1

The Mid-size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-size City: Exploring ItsUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyA Summary of the Rochester Conversation on Mid-Size Cities, November 2002

2

Dear Colleagues:Dear Colleagues:Dear Colleagues:Dear Colleagues:Dear Colleagues:

Are mid-size cities unique? Do they have special assets or liabilities thathelp or hinder their governance and success?

On November 12 and 13, 2002, mayors, academics, urban policy experts, writ-ers and others from the United States and Canada accepted my invitation to gatherin Rochester, NY to discuss the realities of mid-size cities. We debated and dis-cussed key issues of definition, regionalism, economic development and governing.We also listened intently to a stimulating presentation by Dan Carp, CEO of EastmanKodak Company, as he detailed the challenges and opportunities of a large multi-national corporation in a mid-size city.

What follows is a summary report of the Rochester Conversation on Mid-SizeCities. I hope that it will serve as a chronicle of an important event and as aframework and foundation for future exploration.

Mid-size cities can and should play a more significant role in urban policy-making. The Rochester Conversation was successful in setting a context for deter-mining how this role can be promoted and fostered. And it also raised the questionas to whether being “mid-size” calls for developing a new awareness of the impor-tance and need for partnerships among these special places.

Finally, I acknowledge with grateful appreciation our co-sponsors, Partners forLivable Communities and Cornell University and the funders of the Rochester Con-versation: The Rochester Area Community Foundation, The Ford Foundation, EastmanKodak Company, John Summers, and Cornell University.

Sincerely,

William A. Johnson, Jr.Mayor

Dear Colleagues:Dear Colleagues:Dear Colleagues:Dear Colleagues:Dear Colleagues:

3

For additional copiesFor additional copiesFor additional copiesFor additional copiesFor additional copiesor more informationor more informationor more informationor more informationor more information

contact:contact:contact:contact:contact:

Mayor’s Office,Mayor’s Office,Mayor’s Office,Mayor’s Office,Mayor’s Office,City of Rochester, NYCity of Rochester, NYCity of Rochester, NYCity of Rochester, NYCity of Rochester, NYRoom 307A - City HallRoom 307A - City HallRoom 307A - City HallRoom 307A - City HallRoom 307A - City Hall

30 Church Street30 Church Street30 Church Street30 Church Street30 Church StreetRochester, NY 14614Rochester, NY 14614Rochester, NY 14614Rochester, NY 14614Rochester, NY 14614

(585) 428-7045(585) 428-7045(585) 428-7045(585) 428-7045(585) 428-7045

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Staff:

Thomas R. Argust, Commissioner (retired)Department of Community Development, City of Rochester, NY

Laura Durham, Partners for Livable Communities

Writer:

William Fulton, President, Solimar Organization

Facilitator:

Robert Rich, Cornell University

Cover Photo:

Rochester, NY center city

Copyright 2003City of Rochester, NYAll rights reserved

For additional copiesFor additional copiesFor additional copiesFor additional copiesFor additional copiesor more informationor more informationor more informationor more informationor more information

contact:contact:contact:contact:contact:

Mayor’s Office,Mayor’s Office,Mayor’s Office,Mayor’s Office,Mayor’s Office,City of Rochester, NYCity of Rochester, NYCity of Rochester, NYCity of Rochester, NYCity of Rochester, NYRoom 307A - City HallRoom 307A - City HallRoom 307A - City HallRoom 307A - City HallRoom 307A - City Hall

30 Church Street30 Church Street30 Church Street30 Church Street30 Church StreetRochester, NY 14614Rochester, NY 14614Rochester, NY 14614Rochester, NY 14614Rochester, NY 14614

(585) 428-7045(585) 428-7045(585) 428-7045(585) 428-7045(585) 428-7045

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

4

The Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyA Summary of the Rochester Conversation on Mid-Size Cities, November 2002

The Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsThe Mid-Size City: Exploring ItsUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban PolicyUnique Place in Urban Policy

A Summary of the Rochester Conversation on Mid-Size Cities, November 2002

5ParParParParParticipantsticipantsticipantsticipantsticipants

Carl Anthony, Program OfficerThe Ford FoundationNew York, NY

Joseph Borgia, City CouncilmanCity of Erie, PA

Pierre Clavel, ProfessorCornell UniversityIthaca, NY

H. Brent Coles, MayorCity of Boise City, ID

Sydney Cresswell, Assistant DeanRockefeller CollegeAlbany, NY

Richard Filippi, MayorCity of Erie, PA

Michael Finney, President/CEOGreater Rochester EnterpriseRochester, NY

William Fulton, PresidentSolimar OrganizationVentura, California

William W. Goldsmith, ProfessorCornell UniversityIthaca, NY

Peter Harkness, Editor & PublisherGoverning MagazineWashington, DC

Harvey Johnson, Jr. - MayorCity of Jackson, MS

William A. Johnson, Jr. - MayorCity of Rochester, NY

Neema Kudva, Assistant ProfessorCornell UniversityIthaca, NY

Jennifer Leonard, President & Executive DirectorRochester Area Community FoundationRochester, NY

John H. Logie, MayorCity of Grand Rapids, MI

Eugene Lowe, Assistant Executive DirectorThe United States Conference of MayorsWashington, DC

Gary Lyman, Chief of StaffCity of Boise City, ID

David Miller, Associate DeanUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh, PA

Robert H. McNulty, PresidentPartners for Livable CommunitiesWashington, DC

Eugene “Gus” Newport, Former MayorCity of Berkeley, CA

Neal Peirce, ColumnistCitiestates ReportWashington, DC

Kenneth M. Reardon, AssociateProfessorCornell UniversityIthaca, New York

Tanya Rusak, Project Coordinator - Municipalities in Transition ProgramThe National League of CitiesWashington, DC

Mark Seasons, Assistant ProfessorSchool of PlanningUniversity of WaterlooWaterloo, ON, Canada

ParParParParParticipantsticipantsticipantsticipantsticipants

Rochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesRochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesRochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesRochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesRochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesNovember 12 & 13, 2002November 12 & 13, 2002November 12 & 13, 2002November 12 & 13, 2002November 12 & 13, 2002

Rochester, New YRochester, New YRochester, New YRochester, New YRochester, New Yorkorkorkorkork

Rochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesRochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesRochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesRochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesRochester Conversation on Mid-size CitiesNovember 12 & 13, 2002November 12 & 13, 2002November 12 & 13, 2002November 12 & 13, 2002November 12 & 13, 2002

Rochester, New YRochester, New YRochester, New YRochester, New YRochester, New Yorkorkorkorkork

6TTTTTable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contentsable of ContentsTTTTTable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contents

Introduction to The Rochester Conversation on the Mid-Size City ______ 7

What Is A Mid-Size City? _________________________________________ 8

Mid-size City Issues

No. 1: Equity_________________________________________________ 9

No. 2: Smart Growth and Regionalism __________________________ 10

No. 3: Economic Development _________________________________ 12

No. 4: Governance ___________________________________________ 13

The Corporation and the Mid-Size City ____________________________ 15

Conclusion and Next Steps _______________________________________ 17

7IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

L to R: David Miller - University of Pittsburgh; Sydney Cresswell - Rockefeller College;Laura Durham - Partners for Livable Communities

Policy debate regarding the global“New Economy” has increasingly re-volved around the idea that economicgrowth is driven worldwide at a regionallevel. It is often said that economic com-petition around the world is not com-petition among nations but, rather, eco-nomic competition among metropolitanregions.

Most of the attention has been fo-cused on the largest metropolitan re-gions which are themselves driven bythe presence of large cities. It’s notuncommon to discuss “the regionalworld” by talking about competitionbetween super-metropolises like NewYork, Los Angeles, London, Tokyo, andSan Francisco.

Yet all cities are not created equal.Chicago is not Hartford or Des Moinesand Chattanooga and Rochester are notSeattle. In the context of “the regionalworld,” these differences are becomingmore important. Many mid-sized citiesin the United States have stagnant ordeclining populations, and they are lessdense — and, in many ways, less com-plex — than their larger counterparts.Yet many more are also the focal pointof metropolitan regions that play animportant role in the New Economy —or are struggling to find that role.

Many of these midsize urban cen-ters are confronting the loss of theirtraditional economic base in agriculture,manufacturing and trade. They are do-ing so at a time when many familiesand firms, attracted by cheaper real es-tate and lower taxes, are moving to the

urban periphery, robbing many cities oftheir most highly educated and produc-tive workers. The ability of these mid-size cities to respond to these economicchallenges is further complicated by theincreasing concentration of poverty inurban centers and the increasing dis-parity of wealth between cities and sub-urbs.

Large cities have benefited fromresearch, conferences, and forums spon-sored by academic institutions, thinktanks, and other national organizations.And smaller communities have benefitedfrom similar work done by various ruraldevelopment institutions. However, thechallenges facing the nation’s (andglobe’s) midsize cities tend to be over-looked.

In response to these and other chal-lenges, midsize cities are beginning toreevaluate their assets to determinetheir competitive advantage in the NewEconomy. Should mid-size cities clarifytheir unique place in society? Shouldresearch be encouraged to gain a betterunderstanding of mid-size cities, theirgovernance, culture, problem solvingabilities, citizen engagement and othersociological and political factors? Isthere a uniqueness about being “mid-size” that calls for a new identity, a newawareness, a new consciousness and anew partnership among these specialplaces?

To begin exploring answers to thosequestions, the City of Rochester Mayor,William A. Johnson, Jr., hosted the Mid-Size Cities Conversation, in collabora-

tion with Partners for Livable Commu-nities and Cornell University. In Novem-ber 2002, a group of mayors, scholars,journalists, and practitioners met inRochester to discuss how to addressthese issues, and to explore the feasi-bility of promoting ongoing dialogueamong such urban centers. The mid-sizecity leaders included Mayor Johnson, ofRochester, Mayor John Logie of GrandRapids, Mayor Brent Coles of Boise,Mayor Richard Filippi of Erie, MayorHarvey Johnson, Jr. of Jackson, Missis-sippi, and former Mayor Gus Newport ofBerkeley.

The conversation itself had severalaspects to it, including:1. A discussion of the definition of

a mid-size city.

2. Four separate discussions aboutspecific issues of mid-sized cities,including equity, regionalismand smart growth, economicdevelopment, and governance.

3. A presentation by and discussionwith Kodak CEO Daniel Carpabout the relationship betweenthe corporate world and themid-sized city.

4. A discussion of what the “nextsteps” might be in theConversation.

The Rochester Conversation was thefirst initiative in developing the placeof the mid-size city in American publicpolicy. Further collaboration could helpto translate, analyze and understand theexperience of mid-size cities through-out the world with respect to govern-ment structures, their particular mod-els of citizen engagement, their role ina global or domestic economy, theirplace as a regional market and culturalcenters and retaining/recruiting ahighly talented and creative workforce.With the influence and consequencesof “globalization” and the “NewEconomy” looming large, the issuesunique to mid-size cities cannot andshould not be ignored.

8What Is A Mid-Size City?What Is A Mid-Size City?What Is A Mid-Size City?What Is A Mid-Size City?What Is A Mid-Size City?What Is A Mid-Size City?What Is A Mid-Size City?What Is A Mid-Size City?What Is A Mid-Size City?What Is A Mid-Size City?

(L) Ken Reardon; (R) William Goldsmithboth from Cornell University

By the same token, a city smallerthan 100,000 persons — located in ametropolitan region of less than 1 mil-lion persons — might play an impor-tant regional function that is more typi-cal of a larger city. For example, Erie,Pennsylvania — represented at theRochester Conversation by Mayor Rich-ard E. Filippi and Councilmember JosephBorgia — is a city of barely 100,000persons in a metropolitan area of barely200,000 persons. Yet Erie clearly playsthe pre-eminent role both in the met-ropolitan area and in the surroundingregion. It is the center of governmentand regional services, and no surround-ing city in the Erie “orbit” plays a simi-lar role. Even if Erie dropped below the100,000 population mark — which islikely in the near future — it will re-main a mid-sized city in function.

In that sense, most of the discus-sion at the Rochester Conversation re-volved around the idea that a mid-sizecity is the diverse central hub of a largerurban region. Furthermore, there wasgeneral agreement that one thing thatall mid-sized cities may face — no mat-ter what their other circumstances —is that they suffer from obscurity in ur-ban and metropolitan policy discussions.In the end, however, the Rochester Con-versation did not decide to explicitlyinclude or exclude any mid-sized cityfrom future involvement. Instead, thegroup decided to permit cities to self-define themselves as mid-size and fur-ther discuss these and other commonissues.

The Rochester Conversation beganwith the assumption that any city witha population of between 100,000 and300,000 persons, located within a Met-ropolitan Statistical Area of 1 millionpersons or more, could qualify as a “mid-sized city”. There were about 180 suchcities in the United States according tothe 2000 Census. However, there aremany different types of mid-sized cit-ies, and so the Rochester Conversationdevoted a significant time to under-standing those differences.

The discussion about what definesa mid-size city was framed by WilliamGoldsmith, a professor of city and re-gional planning at Cornell University.In his introductory remarks, Goldsmithsuggested that there were at least fourdifferent elements in defining a mid-size city. These were:

1. The Forgotten Middle. “World-class cities” — that is, largecentral cities in large metropolitanareas such as New York and LosAngeles receive significantattention in the political andpolicy arena. Mid-sized cities arealso important to national andregional economies. However, theyget little attention. Cities mightqualify as “mid size” in partsimply because they don’t get asmuch attention as their largercounterparts.

2. The Hub of Mid-Sized Metro.One important attribute of manymid-sized cities is that eventhough they are smaller than largecities — and may have a stagnantor declining population, they arenevertheless the hub of a mid-sizemetropolitan area. This meansthey are still serving as thecultural, economic, and govern-mental centers for a larger regionof many other communities.

3. The Thinning City. Many ofAmerica’s mid-size cities areactually “thinning”. That is, theyhave stagnant or decliningpopulations and they are locatedin metropolitan regions in whichthe population is being spreadmore thinly across an ever-largerarea.

4. The Divided City. One definitionof a city is simply a place that isdivided, often by race, class, orincome. Almost all cities — evensmall ones — are divided placesin one way or another. A mid-sizecity might be one that it is simplylarge enough so that these issuesof division have reached a criticalmass that they cannot be ignored.

During the breakout sessions andin the subsequent discussions, it becameclear that there are many types of cit-ies that meet the statistical definition,and these cities might not all share thesame commonalities.

For example, many mid-size cities— despite their fairly large population— are really suburbs or satellites ofanother, much larger city. Most of thesesuburban cities are located in the Westand especially in California, where about25% of all cities 100,000 to 300,000persons are located. The vast majorityof these cities are really suburbs of LosAngeles or San Francisco.

These cities are confronting urbanissues typical of older, inner-ring sub-urbs throughout the nation, includingincreasing ethnic and economic diver-sity, loss of jobs, and a decaying andinadequate public infrastructure. Theseare important and difficult issues, butthey are often tied to the urban issuesof a larger central city that is locatedadjacent or nearby to the mid-sized city.

In that sense, then, the suburbanmid-size city is a different type of “ur-ban animal” than one such as Roches-ter or Erie, which remain the undisputedhubs of a larger metropolitan area.

9

Cities and some innerCities and some innerCities and some innerCities and some innerCities and some innersuburbs are stillsuburbs are stillsuburbs are stillsuburbs are stillsuburbs are stilluniquely burdened byuniquely burdened byuniquely burdened byuniquely burdened byuniquely burdened byproblems ofproblems ofproblems ofproblems ofproblems ofimpoverishedimpoverishedimpoverishedimpoverishedimpoverishedneighborhoods,neighborhoods,neighborhoods,neighborhoods,neighborhoods,we live in a politicalwe live in a politicalwe live in a politicalwe live in a politicalwe live in a politicalenvironment in whichenvironment in whichenvironment in whichenvironment in whichenvironment in whichpeople would like topeople would like topeople would like topeople would like topeople would like towish away poverwish away poverwish away poverwish away poverwish away povertytytytytyand racism. But it’sand racism. But it’sand racism. But it’sand racism. But it’sand racism. But it’sreally alive on thereally alive on thereally alive on thereally alive on thereally alive on theAmerican sceneAmerican sceneAmerican sceneAmerican sceneAmerican scene.....

Mid-Size City IssuesMid-Size City IssuesMid-Size City IssuesMid-Size City IssuesMid-Size City Issues

No. 1: EquityThe issue of equity is always a con-

cern in cities. Almost by their nature,cities are divided places — divided byextreme differences in economic classand often by differences in racial andethnic groups as well. But there is adifference between large cities and mid-size cities in this regard. Most success-ful large cities still retain a mixture ofrich and poor, as well as a mixture ofraces and ethnicities. This may not betrue for mid-size cities.

Even though they often retain acrucial role in its region’s economy, itsgovernmental administration, and itscultural life, the mid-size city itself isoften thinning out, and suburban ar-eas are relatively inexpensive, meaningthat most affluent and middle-class resi-dents of the region go elsewhere. In-deed, in many smaller Northeastern andMidwestern metropolitan areas, rapidsuburbanization continues even thoughthe region’s population is stagnant orin decline. Not surprisingly, urban-sub-urban tension is great and cooperativeaction is difficult to accomplish.

Given these considerations, howshould the equity issue be addressed inmid-size cities as opposed to larger cit-ies?

At the Rochester forum, these is-sues were framed by Professor Goldsmithfrom Cornell, co-author of Separate So-cieties: Poverty and Inequality in U.S.Cities. In his opening remarks, Gold-smith argued that, even with the di-rect subsidies to cities, the federalgovernment’s overall pattern of spend-ing and investment dramatically favorsthe suburbs, largely because of trans-portation expenses and the mortgageinterest deduction. He noted that the2000 Census shows a suburbanizationof immigrants and an increased integra-tion in suburban communities, but ar-gued that these modest gains are out-weighed by enduring problems. “Citiesand some inner suburbs are stilluniquely burdened by problems of im-poverished neighborhoods,” he said.

“We live in a political environment inwhich people would like to wish awaypoverty and racism. But it’s really aliveon the American scene.”

In challenging the participants tothink about the equity issues of mid-size cities, Professor Goldsmith askedtwo specific questions, one dealing withrace and one dealing with economicclass.

On the question of race andethnicity: “What is being done in yourown metro area and with your city aspart of a coalition that extends from thecity to some suburbs — to promote ei-ther consolidation or grassroots supports,to improve budgets or social programs,to invent alternatives to incarcerationfor victimless crimes, to give hefty sup-port for schools — in order to really dis-mantle American apartheid?”

On the question of economic class:“What is being done to offer politicalsupport to outspoken and progressivestate and federal candidates, to supportefforts to establish multi-jurisdiction tax-sharing programs, to legislate for livingwages for public employees and employ-ees of enterprises that benefit from publicfunds, to increase the supply of afford-able housing in all jurisdictions — so asto improve the basic distribution ofhousehold disposable incomes?”

The answers from the breakoutgroups covered a broad range of issuesand possibilities, many of which focusedon attempts — successful and unsuc-cessful — to create cooperative regionalpartnerships between midsize cities andtheir suburban neighbors.

Most participants agreed that — atleast on the high policy level — verylittle is being done to directly addressthe questions that Professor Goldsmithraised. Yet, as one of the breakoutgroups noted, there is high-level policyactivity on a wide range of issues thatdeal with social and economic equity,including workforce preparedness,school change, and the need to posi-tion cities and regions to compete inthe global economic marketplace. In

Mid-Size City IssuesMid-Size City IssuesMid-Size City IssuesMid-Size City IssuesMid-Size City Issues

Bill Fulton - President, Solimar Organization

Carl Anthony, Ford Foundation

Cities and some innerCities and some innerCities and some innerCities and some innerCities and some innersuburbs are stillsuburbs are stillsuburbs are stillsuburbs are stillsuburbs are stilluniquely burdened byuniquely burdened byuniquely burdened byuniquely burdened byuniquely burdened byproblems ofproblems ofproblems ofproblems ofproblems ofimpoverishedimpoverishedimpoverishedimpoverishedimpoverishedneighborhoods,neighborhoods,neighborhoods,neighborhoods,neighborhoods,we live in a politicalwe live in a politicalwe live in a politicalwe live in a politicalwe live in a politicalenvironment in whichenvironment in whichenvironment in whichenvironment in whichenvironment in whichpeople would like topeople would like topeople would like topeople would like topeople would like towish away poverwish away poverwish away poverwish away poverwish away povertytytytytyand racism. But it’sand racism. But it’sand racism. But it’sand racism. But it’sand racism. But it’sreally alive on thereally alive on thereally alive on thereally alive on thereally alive on theAmerican scene.American scene.American scene.American scene.American scene.

10

SmarSmarSmarSmarSmart growth andt growth andt growth andt growth andt growth andregionalism aren’tregionalism aren’tregionalism aren’tregionalism aren’tregionalism aren’t

really the same.really the same.really the same.really the same.really the same.However, in theHowever, in theHowever, in theHowever, in theHowever, in the

context of mid-sizecontext of mid-sizecontext of mid-sizecontext of mid-sizecontext of mid-sizecities they arecities they arecities they arecities they arecities they are

closely related.closely related.closely related.closely related.closely related.

SmarSmarSmarSmarSmart growth andt growth andt growth andt growth andt growth andregionalism aren’tregionalism aren’tregionalism aren’tregionalism aren’tregionalism aren’t

really the same.really the same.really the same.really the same.really the same.However, in theHowever, in theHowever, in theHowever, in theHowever, in the

context of mid-sizecontext of mid-sizecontext of mid-sizecontext of mid-sizecontext of mid-sizecities they arecities they arecities they arecities they arecities they are

closely related.closely related.closely related.closely related.closely related.

many cases, mid-size cities may needto use these issues as leverage to ap-proach the question of equity.

Some mid-size cities may have achance at achieving success in cooper-ating with suburbs. In a few extremelyrare cases, a merger between the cityand the surrounding county might bepossible. This was the case recently inLouisville, where the city grew in sizefrom 250,000 to 700,000 by mergingwith the surrounding county — in-stantly transforming itself into a bigcity. In other cases, cities and suburbsmight come together on specific issues.

For example, Mayor John Logie ofGrand Rapids told the story of his city’swillingness to participate in a reorga-nized regional transit agency. Under theold system, Grand Rapids appointed 9of 18 board members, but most subur-ban communities did not dedicate prop-erty taxes to the agency and as a resulttransit service was limited to daytime,Monday through Friday. After lengthynegotiations, the board was reorganized(so that Grand Rapids appoints only 5of 15 board members) and propertytaxes were passed in four new subur-ban communities to support the sys-tem. The mid-size city surrendered somecontrol, but the entire region — includ-ing the city, whose residents are moredependent on transit — got more ser-vice as a result.

In many other cases, the mid-sizecity may be able to force a more equi-table distribution of resources withinthe region by using its leverage oversuburban communities. Under the met-ropolitan structure in many older mid-size regions, the city may be small andstagnant in population but it controlskey pieces of regional infrastructure,such as airports and water and sewersystems. Suburban communities haveoften “piggybacked” on these systems,and cities can use their leverage to re-capture costs and, in the process, ob-tain a more equitable distribution ofpublic resources.

The question of zoning and landuse came up in almost every breakoutgroup. There is little question that re-gional inequity in mid-size metropoli-tan areas is, in some measure, the re-

sult of suburban zoning restrictions,especially large-lot zoning. Mid-size cit-ies are often characterized by olderneighborhoods with a great diversity ofland uses — including different hous-ing types in close proximity to one an-other. Some of these neighborhoodshave held up well; some have deterio-rated.

In many of these same mid-sizemetropolitan regions, however, nearbysuburban communities have effectivelyexercised large-lot zoning for decades.Because the price of suburban land isstill relatively inexpensive in thesesmaller markets, this has proven an at-tractive alternative to the city formiddle-class residents — while, ofcourse, excluding people of more mod-est means and thereby increasing therace/class divide.

No. 2:Smart Growth & Regionalism

Smart growth and regionalismaren’t really the same. However, in thecontext of mid-size cities they areclosely related. “Smart growth” hasmany definitions, but the best one isprobably that smart growth is a devel-opment pattern that is more compactand less auto-oriented, allowing for thecreation of more vibrant, diverse, and“centered” neighborhoods as well as theprotection of agricultural land and otheropen space. Regionalism isn’t necessar-ily tied to growth patterns — it’s reallyabout overcoming parochial jealousieswithin a region and gaining a sense ofcommon destiny. Regionalism can beencouraged or discouraged by patternsof growth within the region itself.

The smart growth and regionalismdiscussion was framed by WilliamFulton, a native of Upstate New Yorkand president of Solimar Research Groupin California. In his remarks, Fultontalked mostly about smart growth, ac-knowledging that many aspects of theregionalism issue had been discussedunder the topic of equity. Most specifi-cally, he argued that “smart growth”strategies are more feasible in areas withlimited land supply, high land costs, andstrong market demand for real estatedevelopment. So, for mid-size Northeast

Jennifer Leonard - President & ExecutiveDirector, the Rochester Area CommunityFoundation

11

Mid-size cities may beMid-size cities may beMid-size cities may beMid-size cities may beMid-size cities may beat a competitiveat a competitiveat a competitiveat a competitiveat a competitiveadvantage comparedadvantage comparedadvantage comparedadvantage comparedadvantage comparedto larger cities...to larger cities...to larger cities...to larger cities...to larger cities...because they maybecause they maybecause they maybecause they maybecause they mayretain a greaterretain a greaterretain a greaterretain a greaterretain a greatershare of regionalshare of regionalshare of regionalshare of regionalshare of regionalassets and there isassets and there isassets and there isassets and there isassets and there isless likely to be aless likely to be aless likely to be aless likely to be aless likely to be alarge, rich suburbanlarge, rich suburbanlarge, rich suburbanlarge, rich suburbanlarge, rich suburbanjurisdiction able tojurisdiction able tojurisdiction able tojurisdiction able tojurisdiction able toseriously compete toseriously compete toseriously compete toseriously compete toseriously compete toacquire them.acquire them.acquire them.acquire them.acquire them.

and Midwest cities, smart growth canbe a challenge.

This can be a problem for mid-sizedcities and especially for hub cities inmid-sized regions in the Northeast andMidwest. As revealed by the recent “WhoSprawls Most” report, co-authored byFulton and released by the BrookingsInstitution Center on Urban and Metro-politan Policy, smaller metros have big-ger sprawl problems since that they areoften urbanizing large amounts of landto accommodate modest increases inpopulation (or even declining popula-tions). This is especially true in theNortheast and the Midwest.

The reason is simple: in such met-ropolitan areas, the “push” factor out-ward is much stronger than the “pull”factor inward. Outlying areas aren’t thatfar away from the central city, and traf-fic congestion is not as bad as it is inlarger cities. There are fewer topographi-cal constraints to growth (compared tothe West, for example) and land is in-expensive. Also, there is often a differ-ential tax structure that makes livingin the suburbs cheaper in terms of prop-erty taxes. How do you deal with thetemptation of cheap, abundant land andlower taxes?

Surprisingly, little of the discussionin the breakout groups focused on con-straining growth on the edge throughopen space and agricultural protection.Rather, most of the discussion revolvedaround creating and maintaining a re-gional core in the mid-sized city that isattractive and valuable to the entireregion.

Whatever it is lacking — or losing— a mid-size city that serves as thehub of a mid-size region is still likelyto have most of the region’s culturaland institutional assets, including uni-versities, performing arts centers, medi-cal centers, sports parks, and so forth.They may also control airports, even ifthose airports are not located inside thecity limits. Mid-size cities may be at acompetitive advantage compared tolarger cities in this regard, because theymay retain a greater share of regionalassets and there is less likely to be alarge, rich suburban jurisdiction able toseriously compete to acquire them.

The consensus of the group ap-peared to be that mid-sized cities mustunderstand what these assets are anduse them as wisely as possible to rein-force the city as the regional core. Manyof these institutions, especially medi-cal centers and universities, are likelyto have such a heavy sunk cost in thecentral city that they are unlikely tomove and therefore willing to invest inthe city as the regional core. Universi-ties, in particular, were identified as anunderused asset, because they are notonly economic engines but also vehiclesthrough which research and action re-lated to the city’s own role and activi-ties can be stimulated.

The participants spent relativelylittle time discussing schools and otherneighborhood issues, such as crime, asa factor in discouraging further citypopulation growth and encouragingsuburban sprawl. However, all acknowl-edged that such regional inequities —especially regional inequities in theschool arena — play an extremely im-portant role. This role can be accentu-ated in a mid-size city because, onceagain, suburban areas have better prox-imity and access to the central city in amid-size region than a large one.

One participant, Peter Harkness ofGoverning magazine, warned other par-ticipants not to take on sprawl in theguise of regionalism. He said attemptsto do so will likely alienate suburbanjurisdictions and he advised the groupto fight sprawl on its own terms ratherthan disguise it as regional cooperation.

Having accepted that point, how-ever, the group did acknowledge thatgovernment reorganization in older mid-size cities may be an important step,both to foster regional cooperation andto stay competitive. Several participantsmentioned the city-county merger inLouisville, as well as struggling attemptsto do the same in Rochester and nearbyBuffalo. In the end, regionalism mightbest be promoted by good old “govern-ment efficiency” efforts — merging to-gether units of government that haveoutlived their purpose, especially inthose mid-sized “thinning metropo-lises”.

Neil Peirce, Syndicated Columnist

Mid-size cities may beMid-size cities may beMid-size cities may beMid-size cities may beMid-size cities may beat a competitiveat a competitiveat a competitiveat a competitiveat a competitiveadvantage comparedadvantage comparedadvantage comparedadvantage comparedadvantage comparedto larger cities...to larger cities...to larger cities...to larger cities...to larger cities...because they maybecause they maybecause they maybecause they maybecause they mayretain a greaterretain a greaterretain a greaterretain a greaterretain a greatershare of regionalshare of regionalshare of regionalshare of regionalshare of regionalassets and there isassets and there isassets and there isassets and there isassets and there isless likely to be aless likely to be aless likely to be aless likely to be aless likely to be alarge, rich suburbanlarge, rich suburbanlarge, rich suburbanlarge, rich suburbanlarge, rich suburbanjurisdiction able tojurisdiction able tojurisdiction able tojurisdiction able tojurisdiction able toseriously compete toseriously compete toseriously compete toseriously compete toseriously compete toacquire them.acquire them.acquire them.acquire them.acquire them.

12

How can mid-sizeHow can mid-sizeHow can mid-sizeHow can mid-sizeHow can mid-sizecities transformcities transformcities transformcities transformcities transform

themselves into thethemselves into thethemselves into thethemselves into thethemselves into thehighly competitivehighly competitivehighly competitivehighly competitivehighly competitive

hubs that willhubs that willhubs that willhubs that willhubs that willattract the creative,attract the creative,attract the creative,attract the creative,attract the creative,

highly educatedhighly educatedhighly educatedhighly educatedhighly educatedworkers thatworkers thatworkers thatworkers thatworkers thatNew EconomyNew EconomyNew EconomyNew EconomyNew Economy

businesses demand?businesses demand?businesses demand?businesses demand?businesses demand?

No. 3: Economic DevelopmentEconomic development has proven

particularly nettlesome in the last de-cade for mid-size cities without highlydiversified economies. The increasedpace of structural changes on both thenational and international level has putsmaller, concentrated economies at asevere disadvantage. Cities whose econo-mies were based on manufacturing havebeen particularly hard hit and they’vebeen left to wonder how to transformthemselves for the 21st Century. Thattask seems to hinge on the ability toattract the New Economy’s creative classof workers.

In introducing these economic is-sues and their implications, RobertMcNulty, president of Partners for Liv-able Communities, discussed the role ofa mid-size city in its regional contexts.He noted that those contexts mightchange depending on the focus-economy, hydrology, transportation-butthat the point of any regional strategyis to create places in which a good lifeis accessible to all. Economic opportu-nity makes a good life more possible.For economic opportunity to be presentin individual cities, a number of ele-ments seem critical:

• A downtown gathering place thatis safe, accessible, and attractiveto both residents and visitors.

• An inclusive culture that imbuesthe place with sense ofexcitement,diversity and energythat will attract and retain youngpeople.

• A marketing plan that creates abuzz and establishes a brand.

The participants then tackled theexpansive issue of how mid-sized citiescan hone a 21st Century competitiveedge by breaking it down into the fol-lowing three questions:

• How can mid-size cities transformthemselves into the highlycompetitive hubs that will attractthe creative, highly educatedworkers that New Economybusinesses demand?

• How can mid-size cities that arehomes to colleges and universitieseffectively partner with theiracademic institutions to bringtheir joint resources to bear oneconomic redevelopment chal-lenges of the 21st Century?

• How can mid-size cities workcooperatively with other neighbor-ing jurisdictions for the economichealth of their entire region whilestill satisfying the unique needs ofeach municipality?

After returning from the breakoutgroups, the participants concluded, withregard to the economic transformationmany mid-size cities need — that no“one-size-fits-all approach” exists. Eachcommunity needs to assess its strengthsand weaknesses. Cities should considerwhat new applications are possible forexisting resources. “Creative Centers,”or hubs, might be built, for example,by encouraging suburban schools toopen satellite centers in a mixed usedowntown district.

Regarding universities, most par-ticipants agreed that higher educationis an underutilized resource in economicredevelopment. While cities should en-courage the participation of universi-ties, they frequently are not positionedto do so effectively despite the fact thatthe benefits of university location flowboth ways.

Several strategies were identifiedfor increasing community-universitypartnerships, including:

• Creating of inter-institutionaldevelopment networks and publicservice endowments at universi-ties.

• Reaching formal agreementsbetween cities and universities sothat the two can work togethermore easily.

• Convening local forums to identifyareas where government, non-profits, community benefitorganizations, universities mightcollaborate and coordinate efforts.

One breakout group also identifiedways of moving college and university

Bob McNulty - President, Partners for LivableCommunities

How can mid-sizeHow can mid-sizeHow can mid-sizeHow can mid-sizeHow can mid-sizecities transformcities transformcities transformcities transformcities transform

themselves into thethemselves into thethemselves into thethemselves into thethemselves into thehighly competitivehighly competitivehighly competitivehighly competitivehighly competitive

hubs that willhubs that willhubs that willhubs that willhubs that willattract the creative,attract the creative,attract the creative,attract the creative,attract the creative,

highly educatedhighly educatedhighly educatedhighly educatedhighly educatedworkers thatworkers thatworkers thatworkers thatworkers thatNew EconomyNew EconomyNew EconomyNew EconomyNew Economy

businesses demand?businesses demand?businesses demand?businesses demand?businesses demand?

13

In cities plagued byIn cities plagued byIn cities plagued byIn cities plagued byIn cities plagued byfragmentation, asfragmentation, asfragmentation, asfragmentation, asfragmentation, asmany mid-size citiesmany mid-size citiesmany mid-size citiesmany mid-size citiesmany mid-size citiesare, the consequenceare, the consequenceare, the consequenceare, the consequenceare, the consequenceis widespreadis widespreadis widespreadis widespreadis widespreadincidence of “incidence of “incidence of “incidence of “incidence of “Who’s inWho’s inWho’s inWho’s inWho’s incharge?”charge?”charge?”charge?”charge?” syndrome. syndrome. syndrome. syndrome. syndrome.This can be confusingThis can be confusingThis can be confusingThis can be confusingThis can be confusingand frustrating forand frustrating forand frustrating forand frustrating forand frustrating forthose seekingthose seekingthose seekingthose seekingthose seekingmunicipal sermunicipal sermunicipal sermunicipal sermunicipal services.vices.vices.vices.vices.

involvement beyond voluntarism andinto local economic development. Localuniversity research programs, especiallyapplied research, can be an avenue foracademic involvement in the localeconomy. On a broader scale, a privatelyfunded organization, akin to the Com-munity Outreach Partnership Centerprogram, could be a vehicle to promoteresearch alliances between communitiesand their universities.*

Regarding competition over taxbase, all cities shared concerns abouthow to facilitate business and invest-ment, and to stabilize their tax base. Itwas agreed that addressing most con-cerns will require state involvementthrough the passage of new or amendedlaws. Few mechanisms exist for work-ing regionally. As in the earlier discus-sions, the possibility of consolidatingservices — especially in “thinning me-tropolises” — was seen as one way toact regionally.

The consensus was that competi-tion among cities was for upscale, notaffordable, housing. Particularly in‘thinning’ cities, an increasing supplyof housing in the newer suburbs leavesolder suburbs vacant and dilutes theirproperty value. Similarly, newer shop-ping malls often leave older ones emptyin their wake. Changing building andzoning laws might facilitate the reno-vation of older buildings to accommo-date more modern uses.However, in theabsence of tax reform and fiscal incen-tives, these may not be powerful enoughtools to reverse the flow out of olderareas.

No. 4: GovernanceThe first of three questions used to

frame the discussion on how mid-sizecities are best governed was this: Doessize matter a lot or a little?

The answer that emerged from thesession moderated by Peter Harkness,Editor and Publisher of Governing Maga-zine, was “It all depends.” It dependson the resources available, on the gov-ernmental structure, and on the localeconomy. Big doesn’t necessarily meanunwieldy — Harkness pointed to NewYork and Chicago as success stories inhis introductory comments — but the

problems of large cities are quite dif-ferent than those that face mid-sizeones and they do not all relate to scale.

The participants agreed that, withinlimits, size is not as important as otherfactors in some respects, though itcounts for a lot in matters of influenceon the larger stages of state and na-tional politics. In these instances, coa-litions can be powerful, as rural orga-nizations have shown. On the localstage, the structure of metropolitan re-gion appears to be at least as impor-tant.

This was certainly so in Harkness’example of Buffalo. At the start of the20th Century Buffalo was the 8th larg-est city in the U.S.; it now has a popu-lation of less than 300,000. And likeits peers in Erie County, it labors undera heavy burden of government. Thoughthe county only has 3 cities, it has 875special taxing districts, so that everycitizen is taxed by 6 different jurisdic-tions. In cities plagued by fragmenta-tion, as many mid-size cities are, theconsequence is widespread incidence of“ Who’s in charge?” syndrome. This canbe confusing and frustrating for thoseseeking municipal services.

Particularly in mid-size cities, theprivate sector complicates the problemby adding the insult of ‘absentocracy,’which Harkness describes as the situa-tion where none of a city’s newspaper,television and radio stations, or largestbanks are headquartered there, but areowned by corporations which may bethousands of miles away. This intensi-fies the disenfranchisement of citizensbecause institutions which citizensmight once have enlisted as powerfulallies are generally disengaged from thecommunity.

If size is not all important, is thestructure of a city’s government the keydeterminant in whether it is well-gov-erned?

The discussion revealed that nostructure is without its problems. WithHartford as an example, Harknesspointed out that, depending on gov-ernmental structure, even when a prob-lem is clearly in the city’s purview, theremay be no one person to go to for adecision. In a weak mayor system, the

Assistant Professor Neema Kudva - CornellUniversity

Mayor William A. Johnson, Jr. - Rochester,NY (standing); Mayor John H. Logie, GrandRapids, MI

In cities plagued byIn cities plagued byIn cities plagued byIn cities plagued byIn cities plagued byfragmentation, asfragmentation, asfragmentation, asfragmentation, asfragmentation, asmany mid-size citiesmany mid-size citiesmany mid-size citiesmany mid-size citiesmany mid-size citiesare, the consequenceare, the consequenceare, the consequenceare, the consequenceare, the consequenceis widespreadis widespreadis widespreadis widespreadis widespreadincidence of “incidence of “incidence of “incidence of “incidence of “Who’s inWho’s inWho’s inWho’s inWho’s incharge?”charge?”charge?”charge?”charge?” syndrome. syndrome. syndrome. syndrome. syndrome.This can be confusingThis can be confusingThis can be confusingThis can be confusingThis can be confusingand frustrating forand frustrating forand frustrating forand frustrating forand frustrating forthose seekingthose seekingthose seekingthose seekingthose seekingmunicipal sermunicipal sermunicipal sermunicipal sermunicipal services.vices.vices.vices.vices.

14

Because if the Because if the Because if the Because if the Because if themayors andmayors andmayors andmayors andmayors and

stakeholders in mid-stakeholders in mid-stakeholders in mid-stakeholders in mid-stakeholders in mid-size cities do not size cities do not size cities do not size cities do not size cities do not actactactactact

on this awarenesson this awarenesson this awarenesson this awarenesson this awarenessthat they arethat they arethat they arethat they arethat they are

imporimporimporimporimportant and thattant and thattant and thattant and thattant and thatthey do matter, thenthey do matter, thenthey do matter, thenthey do matter, thenthey do matter, then

no one else will.no one else will.no one else will.no one else will.no one else will.

mayor can’t speak for the city and coun-cil representatives frequently take aparochial view, concentrating on theirown neighborhoods. In some instances,Harkness noted, a strong city managerfills the role of the citizens’ central con-tact, but there is no guarantee this sys-tem won’t go awry as it did in Cincin-nati. After years of stability, a deep di-vision in the City Council caused thecity government to destabilize. The cri-sis later led to the establishment of astrong mayor system. Harkness has-tened to say that there are examples ofhighly successful weak mayor-strongcity manager systems, such as those inAustin, Phoenix and Oakland. And inthe end it may well depend on the indi-viduals involved. Participants agreedthat who the actors are is hugely im-portant. Charismatic leadership can becrucial to successful community vision-ing and planning processes, in shapingworkable implementation plans and inseeing that they are carried out.

Along with strong leadership, par-ticipants identified five additional com-ponents of a well-governed city. Theseincluded: citizen participation, coordi-nation of programs (which they relatedto leadership), responsiveness to citi-zen concerns, systematic linkage be-tween policy direction and action, andaccess to resources, in particular finan-cial resources.

The last question considered wasHow does a mid-size city create a strate-gic plan that goes on to be more thanan unfulfilled wish?

In his introduction, Harkness notedthat there is a great deal of skepticismsurrounding strategic plans. Chatta-nooga is held up as the standard, butas with most successes, the birthingprocess was much more difficult than itappeared to detached observers. Otherefforts look better on paper than theyturned out to be in execution; St. Louis’plan was beautifully printed and prom-ised significant results, but the specif-ics are not spelled out and it is unclearhow the ambitions relate to the socialand economic realities. It is all too com-mon in strategic planning to be all flashand no show—to raise expectations, failto deliver, and leave a sooty legacy of

cynicism. Success lies in measured,steady steps toward achievable goals.

The strategic planning process, thegroup agreed, will only be successfulwhen there is an agency to provide con-tinuity and sustained attention to theplan. Because long term plans requirepolitical will to endure for the long haul,it was generally felt that plans shouldfocus on shorter terms. It was alsoagreed that they should be formulatedbottom-up, though it was cautionedthat a realistic approach to public par-ticipation is essential. The success ofRochester’s Renaissance 2010 Plan illus-trates the importance of significantneighborhood engagement as the basisfor formulating a city-wide plan.

L to R: Gus Newport - Former Mayor of Berkeley, CA; Assistant Professor Mark Season -University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; Mayor Brent Coles - Boise, ID

Peter Harkness - Editor/publisher, GoverningMagazine

Mayor Harvey Johnson, Jr. - Jackson, MS

Because if the Because if the Because if the Because if the Because if themayors andmayors andmayors andmayors andmayors and

stakeholders in mid-stakeholders in mid-stakeholders in mid-stakeholders in mid-stakeholders in mid-size cities do not size cities do not size cities do not size cities do not size cities do not actactactactact

on this awarenesson this awarenesson this awarenesson this awarenesson this awarenessthat they arethat they arethat they arethat they arethat they are

imporimporimporimporimportant and thattant and thattant and thattant and thattant and thatthey do matter, thenthey do matter, thenthey do matter, thenthey do matter, thenthey do matter, then

no one else will.no one else will.no one else will.no one else will.no one else will.

15

“I urge you, as“I urge you, as“I urge you, as“I urge you, as“I urge you, asleaders of mid-sizedleaders of mid-sizedleaders of mid-sizedleaders of mid-sizedleaders of mid-sizedcities, to leveragecities, to leveragecities, to leveragecities, to leveragecities, to leveragethe power of brandthe power of brandthe power of brandthe power of brandthe power of brandequityequityequityequityequity. Y. Y. Y. Y. Your brandour brandour brandour brandour brand...conveys to...conveys to...conveys to...conveys to...conveys topotential developerspotential developerspotential developerspotential developerspotential developersand companies whyand companies whyand companies whyand companies whyand companies whythey should invest inthey should invest inthey should invest inthey should invest inthey should invest inyour communityyour communityyour communityyour communityyour community...”...”...”...”...”

The Corporation and the Mid-Size CityThe Corporation and the Mid-Size CityThe Corporation and the Mid-Size CityThe Corporation and the Mid-Size CityThe Corporation and the Mid-Size City

One of the most important — butfrequently overlooked — elements inmunicipal success stories is the rela-tionship between cities and their cor-porate citizens. Addressing Conversa-tion participants at dinner held nearEastman Kodak Company headquartersin the revitalized High Falls entertain-ment district of Rochester, Kodak Chair-man and CEO Dan Carp spoke of thepartnership that Kodak and the cityhave formed-one that is built on“shared values and dreams.” Carpnoted that corporations and cities facesimilar challenges and opportunities inthe New Economy of the 21st Century.Since a city’s municipal economic well-being is wedded in large part to thesuccess of its corporate citizens, Carpadvised mid-size cities to adopt strat-egies for success similar to those thatensure competitiveness in the businessworld. Selected below are excerpts fromMr. Carp’s presentation.

Those who study expansion man-agement say the ability to build strongalliances and public/private partner-ships ranks among the top 10 mostimportant factors that attract businessto particular cities.

Cities of all sizes must make stra-tegic collaboration a priority — butit is especially critical for those citiesin the Northeast and Midwest wherepopulation declines continue. Theability to form coalitions with oldersuburban areas to stimulate reinvest-ment and economic development iscritical.

All it takes is vision, hard workand a little courage — because yourchallenges and opportunities are notso very different from companies com-peting in the global marketplace.

At Kodak our continuing successhinges on our ability to deliver on sixthings:

The Corporation and the Mid-Size CityThe Corporation and the Mid-Size CityThe Corporation and the Mid-Size CityThe Corporation and the Mid-Size CityThe Corporation and the Mid-Size City

Daniel Carp - C.E.O., Eastman KodakCompany

Satisfied CustomersAt Kodak, our commitment to cus-

tomer satisfaction is total...We solicit,respect and act on feedback from cus-tomers across all our businesses, aroundthe world.

Things are no different in your cit-ies, where you track the needs and wantsof your customers — your constituents.We’ve found that no matter how com-plex the process or the technology thatdrives a product or service, it must beaccessible, and easy to use. If it’s not,we won’t get our constituents’ votes.

Motivated Employees Our second common need is for

motivated and talented employees. Ihave a personal mission to insure thatKodak is an employer of choice, par-ticularly as it relates to issues of inclu-sion and equal opportunity.

It’s a business imperative, as wellas a moral one. We serve diverse mar-kets around the world, in a very toughcompetitive environment. We need toleverage the backgrounds, ideas and tal-ents of all contributors in order to fos-ter a climate in which each contributorcan develop to his or her fullest poten-tial.

Strong Balance SheetI’m certain mid-size cities share our

third challenge — maintaining a healthybalance sheet, especially in the midstof unpredictable economic cycles.

Our focus on fundamentals — con-serving cash, reducing costs — has beenhelping us weather the storm. Our earn-ings are up and cash flow is strong —even with flat sales and an exception-ally sluggish economy.

But to get here we’ve had to maketough decisions. These decisions arenever easy. But I know we’ve both found

“I urge you, as“I urge you, as“I urge you, as“I urge you, as“I urge you, asleaders of mid-sizedleaders of mid-sizedleaders of mid-sizedleaders of mid-sizedleaders of mid-sizedcities, to leveragecities, to leveragecities, to leveragecities, to leveragecities, to leveragethe power of brandthe power of brandthe power of brandthe power of brandthe power of brandequityequityequityequityequity. Y. Y. Y. Y. Your brandour brandour brandour brandour brand...conveys to...conveys to...conveys to...conveys to...conveys topotential developerspotential developerspotential developerspotential developerspotential developersand companies whyand companies whyand companies whyand companies whyand companies whythey should invest inthey should invest inthey should invest inthey should invest inthey should invest inyour communityyour communityyour communityyour communityyour community...”...”...”...”...”

16

Eastman Kodak Company headquarters viewed fromdowntown Rochester.

your future success may very well bedetermined by the creativity of yourcommunity.

Dr. Richard Florida, professor ofregional economic development atCarnegie Mellon University, has beentracking a societal shift that stronglysuggests that human creativity is thekey factor in our economy. In The Riseof the Creative Class, he writes, “In vir-tually every industry the winners in thelong run are those who can create andkeep creating.”

Having access to talented and cre-ative people, says Dr. Florida, “is to mod-ern business what access to coal andiron ore was to steelmaking. It deter-mines where companies will choose tolocate and grow, and this in turnchanges the ways cities must compete.”

And in our highly competitive glo-bal market, we must constantly look atways to shift resources to the best eco-nomic advantage. This is an ongoingprocess at Kodak that occurs in everylocation around the world. The end re-sult can be job losses or job gains forpeople and communities. Many of youmanage cities that are home to globalcompanies, and you know that despitethe ebbs and flows, a hospitable climatefor business encourages growth.

— cities and corporations, alike — thattaking costs out of our operations mustbe a continual process.

GrowthOur next shared challenge is

growth. From Jackson, Mississippi toBerkeley, California, you wisely speakof smart growth — development thatserves the economy, community andenvironment. Growth for the sake ofgrowing just isn’t acceptable anymore.Quality-of-life issues have become in-creasingly important for your commu-nities. This can mean walking away fromopportunities — something that wouldhave been unthinkable a few years ago.But it also means taking bold steps intocompletely new areas that have thepotential to transform your communi-ties.

Of course, any discussion of smartgrowth has to take into considerationthe changing demographic compositionof many mid-size cities. The BrookingsInstitution analysis of data from the1990 and 2000 Census indicates thegrowth of medium-sized cities dependedlargely on an influx of new Asian andHispanic resident, which requires anunderstanding of the household struc-tures of new populations — many ofwhich may be younger, and of a largersize.

The challenge becomes to providejobs, housing, schools, services andamenities that are appropriate and at-tractive to families and individuals ofvarying race and ethnic background; andto do so in a way that insures growth.This means not only addressing and le-veraging an increasingly inclusiveworkforce, but also developing power-ful new businesses in strong and emerg-ing markets that consistently contrib-ute profit to the corporation.

Building and Protecting the BrandEstablishing and maintaining a

strong brand is essential to building a

robust customer base, whether thatbrand is for a company named Kodak ora city named Stamford.

At Kodak, our brand is our reputa-tion. All of us take seriously our respon-sibility to uphold it, protect it and makeit stronger. We do this in large partthrough a set of [six] common guide-posts, or corporate values:

1. Respect for the dignity of theindividual

2. Uncompromising integrity

3. Trust

4. Credibility

5. Continuous improvement andpersonal renewal, and

6. Recognition and celebration

These values underpin all that wedo, every day and at every level of theorganization in every region through-out the world. Practicing them is es-sential, especially during these times ofgreat change and substantial skepticism.

I urge you, as leaders of mid-sizedcities, to leverage the power of brandequity. Your brand is a true marketdifferentiator and conveys to potentialdevelopers and companies why theyshould invest in your commu-nity and not next door. Theconnections they make withyour brand, whether throughperception or experience, canstrongly influence their pur-chasing behavior-and impactyour bottom line.

InnovationThe sixth challenge we

share is the need for innova-tion. I recognize that inven-tions and getting products topatent may not be at the topof the challenge list for mid-size cities. But, according tosome widely credited researchthat’s taken place recently,

17Conclusion and Next StepsConclusion and Next StepsConclusion and Next StepsConclusion and Next StepsConclusion and Next Steps

or a similar concept — specificallyfor mid-sized cities.

• Promote universities as significantassets that mid-size cities canenlist in their efforts to competeglobally.

The partners had three ideas thatfocused mostly on outreach andpublicity:• Encouraging foundations to

become more actively involvedwith mid-size cites.

• Helping shape a public relationsand marketing strategy formid-sized cities.

• Documenting the similar issuesshared by mid-size cities andhelping to shape a public policyagenda that specificallyaddresses them.

• Participants concluded theConversation by agreeing to workwith the National League ofCities and U.S. Conference ofMayors to promote discussion ofmidsize cities at their respectivemeetings and conferences; torecruit more mayors and otherkey persons for the effort; and toreconvene in the spring.

In his remarks at the closing lun-cheon, syndicated columnist Neal Peircenoted that “cities are cities.” Meaningthat, throughout history, cities havealways had a common set of elements,such as a concentration of activities inthe core and an expansive economicreach into the hinterland. In that re-gard, mid-size cities are similar to largerones. They have both had the same ba-sic functions for thousands of years.

Yet it became clear during the Roch-ester Conversation that mid-size citiesare unique. They have different sets ofproblems and different sets of assetsthan larger or smaller municipalities.

Compared to their larger counter-parts, mid-size cities often lack eco-nomic diversity. They cannot find “pull”factors strong enough to combat the

“push” factors that lure people away.They struggle to retain longtime resi-dents and attract new ones. They oftenretain poverty but lose wealth. And theyoften get lost — both in the globaleconomy and in the domestic policydebate.

Yet mid-size cities have assets, too— and those assets are a function oftheir size and role. They are inexpen-sive. They are relatively free of conges-tion. They are often friendly places, andplaces where the local power structureis easier to organize toward a specificmission. And they have institutionalassets, such as universities, that canplay a critical role in their future moreeasily than is the case in larger cities.

With this unique set of problemsand assets, these cities have an impor-tant role to play, both in the globaleconomy and in the vibrant communitylife of America. In a word, they matter

But mid-size cities are just begin-ning to develop an awareness of them-selves and the role they play in theworld. They must further develop thisawareness and create a plan of action.Because if the mayors and stakeholdersin mid-size cities do not act on thisawareness that they are important andthat they do matter, then no one elsewill.

The Rochester Conversation on Mid-Sized Cities represents an important firststep in developing a greater self-aware-ness and a plan of action. But the nextsteps are even more important. Moremayors will be needed, so that it trulyrepresents a cross-section of mid-sizedcities in the nation. More universities,think tanks, scholars, journalists, andorganizations will be needed as well, sothey can play a role in analyzing, un-derstanding, and communicating therole of mid-size cities. Together, theseplayers — and other stakeholders as well— can make a difference in puttingAmerica’s mid-size cities “on the map”and helping them continue to playa key and important role in America’sfuture.

After a day-and-a-half of discussionand debate about mid-size cities, themayors, the academics, and the practi-tioners began to debate whether it madesense to move forward with a researchand policy effort. Their answer, in aword, was “Yes.”

But the more difficult question washow to move forward and what roles eachof the participant groups might play.To hammer that one out, the partici-pants divided into three groups — themayors, the academics, and the “part-ners,” which included nonprofit orga-nizations, journalists, and associationrepresentatives from the NationalLeague of Cities and U.S. Conference ofMayors.

The mayors themselves concludedthat it made sense to work together toaddress common challenges of mid-sizecities and also to share best practices— something that is clearly lacking atthe moment. More specifically, theysuggested:• Working together to overcome

obscurity by building legislativeclout. This may not only be at thefederal level, but at the state levelas well.

• Convening conversations aboutmid-size cities at larger meetingsof their two professional associa-tions, the U.S. Conference ofMayors and the National Leagueof Cities.

• Re-convening the RochesterConversation with more mayorsinvolved in the Spring of 2003.

The academics concluded that theycould play several important roles as themid-size cities effort moves forward,including:• Reorient urban policy research to

focus more on midsized cities.

• Incorporate discussion and focuson mid-size cities into theircurriculum.

• Promote the idea of CommunityOutreach Partnership Centers —

Conclusion and Next StepsConclusion and Next StepsConclusion and Next StepsConclusion and Next StepsConclusion and Next Steps

18