This paper examines neighborhood decline and takes up the larger issue of formulating a strategy for regrowth. A case study of Marseille France highlights this strategy along with possible criteria for policy transfer to American cities. The strategy is designated by the author as High-Intensity Concentrated Area Development (HICAD). The HICAD strategy differs from those used in the United States and employs five basic ideas—selection, pressure, magnification (connectivity), leverage and a holistic perspective. HICAD proved to be transformative in Marseille. Over the course of 15 years it brought back densities, increased employment, rebuilt infrastructure and renewed a community. HICAD is also portable and may be used in conjunction with other strategies currently applied in American cities. Notwithstanding these benefits the strategy gives rise to issues of social equity. The French experience also enables us to understand that urban decline may differ in cause and consequence. Accordingly the strategic responses will also vary.
ABT Associates Inc. & the New School for Social Research. 1997. EZ/EC Interim Outcomes Assessment Evaluation Conference. San Francisco, CA, July26-27, 1997.
BendickMarcRasmussenDavid W.1986. Enterprise zones and inner city economic development. In Reagan and The Cities, edited by PetersonGeorge E.LewisClark W.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
5.
BoarnetMarlon G.BogartWilliam T.1996. Enterprise zones and employment: Evidence from New Jersey. Journal of Urban Economics40 (2) 198–215.
6.
BondonioDanielleEngbergJohn. 2000. Enterprise zones and local employment: Evidence from the States’ programs. Regional Science and Urban Economics30 (5) 519–49.
7.
CibonH.2007. Euroméditerranée, Accélérateur de Métropole. In Marseille: Une Métropole entre Europe et Méditerranée, edited by LangevinPhilippeJuanJean-Claude. Paris, France: La Documentation Francaise.
DikecMustafa. 2008. Two decades of French Urban policy: From social development of neighborhoods to the Republican Penal State. Antipode38 (1) 59–80.
11.
DonzelAndre. 1990. Regeneration in Marseilles: Fabulous expansion or spectacular setback? In Leadership and urban regeneration: Cities in North America and Europe, edited by JuddDennis R.ParkinsonMichael. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Series.
12.
DonzelAndre. 1998. Marseille: L’experience de la cite. Canberra, Australia: Anthropos Research and Publications.
13.
DonzelAndre. 2007. La Métropole Marseillaise et ses Fractures. In Marseille: Une Métropole entre Europe et Méditerranée, edited by LangevinPhilippeJuanJean-Claude. Paris, France: La Documentation Francaise.
14.
DonzelAndreMaisettiNicolas. 2009. Reseaux politiques locaux et internationalization des villes: Marseille et le projet euromediterraneen.
15.
DuboisJ.DouayN.DaSilvaJ.2007. Gouvernance (La) métropolitaine: Réalisation d’un état des connaissances, critique et prospectif, sur les enjeux de la métropolisation. La Défense: MTETM-PUCA.
16.
EngbergJohnGreenbaumRobert T.1999. State enterprise zones and local housing markets. Journal of Housing Research10 (2) 163–87.
EuroMéditerranée. 2000. Schema du Reference. November. Marseille, France: EuroMéditerranée.
19.
EuroMéditerranée. 2008. L’Europe des Métropoles: Entre rayonnement et attractivité. June. Marseille, France: EuroMéditerranée.
20.
EuroMéditerranée. 2009. L’internationalisation des métropoles. March. Marseille, France: EuroMéditerranée.
21.
FainsteinSusan S.2001. The city builders: Property development in New York and London, 1980–2000. 2nd ed., revised. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
22.
FeaginJoe R.OrumAnthony M.SjobergGideon, eds. 1991. A case for the case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
23.
FriedenBernard J.KaplanMarshall. 1975. The politics of neglect: Urban aid from model cities to revenue sharing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
GalsterGeorgeTatianPeterAccordinoJohn. 2006. Targeting investments for neighborhood revitalization. Journal of the American Planning Association72 (4, Autumn): 457–74.
25.
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998. Community development: Progress on economic development activities varies among the empowerment zones. Report to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives, November1998.
26.
GerringJohn. 2007. Case study research. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
27.
GilderbloomJohn I.2008. Invisible city. Austin, TX: University Press of Texas.
GlaeserEdward L.GyourkoJoseph. 2005. Urban decline and durable housing. Journal of Political Economy113 (2) 345–75.
30.
GrantJill L.2002. Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association68 (1) 71–84.
31.
Hoffman-MartinotV.NeversJ. Y.1989. French local policy change in a period of austerity. In Urban innovation and autonomy: Political implications of policy change, edited by ClarkeSusan E.Thousand Oaks, CA: Newbury Park.
32.
HollanderJustin B.2010. Moving towards a shrinking cities metric: Analyzing land use changes associated with depopulation in Flint, Michigan. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research12 (1) 133–51.
33.
HollanderJustin B.PallagstKarinaSchwarzTerryPopperFrank. 2009. Planning shrinking cities. Special issue: Emerging Research Areas, Progress in Planning72 (4) 223–32.
Institut National de la Statistiques Economiques (INSEE). 2002a. Atlas des métropolitains de la région urbaine de Marseille—Aix-en-Provence. Edition 2002—tome 1: Le Territoire. http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=5&ref_id=4874 (accessed March 11, 2010).
36.
Institut National de la Statistiques Economiques (INSEE). 2002b. Atlas des métropolitains de la région urbaine de Marseille—Aix-en-Provence. Edition 2002—tome 2: Les habitants, pp. 18–19. http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=8383 (accessed March 11, 2010).
37.
Institut National de la Statistiques Economiques (INSEE). 2002c. Atlas des métropolitains de la région urbaine de Marseille—Aix-en-Provence. Edition 2002—tome 3: Activité et emploi, p. 18. http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=8384®_id=5 (accessed March 11, 2010).
38.
KeatingW. DennisKrumholzNorman. 1991. Downtown plans of the 1980s: The case for more equity. Journal of the American Planning Association57 (2) 136–52.
39.
KrumholzNormanForesterJohn. 1990. Making equity planning work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
LefevreC.2010. La Politique Urbaine en France. Institut Francais d’Urbanisme-Champs-sur-Marne.
43.
LeoChristopherBrownWilson. 2002. Slow growth and urban development policy. Journal of Urban Affairs22 (2) 193–213.
44.
LevineMarc V.1987. Downtown redevelopment as an urban growth strategy: A critical appraisal of the Baltimore Renaissance. Journal of Urban Affairs9 (2) 103–23.
45.
LevitanSar A.TaggartRobert. 1976. The promise of greatness: The social programs of the last decade and their major achievements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
LynchKevin. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
Marseille Provence Métropole. n.d.Communauté Urbaine, Stratégie de Développement Economique.
48.
Mayor of Allauch. 1999. Integration Forcee d’Allauch. Allauch, France, December12.
49.
MollenkopfJohn H.CastellsManuel. 1991. The dual city: Restructuring New York. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
50.
OECD Territorial Reviews. 2006. Competitive cities in the global economy. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
PopkinSusan J.KatzBruceCunninghamMary K.BrownKaren D.GustafsonJeremyTurnerMargery A.2004. A decade of HOPE VI: Research findings and policy challenges. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press and The Brookings Institution Press.
54.
PorterMichael. 1995. The competitive advantage of the inner city. Harvard Business ReviewMay–June: 55–74.
55.
PulsipherIan. 2008. Evaluating enterprise zones. NCSL/Annie E. Casey Partnership on Family Economic Success. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12806 (accessed March 2, 2011).
56.
RobinsonTony. 1996. Inner-city innovator: The Non-profit Community Development Corporation. Urban Studies33 (9) 1647–70.
57.
RoheWilliam M.BrattRachel G.BiswaslProtip. 2003. Evolving challenges for community development corporations: The causes and impacts of failures, downsizings and mergers. Chapel Hill: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina.
RubinIrene S.RubinHerbert J.1987. Economic development incentives: The poor (cities) pay more. Urban Affairs Quarterly23 (1) 37–62.
60.
RybczynskiWitoldLinnemanPeter D.1999. How to save our shrinking cities. Public Interest135 (Spring): 30–44.
61.
SavitchH. V.KantorPaul. 2002. Cities in the international marketplace: The political economy of urban development in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
62.
SavitchH. V.OsgoodJeffery L.2010. Bullpitt in America: Presidential Approaches, Territorial Politics and the Field of Urban Policy. Government and Opposition43 (3) 406–35.
63.
SchillingJosephLoganJonathan. 2008. Greening the rust belt: A green infrastructure model for right sizing America’s shrinking cities. Journal of the American Planning Association74 (4) 451–66.
64.
Sola-MoralesI.1995. Terrain vague. In Anyplace, USA, Anyone Corporation. Quoted in Andersen, L. 2005. Shrinking cities and the need for a reinvented understanding of the city. AESOP 2005, Vienna.
65.
StoeckerRandy. 1997. The community development corporation model of urban redevelopment: A critique and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs19 (1) 1–23.
66.
TalenEmily. 2008. New urbanism, social equity and the challenge of post-Katrina rebuilding in Mississippi. Journal of Planning Education and Research27 (3) 277–93.
67.
ThomasJune ManningHee-YunHwang. 2003. Social equity in redevelopment and housing: United States and Korea. Journal of Planning Education and Research23 (1) 8–23.
68.
TNS-SOFRES. 2005. Le jugement des habitants de Marseille sure l’opération EuroMed et la perception de la réhabilitation de la rue de la République. June.
69.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Compendium of government finance. Washington, DC: Census Bureau.
70.
VeyJennifer S.2007. Restoring prosperity: The state role in revitalizing America’s older industrial cities. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
71.
VidalAvis C.1992. Rebuilding communities: A national study of urban community development corporations. New York: Community Development Research Center, Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy, New School for Social Research.
72.
VidalAvis C.1996. CDCs as agents of neighborhood change. In Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods, edited by KeatingW. DennisKrumholzNorman. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
73.
WeissCarol H.1995. Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and context, edited by ConnellJames P.KubischAnne C.SchorrLisbeth B.WeissCarol H., 65–92. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
74.
White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 1993. Background Briefing by Senior Administrative Officials, May4.
75.
ZimmermanJeffrey. 2008. From brew town to cool town: Neoliberalism and the creative city development strategy in Milwaukee. Cities25: 230–42.
