publications alsomade no reference to the role of municipal operations insupporting these private activities.

Adjusting smart growth’s outlook so that it considersproductive industrial land essential for sustainable citiesrequires planners to assess current land use and zoningplans, and to consider amendments, such as protectiveindustrial districts. However, the publications providedlittle to no guidance on this point. Instead, APA recom-mended that when reviewing local smart growth policies,planners should ensure the presence of zoning districts thatallowed for a mix of residential and commercial uses. APAdid not ask planners to consider the benefits of local zon-ing ordinances that provided protections for industrialareas while allowing compatible industrial uses adjacent to

94 Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2012, Vol. 78, No. 1

Table 3. Loss of industrial land to rezoning in select U.S. cities.

Industrial land Cities lost (acres) % Lost Years

Atlanta, GAa 800 12 2004–2009Minneapolis–St. 1,812 18 1990–2005Paul, MNb

New York, NYc 1,797 14 2002–2007Philadelphia, PAd 1,645 8 1990–2008Portland, ORe 489 2 1991–2001San Francisco, CAf 1,276 46 1990–2008San Jose, CAg 1,470 9 1990–2009

Source:a. Leigh et al. (2009b).b. CDC Associates (2008).c. Pratt Center for Community Development (2009).d. City of Philadelphia (2011).e. City of Portland, Portland Bureau of Planning (2003).f. San Francisco Planning Department (2008).g. City of San Jose, Department of Planning, Building, Code

Enforcement (2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 11: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Leigh and Hoelzel: Smart Growth’s Blind Side 95

or mixed with residential and commercial uses. Further,while APA emphasized the benefits of form-based codes forexpanding housing opportunities, encouraging pedestrianactivity, and preserving open space, it did not discuss thepotential benefits for industrial productivity or revitalizingindustrial areas (APA, 2003, 2009).

Four other organizations provided vague guidance onincluding industrial uses in smart growth redevelopmentprojects (International City/County Management & SmartGrowth Network [ICMA & SGN], 2002, 2003; Interna-tional Economic Development Council [IEDC], 2006;Smart Growth Leadership Institute [SGLI], 2007). Theyencouraged mixing land uses to correct previous planningpractices of low-density, single-use developments. Plannerscould now promote form-based codes in mixed-use areaswith light industry; allow some small manufacturers tooperate in live–work zones; expect industrial facilities thatwere cleaner and more neighbor-friendly; and redevelopbrownfields with a mix of residential, retail, and officespace, as well as high-tech manufacturing, biomedicalincubators, and pharmaceutical distribution. However, nospecific policy tools or incentives were discussed; neitherwas there discussion about how to prepare form-basedcodes or create the mix of uses to revitalize urban industrialareas.

A related land use planning issue raised in severalsmart growth publications is the placement of transit-oriented development (TOD) to encourage greater accessto jobs (APA, 2003, 2009; ICMA & SGN, 2002; IEDC,2006; SGLI, 2007; SGN, ICMA, & U.S. EPA, 2006).None of the publications, however, offered guidance onhow to provide workers with adequate transit services andaccess to urban industrial areas. Industrial developmentpatterns and the types of jobs industrial land supports werenot considered transit friendly. Alternatively, the publica-tions offered several specific policy recommendations andexamples of the type of dense, compact, mixed-use devel-opment that attracts the critical mass of transit ridershipnecessary to support TODs. APA (2009), for example,provided a model TOD overlay district that specified theexclusion of warehousing and distribution facilities, freightterminals, and industrial uses. In Portland, OR, the city“shed its industrial heritage, welcoming art galleries, bou-tiques, trendy nightspots, and fashionable restaurants andturning warehouses into loft apartments” in the BreweryBlocks district, a TOD (IEDC, 2006, p. 9).

Fostering compact, dense infill redevelopment is a coretenet of smart growth policies, and the majority of thepublications promoted this form of redevelopment. Severalpublications encouraged planners to allow dense develop-ments within existing urban areas (APA, 2003; ICMA &

SGN, 2002; SGN, ICMA, & U.S. EPA, 2006; U.S. EPA,2009). However, by emphasizing only residential andcommercial density in land use policies, communities andtheir planners may perceive larger industrial parcels andbuildings to be inefficient land users. That is, narrowlydefining efficient land use by a density criterion missesother important economic factors such as the fact thatmanufacturing has higher value and employment multi-plier effects than many other land uses, and the fact thatlocal tax revenues generated by manufacturers may begreater than the costs of providing them basic publicservices. APA (2009) did provide guidance on encouragingindustrial development at productive intensities and with amix of other complementary uses. It cited Oregon’s UGBpolicy, which provided some measure of assurance thaturban industrial land would be available, while encourag-ing infill development. However, as the recent conflict overexpanding buildable industrial land in Portland's reserveillustrates, there are still challenges to meeting industrialland needs and resolving land use conflicts. APA did notpropose ways to resolve land use conflicts arising within oradjacent to industrial areas; neither did it offer policies forprotecting industrial land from conversion. It can, how-ever, look to several of the cities that undertook localindustrial policies, and recommend criteria for industrialland conversions and schemes for mitigating loss of pro-ductive industrial land. For example, San Jose has a policywhereby conversion requests must be accompanied by adesignation of more industrial land somewhere else withinthe city (City of San Jose, Department of Planning, Build-ing, Code Enforcement, 2007). The New York IndustrialRetention Network (2004) recommended to the City ofNew York that a citywide conversion fee program be putin place to recapture a portion of the increased value of aconverted industrial property, and the proceeds be used tohelp retain displaced industrial firms and jobs.

Local Economic Development PlanningIssues and Priorities

Local industrial policies promote resilient and sustain-able local economies by supporting a strong industrial baseand greater economic diversification. Of the 10 smartgrowth publications we reviewed, none provided policyguidance for ensuring a sustainable mix of industrial jobs.The publications addressing the issue of balancing jobs andhousing offered no guidance on how and why plannersshould include industrial jobs in the balance (APA, 2003;ICMA & SGN, 2002; National Association of Local Gov-ernmental Environmental Professionals & Smart GrowthLeadership Institute [NALGEP & SGLI], 2004). Forexample, the National Association of Local Government

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 12: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Environmental Professionals and Smart Growth LeadershipInstitute (2004) discussed Silicon Valley ManufacturingGroup’s4 program for providing transportation and afford-able housing options to San Jose’s industrial workers, butfailed to mention how workforce housing policies related tothe city’s industrial policies. While the publications gener-ally accepted the premise that smart growth allowed com-munities to respond to the market, the focus was predomi-nantly on housing. As such, recommended policies werelimited to inventorying and incentivizing redevelopment formeeting housing demands; policies for meeting current andfuture industrial demands and ensuring adequate supply ofindustrial land and jobs in urban areas were not mentioned.

Reducing job sprawl and job–resident spatial mis-match are popular smart growth issues, but, again, thepublications offered little to no guidance on how plannerscould address these issues by supporting urban industrialdevelopment. Policies promoting job–housing balancetended to focus on the ratio of jobs to houses withoutmaking distinctions about the type or quality of jobs (APA2003; ICMA & SGN, 2003; SGN, ICMA, & U.S. EPA,2006; U.S. EPA, 2009). The publications focused insteadon public-private partnerships in the form of retailers;office developers; real estate brokers; neighborhood serviceproviders; and local activists, nonprofits, and governmentto revitalize urban employment districts and create afford-able housing for employees. In discussions of public-private partnerships for economic development, industrialstakeholders were noticeably absent.

The publications’ modest guidance for encouragingurban industrial development in order to reduce job sprawland provide local residents with job opportunities tendedto rely on the traditional approaches to attracting andretaining industrial employers (ICMA & SGN, 2002;NALGEP & SGLI, 2004). The ICMA and SGN (2002)recommended local economic development incentives tosupport urban employment districts that would accommo-date light industrial users and create job opportunities forlocal residents. However, the guidance did not discusswhich incentives were most appropriate or suggest howplanners should determine the right mix of land uses.Vermont Forum on Sprawl and Vermont Business Round-table’s 2003 report, “New Models for Commercial andIndustrial Development,” was briefly mentioned by NAL-GEP and SGLI (2004) as a source for strategies to curbindustrial sprawl and attract industrial development backto urban cores. The Roundtable’s report made a series ofrecommendations and offered brief case studies to illustratehow alternative approaches to industrial revitalizationcould be consistent with smart growth principles andreduce industrial suburban sprawl. The NALGEP and

SGLI publication’s only recommendation was limited toprequalifying developable areas to encourage private devel-opment and streamline public approval and incentives.

The smart growth publications we reviewed addresseddiversity and quality of employment in urban employmentdistricts. While several offered policy ideas for strengthen-ing urban employment districts, they did not clearly con-nect employment strategies to revitalizing urban industrialareas and activities (APA, 2003; ICMA & SGN, 2002;SGLI, 2007; SGN, ICMA, & U.S. EPA, 2006). Instead,smart growth policy recommendations tended to empha-size business improvement districts directed toward revital-izing commercial employment districts and expandingdiversity of residential and commercial uses in mixed-usedistricts. They did not discuss the benefits of puttingsimilar mechanisms or policies in place to promotestronger industrial areas that in turn would support morevibrant urban job centers.

In the concluding section below, we offer our insightson the smart growth movement’s inattention to revitalizingurban industry and its associated planning implications.We also offer suggestions for specific topics to best framefuture research and dialogue for advancing smart growthpolicies that improve connections between urban industryand the broader smart growth goal of sustainable urbandevelopment.

Conclusion: Correcting SmartGrowth’s Blind Side

The manner in which the planning community hasdiscussed and practiced conventional smart growth policieshas largely ignored industry’s challenges and opportunitiesin urban areas. We have argued smart growth’s policyblind side may even be contributing to the problems facinglocal industrial policies and planners. To reiterate, we arenot suggesting that industrial uses are necessarily moreimportant than other uses, and we recognize that manycities implement smart growth policies because they face agrowing shortage of quality housing, particularly for low-and middle-income residents. They may also pursue op-portunities in high technology, information, and otherindustries that may require particular urban conditions.However, urban industrial development and smart growthshould not be an either/or proposition. The smart growthmovement sets forth its own issues and priorities, but thereare specific situations in which productive exchanges ofpolicy ideas can occur between smart growth and urbanindustrial planning. To foster this dialogue, we suggestfour research and policy directions.

96 Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2012, Vol. 78, No. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 13: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Make Industry a Smart Growth Priority forSustainable Local Economic Development

The title of a recent post on The Atlantic Cities, “Redeveloping Former Industrial Sites Doesn’t MeanGiving Up On Industry” (Badger, 2011), captures themotivation behind the City of Philadelphia’s industrialplanning within the context of smart growth. The exam-ples from Philadelphia and other cities we discussed illus-trate that the smart growth framework must be adjusted sothat it acknowledges industry’s critical role in creatingsustainable and innovative economies. Planners, throughlocal industrial policies, argue that vibrant industrial basesare essential for sustainable cities. The planning commu-nity, and the smart growth movement within it, can takethe lead by ensuring that major policy issues and prioritiesfound in local industrial policies are not ignored. Toexpand the smart growth dialogue, planners should focusgreater attention on the impacts of smart growth policieson productive urban industrial land and on developinglocal measures to protect urban industry while pursuingsmart growth. Proponents of smart growth should seek theexpertise of local industrial planners to identify particularcharacteristics of productive industrial land. Philadelphia,for example, offers a working definition of productiveindustrial land that combines employment, local tax rev-enue, land utilization, real estate stability, and businessdiversity (Interface Studio, 2010). Planners should alsoidentify the types and quality of industrial employers andthe jobs most suitable for urban industrial land.

Include Urban Industrial Land Use Planningin Smart Growth

Cross-fertilization between smart growth and indus-trial planning requires the exploration of design and regu-latory alternatives to segregating industrial land uses andthe creation of well supported industrial districts.

Mass transit alternatives should provide for (ratherthan displace) industrial labor. Connecting employmentcenters to transit is a common solution to job sprawl andspatial mismatch, but, as we discussed earlier, the reviewedsmart growth publications provided no planning guidanceon how industrial districts could support transit, and inparticular, TODs. Furthermore, several of the local indus-trial policies we reviewed documented that TOD projectscreated pressures for industrial land conversion (City ofLos Angeles, Department of City Planning and the Com-munity Redevelopment Agency, 2007; City of Oakland,Office of the Clerk, 2008; District of Columbia, Office ofPlanning, 2006).

We acknowledge that some sectors of the economy aremore easily oriented toward transit than others. For in-

stance, manufacturing and warehousing, if they are locatedin isolated single-use districts, cannot easily be built at thedensities that will promote high transit ridership (Green-berg & Belzer, 2008, p. 12). To avoid displacing industrialjobs and furthering industrial job sprawl, planners shouldexplore TOD models that include industrial uses. Localindustrial planners have specifically addressed this issue byexamining the transit ridership of the local industrialworkforce and developing policies for alternative trans-portation that would be compatible with existing industrialtraffic.

The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporationassessed the local and regional passenger rail and bus routesservicing its industrial districts. Significant industrialemployers in the city are located along public transit routes(see Figure 2). The Center for Transit-Oriented Develop-ment (2010), working with the City of Los Angeles, addi-tionally promoted “employment TODs” to “reconcile theCity’s employment land preservation policy with transit-supportive land uses” (p. 10).

Local industrial policies have already incorporateddesign guidelines, including innovative sustainable build-ing and landscaping features, in order to reduce compati-bility issues within and surrounding industrial districts. Werecommend improving smart growth audits by havingplanners share experiences and expand design guidelinesand form-based codes concepts. San Francisco’s Pier 70redevelopment project, for example, may set a nationalprecedent for mixing industrial activities with other uses inan effort to attract employment to the currently unproduc-tive industrial area (see Figure 3). This collaboration couldgo a long way toward revising the smokestack image ofmodern industry, adopting sustainable and neighborhood-scale industry in areas with residential and commercialuses, and improving the urban design and function ofcentral-city industrial districts. In short, smart growth andurban industrial planning researchers and practitionersshould work together to advance sustainable and competi-tive industrial development in central cities.

Conduct Additional Research on the Costsand Benefits of Industrial Reuse on UrbanBrownfields and the Contributions of theIndustrial Base to Central-City Economies

After several years of economic recession, local gov-ernments are finding it increasingly difficult to avoidfurther cuts to services and to balance budgets withoutincurring large debt burdens. Research is needed on theimplications for local tax bases of the growing imbalancebetween land designated for residential versus industrialuse. Is there a fiscally sound threshold for the amount of

Leigh and Hoelzel: Smart Growth’s Blind Side 97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 14: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

locally zoned industrial land? Research indicates that, onresidential land, cities may spend more on providingbasic public services than the tax revenue they collect.The opposite is true for industrial land (American Farm-land Trust, 2010). Consequently, maintaining and grow-ing the industrial sector could be especially beneficial tolocalities facing fiscal crises.

Furthermore, redeveloping brownfields, which areoften industrial sites, for nonindustrial end uses intro-duces complications and costs that industrial reusewould not (Fitzgerald & Leigh, 2002). Howland (2010)reviewed recent trends of brownfield developers in Balti-more and provided empirical data to substantiate thisclaim. By protecting productive industrial areas andredeveloping underutilized industrial sites for new indus-trial activity, cities can strengthen their economic base

even when local revenues are severely depleted andresources are too small to support nonindustrial infilldevelopment.

Link Industrial Land Use to the LocalProduction Needs of the Green Economy

Consider the need for industrial land to take advantageof emerging opportunities, specifically, recycling andremanufacturing business opportunities, in sustainable andinnovative industries. Smart growth emphasizes sustainablebuildings, and certification programs that require construc-tion and demolition waste tracking, and using recycledbuilding materials are increasing in popularity. Theseservices and products depend on industrial land, facilities,and workers, and represent lost economic developmentpotential if they are not locally sited.

98 Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2012, Vol. 78, No. 1

Figure 2. An industrial employer in Philadelphia, PA, located along a local and regional passenger rail route.Source: Reproduced with permission of Interface Studio, LLC.

(Color figure available online.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 15: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Encourage Greater Involvement of UrbanIndustrial Stakeholders in Smart GrowthDecisions

Downs’s (2005) stakeholder typology included environ-mentalists, developers, planners, and public officials, andcalled for the smart growth movement to pay more attentionto the general public, especially homeowners. However, itfailed to mention an obvious and major stakeholder—indus-try—specifically, industrial employers and their employees.The Smart Growth Leadership Institute’s Smart “GrowthStrategy Builder” (included in SGLI, 2007) also offeredseveral suggestions for encouraging stakeholder participationin smart growth policies and projects, but, again, did notaddress the specific concerns of industrial stakeholders. Werecommend that planners reach out to industrial stakeholdersby modifying the strategy builder series of questions. Forexample, question 24 could be modified to ask, “Is smartgrowth seen as a way to limit industrial land growth?” Ques-

tion 27 could be reframed to ask, “Are there trusted organiza-tions that can act as intermediaries to facilitate a more cooper-ative industrial development process?”

National smart growth networks and federal agencies,particularly the U.S. EPA and its Sustainable CommunitiesInitiative partners, can elevate urban industrial revitaliza-tion within the smart growth agenda. These leading enti-ties can promote job creation and balanced-economyobjectives that include industry. These two objectives arecurrently missing in APA, U.S. EPA, SGA, and SGN’s listsof smart growth’s core principles.

There are, however, two early leaders who warrantrecognition. Good Jobs First (2010a, 2010b) has prepareda series of reports and websites connecting organized laborinterests with smart growth. The organization advocatesfor economic development policies that are supportive ofjobs held by working families, and for improving thediversity of employment in urban areas since the formation

Leigh and Hoelzel: Smart Growth’s Blind Side 99

Figure 3. Pier 70 in San Francisco is a former ship repair and steel fabrication complex being redeveloped into a mix of industrial and commercial uses.Local planners are incorporating requirements for mixes of land uses, form-based codes, building design, and infrastructure to maintain a significantamount of industrial employment.Source: Reproduced with permission from SFMade.

(Color figure available online.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 16: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

of the Smart Growth America. Unions tend to be based in urban areas, and Good Jobs First has shown that unionsconsider sprawl a problem for labor (LeRoy, 2003). In fact,the AFL-CIO has been engaged in the smart growth de-bate for over 10 years (AFL-CIO, 2001; Goodno, 2002).

Another early leader is the Pratt Center for CommunityDevelopment, which, with its partners, is drawing nationalattention to neighborhood-scale, urban manufacturingwithin the framework of sustainable local economic develop-ment.5 Through these efforts, a national policy frameworkfor small- and medium-size manufacturers (a large portionof which are concentrated in large U.S. cities) is starting totake shape, and it complements smart growth’s priorities forcurbing sprawl and revitalizing local economies.

In conducting background research for Atlanta’sindustrial policy, we found local networks of businesses,nonprofits, and public institutions advocating on behalf ofurban industry in Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco,Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. These policy net-works also played an important role in local industrialpolicymaking and, therefore, could be influential stake-holders in smart growth policies. Together, national smartgrowth networks, federal agencies, and local industrialpolicy networks can strengthen the connection betweensmart growth and urban industrial development, and workto resolve the conflicts we have discussed. Future workabout the perception of modern industry and industry’sbenefits to urban economies may be warranted at thenational and local levels. Best practices for urban industrialland use policies; investment in brownfield cleanups andinfrastructure to create conditions supportive of innovationwithin small and medium-size urban manufacturers; andtraining curricula linked to the skill requirements of indus-trial employers all merit further study. Last, nationalpartnerships with local-level industrial stakeholders mayelevate the dialogue on reforming transportation, energy,tax, and environmental policies in order to redirect invest-ment in urban industry in the United States.

In summary, our review of planning practice literaturedocuments the blind side of the smart growth movement.The slow recovery from the Great Recession, the highresidential and office foreclosure and vacancy rates, thefiscal woes of cities, and the high urban unemploymentrate (which is projected to last for years) are all compellingreasons for the smart growth movement to widen its visionto include urban industrial revitalization. Further, theseconditions have also diminished the economic growthpressures that created the impetus for the smart growthmovement in the first place. This is a particularly appropri-ate moment to take stock of the smart growth movement,and we believe explicit efforts to incorporate urban

industry and innovative industrial land strategies will helpto ensure that smart growth strategies remain relevant inthe long term.

AcknowledgmentsWe wish to express our sincere appreciation for the many commentsand suggestions for improving this article provided by Timothy Chapin,Randall Crane, and three anonymous referees. All errors and omissionsremain our own.

Notes1. APA’s five broad themes for smart growth include a) planningstructure, process, and regulation, b) transportation and land use, c) regional management and community building, d) social equity andcommunity building, and e) environmental protection and land conservation.2. In earlier work, Downs (2001) grouped proponents into one of fourgroups: a) anti- or slow-growth advocates, and environmentalists, b) pro-growth advocates, c) inner-city advocates, and d) better-growthadvocates.3. The Appendix provides the relevant policy documents and responsi-ble local economic development authorities for each of these cities.4. The network is now referred to as the Silicon Valley LeadershipGroup (see http://svlg.org/).5. See The Federal Role in Supporting Urban Manufacturing (Mistry &Byron, 2011), and the Pratt Center for Community Development’srecently announced commitment by the Clinton Global Initiative tosupport the Urban Manufacturing Alliance (http://www.clintonglob-alinitiative.org/commitments/commitments_search.asp?id=715707).

ReferencesAFL-CIO. (2001). Resolution 16: Urban sprawl and smart growth.Retrieved January 23, 2011, from http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thi-sistheaflcio/convention/2001/resolutions/ upload/res_16.pdfAmerican Farmland Trust. (2010). Cost of community services studies.Retrieved March 23, 2011, from http://www.farmlandinfo.org/farm-land_preservation_literature/ index.cfm?function=article_view&arti-cleID=38422American Planning Association. (2002a). Growing smart legislativeguidebook: Model statutes for planning and the management of change.Retrieved January 23, 2011, from http://www.planning.org/growings-mart/guidebook/print/index.htmAmerican Planning Association. (2002b). Policy guide on smart growth.Retrieved January 23, 2011, from http://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/smartgrowth.htmAmerican Planning Association. (2003). Smart growth audits (PASNo. 512). Prepared by J. Weitz & L. Waldner. Chicago, IL: APA'sPlanning Advisory Service.American Planning Association. (2009). Smart codes: Model land-development regulations (PAS No. 556). Prepared by M. Morris.Chicago, IL: APA's Planning Advisory Service. Association of Bay Area Governments. (2011). About FOCUS.Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://www.bayareavision.org/initia-tives/index.htmlBadger, E. (2011). Redeveloping former industrial sites doesn’t meangiving up on industry. The Atlantic Cities. Retrieved November 1, 2011,

100 Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2012, Vol. 78, No. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 17: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

from http://www.theatlanticcities.com/ housing/2011/09/brownfield-revitalization-movement/153/Bay Area Economics. (2004). Industrial land use analysis. Prepared forBaltimore Development Corporation. Retrieved January 25, 2011, fromhttp://www.baltimoredevelopment.com/industrial-land-use-analysisBoston Redevelopment Authority. (2002). Boston’s industrial spaces:Industrial land and building spaces in Boston and its neighborhoods.Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://www.bostonredevelopmentau-thority.org/PDF/ResearchPublications/rpt552.pdfBjork, N. (2011, January 7). Innovation industrial land plan proposedfor Oregon. Daily Journal of Commerce. Retrieved July 25, 2011, fromhttp://djcoregon.com/news/2011/01/07/ innovative-industrial-land-plan-proposed-for-oregon/Bronstein, Z. (2009). Industry and the smart city. Dissent, 56(3), 27–34. Burchell, R. W., Listokin, D., & Galley, C. C. (2000). Smart growth:More than a ghost of urban policy past, less than a bold new horizon.Housing Policy Debate, 11(4), 821–877. CDC Associates. (2008). Making it green in Minneapolis–Saint Paul.Prepared for The Mayors’ Initiative on Green Manufacturing. RetrievedMarch 3, 2011, from http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/admin/publica-tions/files/0003.4.pdfCenter for Transit-Oriented Development. (2010). Creating successfultransit-oriented districts in Los Angeles. Retrieved November 1, 2011,from http://latod.reconnectingamerica.orgChristensen, N. (2010, October 15). MPAC agrees with Metro staff onindustrial expansion. Metro News. Retrieved February 6, 2011, fromhttp://news.oregonmetro.gov/1/post.cfm/mpac-agrees-with-metro-staff-on-industrial-expansionCity of Los Angeles. Department of City Planning and the Commu-nity Redevelopment Agency. (2007). Los Angeles’ industrial land:Sustaining a dynamic city economy–Attachment B. Retrieved January 25,2011, from http://cityplanning.lacity.orgCity of New York. (2005). Protecting and growing New York City’sindustrial job base. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from www.nyc.gov/html/imb/downloads/pdf/whitepaper.pdfCity of Oakland. Office of the Clerk. (2008). Recommendation: Actionon a report and recommendations adopting a motion establishing a city-wide industrial land use policy [Meeting minutes for March 4 Concur-rent Meeting of the Oakland Redevelopment Agency and the City ofOakland]. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://clerkwebsvr1.oak-landnet.com/meetings/2008/3/ 5369_M_Concurrent_Meeting_of_the_Oakland_Redevelopment_Agency___City_Council_08-03-04_Meeting_Minutes.pdfCity of Philadelphia. (2011). Draft Philadelphia 2035: Comprehensiveplan. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from http://www.phila.gov/cityplan-ning/pdfs/ CitywidePlan_Draft_02152011_opt_A.pdfCity of Portland. Portland Bureau of Planning. (2003). Portlandharbor industrial lands study: Part two: Interviews and analysis. RetrievedJanuary 5, 2011, from http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?a=59157&c=47527City of Portland. Portland Bureau of Planning. (2004). Industrialdistricts atlas: Portland, OR. Retrieved January 5, 2011, fromhttp://www.portlandonline.com/bps/ index.cfm?a=71533&c=47561City of San Jose. Department of Planning, Building, Code Enforce-ment. (2007). Framework, as a guideline, to evaluate proposed conversionsof employment lands to other uses. Retrieved January 25, 2011, fromhttp://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/ 051507/051507_04.03.pdfCity of San Jose. Department of Planning, Building, Code Enforce-ment. (2008). Existing land use and development trends background report.Retrieved July 3, 2011, from http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/

City of San Jose. Department of Planning, Building, Code Enforce-ment. (2009). City of San Jose general plan amendments affecting theindustrial land supply: 1990–2009. Retrieved March 28, 2011, fromhttp://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/gp/special_study/ Industrial_Conversions_Since_1990.pdfCity of Seattle. Department of Planning and Development. (2007a).Industrial lands survey: Investigation of comparable cities. RetrievedMarch 3, 2011, from http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/PDFs/Seattle_Industrial_Lands_Survey_ Mar2007.pdfCity of Seattle. Department of Planning and Development. (2007b).Seattle’s industrial lands: Background report. Retrieved March 3, 2011from http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Planning/IndustrialLands/Overview/City of Seattle. Department of Planning and Development. (2007c).Seattle’s industrial lands: Mayor’s recommendations. Retrieved March 3,2011, from http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/ Planning/IndustrialLands/Overview/Congress for the New Urbanism & U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. (2002). Smart scorecard for development projects. Prepared by W.Fleissig & V. Jacobsen. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/scorecards/Scorecard_expfleissigjacobsen.pdfDistrict of Columbia. Office of Planning. (2006). Industrial land in apost-industrial city: District of Columbia industrial land use study. Re-trieved January 25, 2011, from https://www.communicationsmgr.com/projects/1355/docs/ DCIndustrialLandUseStudyFinal.pdfDowns, A. (2001). What does ‘smart growth’ really mean? Planning,67(4), 20–25.Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we doit. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367–378. Edwards, M. M., & Haines, A. (2007). Evaluating smart growth—Implications for small communities. Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 27(1), 49–64.Fitzgerald, J., & Leigh, N. G. (2002). Economic revitalization: Casesand strategies for city and suburb. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Good Jobs First. (2010a). Smart growth for working families. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2011, from http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/smart-growth-working-familiesGood Jobs First. (2010b). Unions and smart growth. Retrieved February20, 2011, from http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/smart-growth-working-families/unions-and-smart-growthGoodno, J. B. (2002). Labor embraces smart growth. Planning, 68(5),18–23.Greenberg, E., & Belzer, D. (2008). Transit + employment: Increasingtransit's share of the commute trip. Retrieved February 20, 2011, fromhttp://www.reconnectingamerica.org/ assets/Uploads/employment202.pdfHowland, M. (2010). The private market for brownfield properties.Cityscape, 12(3), 37–54.Institute for Supply Management. (2011). November 2011 manufac-turing ISM report on business. Retrieved December 1, 2011, fromhttp://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/MfgROB.cfmInterface Studio, LLC. (2010). An industrial land use and marketstrategy for the City of Philadelphia: Industrial land atlas (Draft). Preparedfor City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Development Corporation.Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://www.slideshare.net/ CityOf-Philadelphia/pimlus-atlas-final-september-2010International City/County Management Association, & SmartGrowth Network. (2002). Getting to smart growth I: 100 policies forimplementation. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://icma.org/en/icma/priorities/sustainable_communitiesInternational City/County Management Association, & SmartGrowth Network. (2003). Getting to smart growth II: 100 more policies

Leigh and Hoelzel: Smart Growth’s Blind Side 101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 18: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

for implementation. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://icma.org/en/icma/priorities/sustainable_communitiesInternational Economic Development Council. (2006). Economicdevelopment and smart growth. Retrieved February 11, 2011, fromhttp://www.iedconline.org/?p=smart_growthLeigh, N. G. (1996). Fixed structures in transition: The changingdemand for office and industrial infrastructure. In D. C. Knudsen (Ed.),The transition to flexibility (pp. 137–154). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Press.Leigh, N. G., Driemier, K., Hoelzel, N., Jain, R., Mansbach, J.,Morrow, E., … Zayas, E. (2009a). A plan for industrial land andsustainable industry in the City of Atlanta: Background report. Preparedfor City of Atlanta and Atlanta Development Authority. Retrieved July2, 2011, from http://smartech.gatech.edu/xmlui/handle/1853/35791Leigh, N. G., Driemier, K., Hoelzel, N., Jain, R., Mansbach, J.,Morrow, E., … Zayas, E. (2009b). A plan for industrial land andsustainable industry in the City of Atlanta: Final report. Prepared for Cityof Atlanta and Atlanta Development Authority. Retrieved July 2, 2011,from http://smartech.gatech.edu/xmlui/handle/1853/35791LeRoy, G. (2003). Labor leaders as smart growth advocates: How unionleaders see suburban sprawl and work for smart growth solutions. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2011, from http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/clcsurvey.pdfMaryland Department of Planning. (2010). Smart growth successes.Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://planning.maryland.gov/PDF/OurProducts/Publications/OtherPublications/SG_Successes_BACI.pdfMaxfield Research Inc. (2006). Industrial land use study and employmentpolicy plan for the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota (Technical report).Prepared for the City of Minneapolis. Retrieved January 25, 2011, fromhttp://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/CPED/industrial-landuse.aspMetro Regional Government. (2010). Metro Council approves policiesto shape future growth. Retrieved July 26, 2011, from http://www.ore-gonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=35699Mistry, N., & Byron, J. (2011). The federal role in supporting urbanmanufacturing. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/04_urban_manufacturing_mistry_byron.aspxNational Association of Local Government Environmental Profes-sionals, & Smart Growth Leadership Institute. (2004). Smart growth issmart business: Boosting the bottom line & community prosperity. RetrievedJanuary 25, 2011, from http://www.resourcesaver.com/file/toolman-ager/CustomO93C337F52733.pdfNational Association of Manufacturers. (2011). Facts about U.S.manufacturing. Retrieved July 2, 2011, from http://www.nam.org/Sta-tistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Landing.aspxNew York Industrial Retention Network. (2004). Illegal residentialconversions in the East Williamsburg In-Place Industrial Park. RetrievedAugust 10, 2001, from http://prattcenter.net/sites/default/files/publica-tions/illegal_residential_conversions.pdfPratt Center for Community Development. (2009). Issue brief-protecting New York’s threatened manufacturing space. Retrieved February11, 2010, from http://prattcenter.net/issue-brief/protecting-new-yorks-threatened-manufacturing-space

San Francisco Planning Department. (2002a). Industrial land in SanFrancisco: Understanding production, distribution, and repair. RetrievedJanuary 25, 2011, from http://www.sf-planning.org/San Francisco Planning Department. (2002b). Summit on the indus-trial land in the Eastern Neighborhoods. Retrieved January 25, 2011,from http://www.sf-planning.org/ San Francisco Planning Department. (2008). Central waterfront areaplan. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://www.sf-planning.org/Seattle Planning Commission. (2007). The future of Seattle’s industriallands. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Planning/IndustrialLands/Overview/Smart Growth Leadership Institute. (2007). Implementation tools.Retrieved February 20, 2011, from http://www.sgli.org/tool-kit/implementation-tools/Smart Growth Network. (2010). Breaking news: 1000 Friends of Oregonwins urban growth boundary appeal. Retrieved February 6, 2011, fromhttp://www.smartgrowth.org/ engine/index.php/news/2010/news-185Smart Growth Network, International City/County Management, &U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). This is smart growth. Re-trieved February 11, 2011, from http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/tisg.htmStout, H. J. (2003). Eyeing the industrial sanctuary. Portland BusinessJournal. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1678Strategic Economics. (2004). Employment lands conversion framework:Towards the future: Jobs, land use and fiscal issues in San Jose's keyemployment areas 2000-2020 Report prepared for the City of San Jose.Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://sanjoseca.gov/planning/GP/special_study/ fiscal_impact_study/San_Jose_Fiscal_Impact_Study_w_modif.pdfThe Manufacturing Institute. (2009). The facts about modern manu-facturing (8th ed.). Retrieved July 26, 2011, fromhttp://institute.nam.org/view/2001005059420889929/infoURS Corporation. (2004). Corridors of industrial opportunity: A plan forindustry in Chicago (Draft). Prepared for City of Chicago, Department ofPlanning and Development. Retrieved November 8, 2010, fromhttp://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/industrial-land-report.htmlU.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis.(2011). Gross domestic product by industry accounts, 1947–2010. Re-trieved August 21, 2011, from http://www.bea.gov/industry/U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011).Current employment statistics series. Retrieved July 2, 2011, fromhttp://www.bls.gov/data/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Smart growthguidelines for sustainable design and development. Prepared by JonathanRose Companies & Roberts and Todd. Retrieved February 20, 2011,from http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sg_guidelines.htmVermont Forum on Sprawl & Vermont Business Roundtable.(2003). The new models project for commercial and industrial develop-ment. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://www.smartgrowthver-mont.org/fileadmin/files/publications/NewModels.pdfYe, L., Mandpe, S., & Meyer, P. B. (2005). What is “smart growth?”—Really? Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), 301–315.

102 Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2012, Vol. 78, No. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Page 19: On: 19 February 2012, At: 07:57nl14/JAPA_W2012_SGSprawl_LeighHoel...encouraging industrial revitalization in mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill redevelopment projects, smart

Leigh and Hoelzel: Smart Growth’s Blind Side 103

Appendix: Local industrial policies of 14 U.S. cities (2002–2010).

Local economic development City Year Local industrial policy documents planning authority

1. Atlanta, GA 2009 A plan for industrial land and sustainable City of Atlantaindustry in the City of Atlanta: Background Atlanta Development Authority and Final reports (Prepared by Leigh et al.)

2. Baltimore, MD 2004 Industrial land use analysis Baltimore Development Corporation (Prepared by Bay Area Economics)

3. Boston, MA 2002 Boston’s industrial spaces: Industrial land Boston Redevelopment Authorityand building spaces in Boston and its neighborhoods

4. Chicago, IL 2004 Corridors of industrial opportunity: A plan City of Chicago, Department of Planning and for industry in Chicago Development

(Prepared by URS Corporation)5. Los Angeles, CA 2007 Los Angeles’ industrial land: Sustaining a City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning

dynamic city economy Community Redevelopment Agency6. Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN 2006 Industrial land use study and employment City of Minneapolis

policy plan for the City of Minneapolis, (Prepared by Maxfield Research Inc.)Minnesota: Technical report

2008 Making it green in Minneapolis-Saint Paul Mayors’ Initiative on Green Manufacturing (Prepared by CDC Associates)

7. New York, NY 2005 Protecting and growing New York City’s City of New Yorkindustrial job base

8. Oakland, CA 2008 Citywide industrial land use policy City of Oakland9. Philadelphia, PA 2010 An industrial land use and market strategy City of Philadelphia

for the City of Philadelphia: Industrial land atlas Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (Prepared by Interface Studio, LLC)

10. Portland, OR 2003 Portland harbor industrial lands study City of Portland, Portland Bureau of Planning2004 Industrial districts atlas: Portland, OR City of Portland, Portland Bureau of Planning

11. San Francisco, CA 2002 Industrial land in San Francisco: Understanding City and County of San Francisco, Planningproduction, distribution, and repair Department

2008 Central waterfront area plan City and County of San Francisco, PlanningDepartment

12. San Jose, CA 2004 Employment lands conversion framework: City of San JoseTowards the future: Jobs, land use and fiscal (Prepared by Strategic Economics)issues in San Jose’s key employment areas

2008 Existing land use and development trends City of San Jose, Department of Planning, Building, background report Code Enforcement

13. Seattle, WA 2007 Seattle’s industrial lands background report City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development

2007 The future of Seattle’s industrial lands City of Seattle, Seattle Planning Commission14. Washington, DC 2006 Industrial land in a post-industrial city: District of Columbia, Office of Planning

District of Columbia industrial land use study

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

] at

07:

57 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012