Urban and Regional Renewal in Western Pennsylvania

Urban decline and suburban sprawl are both causes and effects of one, more worrisome trend: population within Pennsylvania is spreading out and hollowing out as more people leave urban areas for outer townships in suburban and rural areas.

On November 17, 2006, GSPIA presented a one-day forum on "Urban and Regional Renewal in Western Pennsylvania" to discuss what's being done to address the negative consequences of the changes in Pennsylvania's demographics and what role university-community partnerships may have in bringing about community revitalization.

David Y. Miller, interim dean of GSPIA, presents the framework for the day's discussions.

The forum was inspired by GSPIA's faculty who have been actively involved in urban issues in Western Pennsylvania and who wanted to follow up on the 2003 report, Back to Prosperity: A Competitive Agenda for Renewing Pennsylvania, issued by the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution. The report claims that Pennsylvania 's future depends on revitalizing its demographic mix and curbing some of the nation's most radical patterns of sprawl and abandonment. "As a professional school of public and international affairs, GSPIA takes seriously its responsibility to recognize and confront important policy issues affecting our region," said David Y. Miller, Interim Dean. "This forum is an important step in mobilizing resources to address the health of our region," said Miller.

Forecast: Continued sprawl with a low chance of sustainability

GSPIA Assistant Professor Aaron Swoboda warns of the ever-increasing urbanization of land throughout Pennsylvania.

More people are moving out of the state than moving in. From 1990 to 2000, Pennsylvania ranked 48th among the 50 states in population growth. Of those leaving Pittsburgh (western Pennsylvania 's most populous city), a staggering number are young working-age adults: Pittsburgh lost 36,000 25-to-34 year-olds, a "massive loss of young people," according to GSPIA Assistant Professor Aaron Swoboda, one of the speakers at the forum. The trend continued in 2004: Pittsburgh lost 1.5 percent of its population, placing it 25th in population growth among 25 metropolitan regions.

Citing the Brookings report, Swoboda noted that more than 1.6 million new residents have settled in the state's outer townships since 1970, while cities, boroughs, and first-class townships collectively lost 1.2 million residents. Outer townships increased in population by 48 percent between 1970 and 2000 while cities and boroughs lost 23.2 percent and 9.8 percent of their respective populations.

In Western Pennsylvania , the shift in population from urban to suburban areas represents a complex mix of consumer demand for bigger houses on more land in suburban or rural areas with lower taxes. "When surveyed, most people say they want to live in a single family detached structure with a lot of land around them," said GSPIA Assistant Professor Angela Williams Foster. "A particular reason why people are moving to rural areas is that land is affordable in those places."

Suburban sprawl results in an ever-increasing consumption of land. "As you grow your land footprint increases as roads, utility lines, schools, sewer, all these things get further out," said Alexander Graziani, GSPIA alumnus and executive director of the Smart Growth Partnership of Westmoreland County, Greensburg, Pennsylvania.

GSPIA Assistant Professor Angela Williams Foster illustrates the impact of shifting demographics on affordable housing throughout the state.

Swoboda, using data from the Brookings report, noted that Pennsylvania developed nearly 4 acres of land for every new household between 1982 and 1997; the national average was 0.60 acres per new resident. Land urbanization in the Pittsburgh region went well beyond the state average, rising from 6.3 acres per household in 1982-1987 to 10.3 in 1987-1992 and settling at 8.5 acres in the mid 1990s. "This is a trend that just cannot continue," said Swoboda, adding that the consequences of this type of growth are rapid consumption of our natural resources and the conversion of agricultural lands, pasture and wetlands to suburban housing developments.

The loss of urban population to suburban and rural areas exacerbates the problems of business loss, job loss, a shrinking tax base, and a concentration of nonprofit entities within the urban area. "Fewer people remain to support the community's core. Costs increase, and consequently the community becomes unsustainable," said Graziani.

Housing becomes an issue in urban areas as the population shifts towards single female- headed households and the elderly. "Older structures in urban areas are often inadequate in terms of quality, and there is a lack of funding for rehabilitation," noted Williams Foster.

Western Pennsylvania is not unique and certainly not the first metropolitan area to grapple with issues of urban decline and suburban sprawl.

Mayor Joseph Sinnott describes Erie 's revitalization efforts.

"All of us are experiencing the same problems, and the solutions are going to have to be uniform," said Joseph Sinnott, Esq., Mayor of the City of Erie, Pennsylvania, and keynote speaker at the forum. "Ultimately, the concentration of population in the urban area becomes more senior citizens and poor people who don't have the resources to support increased taxation to support the cost of government," said Sinnott.

"This has all happened before," said John McCarthy, assistant professor of history at Robert Morris University . Using the example of Milwaukee, Wisconsin in the post World War II era, McCarthy said that urban leaders were concerned about suburban areas outgrowing urban areas. Milwaukee 's approach called for the annexation of outlying land. Communities resisted this annexation by incorporating. "Many new communities were formed simply to resist annexation by the City of Milwaukee," said McCarthy. "The problem in Milwaukee then, as it is now in Western Pennsylvania, he said, is "municipal mercantilism a fancy way of saying that a lot of communities tend to compete for commerce and industry, and that leads to more inefficiency."

Regionalize to Revitalize

"There is a perception that the issues facing urban areas are not the same as issues facing suburban or rural areas," said Miller. "But what we're finding is that these issues are inextricably linked, and somehow we need to find deeper solutions that cut across the region."

Some believe that "deeper solution" should include regionalization - mergers among Pennsylvania 's municipalities - to improve regional planning and achieve efficiencies through shared services. Proponents say regionalization would remove barriers to cooperation among towns, villages, and cities.

"With 2600 municipalities in the state, fragmented governance is another barrier to coming together and getting things

Rebecca Sohmer of The Brookings Institution offered a preview of new findings about Pennsylvania 's progress in recovery.

done," said Rebecca Sohmer, Senior Research Analyst with the Metropolitan Policy Program of The Brookings Institution. Others think that cooperation among municipalities is possible without mergers; they point to successful university-community partnerships as a way to create sustainable communities.

When the Brookings Institution's report was issued in 2003, "people were reluctant to talk about regionalization," said Sohmer. But during the current effort to update the findings of the 2003 report, Sohmer said that "no matter where we went - urban, rural, township, city, and borough - everybody recognizes that the system of governance is just not working...fragmented governance is not working," said Sohmer. "But now, people are willing to talk about regionalization."

In its simplest form, regionalization is a way for municipalities to share resources, consolidate services, attract and retain business, and engage in planning that looks beyond the borders of a town or city. Municipal managers may be willing to consider shared services, but research conducted by GSPIA Assistant Professor George Dougherty reveals that there's less support for regional alternatives than one might expect.

GSPIA Assistant Professor George Dougherty presents findings of a survey gauging attitudes towards regionalization among local municipal managers.

Dougherty's findings from a survey conducted in 2006 of 50 municipal managers in the Western Pennsylvania region reveals that 68% agreed that large numbers of municipalities lead to fiscally stressed governments. When the respondents were asked if they would be willing to participate in tax base sharing, 68% said they do not think it is likely that tax base sharing will be implemented. "Sharing the poverty and sharing the wealth is not seen as particularly popular," said Dougherty. Likewise, shared service options that give up local control are seen as the ones least likely to materialize. "They are willing to consider shared services but will shop around to find partners," said Dougherty. He cautioned that the number of survey responses were insufficient to be statistically valid; a follow up survey is planned in 2007.

"Regionalism is no longer taboo but we need to give local leaders some good, strong examples of success," said Dougherty, adding that external facilitators may help stressed communities ban together and provide shared services through smaller networks, rather than rolling out larger ones to start.

Preserving local identity is often overlooked in the discussion of regionalization. "All of these communities have a history," said McCarthy. "They have their own local flavor. It is very important to take seriously every municipality's reason for being."

"Communities across Pennsylvania that will succeed will have a holistic approach to solving the general problems that all communities face, but also finding ways to make urban living attractive again," said Sinnott.

Anchor Institutions and Community Revitalization

While the afternoon session focused on regionalization, the morning session examined university-community relationships and recommended research topics.

The University of Pittsburgh isn't going anywhere. Slippery Rock University isn't going anywhere. Neither is Duquesne University nor Point Park University . They are anchors within their communities, providing stable employment and educational opportunities. Recognizing that the health of the institution is only as good as the health of its neighboring community, these universities have undertaken partnerships to improve the social and economic vitality of their respective communities.

"The best way to find out what a community needs or wants is to talk to its members, face to face," said Pat Moran, director of the Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) at Point Park University . Among Point Park University 's COPC success stories is its partnership with the community of McKees Rocks to create a cultural center. That project was identified through COPC's survey of the community to measure where interest lies, how to bring people together again and opportunities to improve the quality of life.

Slippery Rock University engages the community by leveraging social capital. "Volunteers go out into the community to talk to residents and public officials," said Alice Kaiser-Drobney, assistant professor, department of political science and director of the Community Service Learning Institute at Slippery Rock University . An approach called Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) "empowers people to identify their own answers and what's right for their community," said Kaiser-Drobney. One of Slippery Rock University's most successful community projects is the I Care House that provides a neutral meeting place for the community and university to come together to address community issues.

"People at universities need to step off the university campus and get themselves and their students involved in the community," said G. Evan Stoddard, GSPIA alumnus and associate dean, McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts, Duquesne University.

"It's clear from these examples that university-community partnerships are vital to our economy, our quality of life, and for civic engagement," said Sabina Deitrick, associate professor at GSPIA and co-director of Pitt's Community Outreach Partnership Center.

Recommendations for Harrisburg

At the conclusion of the morning session, Deitrick led panel members and the audience in a group discussion that identified recommendations for research topics for consideration by the Legislative Office of Research Liaison (LORL), Pennsylvania House of Representatives. LORL exists to help legislators obtain policy research through direct access to the faculty and resources of state universities.

A suggested list of research topics included land use, private sector involvement, retaining college graduates and young working adults in our communities, and sustainable communities. "This morning's session was the beginning of a discussion that engaged a broad audience and that identified important points to bring to the attention of our leaders in Harrisburg," said Deitrick, who will lead an effort to communicate these points to LORL for its spring 2007 conference.

GSPIA News Home

Last updated on December 13, 2007