Planning the Indianapolis Region: Urban Resurgence ...

Planning Practice & Research

ISSN: 0269-7459 (Print) 1360-0583 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

Planning the Indianapolis Region: Urban Resurgence, de facto Regionalism and UniGov James A. Segedy & Thomas S. Lyons To cite this article: James A. Segedy & Thomas S. Lyons (2001) Planning the Indianapolis Region: Urban Resurgence, de facto Regionalism and UniGov, Planning Practice & Research, 16:3-4, 293-305, DOI: 10.1080/02697450120107907 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697450120107907

Published online: 19 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 44

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cppr20 Download by: [Michigan State University]

Date: 15 May 2017, At: 13:19

Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 16, Nos 3/4, pp. 293– 305, 2001

THEME ARTICLE

Planning the Indianapolis Region: Urban Resurgence, de facto Regionalism and UniGov JAMES A. SEGEDY & THOMAS S. LYONS

Introduction While the United States (US) has an established system of metropolitan transportation planning organisations (MPOs), and there are also a substantial number of metropolitan and non-metropolitan statistical and coordinating bodies (Councils of Government (COGs) and Regional Planning Commissions), it has very few true metropolitan governments. Each example of a metropolitan government (Portland, Minneapolis– St. Paul, Nashville– Davidson, Miami– Dade and Indianapolis) is unique, responding to a particular local history and political contact. In this article, we proŽ le Indianapolis, explaining the unique state and local circumstances which led to the creation of UniGov in 1969, and which have in uenced the subsequent development of UniGov and the unusual features of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Region. Indianapolis is both the capital city and the heart of the most populous metropolitan area in the state of Indiana. UniGov was established primarily as a political and economic consolidation, but through its centrist approach has served to establish a very strong de facto region in virtually all political, economic, transportation and land use issues. The adoption of a ‘magnet’ or centrist approach to regional policy in the Indianapolis metropolitan region has served well, even with only minimal administrative authority, in managing growth, limiting the strength of suburban communities despite signiŽ cant population growth, and maintaining a strong and viable urban core. The History of Regionalism in Indianapolis UniGov, Indianapolis’ consolidation of city and county governments, was implemented in 1969 under the instigation of second-year mayor Richard Lugar. The new governmental entity had, and continues to have, a mayor– council form of government. Indianapolis and Marion County were subdivided into relatively James A. Segedy, Department of Urban Planning, College of Architecture and Planning, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA. Email: [email protected]. Thomas S. Lyons, Department of Urban and Public Affairs, University of Louisville, 426 West Bloom Street, Louisville,KY 40208,USA. Email: [email protected]. 0269-7459 Print/1360-0583 On-line/01/03/40293-13 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/02697450120107907

293

James A. Segedy & Thomas S. Lyons

FIGURE 1. UniGov districts.

small districts with roughly equal population (see Figure 1). Each district has a representative on the council.1 The remainder of the council is made up of members elected at-large (Wade, 1999). Unlike most regionalisation efforts, which often focus on coordinated land-use planning, transportation systems and economic development, the impetus for UniGov was the Republican Party’s desire to dominate Indianapolis politics. In fact, the consolidation of governments was brought about by a vote of the Republican-held state legislature, with no local citizen input whatsoever. The ploy has worked rather well over the past 30 years as, until last year’s mayoral election, a Republican has held the ofŽ ce of mayor for the entire period and Republicans have held the majority on every council committee as well (Wade, 1999). More to the point, however, UniGov has resulted in a centralisation of a number of governmental functions. Among these are political leadership, public works, Ž scal policy, economic policy and planning. (See Figure 2.) 294

FIGURE 2. Government in Indianapolis and Marion County: an overview.

Planning the Indianapolis Region

295

James A. Segedy & Thomas S. Lyons The strong mayoral leadership in Indianapolis by Richard Lugar, a moderate Republican and current senior US Senator from the State of Indiana, also had a signiŽ cant role in the formation of UniGov. Indianapolis is far and away the largest city in Marion County, and little opposition to consolidation was offered from the several towns located there.2 Planning in Indianapolis has an interesting history relative to UniGov, however. In the late 1950s, a full decade prior to the adoption of consolidated government, planning activities in Indianapolis and Marion County were merged. This permitted countywide management of new growth at a time when growth was so slow and development activity so minimal that the city was assigned epithets such as ‘Naptown’ and ‘Indiana-no-place’. Many considered Indianapolis ‘the world’s largest small town’. This general lack of traditional urbanisation pressures gave the Marion County metropolitan region a chance to establish a planning infrastructure before growth resumed in the 1980s. In addition, among the initiatives of this earlier regional planning effort was a plan for revitalising the downtown area as the economic focus of the metropolitan area. Indianapolis was also somewhat unique in that the various urban pathologies, or perceived pathologies, that inspired suburbanisation in the post-war years were not evident in Indianapolis. UniGov was able to pick up on these planning advantages and further solidify them through centralisation. (See Figure 3.) At the time UniGov was established there was very little pressure for development outside of Indianapolis/Marion County. The surrounding counties were predominately rural with large portions of the land still dedicated to production agriculture. Planning was virtually non-existent in these counties. What planning there was came under the jurisdiction of the State Planning Agency and multi-county Regional Planning Districts. These latter districts served as little more than administrative units for the distribution of federal planning initiative funding. By the mid 1970s the State Planning Agency was dissolved and there was virtually nothing left of the Regional Planning Districts. County planning in the counties surrounding Marion County/Indianapolis did not really begin until the mid 1980s. In the 1990s, under the Goldsmith administration, the regional in uence lessened as primary emphasis was placed on a decentralised plan of neighbourhood revitalisation, but still tightly controlled by the central administration. As suggested above, it should be acknowledged that anything that has been accomplished in the planning arena in the Indianapolis region has been achieved in spite of the fact that there is no real support for urban and regional planning at the state level in Indiana. The state has not adopted enabling legislation that would permit the use of such growth management planning tools as urban growth boundaries, transferable development rights, and other similar measures. There have been recent studies and discussions of farmland protection strategies that have originated from the governor’s ofŽ ce, but no legislation or programmes have yet been proposed. Governor Frank O’Bannon (a Democrat) has recently established a statewide Land Resources Council, but he has gone on record as stating that the State of Indiana will not adopt a ‘Smart Growth’ policy. While the state enabling legislation has recently established the opportunity for com296

Planning the Indianapolis Region

FIGURE 3. UniGov area of Indianapolis/Marion County.

munities to impose impact fees, the restrictions on their implementation have rendered them virtually ineffective. In general terms, the state only requires that local communities adopt comprehensive plans prior to establishing zoning ordinances.3 This further strengthened the centralising impact of positive planning activity in Indianapolis. (See Figure 4.) The 1980s saw signiŽ cant growth in the Indianapolis region (see Figure 5). Most of this growth remained very close to the heart of the region. As the remaining agricultural land within the UniGov boundaries became developed, new residential growth began to expand Ž rst into Hamilton County (north) and then to Hendricks and Johnson Counties (west and south).4 Some commercial 297

James A. Segedy & Thomas S. Lyons

FIGURE 4. The nine-county Indianapolis region.

and ofŽ ce development followed, but by and large most non-residential development remained within Indianapolis. Communities are dynamic entities. Many US metropolitan areas have followed what might be called a ‘doughnut’ pattern of growth: the ring surrounding the central city has experienced dramatic expansion, while the centre suffers from decline and abandonment. While Indianapolis managed to avoid creating the ‘doughnut hole’ fate of most other mid-Western US Rust Belt cities, it did run out of space for growth within its UniGov boundaries. Indeed, now only about half of the region’s 1.5 million inhabitants (twelfth largest metropolitan area in the country) live within the borders of the consolidated Indianapolis. 298

Planning the Indianapolis Region

FIGURE 5. Growth rates in the nine-county Indianapolis region.

Now there is no single entity to coordinate economic development, land use, transportation or other traditional regional issues. This is made even more challenging by the multiple taxing districts (townships) left over from the pre-UniGov days. Poor relief (the Hoosier5 phrase for welfare) in Center Township has left the very core of Indianapolis “hemorrhaging economically” (Pierce, 1966b) from a property tax assessment 10 times that of the rest of the region. There seems to be little support for the consolidation, or even coordination of taxing authority within the region and the state. Taxation remains a distinctly local issue and is viewed as one of the few real powers of local government. As development in the surrounding counties began to skyrocket, ‘MAGIC’ (Metropolitan Association of Greater Indianapolis Communities) was established by the local chambers of commerce, local economic development organisations, regional business leaders, elected ofŽ cials and others, to begin discussions about ways to coordinate activities within the Indianapolis region to capitalize on its strengths while minimizing or solving some of its problems. The focus of MAGIC has been economic development in its broadest sense: looking at the regional business environment from the point of view of its customers and making that environment as conducive to business growth, expansion and relocation as possible. (Vision section of the original MAGIC Strategic Plan, July 1995, restated in MAGIC, 1999) MAGIC was ‘sunsetted’ in October 1999. As MAGIC was viewed primarily as an advisory body to make recommendations for a more formal regional authority 299

James A. Segedy & Thomas S. Lyons and governmental structure, it was expected that its work would be Ž nished within its Ž ve-year charter. As it Ž nished its Ž nal report to the membership the word regionalism began to Ž nd some acceptance into the vocabulary, but surveys of local citizens and community leaders found that most preferred to approach regional cooperation and action from a voluntary dialogue rather than through formal policies or actions. A true regional authority, or even a more formal advisory body, had virtually no support among constituent communities or political or business leaders. As Lee Lewellen, Executive Director of MAGIC, stated: Maybe a change of vocabulary necessarily preceded a change in behavior: it is difŽ cult to tell whether we are now thinking and acting ‘regionally’ or if we have just learned to use the word … Many of the challenges MAGIC sought to remedy still remain as challenges: elected ofŽ cials throughout Central Indiana have not yet reached a level of dialogue where they are addressing mutual problems; the region is still marked by ten different economic development entities; and few truly regional organizations have emerged to implement a regional vision. (MAGIC, 1999) While a true regional vision or strategy for development has not come forward from UniGov or MAGIC, the Commercial and Industrial Zoning Matrix for the MAGIC Region was published in 1996 (MAGIC, 1999) to serve as a general zoning guide for the many diverse zoning categories and jurisdictions within the nine-county Central Indiana region. This effort was targeted at recruiting businesses to the Central Indiana marketplace. The matrix has served primarily as a reference point and it has had little impact on regional development patterns in Central Indiana. In an effort to “create a grass roots based citizens organization to advocate for regional issues affecting the quality of life in Central Indiana” (from the CIRCL Mission Statement), the Central Indiana Regional Citizens League (CIRCL6) was established in 1996 as a joint venture between MAGIC and the United Way/ Community Service Council of Central Indiana. CIRCL’s central focus has been regional transportation and land-use issues. Most of the activity associated with CIRCL has been centred upon informal dialogue amongst community leaders and citizens through a series of Community Forums. Recently CIRCL has begun establishing a Quality of Life Index for monitoring and assessment purposes in Central Indiana. The Quality of Life Index Task Force is currently Ž nalising the indicators in 12 categories. Even without the presence of MAGIC, CIRCL continues its mission, primarily serving as a forum for discussion of regional issues and assessing and monitoring the quality of life of the Indianapolis Region. The comprehensive plan for the consolidated area re ects the somewhat fragmented nature of UniGov’s approach to planning. While there is a comprehensive planning document for the region, it is largely a primer on comprehensive planning, a history of development in the county, and a discussion of development trends and policies. The bulk of the plan is a set of district, or area, plans for each of the nine townships in Marion County (Department of Metropolitan Development, 1991a). The townships appear to have considerable auton300

Planning the Indianapolis Region omy in developing their own plans. There have also been several specialised plans for the UniGov area, focusing on such topics as urban design. Interestingly, the strongest document in the compilation that makes up the comprehensive plan is the Indianapolis Regional Center Plan, 1990– 2010 (Department of Metropolitan Development, 1991b). Unlike the other documents in the comprehensive plan, it is truly comprehensive in its treatment of the regional centre (the downtown area of Indianapolis) and very detailed. It includes plans and policies for the following: urban design; transportation; historic preservation; neighbourhood; housing; governmental and institutional activities; ofŽ ce, industrial and retail development; parks and open space; recreation; social services; arts; human relations; education; tourism; and job creation. In the stated rationale for the importance of planning for the regional centre, found in the plan’s foreword, the Ž rst reason given is: “The image and marketability of Indianapolis and the State of Indiana are directly related to the quality of the Regional Center” (Department of Metropolitan Development, 1991b, pp. viii– ix). The rationale goes on to point out the Ž scal, environmental and lifestyle beneŽ ts to be had by concentrating facilities, services and population in the regional centre. Thus, in terms of planning, Indianapolis’ approach to regionalism is fragmented, but it places considerable emphasis on the centralisation of economic activity. It seems that the downtown is viewed as an area that belongs to the entire region and can therefore be planned for in a comprehensive way. The same cannot be said for the rest of the region, although it should be noted that UniGov gave the region’s planners the ability to encourage growth within the county until that time when there was no more land to be developed. As suggested previously, once this happened, growth naturally spilled into adjoining counties that were beyond the direct in uence of UniGov and its plans and policies. The Current Situation in the Indianapolis Region The planning focus on the regional centre appears to have paid off in obvious ways. All major sports and entertainment venues are located in the regional centre, including the RCA Dome, the convention centre and the new Conseco Fieldhouse, among others. The skyline has changed dramatically in recent years with the addition of several new skyscrapers. Major corporate stalwarts have been retained, and new headquarters and branch ofŽ ces have been attracted to the regional centre. The downtown is home to the new White River Park, as was called for in the Indianapolis Regional Center Plan 1990– 2010 (Department of Metropolitan Development, 1991b). The plan also sought to increase the number of housing units in the regional centre. With the rehabilitation of the Lockerbie Square Historic District and the development of hundreds of new units near the central business district (CBD), this goal is well on the way to achievement, with still more housing in the works. The old Water Company Canal has been converted into a river walk corridor, and numerous new restaurants and several new hotels have opened their doors 301

James A. Segedy & Thomas S. Lyons in recent years. The Circle Center, a downtown shopping mall, adds retail life to the downtown and connects several buildings with skywalks, which tends to link the entire CBD. The campus of Indiana University/Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) continues to grow, as does the university’s academic stature. It is now the largest university in the state. Indianapolis has claimed the mantle of Amateur Sports Capital by being the home of numerous collegiate and amateur sports headquarters, including the recently completed National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) headquarters. These facilities and the many other downtown activities have attracted numerous people from around the region, state and country. While it is located in one of the communities not participating in UniGov, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (in the town of Speedway), also attracts considerable attention. This critical mass of attractions and public amenities can be directly attributed to the UniGov strategy of focusing economic development activity in the heart of the city. UNIGOV’s In uence on Planning and Growth Management in the Region There is little doubt that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Region has grown and changed, and much of this has been positive. However, the question remains as to how much of this can be attributed to consolidated government. Indianapolis planner Harold Rominger, AICP, AIA, has suggested that, to answer this question, one must look at UniGov’s role from several perspectives (Rominger, 1999, pers. comm.). The Ž rst perspective is political. UniGov made the ofŽ ce of mayor stronger, thereby allowing for increased, and more consistent, leadership on the part of the individual holding that ofŽ ce. Rominger argues that this, in turn, brought with it a higher comfort level for the local corporate elite, particularly Eli Lilly & Company, the pharmaceuticals giant with headquarters in the regional centre. The result was massive corporate investment in the regional centre. Lilly, alone, gave $460 million to support improvements in the downtown area. Rominger says that corporate support went a long way toward allowing for a variety of strong public policies aimed at centralisation with virtually no opposition. Most notable among these was the policy of placing virtually all major entertainment venues downtown. Rominger’s second perspective on the role of UniGov in growth management is physical in nature. He maintains that UniGov has permitted the more rational and well-coordinated provision of public infrastructure throughout Marion County. This has permitted the consolidated government to control the location, timing and capacity of the region’s infrastructure—a key to managing growth. This amounts to an ad hoc concurrency policy. The third perspective identiŽ ed by Rominger is economic and Ž scal. Because of the tremendous public and private investment in the regional centre and its ability to attract still more private investment, the centre has become a growth magnet. The healthy centre tends to keep growth at the regional perimeter close. Rominger also argues that tax rates that were consolidated along with government, leaving fewer taxing jurisdictions, have acted to provide more stability and predictability, facilitating private growth within the core county. 302

Planning the Indianapolis Region Rominger’s fourth, and Ž nal, perspective is that of community attitude. By this he means a culture of community. He notes that UniGov has given Indianapolis a strong core identity. This identity has resulted in a feeling of oneness among residents throughout the metropolitan area. Even at the fringe, people are less likely to consider themselves to be from Greenwood, or Fishers, or Noblesville, and more likely to proclaim that they are residents of Indianapolis. Rominger maintains that this sense of identity has resulted in the strong volunteer ethic and philanthropic culture that characterises the region. Rominger’s observations provide some very interesting and useful insights into the role that consolidated government has played in the realm of planning and growth management in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Region. While Indiana law provides little support for planning in the state, Indianapolis, in a somewhat libertarian manner, has succeeded in creating a viable urban region. Growth management is typically focused on creating compact metropolitan regions. Compactness is, in turn, created by the generation of centripetal force. Such force can be generated in three basic ways: (1) by pushing from the perimeter toward the centre (urban growth boundaries are an example of this approach; (2) by trying to bring the disparate threads of the regional tapestry together (comprehensive growth management strategies fall into this category); or (3) by creating a large magnet at the centre which pulls everything else to it. This latter approach is obviously the one employed by Indianapolis, and as a growth management strategy (albeit a somewhat accidental one) it has worked. The centripetal force, created and sustained by UniGov, has acted to hold sprawling growth in check, even beyond the boundaries of Marion County. While it is true that, most recently, housing permits issued outside the county outstrip those issued within the county by two to one, this is largely due to the fact that there is relatively little developable land left in the county. Growth that has spilled into the surrounding Boone, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Morgan and Shelby counties has done so out of necessity, and it has expanded outward incrementally. Our examination suggests that the principal contributor to this uniform outward growth is the powerful economic and recreational magnet that is downtown Indianapolis. With greater than $3 billion invested in the core since the establishment of UniGov, it keeps residents of the metro area close for easy access to its jobs and its amenities. Unlike cities with urban growth boundaries (UGBs), housing prices in the regional centre are not prohibitively high due to the artiŽ cial restraint on supply, nor is there a periodic need to revisit the UGB as growth pressures persist. Growth is orderly, and therefore manageable. Is Indianapolis a model for regional planning and growth management? Perhaps not. In ‘The Pierce Report: the future of a citistate’ (Peirce, 1996a), Neil Peirce lauds the many successes of the new Indianapolis as a city to be proud of, but caution of potential problems that will arise from the inherent inequities of this highly top-down approach to development. The focus on economic expansion as the backbone of the regionalisation effort can be viewed as more centrism than regionalism. The several towns that have been absorbed into UniGov have lost virtually all of their identity (except as neighbourhoods 303

James A. Segedy & Thomas S. Lyons within the city or as a name on a ‘suburban’ shopping mall). As Peirce states, “The moral’s obvious: A region that invests vision, grit and partnerships and shares its wealth reaps a rich harvest. The Indianapolis community now needs to do as much for nine counties rather than one, and expand from its focus on bricks and mortar to environmental balance and human reconstruction” (1996a). Indianapolis’ governmental consolidation has its roots in political opportunism. The actual regional planning that has taken place there has been done in spite of weak state legislative support and a general culture that is anti-planning. Its growth management success is arguably as much serendipity as anything else; yet, Indianapolis’ brand of regionalism affords a useful lesson. That lesson is about the tremendous power of a strong urban core. Investment in that core can yield numerous beneŽ ts, not the least of which is a relatively cohesive metropolitan region. This tends to bear out the Ž ndings of Rusk (1993) and others. One could call this de facto regionalism. Consolidated government was a vehicle for achieving the kind of political, Ž scal and attitudinal cohesiveness in Indianapolis and Marion County that attracted the level of investment in the urban core necessary to make it a centripetal force. Indianapolis’ brand of regionalism may not be viable for all communities. Its utility may vary, for example, according to the political culture of the place. Daniel Elazar (1966) has created a very useful typology of political culture that can be applied here. He differentiates among traditionalist, individualistic and moralistic political cultures. Traditionalistic communities are insular and controlled by economic and political elites. Many cities of the southern US Ž t this model. Individualistic communities are open and freewheeling, with no dominant group in control. Most American cities have this as their dominant political culture. The citizens of moralistic communities share commonly held beliefs about what is ‘right’ and tend to stand together against threats to these beliefs. Indianapolis is an individualistic community. Its approach to regionalism matches that political culture. It does so by respecting its residents’ desire to manage their own affairs on a highly local (small districts) basis and by utilising public– private partnerships as a tool for implementation. Traditional and moralistic communities that seek regionalism need not pursue this course. In the former, the local elite merely needs to decide that regionalism is desirable and then proceed to put their substantial resources toward making it happen. In the latter, if regionalism is in keeping with the collective belief system, the whole community will pursue it, as in the case of Portland, Oregon. Thus, Indianapolis’ somewhat quirky approach to regionalism may be more than a mere curiosity. It may actually be a model for certain types of communities. It represents a way to foster regional thinking and acting in a largely libertarian environment. Notes 1. It should be noted that even the four Marion County communities not participating in UniGov are represented on the UniGov Council. In fact, the citizens of the four communities (Beech Grove, Lawrence,

304

Planning the Indianapolis Region Southport and Speedway) pay county (UniGov) taxes and are entitled to vote for the mayor of Indianapolis as well as their own mayor. 2. It should be noted that the distinction between city and town in Indiana is political, not population size. (Indiana has towns of . 60 000 population and cities of , 100). Indiana towns are governed by a Town Council with a president, elected from the seated members to serve as head of the council. Towns do not have a mayor. A town may appoint a town manager to serve as Chief Operations OfŽ cer. Cities elect a mayor as Chief Executive OfŽ cer, but (s)he does not sit as a member of city council. Cities may not appoint a City Manager. Townships have virtually no political standing or authority in Indiana. Their primary role is to distribute ‘poor relief’ within the unincorporated areas of the county. County government in Indiana maintains full authority over all administrative and government functions that are not within incorporated cities and towns. 3. Seventeen of Indiana’s 92 counties still have no planning or zoning. Morgan County (one of the counties immediately adjacent to Indianapolis) recently dissolved their county plan commission and ‘unadopted’ their comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. 4. The relatively high percentage of growth in Morgan County is primarily a re ection of its relatively low population and growth along the SR37 corridor to Bloomington. 5. Hoosier is the nickname of Indiana. 6. The acronym CIRCL is a reference to the fact that Indianapolis is known as the ‘Circle City’ because of its physical layout. The city was designed in a hub and spokes (radial) pattern, with the hub being a circular drive around the base of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument—the geographic centre of the city and state.

References Department of Metropolitan Development (1991a) The Comprehensive Plan for Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis, IN, Department of Metropolitan Development, Planning Division). Department of Metropolitan Development (1991b) Indianapolis Regional Center Plan 1990– 2010 (Indianapolis, IN, Department of Metropolitan Development, Planning Division). Elazar, D. J. (1966) American Federalism (New York, Crowell). Indiana Land-Use Planning Resource Center, Purdue University. www.agry.purdue.edu/agronomy/landuse League of Women Voters of Indianapolis (1994) UniGov Handbook (Indianapolis, IN, League of Women Voters Education Fund). MAGIC (Metropolitan Association of Greater Indianapolis Communities) (1999) Final Report , www.indychamber.com/PublicPolicy/magicŽ nalreport/FinalReport.html. Owen, C. J. & Willbern, Y. Y. (1985) Governing Metropolitan Indianapolis: The Politics of UniGov (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press). Peirce, N. R. (1996a) The Peirce Report: the future of a citistate, The Indianapolis Star News, Downtown Challenge Series. www.starnews.com/news/special/peirce.html Peirce, N. R. (1996b) “UniŽ ed” Toronto, Indianapolis—What Now? www.naca.org/pubs/cnews/96– 09/ peirce.htm Rusk, D. (1993) Cities Without Suburbs (Washington, DC, Woodrow Wilson Center Press). Wade, S. (1999) Merger made cities better, speakers say, Louisville Courier-Journal, 12 November, p. B2.

305