Section » Millennials
Two Steps in the Right Direction
Governor Granholm and the lame duck legislature in December enacted an important change in Michigan transportation policy. They are to be commended. The new policy, which goes by the name complete streets, finally takes away the long standing policy that the preeminent mode of transportation is driving. Now transportation officials must consider pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders along with cars and trucks. (John Gallagher in the Freep provides an excellent overview of the new law.)
What is this doing in a blog about the Michigan economy? Everything! In a world where economic growth is being driven by where mobile talent chooses to live and work, communities that are providing the ability to live without driving are winning. Increasingly young mobile talent is concentrating in neighborhoods that are characterized by walkable urbanism. As we have written previously, all too often in Michigan transportation officials have been a major barrier to that kind of development. Insisting that roads be designed for the quickest movement of cars and trucks. Hopefully, no more.
The second important development is the announcement by Wayne State, Henry Ford Health System and the DMC that they will provide substantial assistance for their employees to purchase or rent housing in Detroit’s Midtown neighborhood. This is a major component of the Hudson-Webber Foundation 15 by 15 initiative. An effort to double the number of young professionals living in Detroit by 2015.
To me it is the most important economic development initiative in the region and possibly the state. As our new Governor stressed during his campaign the state needs a successful Detroit to work. And the anchor of a successful Detroit is its ability to retain and attract young talent. That means a vibrant Midtown and other near downtown neighborhoods in the city. These are the kind of neighborhood across the country where young talent – before they have kids – are increasingly concentrating.
A Quality of Place Agenda
Governor-elect Snyder was right on when he wrote in his ten point plan that “many of Michigan’s youth are looking for an appealing metropolitan community – and many are moving out of state to find it”. As is the plan’s list of place attributes that are needed to compete for mobile young talent: safe/walkable urban neighborhoods with vibrant third places, transit, parks/outdoor recreation and the arts.
The Millennials, more than any previous generation, are concentrating in big metropolitan areas anchored by vibrant central cities. For Michigan to prosper it’s central cities – particularly Detroit – must be places where young mobile talent wants to live and work.
Through fundamental policy change the Snyder Administration can help create that quality of place. It largely requires changing the direction of three state agencies.
MSHDA can be a major player in the creation of vibrant urban neighborhoods. But far too often they are not both because of their almost sole focus on low income housing and their rules and regulations that prefer to invest in suburban style development even in urban neighborhoods. We need an explicit change in its mission to include both low income housing and creating vibrant urban neighborhoods. And to change its policies to favor development consistent with walkable urbanism.
The Department of Transportation probably is the most important state agency for creating quality of place. It also probably is the agency with policies that most work against creating the kind of neighborhoods young mobile talent are looking for. Its funding formulas favor rural, rather than big metro, roads as well as vastly favor roads over others forms of transportation (transit, bikes, walking). Its rules and regulations, like MSHDA’s, are written for suburban and rural, not urban settings.
We need changes to the funding formula that would base road funding on population not road miles and that would provide transit funding at the constitutional maximum of 10%. Also design standards for urban roads need to be completely overhauled consistent with walkable urbanism.
The M1 light rail line may well be the single most powerful tool for creating a Detroit that can compete for young talent at scale. Getting it funded and built needs to be a state priority.
Parks and outdoor recreation are amenities that matter to young talent. The state’s natural resources department (no matter what its name) through its land trust fund can fund the creation of new parks in our cities. But that too would take a change in policy which currently heavily favors rural and wilderness locations. Beyond the trust fund, special parks like Belle Isle could benefit from conversion to a state park. We need to charge the department with responsibility for expanding parks and outdoor recreation opportunities in our big metros, particularly their central cities.
Finally the arts. State support for the arts peaked in the Engler Administration at a little more than $25 million annually. Not a big amount, but with a big impact. It is a key amenity for young talent. Restoring state funding for the arts, possibly with a challenge to corporations and foundations to match, is an essential ingredient of a quality of place agenda.
Young Talent in the Great Lakes: How Michigan Is Faring?
This report is part of the Michigan Future, Inc. New Agenda for a New Michigan project. Its focus is on identifying a path to better position Michigan to succeed in the flattening world economy of the future, a path that will return Michigan to high prosperity, measured by per capita income consistently above the national average in both national economic expansions and contractions.
Our basic conclusion: What most distinguishes successful areas from Michigan is their concentrations of talent, where talent is defined as a combination of knowledge, creativity and entrepreneurship. Quite simply, in a flattening world, the places with the greatest concentrations of talent win! States and regions without concentrations of talent will have great difficulty retaining or attracting knowledge-based enterprises, and they are not likely to be the places where new knowledge-based enterprises are created.
Click here for the full report
Detroit Ain’t Dead
Conventional wisdom here and across the planet is that Detroit is hopeless. Not salvageable. Think again! Take a look at this video from the folks at Palladium Boots. The first part is a must see, if you have the time watch all three parts. It will change how you think of the city.
After you watch the video go take a tour from the folks at Inside Detroit. You will experience a Detroit you don’t know exists. It will let you see Detroit as young professionals see it. A city of assets and opportunities, not decline.
Behind the global headlines of Detroit’s destruction – which is real – there is the story – still small but also true – of the rebirth of Detroit. Largely driven by young folks there is a new Detroit being created that may well be the key not just to the future of the city, but the region and state. As we have written endlessly, the evidence from across the country is that the most prosperous places are big metropolitan areas anchored by vibrant central cities.
As I wrote in a previous post the priority for the city should be to grow, not shrink. To build on the assets it has and the energy of those who want to rebuild Detroit as a great city. And the region and state need to help that growth. We all have a stake in helping the city succeed.
It’s the Neighborhood
Lots of comments on the Andy Basile email I wrote about in my last post. Most quite positive. A few pushed back. Let me lay out my thoughts on why I thought the email was so important and then give my take on some of the push back.
At the core Basile – a private sector knowledge-based employer – affirms two central beliefs of ours: 1. That it is talent – not taxes or big government – that matters most to enterprise success. 2. That talent is so important and in such short supply that knowledge-based employers will move to where the talent is rather than the other way around. Conventional wisdom is people move to where the jobs are. In a knowledge-based economy there is growing evidence that enterprises move to where talent is concentrated.
Unless we get thought leaders and policy makers to understand both we have little chance of getting our agenda debated, let alone enacted. And the best way to get them accepted is from employers. What is so unique about the Basile email is that he put what many employers have said to me over the years off the record in writing and then allowed me to distribute widely what he wrote.
That brings me to the push back. Two main items
1. The firm should be in Detroit. Obviously I would prefer that it be in the city. But I do not believe if it were that it would change their recruitment challenge. Are there a small number of young professionals that won’t take a job unless they can walk or bike to it, probably yes. But not at any scale. So I don’t think where a firm is located has much to do with the ability to attract talent. Before the Great Recession I heard the same story for years from knowledge-based enterprises in the city. Available jobs, not enough qualified applicants, applicants not wanting to live/work in the region. Microsoft, along with many Seattle knowledge-based employers are in the suburbs. The outbound commute in Seattle is as crowed as the inbound commute. The notion that the company has to be in the city (or walkable suburb) to be attractive to young professionals does not appear to be the pattern across the country. Central cities are increasingly the new bedroom suburbs where a segment of talent wants to live, not necessarily work. That is what is missing here – vibrant neighborhoods where talent wants to live, not work – plus the ability to commute by rail.
2. If they would market our assets better talent will come. This is the one critique I didn’t expect. That some of us believe that we have a competitive quality of place today. Should our firms do a better job selling the city/region to their recruits? Absolutely. I’m convinced most employers don’t know the assets to showcase. But if they did would it change at any scale talent’s willingness to move here? Highly unlikely. I agree with Basile when he writes “We don’t have a perception problem, we have a reality problem.” We have a region, in Chris Leinberger’s terminology, which is dominated by driveable suburbanism, not walkable urbanism, in a market where an increasing proportion of mobile talent wants/demands walkable urbanism.
Young Talent Leaving Michigan
A couple of interesting articles about young talent leaving Michigan. Both worth reading. The first from the Spinal Column covering west Oakland County. I’m interviewed, but what is most interesting is the insights of recent college grads on why they stayed or didn’t. Both jobs/careers and place sure seem to matter. The endless debate we have on which matters more probably is a waste of time. Both matter.
The second is really interesting. It is from Concentrate Media which covers Ann Arbor online. The article is written by Kate Rose who has been a regular contributor singing the praises of Ann Arbor and Michigan as a great place to live and work. But now she has moved to California and she writes about why. It is quite insightful on what Ann Arbor has to offer and what it is lacking. Her agenda for Ann Arbor:
1. Job diversification. I didn’t want to “dump” Michigan. It had so many qualities that I was looking for in a homebase — save one. Selfishly, that turned out to be my career growth. As Gen Y’ers figure out their next career moves, we need to encourage a range of businesses with an enticing array of jobs. Easier said than done, but if this is a wish list, economic livelihood tops it.
2. A dynamic downtown. We lack discovery of new places, and I don’t think the fact that Ann Arbor’s a small town is an excuse. Give us something to explore and keep the chains out. Create more opportunities for innovative and surprising businesses, organizations, events, and entertainment to take root. If Ypsi can hold a puppet-hosted mayoral debate, surely A2 can too.
3. Knock off the “Us vs. Them” development wars. Before I left, I participated in a few meetings where young people discussed development issues coming before council. The tone was hopeful, but felt combative. The general sentiment was that older residents liked how things were, just as they are, and had the time and resources to fight like hell to keep it that way. We need to open the discussion — that’s right, “discussion’, not “argument’. A stronger acknowledgment from city government that young professionals’ interests are being considered would be a welcome start.
Good advice. Jobs and place. Both matter.
Place Comes First
Place trumps everything. Among my college educated friends who have yet to start families, they’d sooner move (and many have) to an exciting or beautiful place without a job prospect, than to stay in or move to Southeast Michigan with an excellent job offer. While there are exceptions, my husband and I included, the overarching trend has been to join the mass exodus to Chicago, New York, Seattle, the Bay Area and the outdoor lovers to Colorado and Salt Lake City. What do we 20 and 30 somethings want in a place? We’re shedding the oppressively dull and uncreative suburban lifestyle of our parents for the vibrant cities where creativity and culture in all its forms flourish. We undeniably value walkable cities, where cars are convenient, but not necessary; where the cultural and social options are so plentiful, you’re forced to be selective in your spare-time pursuits; where the community of energetic forward thinking entrepreneurs and intellectuals is so vast, that new exciting relationships continuously materialize. Despite the spread of technology, personal laptops and email notifications going off in our pockets and purses, we do not want to be physically isolated, living miles from our like-minded peers. We want to be tangibly connected to the world around us. Perhaps as our work days are increasingly isolated in a world of technology, we find ourselves developing an insatiable craving for the jostling excitement of a concentrated population of young movers and shakers.
Ficano on Transit
Great editorial from Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano for One D on transit. Ficano makes the case that rail transit is a key ingredient metro Detroit needs to retain and attract young professionals. Based in part on a recent charrette of University of Michigan students who were asked “if you could start from scratch, what would you do to improve this region and make it more attractive?” The priority was transit.
This is consistent with my experience with young professionals and college students across the state. I have never been in a discussion about their priority list for Michigan that does not have transit at or near the top. This is a generation where many would like to live without a car. So for many their decision on where to live and work after college includes having great transit. It’s a common feature of many of the cities that are young talent magnets.
Ficano understands this. Transit – particularly rail – is about more than just moving people. It is a economic growth priority. Because where those University of Michigan charrette participants choose to live and work after college will have a lot to do in determining which region are prosperous in the future and which aren’t.
Unfortunately his priority for transit seems not to shared by the Oakland County Executive and Chairman of the Macomb County Commission both of whom wrote editorials for One D on transit as well. (You can find them here.) It’s clear that the historic concerns that haven’t prevented metro Detroit from getting a high quality rail system still exist. Do we really need rail? Can we afford it? Etc.
Ficano is right. As region after region across the country understands, transit is a key ingredient in growing the economy. We cannot afford not to have transit. It’s that important!
• Copyright 2009 • Twitter: #michiganfuture