CITIES IN TRANSITION: Toward a New Industrial Era
School: Harvard GSD | Course: Proseminar in Landscape Architecture | Semester: Fall 2024
“We are living in an age where the boundaries between industries, innovation, and society are being redrawn. We must decide how we use this opportunity to shape a future we all want to inhabit." ~ Melinda Gates
As technological advancements continue to develop, so will the ways in which we work. Re-examining relationships between manufacturing and cities is vital to this development, as outlined in the book New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production. “Supporters of such re-examination warn of severe negative consequences in countries that promote post-industrial policy with little attention to production.”1 The authors argue that while economic strategies are vital to manufacturing, it is the correlation between social and spatial policies that will allow new forms of manufacturing to mature within the urban context.
Traditional post-industrial strategies have burdened low-income communities with an influx of revamped industrial residential lofts, mixed-use developments that target middle- and high-class consumers, and skilled jobs that are oftentimes inaccessible to many residents. Due to this, post-industrialization has been tied to gentrification, the “transitioning of inner-city neighborhoods from a status of relative poverty and limited property investment to a state of commodification and reinvestment.”2 How can we end the cycle of decline-enhancement-replacement by establishing a decline-enhancement-integration socio-spatial economy?
My research and design focus around these topics draw on my own professional and personal experiences. I grew up in Mahoning Valley, a region of northeastern Ohio where generations of my family worked in the steel and automotive industries. After factory closings in the 1980s, I witnessed the aftermath – abandonment and decay of entire neighborhoods – experiencing the continued decline of local economy, public health, and infrastructure. Youngstown, the epicenter of Mahoning Valley, has been studied by academics for the city’s plan of intentionally ‘shrinking’ the city, doing so while attempting to inject the region with high-tech green jobs that can support a suffering population.
It is the latter objective, transitioning the region into a new industrial era, that peaks my current interest. This objective has yet to become fruitful for the “Steel Valley”, for thousands are still without jobs, with residents left to deal with high crime rates, disease, and one of the highest poverty rates in the country. How can a new perspective, specifically the concept of “New Industrial Urbanism,” turn the page to a brighter future for Mahoning Valley, and like-communities across the world?
The Importance of Industry in the Urban Setting
Regions like the Mahoning Valley face significant challenges following the collapse of industry, leaving behind little to reflect the economic prosperity they once possessed. At the same time, cities that are currently thriving economically continue to purposefully reduce their area of urban industrial land due to market pressure to maximize land use intensity and diversity of uses.3 Many industrial lots and previous industrial buildings in these cities are being converted to loft apartments or high-end retail shops without deeper consideration for the importance of urban industrial processes or community impacts of gentrification.
As the Mahoning Valley continues toward renewed prosperity, what are the potential issues that could arise from repurposing old industrial sites into new uses? Should the community and others like it focus on utilizing the existing infrastructure in place, therefore reintegrating production within the urban setting? “Reintegrating production within the urban fabric requires more finely tuned and imaginative land use systems. This requires industrial zoning better suited to the multifaceted needs of contemporary urban manufacturing but also a fundamental rethink of mixed-use areas toward more productive ends.”3 In the last decade, more urban designers and planners are taking notice of urban industry moving to suburbia and it is a practice that is highly debated.
In the article Planning for Industry in a Post-Industrial World, Dr. Marie Howland, she provides seven reasons why urban industrial activities are critical to the economy of cities: (1) the industrial sector continues to be an important source of jobs; (2) many industrial activities are critical to the operation of government; (3) industrially zoned areas house back-office activities critical to other sectors; (4) industrially zoned areas are home to many of the activities that support the local population, such as auto repair shops, household repair services, and warehousing of consumer products; (5) industrially zoned areas provide low-cost space that is critical for high-tech start-ups and incubators, making industrially zoned areas important to a healthy and vital economy in the long run; (6) industrial employment provides relatively good jobs for workers with lower levels of formal education than does the service sector, because it pays higher wages; and (7) industrially zoned parcels typically carry a legacy of contamination, which offers the best continued use for the site.4
Considering Dr. Howland’s reasons, scholars have argued for the importance of industrial sites and their role within cities. Now, there is a new concept of industrial urbanization, one that focuses not only on the economic benefits of industry, but the social and spatial issues related to manufacturing as it prioritizes people and space, placing the concept on the path to a new industrial era.
New Industrial Urbanism
With technological innovation comes increasing need for a change to labor markets, institutions, and production of goods. “There are two acute core issues here. First, how to invest in workers and their skills, bringing to bear the full weight of modern teaching methods and training technology, as well as new institutions, to help them drive the jobs of the future and second, how these specialized changes will be supported by the spatial and physical development of our cities and region.”5 These issues most cities are not considering in their projections for the future, especially communities simply trying to improve living conditions day-to-day.
This marks the emergence of ‘New Industrial Urbanism,’ a conceptual framework aimed at reconnecting the long-divided elements of people, places, and production. Embracing technological advancements and market innovations presents both opportunities and challenges, requiring collaborative strategies, creating complex networks of action, and a reimagined approach to urban design. Professor Tali Hatuka of Tel Aviv University and Professor Eran Ben-Joseph of MIT coined the term “New Industrial Urbanism” in their recent publication New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production. “New Industrial Urbanism is a socio-spatial concept which calls for reassessing and re-shaping the relationships between cities, people, and industry. It suggests shaping cities with a renewed understanding that an urban location and setting gives industry a competitive advantage thanks to the access to skilled labor, educational institutions, and customers. This concept calls for a socio-spatial paradigm shift in the way we understand and address production in cities and regions.”1
The concept is based on two linked assumptions: the importance of advanced manufacturing for cities’ growth; and the need for cultivating varied socio-spatial strategies that can support manufacturing and would benefit diverse social groups in the city.6 The authors argue that the connection between manufacturing, society, and space can help mitigate rising global manufacturing competition, reduce unemployment, and decrease the energy and transportation costs of goods. In later case studies, I will explain how gentrification can also be considered within this contextual framework.
The concept also leans on the idea of a “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” being the shift from advanced manufacturing as a goal in of itself to achieving a ‘socio-spatial framework’ first that supports advanced manufacturing techniques and spaces. However, the concept is not a one-size-fits-all approach to industrial urbanism. “New Industrial Urbanism is neither a model nor a static concept but a flexible framework, a set of ideas that requires reflexive thinking about place.”5 It centers on the idea of local power and production which is completely unique to each city and community. This ‘local power’ has never been more central to a thriving economy, at no other time more noticeable than during the COVID-19 pandemic. If we were to shift away from global reliance of manufacturing and technology, what could our local economies and cities look and function like? Let us first understand how industrial-urban developments are shaped today.
Contemporary Forms of Industrial-Urban Development
As mentioned previously, many industrial developments are formed for the sake of industry and manufacturing. But, what happens when we begin to look beyond industry and into the socio-spatial arrangements of more contemporary examples? Professor Hatuka and Professor Ben-Joseph have uncovered three development approaches to New Industrial Urbanism: clustering new industries, regenerating industrial areas, and forming hybrid districts. All three approaches teach three vital lessons to contemporary industrial development: (1) Industrial development is about bridging the gap between industrial needs and zoning, which requires conceptualizing the city in a way that situates it within its broader regional social and economic context; (2) industrial development is about creating a manufacturing continuum, by identifying and developing sites that are appropriate for manufacturers at various stages (e.g., the maker stage, the start-up stage, the scale-up stage, the small and medium-sized enterprise stage, and heavy industry) based on regional strategic objectives (e.g., the growth of a particular sector) that could encourage the return of clean industry to the city; and (3) industrial development in the 21st century is an ongoing search for strategies and concepts responding to the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its dynamic.7
“Industrial clustering is a concept defined as a socio-spatial assemblage of people, buildings, and activities without any necessary center, boundary, or scale, where the production processes of some service-sector firms depend on infrastructure in a fixed, physical location.”8 In essence, it is the grouping of similar things or people operating and physically located closely together. Industrial clustering is not a one-size-fits-all approach and it can vary in scale and location. Clustering can occur in rural / urban / suburban areas, and districts. It is an ongoing political process and requires collaborating with institutions, interacting with complementary industries, building on partnerships, and having access to a skilled labor force. Case Study: Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA
“Industrial Regeneration is a concept that refers to processes that boost existing industrial uses and reverse possible decline by improving the physical infrastructure, protecting and enhancing current land use, and building on the urban characteristics of the place.”8 The reinvention process is based on three tiers: management, sustainability, and conservation. These tiers focus on reimagining industrial spaces into new and mixed uses, not necessarily residential, but typically focused on green environmental strategies and public amenities. Regeneration can occur in urban areas and districts. Case Study: Fashion District, Los Angeles, CA
“Hybridity is a relatively new concept that offers a spatial framework of mixed-use industrial zoning to preserve industrial districts in cities.”8 Hybridity encourages diverse activities in industrial areas and has a large influence on planning policies. This concept has been further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Three components make up the hybrid approach – place, culture, and leadership. All three highlight the importance of community engagement and private-public partnerships. Case Study: 22@DISTRICT, Barcelona, Spain
All three approaches are based on two related premises: industry has been and still is a central mechanism for economic growth for contemporary cities and regions; and that economic growth relies on different institutions collaborating and on various stakeholders forming a network. They are all based on an updated conception of the role of industry in cities and on the need to develop new frameworks for stakeholder participation. The creation of new coalitions, top-down with bottom-up initiatives, and encouragement of stakeholder involvement are all integral parts of New Industrial Urbanism.9 But what happens when these approaches cause not only the reshaping of districts but also the relocation of its current residents?
Curbing Gentrification
Gentrification is a central theme in almost all cases of clustered, regenerated, and hybridized industrial realms. “The literature on industrial displacement dates back to the late 1980s and finds strong links between the conversion of industrial land – especially older, multi-story loft buildings – and residential gentrification.10 Hybrid Districts, especially, are criticized for being prone to gentrification on a high level. “Hybrid districts that focus on knowledge-based economies and creative economies often contribute to a high standard of living and economic prosperity. Two big challenges arise in developing hybrid innovation districts: first, protecting manufacturing uses; and second, integrating and protecting existing social communities.”11
I have seen gentrification take place slowly and naturally but have also witnessed developers work directly with city officials to plan for the relocation of residents from inner-city development communities to outer-city limits. If the Mahoning Valley were to suddenly become a thriving bedroom community to Pittsburgh or Cleveland and gentrification were taking place in its urban industrial neighborhoods, I would be devastated. However, there are case studies indicating that gentrification is an option, not a requirement, for the improvement of community infrastructure and access to amenities. But it requires extra steps in the planning of developments and districts, demanding city officials and developers to consider new ways of conducting business as usual. “Therefore, the challenge is to develop programs and plans in combination with multiple actors, in which both government and private stakeholders work together with communities to improve social welfare, particularly for those in need and left behind by the digital divide.”12
In the Industrial Regeneration case study of Brooklyn Navy Yard, the industrial development has been prized for its successful reintegration of industrial processes, like manufacturing, into a community with mixed industries and needs. After the community found itself declining in the late-twentieth century, the Brooklyn Navy Yard invited smaller businesses to repopulate the maritime industrial spaces and has grown significantly to house hundreds of businesses and thousands of workers. “The Brooklyn Navy Yard is often viewed as a model of 21st-century manufacturing, with businesses ranging from maritime activities to media, high-end crafts, and medicine.”13 However, over time the adjacent communities have seen gentrification take place due to the success of the development. “Today, one of the big challenges of the area is the gentrification process taking place in adjacent neighborhoods, combined with land use modification allowing for mixed-use development. The competitive processes of industry versus residential land uses have resulted in factory conversions to housing and office space, and the loss of industry in the areas immediately adjacent to the yard.”14
This case study shows that without proper land planning and land use policies, even the most diverse, well-intentioned developments can promote gentrification. Let us look at a Hybrid District case study that has better kept gentrification in check through collaboration, land use strategy, and earmarking industry as vital to community success and prosperity.
Located near the downtown core of Portland, Oregon, Central Eastside (CES) is a historic industrial district. Originally developed as a railroad-based warehouse center and light manufacturing zone, in the mid-20th century companies began to relocate to the suburbs for more suitable railroad and building infrastructure. However, smaller industrial companies moved in, strengthening the local economy by maintaining good paying manufacturing jobs close to the city center. By the 1980s, a report would be produced highlighting the importance of industry in the district and to nearby communities. The report had a large impact on the future planning and preservation of industry in the urban core, marking CES as an industrial sanctuary. Several zoning tools were used to promote industrial uses in the district: (1) encouraging the formation of incubator industries in the district; (2) reinforcing the district’s role as a distribution center; (3) allowing mixed-use developments, which include housing, in areas already committed to non-industrial development; (4) preserving buildings that are of historical and/or architectural significance; (5) developing Union and Grand Avenues as the principal north-south connection and commercial spine in the district for transit and pedestrians; and (6) continuing implementation of the Central Eastside Economic Development Policy.15
Since its establishment as a vital industrial center, creative zoning and land use strategies have helped the district thrive with a mix of uses. “Portland’s approach to urban revitalization, in the form of industrial sanctuary designation implemented through a flexible regulatory framework, protects existing manufacturing use and is a powerful tool for keeping the gentrification of industrial uses and their potential displacement from city centers in check.”15 Although the city continues to battle gentrification in some adjacent neighborhoods, the framework put in place for the CES have helped curb the issue in the immediate vicinity. “With its prime location, Central Eastside has managed to provide valuable employment opportunities for inner city neighborhoods and allows industrial firms to locate in a more compact and mixed urban form.”16
It seems that each development type has its place in the future of industry and place, but Hybrid Districts hint at having the most potential for curbing gentrification. There is much more research to be done on this topic and many more sources of information I have not yet found.
Forward Focus
As I continue my research I must remember that it is difficult for any one person to make a significant impact on issues as complex as industrial urbanism and gentrification. I have learned through this initial research that it is only through collaboration and land use regulations that we can begin to find resolutions to these challenges. Still, I find myself seeking to start a firm that focuses on the design and development of land that could revitalize communities by not only promoting economic success, but by improving socio-spatial relationships and cultural preservation of place, community, and its people.
As I consider my next venture after graduate school, I hold my home, the Mahoning Valley, close to my chest. There are improvements to living conditions, increased employment opportunities, and expanded healthcare resources I wish to see generated. The Mahoning Valley has the potential for thriving inner-city industries that support blue-collar workers that live on the same block that they were born and raised. It sounds like an achievable goal, yet, it has been shown time and time again that in most cases the preservation of community and culture is second to a thriving economy. New collaboration strategies and land use policies to industrial centers could be the key to achieving all desired outcomes.
I will end with my initial question: How can we end the cycle of decline-enhancement-replacement by establishing a decline-enhancement-integration socio-spatial economy? I hope to continue uncovering solutions to this very big question through continued research and eventually, physical space and application.
Citations
1. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 29.
2. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 287.
3. Grodach, Carl. 2024. “A Productive Mix?: Urban Manufacturing in Planned Industrial Zones and Mixed-use Districts.” Monash University. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/3469192/Grodach-Martin-JPER-Final-Prepub.pdf
4. Howland, Marie. 2010. “Planning for Industry in a Post-Industrial World: Assessing Industrial Land in a Suburban Economy.” Journal of the American Planning Association 77 (1): 39–53. doi:10.1080/01944363.2011.531233.
5. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 16.
6. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 17.
7. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 239.
8. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 276.
9. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 236.
10. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 192.
11. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 234.
12. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 287.
13. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 183.
14. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 213.
15. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 209.
16. Hatuka, Tali. Ben-Joseph, Eran. 2022. “New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production.” New York, NY Routledge, 212.