When it comes to land development, Americans famously dislike two things: too much sprawl and too much density. Over the past 50 years, the pendulum swung sharply in the direction of spread-out, single use, drive everywhere for everything, low density development.

Now the pendulum is swinging back. High energy prices, smart growth, transit oriented development, new urbanism, infill development, sustainability concerns: are all coalescing to foster more compact, walkable, mixed use and higher density development.

The pendulum swing is both necessary and long overdue. Additionally, there is a growing demand for higher density housing because of demographic and lifestyle preference changes among boomers and young adults. The problem is that many developers and urban planners have decided that density requires high rises: the taller, the better. To oppose a high-rise building is to run the risk of being labeled a NIMBY, a dumb growth advocate, a Luddite — or worse.

Buildings 20, 40, 60 even 100 stories tall are being proposed and built in low and mid-rise neighborhoods all over the world. All of these projects are justified with the explanation that if density is good, even more density is better. Washington, D.C. is just the latest low- or mid-rise city to face demands for taller buildings.

Yet Washington is one of the world’s most singularly beautiful cities for several big reasons: first, the abundance of parks and open spaces, second, the relative lack of outdoor advertising (which has over commercialized so many other cities), and third a limit on the height of new buildings.

I will acknowledge that the “Buck Rogers”-like skylines of cities like Shanghai and Dubai can be thrilling — at a distance. But at street level they are often dreadful. The glass and steel towers may be functional, but they seldom move the soul or the traffic as well as more human scale, fine-grained neighborhoods.

Yes, we do need more compact, walkable higher density communities. But no we do not need to build thousands of look-a-like glass and steel skyscrapers to accomplish the goals of smart growth or sustainable development.

In truth, many of America’s finest and most valuable neighborhoods achieve density without high rises. Georgetown in Washington, Park Slope in Brooklyn, the Fan in Richmond, and the French Quarter in New Orleans are all compact, walkable, charming — and low rise. Yet, they are also dense: the French Quarter has a net density of 38 units per acre, Georgetown 22 units per acre.

Julie Campoli and Alex MacLean’s book Visualizing Density vividly illustrates that we can achieve tremendous density without high-rises. They point out that before elevators were invented, two- to four- story “walk-ups” were common in cities and towns throughout America. Constructing a block of these type of buildings could achieve a density of anywhere from 20 to 80 units an acre.

Mid-rise buildings ranging from 5 to 12 stories can create even higher density neighborhoods in urban settings, where buildings cover most of the block. Campoli and McLean point to Seattle where mid-rise buildings achieve densities ranging from 50 to 100 units per acre, extraordinarily high by U.S. standards.

Today, density is being pursued as an end in itself, rather than as one means to building better cities. According to research by the Preservation Green Lab, fine grained urban fabric -– for example of a type found on Washington’s Capitol Hill, the U Street Corridor, NOMA and similar neighborhoods — is much more likely to foster local entrepreneurship and the creative economy than monolithic office blocks and apartment towers. Perhaps cities like Washington, should consider measuring density differently. Instead of looking at just the quantity of space, they should also consider the 24/7 intensity of use. By this measure, one block of an older neighborhood might include a community theatre, a coffee shop, an art gallery, two restaurants, a bicycle shop, 10 music rehearsal studios, a church, 20 apartments and a couple of bars, and all with much more 24/7 activity and intensity of use than one block of (much taller) office buildings on K Street.

In addition to Washington, St Petersburg, Russia; Basel, Switzerland; Edinburgh, Scotland and Paris, France are just a few of the hundreds of cities around the world where giant out-of-scale skyscrapers have been recently proposed in formerly low or mid-rise historic settings.

The issue of tall buildings in historic cities is not a small one. City after city has seen fights between those who want to preserve neighborhood integrity and those who want Trump towers and “starchitect” skyscrapers. Prince Charles, for example recently criticized the “high-rise free for all” in London which he said has left the city with a “pockmarked skyline and a degraded public realm.” Today, skyscrapers called the “Shard” and the “Gherkin” loom over the Tower of London, St. Paul’s Cathedral, and other famous landmarks.

Whatever one thinks of Prince Charles, there’s no question that he has raised some important issues about the future of the built environment. These include:

1. Does density always require high rises?
2. Are historic neighborhoods adequately protected from incompatible new construction?
3. What is more important — the ability of tall buildings to make an architectural statement, or the need for new buildings to fit into existing neighborhoods?
4. Should new development shape the character of our cities — or should the character of our cities shape the new development?

I love the skylines of New York, Chicago and many other high-rise cities. But I also love the skylines of Washington, Charleston, Savannah, Prague, Edinburgh, Rome and other historic mid- and low-rise cities. It would be a tragedy to turn all of these remarkable places into tower cities. Density does not always demand high-rises. Skyscrapers are a dime a dozen in today’s world. Once a low rise city or town succumbs to high-rise mania, many more towers will follow, until the city becomes a carbon-copy of every other city in a “geography of nowhere.”

Edward T. McMahon is a Senior Resident Fellow at the Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C. The opinions expressed are his own.

Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.

How fast are our downtowns, neighborhoods and regions truly changing? Are cities on a clear comeback path? What’s the future of suburbia?

Opinions abound. Some analysts predict spirited and expanding revival of once-neglected center cities, even while far-out, “drive ’til you qualify” suburbia virtually withers on the vine. Others contend that suburbia and America have become synonymous, that our love of space will in time refuel sprawling housing tracts expanding to farthest suburban frontier, no matter if gasoline prices soar.

If you’d like a clear-eyed view, check Alan Ehrenhalt’s new book, “The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City” (Alfred Knopf). Ehrenhalt leans to the side of cities on the rebound. He makes a strong case for how today’s young adults, in sharp contrast to the choices their parents made, are opting for lively, walkable urban streets with parks, shops, transit and school choices.

But it’s not just urban hype. Equally important, Ehrenhalt notes: Large numbers of African-Americans are moving out of cities, into once typically white suburbs. And high proportions of recent immigrants aren’t repeating the historic choice of inner cities, but selecting suburbia instead.

Atlanta offers a prime example. The center city is on the brink of losing its black majority as whites move in and blacks move out. Two huge Atlanta suburban counties, Clayton and DeKalb, now have black majorities. In the meantime, a mélange of Hispanics, followed by foreign-born from India, Vietnam, South Korea and Eastern Europe, have flooded into once overwhelmingly white Gwinnett County on the region’s outskirts. Anglos are now a minority in Gwinnett, once prototype of the white-fight-escape-and-settlement American suburb.

To significant degree, the same massive population shift is being repeated nationwide. The population of lower Manhattan, south of the World Trade Center, doubled to 50,000 in the decade after the terrorist attack of 2001. Chicago saw its fashionable lakeside “Loop” soar 48 percent in population in just seven years.

Such cities are clearly taking on the demographic pattern of 19th century Europe and Paris today — the better-off middle-to-upper classes heavily represented in the historic and colorful city centers, the poor and newcomers living in the outskirts.

This is Ehrenhalt’s “great inversion,” a division of people, the more fortunate to the urban centers, the less fortunate to the outskirts. It’s a pattern that’s arguably typified most cities through most of history, with post-World War II America the grand (but perhaps temporary) exception.

But the pattern will surely not be consistent. Our affluent, established suburbs aren’t about to depopulate. A steady and increasing inflow of youth, joined by the affluent and comfortably retired, is predictable for the centers such as Washington, Boston, San Francisco and Seattle. But surely far less for our Buffalos and Detroits, and in relatively more modest numbers for such cities as Cleveland, Charlotte, St. Louis, Houston and Phoenix. In many places, Ehrenhalt notes, cities are trying consciously to attract youth and the affluent. But with notable exceptions, the population gain — so far — has been “modest in absolute numbers.”

There are obstacles to rapid “inversion.” One is worry about the quality of schools — though it’s also true that schools (including the country’s growing number of charters) tend to improve after the middle class arrives. Another is fiscal: high city taxes, exacerbated by a menacing overhang of cities’ pension obligations.

But today’s pro-city trends are arguably much greater. First, choosing tighter space in town seems increasingly feasible as many people remain single and delay marriage, cohabitation rises, and families have markedly fewer children than a generation ago. And there’s a growing retiree group with high numbers of healthy and active adults in their later years, opting for the historic color and convenience of living in a city.

Plus, the safety and quality of urban life has increased. Random street violence has declined dramatically, with crime levels far below those of the 1970s and ’80s. The massive high-rise public housing complexes that generated crime and fear in post- World War II America — St. Louis’ Pruitt-Igoe, Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes and Cabrini-Green, Baltimore’s Murphy Homes and others — have mostly met the wrecker’s ball.

None of this means all is well in our big cities. They still have their sections of massive devastation, like North Philadelphia. Some areas — New York’s South Bronx is a shining example — still have poverty but have witnessed heartening recoveries.

But there’s one huge difference from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s — the problems are no longer exclusively those of the central cities. More and more of the poorest, most destitute Americans have moved to once white suburbs. It’s no longer possible to equate “suburb” with “success” or — as youth’s move to our urban centers proves — “city” with “poverty.”

Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.

For reprints of Neal Peirce’s column, please contact Washington Post Permissions, c/o PARS International Corp., WPPermissions@parsintl.com, fax 212-221-9195. For newspaper syndication sales, Washington Post Writers Group, 202-334-5375, wpwgsales@washpost.com.

For Release Thursday, May 3, 2012
Citiwire.net

As Mark Twain once said “the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” With unemployment soaring to over 12 percent and a loss of over 1 million jobs during the Great Recession contributing to a 20 billion dollar state budget deficit, many commentators have remarked that California’s better days are over. From the perspective of Sacramento and Washington, it would be fair to say that California has its share of fiscal problems and governance challenges to overcome.

However, from the perspective of California’s diverse regions, I am happy to report like Mark Twain that, “the reports of California’s demise are greatly exaggerated.” Regional stewards from across the states are not waiting for solutions to come from either Washington or Sacramento. Leaders from business, local government, education, labor and environmental groups are joining together for the first Annual California Economic Summit to create a jobs and competitiveness agenda to address our long term challenges.

The California Stewardship Network sponsored by the Morgan Family Foundation has been creating momentum for the regional movement in California for several years. As is the case across America, California “regions are on the rise” for the same of the reasons outlined in the recent Citistates report: American Regions Take Center Stage. Our regional economies are our source of competitive advantage. They are committed to economic vitality, equality of opportunity and environmental quality. They get the idea that collaboration is essential. They are developing effective regional strategies and learning how to partner with the state on several critical workforce, transportation, land use and environmental issues.

While the Great Recession hit California hard with the loss of over 700,000 jobs in construction and related industries alone as the housing bubble burst, there have been some recent signs of recovery. The state has gained over 300,000 total jobs and seen a decline in its unemployment rate, from 12.5 percent to 10.9 percent, since 2009.

However, a number of structural challenges remain. At a time when skills are more important for competing in a global economy, a significant portion of young people are falling further behind in education.

California’s economy is at risk because we have not been investing in our future for many decades. The Think Long Committee for California has estimated that we face a $765 billion infrastructure deficit. We have created a government that not only fails to create a positive climate for employment but our once-great political institutions are not working, too often mired in gridlock.

How do we find a path out of our current situation? We start by recognizing that California is, in fact, an economy of regions. Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, Greater Los Angeles, the Central Valley, San Diego, the Redwood Coast and Sierra Nevada all have distinctive industries and their own unique economic environments.

Our diversity can be a real strength for California. It also presents major challenges. This recession has put a spotlight on the reality that we have two distinct Californians — the coastal regions that are doing better than the national recovery. And our inland regions, that are lagging far behind. For example, last December the unemployment rate in inland Imperial County was 27 percent while unemployment in coastal San Mateo County was 7.0 percent. The Bay Area is leading California out of the recession with robust growth, spearheaded by technology and trade, while inland regions are still dealing with the significant loss of jobs in the construction industries.

To address these long term challenges, regional stewards from across California will gather in Santa Clara on May 11 for the First Annual California Economic Summit, organized by the California Stewardship Network and California Forward. The California Stewardship Network is the alliance of regional partnerships devoted to promoting economic vitality and quality of life. California Forward is a nonpartisan, statewide organization promoting solutions to governance challenges.

Leading up to the May 11 Summit, there have been 14 regional forums with thousands of participants identifying priorities based on each region’s known needs. Cross-regional action teams are now developing recommendations to address top priorities in the areas of workforce, innovation, capital, infrastructure and regulation (See www.caeconomy.org for more information on the Summit and recommendations in each of these areas).

What are we learning from this unprecedented effort to create a shared economic agenda? First, a large and diverse state with difficult governance issues can come together at the regional level to define its unique challenges and work together to find common ground on pragmatic solutions. Rather than running all major issues through the “mainframe” of state government, we see a more distributed model appropriate to our modern economy. Second, the summit is utilizing advanced information and social media tools to connect participants across the state, sharing information and solutions. In addition to a very active website with constant blogs and tweets from our regional forums, the summit will employ an innovative crowdsourcing technology to allow the participants to comment on draft initiatives in real time, enhancing prospects for a broadly shared find consensus. As a leader in information technology, California should try to use its technology to advance the cause of governance. By necessity, a state as big as California, with its vast distances among regions, requires new ways of working together.

In the end, the success of the summit will depend on the commitment of regional stewards to champion key initiatives and work together at the regional level and with state leaders to implement new solutions. We believe summit process will does not end on May 11 — that it’s only the beginning.

Doug Henton is Chairman and CEO of Collaborative Economics based in San Mateo, California www.coecon.com. In addition to working with most of regions in California for the past several decades, he helped design the 2001 Oregon Business Plan Summit in 2001 (a model for the California Economic Summit). He is a Citistates Group Associate.

Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.

Defining “crowdsourcing” consumes close to 4,000 words on the Wikipedia website — fitting enough for an electronic encyclopedia that’s being updated 24/7 by some 50,000 registered users scattered across the globe.

But how about the communities where we live? How broadly are we already using the “big open tent” of crowdsourcing, its reach now magically enlarged by the worldwide web, to apply the wisdom of “people like us” to create better towns and cities?

The short answer: “it’s spreading rapidly.” And it’s going far beyond the familiar concept of “public engagement” in which mayors or county officials define an issue or problem and then ask for citizen input on how to handle it.

The big problem with the historic model, notes civic analyst Storm Cunningham, CEO of ReCitizen in Washington, D.C., is that “it implies that whoever is doing the engagement owns the process, and those being engaged don’t.” In too many cases, he adds, it becomes “an autocratic, top-down, paternalistic approach with stakeholder engagement window dressing.”

But just holding public meetings isn’t a great solution either. As Cunningham rightly observes, such assemblies often “attract a few loud, selfish, narrow-minded citizens who co-opt the dialogue to promote their own agendas, or just shoot down the ideas of others.”

So how can crowdsourcing avoid all this? It’s by hundreds, sometimes thousands of citizens going online, suggesting ideas to tackle problems, then commenting on each other’s ideas. Result: negativism, garrulous ranting gets sidelined. The best ideas rise to the top as the participants vote on each others’ proposals. The “crowd” then becomes personally engaged in actual design and strategy to make the idea work. In the most successful crowdsourcing efforts, Cunningham insists, the ideas gain such support and momentum that city halls have no choice other than to become supporters and implementers.

Cunningham calls the concept citizen-led regeneration, the topic of his forthcoming book, ReCivilizing. The first major work documenting this phenomenon, it’s scheduled for publication next January.

One exciting new development: crowdfunding to finance smart crowdsourcing ideas that are designed to make cities safer or more beautiful or more welcoming places to live. There are even websites — kickstarter.com, for example — that list promising projects which seek to elicit contributions from interested viewers.

Two New York City architects had a vision of turning a huge abandoned Lower East Side trolley terminal into Delancey Underground Park, the world’s first subterranean park. Needing $100,000 to do the design, they posted their project on Kickstarter and 45 days later had $155,186 from 3,300 backers.

In New Orleans, community activists needed $4,000 to turn an unsightly vacant lot into a community farm. Within a month they’d reached their goal. The formerly dead space is now alive with growing crops, and the fresh produce is improving local diets.

But crowdsourcing has many more forms. One of the best known is SeeCLickFix, a web tool (and mobile phone app) that invites citizens to report neighborhood problems — from broken street lights to uncollected trash to unsightly grass on rights-of-way, abandoned or neglected properties. In each case, the report goes onto a web-based map and local government is automatically informed. Users can even add video or picture documentation.

Founded four years ago in New Haven, Conn., SeeCLickFix has expanded to some 25,000 towns, with especially strong networks in New Haven and Philadelphia. Several major newspapers now follow it for local news, and the service also works to promote community volunteering.

Boston has a highly successful Citizens Connect smart phone app for city maintenance, which officials say not only gets problems fixed but helps build public trust in government.

Indeed, “establishment” support for crowdsourcing techniques is growing rapidly. A leading example is the “collaborative citizenship” project, Change By Us, developed by urban imagineer Jake Barton’s “Local Projects” program in collaboration with CEOs for Cities and funded by the Rockefeller and Knight Foundations.

The idea of Change By Us — based on a successful “Give a Minute” initiative in Chicago and Memphis — is to invite residents’ ideas for civic solutions, help form project groups, and then assist them in locating funding. Change By Us is now operating in expanded form in New York City, Philadelphia and Seattle, with the blessing of the cities’ mayors.

Some day someone will likely find a clever way to subvert one or more of the new crowdsourcing tools. No approach is ever perfect. But in our current season of vicious political infighting over absolutist ideas, these new initiatives are like an elixir — to inspire citizens rather than frighten them, to hear and expand on their creative ideas, and then round up funding and then public support to advance the best. Maybe, with luck, they’ll even revive the idea that government isn’t some sinister, liberty-defiling, money-sucking monster out there. It’s really us. And we can change it.

Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.

For reprints of Neal Peirce’s column, please contact Washington Post Permissions, c/o PARS International Corp., WPPermissions@parsintl.com, fax 212-221-9195. For newspaper syndication sales, Washington Post Writers Group, 202-334-5375, wpwgsales@washpost.com.

Ask why nations succeed or fail and a group of likely suspects are offered. Natural resources are too scarce, human capital isn’t developed, the geography is unfavorable (there’s a long list of possible explanations). But there’s another perhaps more critical factor, highlighted by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson in their provocative new book: Why Nations Fail (Crown Business, 2012). Nations fail, they argue, because of extractive economic and political institutions that cement the power of narrow elites — as opposed to “inclusive” systems that centralize power to assure some degree of law, but share their power in a wise, pluralistic manner, offering opportunities for new entrepreneurs.

Could it be that regions within nations or states succeed or fail for the same reason?

The book cites numerous cases from the earliest city states to contemporary nation states to suggest regions thrive or falter for similar reasons. For example, they compare the sister cities of Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora, citing the extraordinary gaps in income, education, infrastructure, and quality of life across two sides of a common boundary — with the clear advantage on the United States of America side.

The difference lies in history and custom, it’s suggested. The United States is seen as a nation that expanded opportunities from its founding onwards, from the first landholders, then to slaves, then to women. The process wasn’t perfect: Native Americans were persecuted early on and a brutal war had to be fought to free the slaves. And to this day there are hard issues of disparities of wealth between rich and poor, corporate dominance of election financing, and push back against new immigrants… Still, for all its blemishes, the United continually seeks to open new opportunities, through quality free education, fairness in government decision-making and a rule of law that entrepreneurs can use to generate new economic activity.

The United States of Mexico story has differed. The nation has experienced centuries of brutal conflicts, most instigated to assure that economic wealth and political power would accrue to a small group, whether it was Spanish conquistadors, Catholic priests, mine/plantation/business owners, or key politicians and military leaders. Only through the people’s revolution of the last century has Mexico opened up opportunities for small businesses, workers, indigenous peoples, and other publics. But the process has often been a violent one, resulting in tensions among traditional and newly enfranchised groups — tensions that continually threaten governance stability. Most importantly, the tools required to pursue new opportunities are still largely controlled by extractive institutions trying to preserve economic benefits for the rich and powerful few.

No wonder then that the entrepreneurs of Nogales, Sonora and the world so often wanted to come to the United States of America, legally or illegally. Or are fighting for the economic and political institutions that offer the same opportunities in Cairo, Tripoli, Damascus, Harare, and Freetown.

But the differences between nations are reflected within them as well. Take the United States of America. All its regions already benefit from economic and political institutions that are open to budding entrepreneurs — regional economic development groups and councils of governments, for example — and are supported by all levels of government, as well as private, academic, civic and other sectors. However, at the local level, economic and political institutions, which behave inclusively within their boundaries, often stoop to beggar-thy-neighbor policies with their neighbors. They seem to forget that their economic success in the global marketplace is as an integrated region of many communities, not a standalone jurisdiction.

How, for example, can local economic and political bodies justify offering incentives to businesses to relocate from adjoining jurisdictions and argue seriously that this creates wealth? Not only do their actions poison local economic development waters, they squander opportunities to support the entrepreneurs who are pursuing opportunities that cut across jurisdictional boundaries. Such actions are often defended as protecting a jurisdiction’s tax base, with the result that our local tax systems become one of the most perverse extractive behaviors undermining regional cooperation.

How too can local economic and political institutions become bystanders when a critical economic asset is threatened, such as the loss of accreditation by a school system that is critical to preparing the next generation of regional entrepreneurs — a scene we too often see in central city school districts? Sadly, they usually get away with this behavior with scant media embarrassment or public accountability.

And how is such poor regional behavior fundamentally different from the historic attitudes that have too often kept Mexican economic and political institutions extractive? The current “haves” — individuals, groups, jurisdictions, institutions, etc. — want to preserve their privileged power and wealth against the potential “wannabes” and thwart actions for the good of the region, even if it means undermining the area’s collective capacity to build future wealth.

The only way many nations have opened up their societies to new entrepreneurs has been all too violent. But a regional revolution should hardly be necessary in the United States. What is needed is a willingness to seriously explore how local, and sometimes regional, state and national political and economic institutions, are acting in extractive ways, and then take steps to make them more inclusive.

Each region would benefit from preparing and pursing a vision for inclusive institutions, regularly reporting to the public on progress achieved. National organizations, such as the ones representing local, state, and national governments, as well as economic and regional groups, could offer a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to those declaring themselves inclusive institutions.

We owe thanks to Acemoglu and Robinson for making the convincing case that governance is the key to sharing power, achieving prosperity, and overcoming poverty. As usual, the theory is simple, but the execution is tough. But pursuing it probably offers the best guarantee that we will continue to reward the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit that has made these United States, and other prospering nations, succeed.

Bill Dodge (WilliamRDodge@aol.com), an expert in design of regional charters, is the former Executive Director of the National Association of Regional Councils, author of Regional Excellence, and currently writing a new book on regional charters.

Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.

“America’s Metro Regions Take Center Stage.”

That’s the title of a new report I’ve been working on with colleagues. And we know that some people will immediately retort:

“Metros? You can’t be serious. How about Obama, Romney, congressional stalemate, the Tea Party, states in budget crisis — and all the other news flavors of the moment?”

And our reply: Flying almost undetected under the news radar, America’s metropolitan regions are becoming central to today’s American story — and future.

Why?

Our Citistates Group, enhanced by regional experts, convened at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund Pocantico estate along the Hudson River last October and agreed on eight top reasons.

First, economics now reign. Leaders in the regional pack — New York, Seattle, Atlanta, Dallas, the San Francisco Bay Area and others — recognized early that the entire globe’s their market. They moved ahead of the pack on trade; they attracted entrepreneurial immigrants; they focused on quality universities and attracting knowledge-based populations. As America’s consumer economy sputters, smart export-oriented regions are now poised to prosper for the long run.

Second, there’s “smart growth — regions’ new dollars and sense.” The sprawl development patterns of recent decades now look like disasters, both for developers and buyers. Environmental conservation, compact growth, have become top goals for smart regions.

Third, lead regions are “getting it” — grasping that with weakened state and federal governments, they have to figure out their own futures. Symbolic: Dozens of mayors are forming coalitions for collaboration in such cities and regions as Chicago, Denver, Philadelphia, Minneapolis-St. Paul. Denver prospers with enhanced reputation from its courage adopting — and largely paying locally — for an ambitious regional rapid rail system. Ditto the L.A. area for the massive Alameda Corridor transit corridor, enhancing the regional economy, reducing congestion, cleaning up the air.

Fourth — Regions are getting down to business, actually adopting full-scale business plans to place themselves in the world series of job competition. Northeast Ohio, Minneapolis-St. Paul are top examples. On a parallel track, the Climate Prosperity Project has worked with such regions as St. Louis, Denver, Portland and Silicon Valley to help corporations create “green prints” to save money, increase efficiency and gain a competitive edge.

But — No. 5 — regions’ business success must go beyond mere “business.” Smart strategies encompass equity- for example infrastructure to connect workers to jobs, increase business efficiency, revitalize distressed neighborhoods. They recognize that clean air and water are key to competitiveness. Cultivating quality of place — inviting streets, well-kept parks, enticing cultural facilities, are all key to drawing, retaining talent.

Sixth, some states are moving from paternalism to partnership with their regions. Historically, governors and legislatures have more often preferred to micro-manage local governance rather than recognize metros are their true “cash cows,” the chief contributors to state coffers. They’ve encouraged cities and suburbs to compete, not collaborate, and actually incentivized greenfield development over smart reuse of urban space.

A most glaring example: New York state legislators in 2008 cavalierly rejected New York City’s bid to emulate successful models from Singapore and London by enacting a system congestion pricing to reduce vehicle paralysis on Manhattan streets. The multi-billion dollar revenues could also have been used to upgrade the city’s clogged public transit system.

But more recently, some states are waking up, providing incentives to regions to come up with clear growth strategies. Among the leaders: New York, Colorado, Tennessee and Nevada. Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s program to spur local growth, says an Albany-area leader, is helping “to nurture a Capital Region economic ecosystem that is locally collaborative, globally competitive, and economically vibrant.”

Seventh — there’s a new federal role, symbolized by the Obama administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a remarkable collaboration of government departments (Housing, Transportation, Environmental Protection). They’re challenging local areas (through competitive grants) to overcome traditional “silos” and work together on land use, transportation, workforce economic development and infrastructure investments.

Eighth — It’s all about outcomes. Whether the issue’s a major infrastructure project, stimulating exports or improving workforce readiness, smart regions form networks that find ways to strategize without being tripped up by their areas’ familiar thicket of separate cities, towns and governments. They understand the entire region is the “real” city of an urbanized century, and must act that way or falter. They insist on defining clear outcomes, then mobilizing broad resources to achieve them.

Is any of this perfectly realized? Are some regions deficient in clear leadership? Do some state governments inhibit effective regional initiatives? Is there danger of federal funds cutoff for projects of true national importance? The answer’s “yes” on all counts.

But our conclusion is clear: there are promising new models for regions’ self-determination, for strategic federal support, for states shifting from micro-management to constructive partnership. Applying them all would mean a stronger America. The question’s no longer “how” — it’s mustering the will.

Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.

For reprints of Neal Peirce’s column, please contact Washington Post Permissions, c/o PARS International Corp., WPPermissions@parsintl.com, fax 212-221-9195. For newspaper syndication sales, Washington Post Writers Group, 202-334-5375, wpwgsales@washpost.com.