The Cities That Work Series: The tipping point of a mega-region

• By Howard Snyder and Stephanie Allewalt, Northwest Side Community Development Corporation
• July 24, 2012
• Post a comment

With globalization having long been a prevalent consideration in economics, the terms “megacity” and “megaregion” have become fairly popular terms in the American vernacular.  Megaregions are commonly known as sets of fused

Howard Snyder

Photo courtesy NWSCDC

geographies which share economic systems, natural resources and ecosystems, and transportation systems.  Yet having shared characteristics and blurred boundaries should not be the sole reasons why megacities (“communities”) should operate as one unit under the umbrella of a megaregion.  Communities must know their purpose relative to the megaregion.  And when issues of poverty are notable in communities throughout a megaregion, what is the economic purpose of a megacity?

On July 17, leaders from the Chicago and Milwaukee metropolitan areas convened for a session entitled Milwaukee’s Future in the Chicago Megacity.[1]  The forum was intended to “consider Milwaukee’s opportunity to strengthen its stature as part of this global megacity,” and to “address the central questions of how closely the Milwaukee region should connect its future to Chicago and how that might be accomplished through public policy and business.”[2]  To analyze the future of the Chicago-Milwaukee megacity, these cities must share a common vision regarding the future of the parent megaregion.  Simply put: why are we trying to attach ourselves to a megacity, and who benefits?

Let us pause to review megaregion metrics for the speculative territory representing the Midwest/Great Lakes and the Chicago-Milwaukee megacity.  First, the states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.  Second, the notable cities: Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis.  These seven states and eight metropolitan areas are home to 10 of the original Big Ten schools, and could well be home to approximately one-fifth of the nation’s population and one-sixth of the gross domestic product.

But can the econometrics of this megaregion foster a regional economic development strategy?

In the Midwest/Great Lakes megaregion, strategies typically synonymous with strengthening connectivity in megaregions are instruments that not everyone considers desirable.  Public transportation, freshwater science and technology, and unified marketing strategies are among those strategies.  When faced with supporting these concepts, the public is largely impacted by politics, local priorities, and budgetary constraints.  How can a community see the value in public transportation when the capital required seemingly outweighs the ‘inexpensive’ nature of roadway resurfacing?  Why should Chicago invest in a unified marketing strategy with Indianapolis when those dollars could be utilized locally?  While each of the aforementioned strategies could further “connect” our megaregion, the gorilla in the room relates to the question in the first paragraph about serving an economic purpose: metropolitan poverty.  What is the value of the megaregion if, literally, millions of its inhabitants are poor?

The cities at the core of the Midwest/Great Lakes metropolitan areas identified for this article illustrate the existential poverty in the urban megaregion.  On average, nearly 23 percent of families in 2010 maintained an income below the poverty level in the eight cities.

Source: 2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates

What barometer should we use to interpret economic health in our megaregion if we have a statistically significant quantity of poor families?  This megaregion likely will neither compete globally nor produce innovative economic solutions given the percentage of those who are struggling to make ends meet.

Poverty is more than a symptom or condition exhibited by individuals and families.  Its existence alone drives the nature of the surrounding market.  American communities stricken by poor families, for example, often possess a market with a sizeable social service presence.  In essence, they are communities of net consumers.  On the other hand, American communities with considerable numbers of prosperous families tend to house a robust market with a range of large employers and small businesses.  In essence, they are communities of net producers.  For the Midwest/Great Lakes megaregion, embedded cities and megacities must be home to net producers, and not simply by redistributing the population throughout the megaregion.  These communities must build wealth and employment opportunities from within.  Therein lays the tipping point: without wealth-building efforts, the megaregion will slide, along with its cities, into being a net consumer with little economic advantage.

In Reflections on Regionalism, John A. Powell notes poverty’s detrimental impacts on a regional scale: “…entire regions – not just the inner cities and older suburbs – have a real interest in reversing the policies that have concentrated poverty at the urban core… Instead of calling upon each locality to take responsibility only for itself, regionalism recognizes the entire area as a system of interdependent parts.  The whole will prosper only if all parts are able to function… Among other things, a poor and racially segregated urban core harms the reputation of the metropolitan region as a whole and makes it less inviting to international, national, and local businesses, as well as to families looking for homes.”[3]

Before all else, the Midwest/Great Lakes megaregion needs to reach consensus on the steps it will take to advance its metropolitan nodes beyond a state of poverty.

MPC on Twitter

Follow us on Twitter »