How Smart Growth Strengthens Regional Economies

Smart growth is critical to the longterm economic sustainability of metropolitan regions.

When employers can’t recruit a reliable workforce because of grueling commutes; when working parents can’t find housing that puts them within reach of both jobs and their children; when key industries are scattered randomly so that they have all the disadvangtages and none of the important benefits of aggregation; when quality of life begins to erode – people and businesses leave and economies decline.

Beyond that, however, there is growing research demonstrating that productivity and overall economic performance are improved when smart growth elevates regions’ employment density, improves transportation efficiency, and reduces city-suburb gaps in economic health.

The following evidence is summarized from a forthcoming paper from the Brookings Institution:

A study by Ciccone and Hall (1996) found that workers in the ten densest states were 25 percent more productive than those in the least dense states. They attributed most of the difference to the density of economic activity, rather than other factors, such as population size. In 2000, Robert Cervero confirmed these findings and extended them, demonstrating that compact, “accessible” cities with efficient transportation links were more productive than more dispersed places. That same year, Nelson and Peterman demonstrated that metropolitan areas that practice growth management actually can improve their economic performance relative to other regions. They found that restraining sprawl can yield sufficient taxpayer savings, efficiency gains, and quality-of-life benefits to boost economic development. At the same time, a 1998 study showed shown that, to the extent smart growth revitalizes urban centers and reduces core distress it also benefits the entire regional economy. It found that shoring up older urban centers—as smart growth attempts to do—can build wealth for entire metropolitan areas, city and suburbs alike.

Community character, quality of life and the “creative class”

 
Richard Florida, author of “The Rise of the Creative Class” offers yet another argument in favor of the kinds of communities smart growth aims to produce. According to Florida, metropolitan regions that are mostly placeless sprawl lacking in vibrant centers of urbanity are competing poorly in the changing economy. In a recent article for Washington Monthly, he writes:

“In all parts of the country, some regions are moving toward higher creative growth (Austin, Boston, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Denver, Portland) while others become mired in either slow growth (New Orleans, Grand Rapids, Buffalo), low-end service-economy growth (Las Vegas), or no growth at all. Those in the first group are emerging as the clear overall winners in the new creative economy.

What’s driving this split is a massive flow of human creative capital. My research finds mobile, demanding creative workers migrating to certain kinds of places they favor: places where they can find not just “a job” but lots of opportunities, and where they can find participatory amenities—active outdoor sports, not just stadiums; café-and-gallery “street-level” culture, not the symphony. They also seek places of demographic diversity, openness to newcomers, and stimulating cultural interplay. And the catch is, such regional qualities tend to be self-reinforcing. A region with many creative industries and creative-class workers will thus attract more of both, while the losing regions—well, they lose them.”

For more information, please go to the Smart Growth America website www.smartgrowthamerica.com