(Workshop of the World) and Detroit (Arsenal of Democracy) were hailed as the success stories of the Industrial Revolution. This revolution did not last forever. By the middle of the 20th century, the process of de-industrialization in these cities was already taking place (Sugrue, 1996). Increasingly, the integration of automation reduced the number of workers required on the line, resulting in a significant decline of jobs (Sugrue, 1996). As the labor movement grew in strength and demanded increased benefits at the workplace, companies began leaving inner cities and headed for the suburbs to establish new factories and operations. Today, corporate urban flight now extends overseas, and the bastions of the American industry are still struggling with the effects of disinvestment, shrinking tax bases, and rising unemployment rates. Some cities have attempted to create, “...planned manufacturing districts” to recruit and retain industry with mixed success (Rast, 2005). We can take the lessons from past efforts and infuse them with policies that support innovation in manufacturing, rather than promote
those that compromise it. GMDC’s approach to economic development—what I am calling “community-scaled manufacturing”—provides an alternative to the current universe of economic development solutions. The community-scaled manufacturing framework can address job creation goals by tackling one of the contemporary labor force development issues of the lack of “middle-skilled” workers—those with some education after high school but not a college degree (Lerman, 2009). This model could be a small step towards broadening the hands-on opportunities needed for the training of technical and vocational skills. Developing craftsmanship ties back into economic development because it supports artisanal manufacturers who typically use apprenticeship models to develop skills. Community-scaled manufacturing recovers the societal value of jobs in which people make things (Boggs, 2009). Furthermore, the community-scaled manufacturing model provides more strategies for urban planners without neglecting the city’s existing assets (Christopherson, 2009). This
model’s inherent small scale demands a more localized economy and local relationships, as well as increasing the social capital of communities. For example, small-scale manufacturing requires that overhead be kept minimal and raw goods be brought in small quantities at low cost. This model geographically roots the manufacturers in
commondreams.org/view/2010/02/08-5 Lerman, H. J. (2009). The Future of Middle-Skilled Jobs. Washington: Brookings Institution. Milani, B. (2002). From Opposition to Alternatives: Postindustrial Potentials and Transformative Learning. In A. M. Edmund V. O’Sullivan (Ed.), Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning: Essays on Theory and Praxis (pp. 47-58). New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rast, J. (2005). Curbing Industrial Decline or Thwarting Redevelopment: An evaluation of Chicago’s Clybourn Corridor, Goose Island, and Elston Corridor Planned Manufacturing Districts. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Economic Development.
Schumacher, E. (1979). Good Work. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Sugrue, T. J. (1996). The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Vey, J. S. (2008). Revitalizing America’s Older Industrial Cities: A State Agenda for Change. In R. M. Vey (Ed.), Retooling for Growth: Building a 21st Century Economy in America’s Older Industrial Areas (pp. 33-60). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Wolf-Powers, L. (2005). Up-Zoning New York City’s Mixed-Use Neighborhoods: Property-Led Economic Development and the Anatomy of a Planning Dilemma. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 24, 379-393.
Manufacturing can, should, and is taking place in our urban cities. their local area, providing an incentive to rehabilitate derelict buildings, improve educational outcomes, and create local wealth. Manufacturing can, should, and is taking place in our urban cities. As planners and designers, it is our role to address contemporary challenges of post-industrial cities and to imagine alternatives that can transform these places. GMDC has effectively shown that cities can retrofit its existing industrial infrastructure to support innovation and economic development within the manufacturing sector. Increasingly, communities are recognizing the need for the localization of our goods and services. The local food security movement is a testament to this awareness, and manufacturing can realize similar benefits that the local food movement has already demonstrated in many communities. The future of manufacturing has the potential to increase the quality of goods, decrease the ecological footprint of manufacturing, improve local economies, and encourage self-sufficiency. There are endless possibilities to introduce new life into our existing industrial infrastructure. We can let go of the old way of manufacturing—the polluting factories, noxious fumes, and menial labor. Let us embrace the future of manufacturing—one that is socially, environmentally, and economically conscious.
Bibliography Boggs, G. L. (2009, February). Why Return to Local Economies. Michigan Citizen . Christopherson, S. (2009). Manufacturing: Up from the Ashes. Democracy Journal , Fall (14), pp. 25-30. Court, R. D. (2002). The 2002 State New Economy Index. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Greenhouse, S. (2010 12-January). Will the Economy Rebound in 2010? Talk of the Nation. (R. Roberts, Interviewer) NPR. Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center. (2008). 2008 Annual Report: A Model for New Manufacturing in Urban America. Brooklyn. Hartmann, T. (2009, February 8). Globalization Is Killing the Globe: Return to Local Economies. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from www.commondreams.org: http://www.
9