By Kurt Metzger
Editor’s note: The Center continues a series of comments from Kurt Metzger of Data Driven Detroit on what the 2010 census results mean for Michigan today, and tomorrow. Metzger worked for the U.S. Census Bureau for 15 years and has been studying demographic data and issues in Michigan for three decades.
The Cool Cities Initiative, launched by Gov. Jennifer Granholm in June 2003, was designed as part of an urban strategy to revitalize Michigan’s neighborhoods and communities by applying the new economy paradigm where creative place-making and talent matter. The concept, made popular by Richard Florida, author of “The Rise of the Creative Class,” was that cities of all sizes and the regions surrounding them are our future.
To survive and thrive in the future, Michigan must retain and attract more people, including urban pioneers and young knowledge workers, to its cities. We want them to choose Michigan as the place they want to live, work, learn and play by creating neighborhoods that are vibrant, diverse, green and safe – cities that anchor vital and prosperous regions throughout the Great Lakes State.
The effort used the TIDE acronym as its base — attracting the Talent, spurring the Innovation, fostering the Diversity and creating the Environment — to meet the present and future needs of Michigan residents.
In order to understand what the “young creatives” are looking for when deciding to begin “putting down roots,” a Web-based survey was conducted in 2004 among students and recent college graduates that addressed the type of lifestyle they are looking for in a community. Among the findings were:
While job opportunities are important when choosing a place to live, quality of life is significantly more important than many have previously thought. It might be more important to some than jobs.
Despite concerns periodically expressed about Detroit as a place to live and work, respondents (who are 85 percent Michigan residents) still rate it as the second-best place to live in the state. Michigan residents see a difference between Detroit and its suburban communities.
Warm weather year-round is not a critical issue in choosing a place to live. This allows Michigan, once and for all, to dispel the notion that it cannot compete with southern climes.
Being close to family plays an important role in choosing a place to live. That importance seems to increase as they age and their lifestyle (i.e., married with kids) changes. So, campaigns using a return-to-home message could be effective.
A secondary target audience could be graduates of Michigan universities who have left the state. There are often ties to the community where one went to school that could be taken advantage of.
The 2004 survey found that gambling places/casinos, professional sports, large malls and shopping centers do not play a significant role in choosing a place to live. Neighborhood preferences tend to favor being in or near a downtown, though other areas received high ratings as well. Because of this, medium and small cities and even rural areas can effectively compete with large cities for the Creative Class.
The study identified six major groupings of factors that communities can focus upon in order to target their development priorities. They are:
* Cool Cities Core Values Factor: This factor is central in defining what constitutes a “Cool City.” Focusing efforts on as many of these attributes as possible will help a community to become “cool.”
* Outdoor Factor: This is a grouping of non-team, outdoor sports and the simple yet personal experience of being outdoors. It is a key feature for selecting a place to live.
* Third Place Factor: This factor emphasizes the importance of gathering places, a critical component of what appeals to the Creative Class. It is the place where a community or neighborhood meets to develop friendships, discuss issues and interact with others. It helps the community develop and retain cohesion, and its sense of place.
* Safety & Security Factor: While key, this factor is probably best to jointly undertake with other development targets, particularly with factors directly related to Cool Cities Core Values. A place might not necessarily be “cool” simply because it is safe and secure. Yet, it cannot become “cool” if it is not perceived as safe.
* Economics Factor: Like Safety & Security, Economics alone is probably not a driving issue in decisions about places to live, but still important. Affordability is the defining attribute related to this factor. It is mostly defined as reasonable housing costs.
* Entrepreneurial Factor: Those who want to start their own business are largely driven by this need to the exclusion of other needs or interests.
While not exhausting the entire list of communities that have been selected over the years to participate in the “cool” effort, we have selected a subset as a study group to see what has happened to them over the decade. We will look at population change, household change, median age and household structure. More detailed profiles of each can be obtained by contacting Data Driven Detroit.
If I were to summarize the findings of this quick analysis in terms of major trends that distinguish this group of communities, I would have to say – there are NONE.
The communities ranged in size from a low of 925 residents (Saugatuck) to a high of 113,904 (Ann Arbor). The population gainers and losers were evenly split 5-5, with both the low and high coming out on the losing end. Using the state median age (38.9 years) as our comparison, our communities split evenly again – five above and five below.
Only the college towns of Ann Arbor, East Lansing and Marquette actually experienced a drop in median age (Kalamazoo had no change) – a trend that might be worth looking across neighborhoods that lie within a radius around four-year institutions across the state. As community colleges become a more important component of post-secondary education, will they be potential drivers of housing in surrounding neighborhoods in the years to come?
Even though the state lost population (-0.6 percent), it gained households (2.3 percent), due to decreasing household size brought about by smaller families and more persons living alone – both young and elderly. Six of our study communities experienced household losses over the decade. While five of these also experienced population loss, Birmingham bucked the trend. While households were decreasing, population was growing by 4.2 percent – due to increasing numbers of family households and increasing household size (both trend-busters). This is the case where a main street and strong downtown, coupled with great neighborhoods and excellent schools, have combined to attract young families that were able to afford to move in as housing prices dropped. In fact, Birmingham was the only community that saw an increase in family households and one of only two that experienced a loss in one-person households.
One might argue with the sample we have pulled to illustrate the issue of “cool.” However, I would still argue that demographics alone cannot be used to differentiate what is and what is not “cool.” We are each attracted to the community in which we live for a variety of reasons. These reasons, while all important throughout our lives, wax and wane in terms of their value in our Quality of Life Index.
Bruce Katz from the Brookings Institution speaks of a “metropolitan moment” – a belief that the future of our country is predicated on the strength of our metropolitan areas. It is important that Michigan recognizes this fact and works to strengthen its metropolitan regions, and, in turn, that the institutions within these regions work together. Communities within these regions (as well as those in adjacent areas) are all part of the greater whole and provide a set of amenities that appeal to various segments of the population. We see this diversity of place as critical to the attractiveness and success of both the regions and Michigan as a whole. Let’s work to make sure that “coolness,” however defined, is distributed throughout.
