March 6, 2003

Click here to download External Influences: The Impact of National Trends On Hamilton County's Future.

( 1.8 MB  |  PDF)

NOTE: Some users (modem users in particular) may prefer to download the file prior to viewing. To do so right-click the download link and choose to "Save Target As" or "Save Link As". Once the file has downloaded, open it in Adobe Acrobat.

Project Team:
Manning Baxter,
    Co-Author/Project Coordinator
Brian Goldstein,
    Co-Author
Steven Johns, AICP,
    Co-Author
Amanda DeCort,
    Co-Author/Reviewer
Alison Matthews Sampson,
    Reviewer
Paul Smiley and Michael Steele,
    Cover Art

Caroline Statkus, AICP,
    Planning Services Administrator
Ron Miller, AICP,
    Executive Director

None of this has been lost on academics, planners, and other students of urban areas. Book after book and article after article have been written demonstrating how government policies, our capitalist economy, and social unrest have influenced the ways contemporary American cities look and operate (Gratz 1994; Jacobs 1961; Kuntsler 1994, 1998; Mumford 1968; Wright 1932).

To consider history’s effect on American cities and urban counties— and to generate a few ideas as to where they may be going — The Fannie Mae Foundation in 1999 administered a survey to 280 urban scholars, asking them to rank: (1) the top ten out of 25 influences that have affected the American metropolis over the past 50 years, and (2) the top ten out of 19 influences that would influence the metropolis in the next 50 years. Of the 280 surveys administered, 149 were returned. An influence receiving a first place vote was given a value of ten points, a tenth place selection was given a value of one point, and in-between selections were scored accordingly. The points for each selection were totaled, and the resulting two lists show, in order, the factors that have had and will have the most influence on the American metropolis. The results of this survey are shown below.

The Top Ten Influences on the American Metropolis of the Past 50 Years

1. The 1956 Interstate Highway Act and the dominance of the automobile (906 points)
2. Federal Housing Administration mortgage financing and subdivision regulation (653)
3. De-industrialization of central cities (584)
4. Urban renewal: downtown redevelopment and public housing projects (1949 Housing Act) (441)
5. Levittown (the prototype of the mass-produced suburban tract house) (439)
6. Racial segregation and job discrimination in cities and suburbs (436)
7. Enclosed shopping malls (261)
8. Sunbelt-style sprawl (242)
9. Air conditioning (234)
10. Urban riots of the 1960’s (219)

Predictably, the ten factors chosen as the most important “past influences” on cities concentrate on sweeping social changes during the post-World War II era, and the general migration of Americans from central cities to suburbs. The 1956 Interstate Highway Act made such developments as Levittown and Sunbelt-style sprawl viable living options, as commutes were reduced by modern highways, and the American dream of one’s own home with a yard could be easily fulfilled. This was abetted by changes in mortgage policy and zoning regulations that made tract-homes affordable. Enclosed shopping malls and air conditioning made suburban life convenient in many of the country’s largest cities. Discriminatory loan practices worked to exclude ethnic minorities from these new developments, contributing to de facto racial segregation. All of this — including chronic inner-city unemployment, the deterioration or evaporation of social services, and growing discontent with social and military policies — helped contribute to urban unrest in the 1960s (Boesel 1971, Hirsch 2000, Squires 1994).

These influences have contributed to the “hollowing out” of the urban core, with middle- and upper-class residents on the perimeter. Inner-cities are still centers of poverty, but the effects of large, subsidized housing projects (indeed the projects themselves) are being deconstructed. This deconstruction is occurring figuratively, in that conventional social science and political leaders now see the various problems that exist with concentrated poverty, and how cities, if not entire regions, fare if these “concentration effects” are not adequately addressed. The deconstruction is also occurring literally, in that we are now witnessing, nationwide, the removal of large-scale housing projects, in favor of mixed-income housing, mixed-use areas, and — in some cases — a diffusion of poorer families over metropolitan areas.

This diffusion of the poor and movement to mixed (rather than segregated) uses was borne primarily of necessity. As technology allowed Americans even greater mobility after World War II, businesses began abandoning the increasingly dirty, crime-ridden, mismanaged central cities, following their workers into the suburbs. This economic movement from the city to the suburbs continues to this day, and is one of many factors contributing to sprawling low-density development.

The 149 respondents to the Fannie Mae Foundation’s study were somewhat more optimistic about the future however, but realized that things would get worse before they got better. They identified the following ten influences as most powerful in shaping American cities in the coming years.

The Ten Most Powerful Influences on the American Metropolis for the Next 50 Years

1. Growing disparities of wealth (567 points)
2. Suburban political majority (553)
3. Aging of the Baby Boomers (517)
4. Perpetual “underclass” in central cities and inner-ring suburbs (481)
5. “Smart growth:” environmental and planning initiatives to create sustainable communities and metropolitan areas (452)
6. Internet (415)
7. Deterioration of the “first-ring” post-1945 suburbs (372)
8. Shrinking household size (353)
9. Expanded superhighway system of “outer beltways” to serve new edge cities (337)
10. Racial integration as part of the increasing diversity in cities and suburbs (195)

Perhaps the most striking characteristic of the ten “future influences” is that they seem to consist primarily of the after-effects of the last fifty years, whereas the ten “past influences” consist mainly of policies and developments. This is, of course, because new developments are unpredictable, but also because post-World War II social, cultural, political, and economic changes have greatly altered the dynamic of the American city from what it had been in the past, and future action will deal with addressing those policies’ excesses.

Seven of the above influences are current social conditions that will continue to affect metropolitan areas for many years. For example, the country’s growing wealth disparity will likely have immense consequences on development patterns, and the decreasing number of persons in households may help usher a boon for central cities. The remaining three influences, “Smart growth,” “Internet,” and “Expanded Superhighways,” are infrastructural developments and ideas that also have potential to transform the urban and suburban landscape. They may help change the context in which the other seven influences operate. Odds are, that as time goes on, unpredictable factors will emerge in American metropolises, and most if not all of these ten influences will change. Nevertheless, identification of these ten “future influences” aid in the process of planning our metropolitan areas to make them more viable. Examining these powerful influences in respect to Hamilton County, gives us a basis for future planning initiatives.

Importance to Hamilton County
This report builds on the ten future influences identified in the Fannie Mae Foundation study, and hypothesizes how these influences will affect Hamilton County and the Cincinnati region in the next 50 years. By reviewing the major influences that will affect all American metropolitan areas, examining the relevance of these key national trends to Hamilton County in particular, and understanding how these trends may affect the goals and strategies of Community COMPASS — Hamilton County’s master plan — it will be possible to plan more effectively for Hamilton County’s future. Better local decisions on issues that shape Hamilton County are enabled by analyzing the intended and unintended consequences of national, state, and local policies and actions. Moreover, implementation of some of COMPASS’s strategies will undoubtedly be influenced by the changing context this report investigates.

For each of the ten anticipated national trends, the findings of the Fannie Mae Foundation report The American Metropolis at Century’s End: Past and Future Influences are summarized, and each trend is discussed as it relates to Hamilton County and the Cincinnati metropolitan area. We respond to each influence by asking seven questions:

• What is the local trend?
• Why is it important?
• What is being done to address this?
• What other actions could be considered?
• What are the key indicators we should use to measure our progress?
• With what groups are collaborations taking place or needed?
• What resources exist for further study?

The findings of this report will give direction to additional research and strategic planning undertaken as part of Community COMPASS – the Comprehensive Master Plan and Strategies for Hamilton County.

Click here to view the entire report . . . ( 1.8 MB  |  PDF)