Smarter, Stronger Cities: Learning from the UK

Last month, Chris Webber of the Brookings Institution published a thirteen page report entitled Smarter, Stronger Cities: UK Urban Policy Innovations and Lessons for the US. The report argues that, while the UK has borrowed many land use and planning policies from the United States, they have also developed a series of innovative policies, which the US would be wise to consider.

But before exploring those policy innovations, it is important to note that the UK’s system of delivering tax dollars on a municipal level is very different than what we do in the United States. The federal “central” government “collects and distributes around 95% of all public funds.” Quoting:

In the US, by contrast, the federal system limits the national government’s capacity to influence
policies and conditions within cities. In many of the policy areas noted above, the US national government takes a back seat to state and local governments in funding and implementation. But there remains considerable scope for Washington to shape the development of US cities through its myriad investments, rules, and information tools.

Despite the clear differences between the UK and the US, there are ample opportunities for policy learning between the two countries on issues of concern to cities and urban areas. In recent years, the flow of ideas has mostly gone in one direction. The UK has borrowed and adapted several economic policy innovations developed in the US, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, the New Markets Tax Credit, and Business Improvement Districts. Few innovations have traveled in the opposite direction.

To be sure, the concentration of power over municipal infrastructure and planning decisions presents many challenges, which is why there has been a push to create municipal-level governments in the UK. For example, the position of Mayor of London was created in 2000. But we shouldn’t simply view their system as a way of consolidating power: Ultimately, this should be a discussion about the best ways to leverage our assets and efficiently and effectively deliver taxdollars back to the communities from which they are generated.

Although the United States has many outspoken champions of cities on the local level, the federal government, over the course of the last twenty years or so, has taken a backseat. The Brookings Institution argues that federal policies and programs have not adapted to the realities on the ground.

The UK has responded by setting targets for new development. Quoting:

One of the most successful of these statements established a “town center first” development principle, and was issued in 1996 by the Conservatives. This policy aims to limit the number of out-of-town, “big-box” retail developments. Retailers and developers first have to prove that an in-town development is not viable, before they can develop “edge-of-town” or out-of-town sites. Out-of-town sites are seen as the last resort, whereas in the US they remain the norm for new retail developments.

The “town center first” principle has been widely acknowledged as a success, and has played an
important role in limiting urban sprawl and underpinning the physical regeneration of city centers. Research shows that the policy significantly reduced the number of planning approvals granted to out-of-town planning applications, and helped increase the proportion of total retail floor space found in town and city centers from 25 percent in the mid-1990s to 34 percent in 2003.

Drew Ward has written about the town center methods previously on CenLamar. It’s an obvious, intuitive concept, but given the machinery of sprawl, our habits may be difficult to break without proactive leadership– on a local, state, and federal level. (The report also argues that the UK’s successes are due to leaders being unafraid to use the “bully pulpit” and demand public accountability).

Besides the town center “targets,” they have also set benchmarks for densification and brownfield redevelopment. (By the way, the City of Alexandria recently received a $200,000 hazardous material assessment grant from the EPA, which we will use to identify brownfield sites in town. We’re still in the very beginning stages of our brownfield program). Quoting:

In a similar vein, the UK government has also increased housing density and brownfield development. The housing density targets stipulate that new housing developments should be at a minimum density of between 12 and 20 units per acre, depending on the character of the area in question. On brownfield land development, the government introduced a target to have 60 percent of all new residential developments sited on brownfield land by 2008. The UK has made excellent progress against both of these targets. The brownfield target was met in 1999, and by 2006, 74 percent of new developments were taking place on brownfield land. On the density target, by 2006 new dwellings were being constructed at an average density of 40 units per hectare nationwide, much better than in 2002 when all regions except London were registering density figures of below 30 units per hectare.

Because Alexandria is in the beginning stages, it is difficult to know what the scale of our brownfield program should be. But suffice it to say, we will have to confront challenges with brownfield redevelopment and re-use no matter what.

The report makes several other suggestions, some of which seem obvious and others, like road pricing, seem difficult to implement on a national level (though there are many great arguments in support of road pricing in our major municipalities).

Interestingly, the report mentions the efficacy of holding regional, issues-based summits and conducting policy studies on best practices.

This report complements the Brookings Institution’s Blueprint for American Prosperity, which vociferously argues that the next President and next Congress must make urban development policy a top priority.