All posts in “News”

Cities Have Been on the Front Lines of Biden’s “Cascading Crises.” Here’s What They Should Do Next.

Written by Candace Damon, Danny Fuchs, and Bret Collazzi


“This is a time of testing. We face an attack on democracy and on truth. A raging virus. Growing inequity. The sting of systemic racism. A climate in crisis. … We will be judged, you and I, for how we resolve the cascading crises of our era. Will we rise to the occasion?”
– Biden Inaugural Address (2021)

“Racist, sexist, and classist policies … have left us with stubborn inequalities in wealth, income, health, and education. … We are facing not only the risks posed by climate change, but also rising nationalism and intolerance on a national and global level, which threaten the social fabric of our city.”
– OneNYC 2050 (2019)

“The challenges that Houstonians face are increasing in size, frequency, and complexity—compounded by exponential population growth, an uncertain and changing climate, economic reliance on the energy sector, and inequitable outcomes in health, wealth, and access to services depending on one’s neighborhood.”
– Resilient Houston (2020)


***

In his Inaugural Address President Biden described the “cascading crises of our era;” he could have been reciting from any number of citywide plans of the last decade. Urban leaders across the U.S. have understood for at least that long that long-term policymaking must focus on economic and racial equity and recognized that climate change and structural racism are the chief existential threats to urban life.

To date, city leaders have used the tools at their disposal – land use controls, local regulations, capital spending – to move the needle on these issues. Minneapolis restricted single-family zoning to address a legacy of racist housing policy. Asheville, N.C. and St. Paul, MN are exploring reparations for Black residents. More than 470 U.S. mayors committed to uphold the Paris Agreement. Boston and New York passed major green building mandates to reduce emissions. Austin, Dallas, and San Francisco are finding new ways to pay for transit, other infrastructure, and equity initiatives locally.

Still, cities have been running uphill against national and global trends, stymied by a lack of federal dollars and an opposing federal agenda on issues ranging from housing to the environment to digital access. Now, as Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer told Bloomberg CityLab, cities have a “partner in the White House who thinks like a mayor.” That gives urban leaders at least four years to advance their plans and – by building a case for what federal actions will have the greatest impacts – to influence what the Biden-Harris Administration prioritizes.

Here are five steps cities can take to position their boldest plans for federal support:

1. Demonstrate how your city’s agenda aligns with the Biden-Harris mandate. Review existing plans to connect the dots between your work over the last several years and the goals of the new Administration. Support might be expected for housing plans that challenge restrictive zoning and expand homeownership for historically marginalized groups, climate projects that create green jobs and promote environmental justice, and a crosscutting focus on racial equity and economic empowerment. Taking a fresh look at existing citywide plans, and the progress made toward those plans’ goals, will allow cities to elevate priorities that tie to the new federal agenda while demonstrating that the city has the will, capacity, and expertise to grapple with and execute on bold thinking.

2. Prioritize projects, programs, and places that are poised for local and national impact. Federal support can be expected for local projects that are bold and visible, but just as important are those that are feasible, likely to accomplish their goals, and ready-to-go. To the extent possible, priority projects should address multiple crises – merging climate and equity goals for example, establish a clear path to implementation – with early approvals in place and an established administering entity, and demonstrate alignment between local and state leadership. With the “Build Back Better” recovery package still months from passage, there is a window for cities to lock in necessary support and to update priority projects and programs for broader and more equitable impact. For instance, as state departments of transportation consider reinvestment in the highway system, cities have the opportunity to push for entrance and exit configurations that reconsider the relationship of cities to their regions and, by pushing for depressed roadways or “lids,” to reknit historically Black and low- and moderate-income neighborhoods deliberately split from CBDs by the initial investment in the interstate system, create new developable land to support inclusive economic agendas, and site open space for civic gatherings. We have supported efforts in Portland, Seattle, Houston, and Hartford that could advance these agendas. Doubtless there are many similarly situated cites.

3. Identify your top 3-5 calls to action for the Administration. In 2015, New York City set a goal to lift 800,000 households out of poverty within 15 years; by 2019, the City had nearly achieved that goal, largely thanks to a $15 minimum wage law passed by the State Legislature at the City’s urging. Numerous federal actions – full funding for Section 8 vouchers, immigration reform, a national $15 minimum wage – could significantly advance cities’ equity and climate goals, especially in states where legislatures preempt progressive urban policy. Similarly, changes to federal rules – such as expedited project approvals or expanded local jurisdiction over telecom assets – could enable progress toward city goals at relatively minimal cost to the federal government. At least six of Biden’s cabinet nominees have led a city or a state, bringing with them an appreciation for how federal action (or inaction) can impact local efforts. Picking the battles with the greatest payoff – and building alliances with like-minded cities, advocates, and congressional leaders – could influence which priorities pick up steam in Washington.

4. Articulate a benefits case for each priority. . Cities should be prepared to demonstrate the economic, social, and environmental impacts of priority projects and programs, both to stand out among peer cities’ proposals and to generate buy-in locally as competing priorities emerge. How many jobs will each project create, of what quality, and for whom? How will the project contribute to the Administration’s stated goals? How could priority federal actions free up local dollars for other efforts? What is the federal government’s return on investment for each dollar contributed, and what local and private sector funding will be leveraged? Cities that develop a clear quantitative benefits case and hone a narrative aligned with the Administration’s agenda will have a leg up when applying for aid and a basis for consensus building at home. New York City’s Renewable Rikers plan – which would close the notorious Rikers Island jail complex, transform the island into a green economy hub, and redevelop polluting power plants into community-serving uses – has done this well: taken together, the plan demonstrates the ability to meet 10% of the city’s renewable energy goal and create 1,500 green-collar jobs, among other benefits, while private capital and public savings would fund more than 25% of project costs.

5. Get creative about marketing to generate excitement. As important as it will be to lobby Congressional representatives and Cabinet officials, cities should also play the outside game – leveraging social media, hometown influencers, and mayoral bullhorns to create buzz that makes their priorities stand out. City leaders can take a page from Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, who in his effort to lure Silicon Valley companies to town has traded Tweets with Elon Musk and taken his pitch directly to tech influencers on the chat platform Clubhouse. Or Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, who embraced a public spat with comedian John Oliver (and renamed a sewage plant in his honor) to get his city on the map nationally. Beyond drawing attention, such public efforts help cities hone their message about why priority investments are essential, generate excitement among residents and other stakeholders, and build a brand that links their city to the aspirations driving the Administration’s agenda: a rebounded economy, racial equity, and a green energy future.

At a time when urban communities across the country need a jolt of energy and optimism, organizing around bold priorities can build momentum for local initiatives that will pay dividends regardless of cities’ ability to get everything they seek from the federal government. As cities frequently learn from major planning efforts – think the competitions for Choice Neighborhoods or Amazon’s HQ2 – just the act of planning can spark creativity, sharpen project visions, and build consensus around bold change that can then be effected with local funds that would have been otherwise unavailable.

HR&A Advisors Names Andrea Batista Schlesinger as Managing Partner of Los Angeles Office

HR&A Advisors, Inc. (HR&A), a leading national consulting firm providing services in real estate, economic development, and public policy, announced that current firm Partner Andrea Batista Schlesinger has been named Managing Partner of HR&A’s Los Angeles office. Paul J. Silvern, who has served as Partner in Charge of HR&A’s Los Angeles office since 2007, will remain an active Partner at the firm and support Andrea in her new leadership position.
 
The announcement follows the hiring of Lamont Cobb as Director, a fifth generation Californian and third generation Angeleno who brings nearly 10 years of experience in neighborhood planning and economic development efforts for Black and Brown communities, including two years of experience working for the office of Los Angeles City Council District 8.
 
These staff announcements are part of HR&A’s strategic expansion across the West Coast, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, the Pacific Northwest, and the Southwest to drive equitable development in urban communities. For over 40 years, HR&A has been providing advisory services to the West Coast from its Los Angeles office. Led in recent years by Partners Paul Silvern, Amitabh Barthakur, and Judith Taylor, Senior Advisor Martha Welborne, Managing Principal Connie Chung, and Principal Thomas Jansen, the firm’s game changing projects include developing a citywide economic development strategy for Los Angeles, designing an inclusive participatory budgeting process in Portland, and supporting negotiations for community benefits, anti-displacement, and workforce development efforts around San José’s Diridon Station.
 
“Since joining the HR&A team nearly four years ago, I’ve had the opportunity to disrupt traditional approaches to economic development, centering on equity as a primary goal and equipping community members with the tools to advance a new vision for their cities,” said Andrea Batista Schlesinger, Managing Partner of HR&A’s Los Angeles office. “As a firm, HR&A is a bridge between generating ideas to realize equity and justice and the implementation of those ideas that change people’s lives. I look forward to leading HR&A’s Los Angeles office, making a demonstrable difference on the matters of consequence in the city and region, while cultivating a team who will go on to be the visionary leaders of America’s cities into the future.”
 
“We have a mission to improve economic opportunity and quality of life for people who live in cities,” said Eric Rothman, CEO of HR&A. “Since joining the firm in 2017, Andrea’s work has been transformative for our clients with its focus on racial equity and economic justice on projects including criminal justice reform, access to affordable housing, public banking, and more. Andrea’s leadership of our Los Angeles office will strengthen our capacity to promote a just and resilient recovery for cities across the West Coast.”
 
Andrea Batista Schlesinger and her Inclusive Cities practice works to realize equity and justice. Her work focuses on three core areas:
 
Equitable Economic Development, including work to develop an initiative addressing the food access crisis in South Los Angeles for the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy and work to advise the Economic Justice Circle, a group of grassroots activists in Pittsburgh, on how to advance an equitable economic development agenda starting with demands for a transparent City budget;
 
Systemic Change, including work with Trinity Church Wall Street in New York City to address challenges presented by inadequate access to safe housing for those involved with the criminal legal system and who are being released from Rikers Island due to COVID-19; and
 
Visionary Leadership, including work to support the historic transition plan for Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, first woman and first Latina to hold this position in the largest county in Texas.
 
Prior to advising clients on policies, programs, and advocacy strategies at HR&A, Andrea served as Deputy Director of the United States Program of the Open Society Foundations (OSF). In this role, she managed program operations and grant-making portfolios including investments to advance equitable economic development in Southern cities. Previously, Andrea served as a Special Advisor to New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, where she coordinated the Young Men’s Initiative, a $130 million comprehensive package of policy reform and programmatic initiatives designed to reduce the disparities challenging young African American and Latino males.

A Just & Resilient Recovery: Coming Together, Getting to Work

When we launched this newsletter last April, we said, “times of crisis are times to come together.” We added, “we’re excited to see a growing desire to go beyond a ‘return to normal,’ to proactively shape a stronger, more equitable, more resilient urban life.” The need for bold, fundamental change has only become more acute over the last nine months, as has our desire to work with you to see it happen. Now, that work has new fervor and new champions in the White House.
 
This week, we are reflecting on this moment with hope. Much work lies ahead. As always, we’re interested in what you are interested in: what are you hopeful for as the Biden-Harris takes shape? Join us in building A Just & Resilient Recovery.
 
 
– The Editorial Team

How Should the Biden-Harris Administration Close the Digital Divide?

Written by Danny Fuchs, David Gilford, and Ariel Benjamin
 

Express your views by taking our survey on Local Priorities for a National Broadband Stimulus

 


 

 
Equitable broadband service is foundational to equitable economic development in the 2020s. Today, 18.4 million American households are unable to access the full range of educational opportunities, jobs, and healthcare, because they do not have affordable, reliable, high-speed internet access. Universal broadband is not only an imperative for a just and resilient recovery from the COVID-19 recession, but it also represents one of the most potentially transformative economic development investments of the 2020s. In New York City’s Internet Master Plan, released last January, for example, we estimated that universal broadband adoption would unlock $142 billion in incremental Gross City Product, create up to 165,000 new jobs, and yield as much as $49 billion in new personal income – estimates confined to the City of New York, in which over 900,000 households do not have a broadband subscription at home.
 
The Biden-Harris “Build Back Better” agenda calls for closing the digital divide. The questions now are: how much funding will this initiative secure from Congress, and how will it be distributed?
 
We recently launched a survey on Local Priorities for a National Broadband Stimulus to inform the debate in Washington and Statehouses. Developed as a part of our new Broadband Equity Partnership, a collaboration with CTC Technology & Energy, this survey asks State and local leaders to share their thoughts on Federal funding and policy priorities, Federal broadband fund deployment, and today’s biggest barriers to closing the digital divide. More than five dozen communities have already responded, with more than half of the responses coming directly from government agency leaders or elected officials. We encourage all readers of A Just & Resilient Recovery to share this survey with their elected officials, department heads, and nonprofit community development leaders in their networks before we close the survey on January 15. We plan to publish the results with the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society by the end of the month.
 
The results of last month’s $900 billion COVID-19 relief package negotiations are informative context for the debate that is forthcoming. Going into December, the bipartisan “compromise” bill included $10 billion for broadband, with $6.25 billion expected as grants to State governments – an approach that would have empowered Governors to close the digital divide in ways befitting the geography, demographics, and market dynamics of their states. The final bill took a different approach: of $7 billion in total funding, more than $5 billion is likely to flow to large Internet Service Providers through funding short-term subsidies and equipment replacement. While the bill does dedicate funds for broadband connectivity in communities around Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), as well as in rural areas and tribal lands, and earmarks funds for broadband mapping efforts, far more locally-tailored investment is needed. Without a more comprehensive approach, subsidies will do little to change the dynamics of the broadband marketplace to foster competition, support greater governmental regulatory authority, or deliver sustainable service affordability.
 
The leading model for a comprehensive Congressional solution comes from Representative James Clyburn, whose proposed $100 billion Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act may attract bipartisan support, if former Florida Governor Jeb Bush‘s support for this level of investment is any indication.
 
Even with an ambitious, well-funded bill, however, we may still be poised for a top-down approach rather than one shaped by states, cities, and counties. Unlike Federal investments in more “traditional” infrastructure, localities have much less administrative capacity to spend on funding for broadband ubiquity. In contrast to transportation departments or housing agencies, information technology agencies do not typically have decades of experience administering urban broadband infrastructure or programmatic investments. The successes of some public service commissions, related public agencies, and utilities in administering the expenditure of Systems Benefit Charge funds may offer lessons, but these efforts have been mainly programmatic, not capital-intensive investment in infrastructure.
 
Our starting point is the question of how new federal funds will be distributed; we believe that the answer will be informed by actions that states, cities, and counties take. As spending proposals are released, debated, approved, and then designed as Federally administered programs, the next few months will be a critical period for local governments. In New York, the State’s Reimagine New York Commission is likely to shape an answer, while New York City is positioned to leverage Federal funding with $157 million in local capital allocations for broadband. Cities that have initiated partnerships with innovative local providers for free or low-cost services, such as the collaboration among the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, Starry Internet, and Microsoft will draw from lessons learned and baseline funding needs to position digital connectivity programs to scale.
 
These are places that have at least nascent and growing capacity to deliver on the local level. They represent a fundamentally different approach to previous top-down investment, policy, and regulatory initiatives from Washington. The Internet represents the most transformative infrastructure for innovation perhaps ever developed. We hope that new Federal funding approaches share that spirit of innovation and grant local governments the resources they need to innovate and build the administrative capacity necessary to ensure that this essential utility is developed more equitably.
 
We look forward to sharing the results of our survey in the earliest days of the Biden-Harris administration.
 
For more on HR&A’s work closing the digital divide, see BroadbandEquity.org, and get in touch with Danny Fuchs, David Gilford, or Ariel Benjamin.

How the Latest Federal Stimulus Will Impact Cities

Congressional leaders have reportedly been getting closer to an economic stimulus deal, which is expected to provide at least:

 

  • $300 billion in small business support, including repurposed CARES Act funds, to continue supporting programs such as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL);
  • over $200 billion to extend the Federal supplemental unemployment insurance benefits, to support $300 per week in bonus federal unemployment payments for roughly four months and all pandemic unemployment insurance programs, including the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC); and
  • direct stimulus checks to individuals and families in the range of $600 per person.

 

As of this writing, the full contents of the proposal are still under discussion. The Democratic demand to retain flexible state and local government aid and the Republican demand for sweeping liability protections for businesses, hospitals, schools and other institutions open during the pandemic appear likely to be jettisoned, in exchange for the extension of unemployment benefits and direct stimulus checks.

The effect of this emerging compromise, while definitely not good news for beleaguered state and local governments, is not all bad news either: in addition to the above amounts, the current draft contemplates direct aid to state and local governmental entities. While total funding for those organizations is down from the $305 billion proposed in the original bipartisan compromise bill to $145 billion, and much state and local flexibility with respect to how to spend funds has been removed, significant state and local government support remains, earmarked for:

 

  • $82 billion for education, including $54 billion for elementary and secondary schools (K-12) through State educational agencies (SEAs) for the purpose of providing local educational agencies with emergency relief funds; $20 billion for higher education institutions, including amounts set aside for minority serving institutions; and $7.5 billion in flexible emergency block grants, empowering governors to decide how best to meet the current needs of students and schools, including private and charter schools;
  • $28 billion for transportation, including $15 billion to support public transit systems, $8 billion to support bus systems, ferries and school buses, $4 billion to airports, and $1 billion to Amtrak, all of which will are targeted to preventing furloughs and keeping systems running;
  • $25 billion for rental housing assistance to state and local governments through the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) that must be used for rent, rental arrears, utilities, and home energy costs; and
  • $10 billion for broadband, including $6.25 billion for State Broadband Deployment and Broadband Connectivity Grants to bridge the digital divide and ensure affordable access to broadband service, and $3 billion to provide E-Rate support to educational and distance learning providers.


Are these amounts a lot or a little? For context:

 

  • The $25 billion for rental housing assistance through the CRF could help approximately 5 million households for 6 to 9 months, assuming well-designed programs.
  • The $3 billion for E-Rate broadband support to educational and distance learning providers could help close the learning gap for over 4.4 million households with students that lack consistent access to a computer by providing them with a hotspot, tablet and support for roughly 7 months.


To learn more about HR&A’s tracking of federal funding for A Just & Resilient Recovery, drop us a line at stimulus@hraadvisors.com.

Outsource or Go It Alone? How to Enhance Property Management in the Work From Anywhere Economy

Written by Danny Fuchs and Kate Wittels
 
In recent years, leading office developers have leveraged a range of new business models and tech tools to meet demand for more dynamic and amenitized workplaces. In the incipient Work from Anywhere economy, cutting-edge property management will be more critical than ever to sustaining an office product that can compete with makeshift workplaces in homes, hotels, and so-called “third spaces.” The coffee machines and free lunches of yore will no longer cut it.

Moving forward, one of the key questions facing landlords will be whether to develop these services in-house or partner with specialized, third-party providers. In our view, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this question. Variables such as portfolio size, business philosophy, and market niche will inform whether building owners decide to outsource or go it alone. That said, better understanding the universe of possibilities for property management in the remote work era will be crucial to making an informed decision.

On one end of the spectrum, several of the country’s marquee office developers have opted for building in-house services that replicate – and, in some cases, refine – the offerings that might otherwise be delivered by third parties. In 2018, Tishman Speyer, one of the world’s largest office landlords, launched its own coworking venture to compete with offerings by WeWork, Knotel, Industrious, and other coworking providers. Dubbed Studio, Tishman’s coworking product has since been rolled out at its office properties from Boston to LA and Frankfurt and London. Studio’s expansion has proceeded apace during the pandemic, in light of heightened demand for flexible lease terms and well-publicized business woes for WeWork and Knotel among others.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, other owners have opted to partner with a wide range of specialized providers to enhance the tenant experience – and, in some cases, to benefit from the third-party operator’s brand and customer base. The Ion, the first phase of a 16-acre innovation district being developed by Rice University in midtown Houston, is an excellent example of the partner-driven model, with Rice working with specialized firms for coworking facilities (Common Desk), entrepreneurial support (Capital Factory), and a maker lab (TX/RX). Microsoft’s announcement this week that it will move to the Ion is a testament to the project’s appeal in the face of the remote work paradigm.

Common, the co-living management startup (unrelated to Common Desk), is tapping into the expertise of office developers through a national competition to create a network of remote work hubs, described as “an innovative new live/work product for an emerging workforce.” Common frames the partnership as a win/win for office developers, who get to leverage Common’s strong track record in residential management, and for second- and third-tier cities, which may benefit from capturing a segment of the emerging WFA workforce.

Each of these represents a different approach to acquiring, deploying, and managing amenities to improve office building experiences in an increasingly competitive market. As firms consider whether to undertake these activities in-house or outsource them, it is also increasingly clear that complementing these new services with enhanced tenant experience technologies will further improve office owners’ offerings. Some are choosing to develop tech in-house. New York-based RXR Realty, for instance, has built out a range of tech tools through its internal innovation unit RXR Labs, including pioneering a new building management platform called RxWell during the pandemic; among other things, this software enables building owners to efficiently adhere to safety protocols, including social distancing, workforce rotations, and space capacity management. Others are turning to third party software-as-a-service companies, like the Boston-based startup HqO, which promises to “elevate physical office spaces with digital experiences,” a scope which appears to encompass everything from space programming and events to repairs and security. HqO has raised nearly $50 million to date – a level of investment in add-on technology that is far out of the reach of most office building developers or managers.

What may be most interesting about the tech platforms that enable enhanced tenant experiences, however, is not whether they are designed and built in-house or by third parties, but rather how building managers customize the solutions to differentiate their properties. If hundreds or thousands of office buildings in cities across the country adopt a handful of tenant experience platforms – as the venture capital behind the apps is predicting – this tech will quickly become table stakes, not a value-differentiator. Perhaps that is why HqO is making moves to build a “marketplace” feature for its platform, enabling landlords to identify additional technology and real estate vendors across a range of categories, from food delivery and fitness classes to shuttle tracking and security. It’s a bet designed to empower landlords by helping them find more, higher-quality third party vendors for tenant experience improvements, changing the calculus of going it alone or outsourcing these services.

Ultimately, many office landlords may opt for a combination of all three approaches, balancing in-house services and third-party operators with deployment of new technology solutions. The key will be creating a dynamic tenant experience that leverages the best aspects of the physical workplace and fosters the collaboration, camaraderie, and community-building that virtual work arrangements can never fully replicate – and to develop a distinctive mix of offerings that differentiates office buildings not only from other Work from Anywhere offerings, but also from one another.

Guiding Destination Medical Center’s Long-Term Strategy Through COVID-19 Recovery Modeling

Amid the largest economic shock in generations, public officials and private investors need to understand how the economic fallout is playing out locally to make informed decisions about investments, policies, and resources required to best position cities for future recovery and growth. HR&A recently assisted Rochester’s Destination Medical Center (DMC) – a public-private partnership that includes the City of Rochester, the Mayo Clinic, and the State of Minnesota – as it updated its 20-year economic development plan to integrate post-pandemic economic projections into its investment strategy.
 
The DMC’s 20-year plan spells out critical planning and investment decisions in Downtown Rochester, including demand for housing, office, hotel, retail, and other uses – this makes understanding the pace and nature of recovery central to decision-making. To guide planning, HR&A first contextualized how the economic shock in downtown Rochester has compared with national trends based on its unique drivers of activity, including medical tourism and R&D, and then projected economic recovery scenarios informed by precedent pandemics and how public health measures are likely to impact those activity drivers. These projections are being used to inform economic policies and investments in the years ahead.
 
See HR&A’s detailed analysis of recovery scenarios here

See HR&A’s Analysis and the full DMC plan here  

Community Resettlement as Climate Resilience: 10 Principles to Creating a Resettlement Program

As climate events increase in intensity and frequency, where communities can live and flourish is shifting. Individuals and communities are and will continue to be forced to move. In response, community resettlement must be considered a viable adaptation strategy and incorporated into planning processes and programs.
 
HR&A Partner Phillip Kash and Analyst Hannah Glosser teamed up with CSRS to offer ten principles to guide program design as cities face the new realities of extreme weather risks.
 
Read the full report here.
 
 

A Just & Resilient Recovery: What’s On the Table

Sign up for our newsletter here!

 

How is the Thanksgiving meal like a Just & Resilient Recovery? The last eight months have reminded us how interrelated all aspects of urban life are – public health and economic security, open space and democracy. As we continue to work toward a new normal that is more equitable than the last, our strategies more closely resemble a potluck spread than any single course. Click through the images below for a recap of some of our Just and Resilient Recovery thinking to date. Happy Thanksgiving!


Image by Santo Jacobsson. Santo is an illustrator based in NYC and Minneapolis. His main work is multicultural and explores duality. Find more at santojacobsson.myportfolio.com and his Instagram: @santo.jacobsson.
 
 
Looking for a recipe for a real side dish in your meal, check out Nova Jacobson’s Sausage Stuffing, courtesy of Candace Damon, and the Morine family Spoonbread with Leftover Turkey recipe from Madison Morine!
 
 

 

A JUST & RESILIENT RECOVERY
What the meal is built around
HOUSING SECURITY
Safe and warm
SMALL BUSINESS RECOVERY
Shop local
EQUITABLE INVESTMENT
Enough to go around
FUTURE OF WORK
Live, work, play
WORKFORCE OPPORTUNITY
Our daily bread
OPEN SPACE
Picnic in the park
RACIAL JUSTICE
A celebration of herstory
UNIVERSAL BROADBAND
Zooming into digital inclusion
FOOD SECURITY
A healthy side
CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Making Thanksgiving our own
TRANSIT INVESTMENT
Pulls everything together
DATA INTELLIGENCE
Everyone deserves a slice
BANKING REFORM
Keeping all cups full
PUBLIC HEALTH
Protect and respect
CLIMATE RESILIENCE
Water, water everywhere
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP
Connecting urban and non-urban
COMMUNITY ADVOCACY
Bringing home the bacon

Innovation Zones: How the Federal Government Can Create Thriving, Place-Based Innovation Ecosystems

The following policy proposal is based on a workshop conducted in September 2020 with: Mason Ailstock (HR&A), Scott Andes (Carnegie Mellon University), Deborah Crawford (University of Tennessee), Bob Geolas (HR&A), Will Germain (Ventas), Bruce Katz (New Localism), Julie Wagner (Global Institute on Innovation Districts), and Kate Wittels (HR&A Advisors).
 

 
Read the Full Report Here  
 
Following a challenging election season, the Biden-Harris transition team is now drawing up plans for their policy agenda. Their task is hardly enviable. As we enter 2021, the United States faces four epochal crises: a public health emergency, an economic downturn, climate change, and a reckoning with systemic racism. Addressing these challenges will require a new approach to investing in our communities that stimulates more diverse economic growth, promotes social equity, and taps into knowledge creation that solves, rather than compounds, our twin health and environmental crises.
 
Federal investment in innovation districts provides a significant opportunity to address these challenges. The antithesis of monocultural research parks, innovation districts combine academic institutions, corporate R&D, startups, and entrepreneurial support organizations in mixed-use neighborhoods that promote creativity and collaboration, often in service of urgent societal challenges. Decades of research now demonstrates that the innovation economy thrives best in porous, multisectoral settings. By leveraging geographic proximity in its allocation of research funds, the federal government can thus dramatically amplify the impact of its R&D dollars. Similarly, by linking educational and workforce programs in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods to nearby innovation districts, the federal government can create a more sustainable economic engine for communities that are currently disconnected from the knowledge economy. Finally, by embracing its role in supporting regional innovation ecosystems, the federal government can reshape the country’s economic geography on a more equitable basis, creating new opportunities for job growth and investment in the nation’s heartland.
 
To support the growth of innovation districts, federal policymakers must focus on three interlocking policy domains. First, investments in district development will provide the dense physical environments necessary for innovation economies to thrive. Second, investments in talent development will cultivate the expertise needed to drive cutting-edge research and diversify the talent pipeline of local workers and students. Third, investments in research and development will supercharge local and national competitiveness by channeling federal R&D spending to specific innovation geographies.
 
Building on recent Senate proposals, including the Endless Frontier Act and the Innovation Centers Acceleration Act, there are a number of important actions that the federal government should take.
 

District Development
The federal government should support the growth of innovation districts in communities throughout the nation by:

 

  • Creating a federal Innovation Zone (IZ) program that funds programmatic and physical investments in districts with emergent innovation ecosystems that, barring federal support, would be unable to capitalize on these latent knowledge economy assets.
  • Seeking competitive proposals from local consortia bridging private industry, higher education, and local government.
  • Awarding funds to innovation districts that are distributed throughout the country, with an emphasis on supporting places that have yet to emerge as innovation hubs.

 

Talent Development
The federal government should support the upskilling and reskilling of the nation’s workforce by:

 

  • Supporting the education and recruitment of diverse research and entrepreneurial talent in high-tech fields relevant to specific IZs.
  • Requiring co-location of educational and vocational facilities within IZs to facilitate job placement and access to the innovation ecosystem across the skills spectrum and enhance connections to adjacent low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
  • Funding the training of a diverse and resilient labor force with STEM skills through targeted partnerships with community colleges, four-year colleges, workforce investment boards, and the K-12 system.

 

Research & Development
The federal government should enhance domestic R&D activity by:

 

  • Targeting R&D funding to universities and businesses within specific IZs and incentivizing partnerships between companies, educational institutions, federal research entities, and state and local governments.
  • Encouraging commercialization within university settings by amending grantmaking criteria to incentivize applied research and restructuring Technology Transfer Offices into loss-leading, third-party entities operated independently from university administrations.
  • Providing seed funding for the creation of IZ-specific venture capital funds that can increase access to financing for new companies.

 

With a new presidential administration preparing to take office – and the country facing a cascading set of crises – now is the time for the federal government to invest in the growth of innovation districts, particularly in regions that have yet to benefit from the new economy. With a thoughtful and intentional re-alignment of federal policies supporting innovation and economic development, place-based investments in infrastructure, talent, and R&D can leverage the power of proximity to supercharge American innovation and in so doing lay a foundation for a new and more inclusive era of prosperity.