The lack of strong federal support for cities in the US from the 1980s onwards has meant that states and cities themselves have had to react directly to their internal crisis. Efforts to revitalise cities have emerged in the US, just as they have in Europe, albeit with weak support from other tiers of government so that the response has mainly been driven by local leaders. Programmes of renewal evolved in US cities over the long period of urban decline, often driven by extreme racial problems and a gradual recognition that suburban sprawl was itself a problem. Partnerships between the public, private and community sectors have emerged to drive change. In this chapter we summarise the main actions taken by the three larger cities, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Philadelphia, showing what the prospects are for urban recovery in these cities. We then briefly consider the trajectories of three smaller mid-western ‘rust belt’ cities that have recovered somewhat.

Stemming decline in Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Philadelphia

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh, one of the first US cities to organise concerted action to combat urban decline, was an early pioneer of urban regeneration. Pittsburgh's Renaissance Programme was launched in 1946 shortly after the Second World War in response to two main problems facing the city in the 1940s:

• • steep downtown decline due to the failure to attract new investment and the growing problems of traffic congestion;

• • the damage to both air and water quality from polluting industries wreaking environmental damage on an unprecedented scale.

The business community saw these problems as a growing barrier to attracting high-calibre personnel; companies would simply choose other locations.45 This resulted in the formation of the Allegheny Conference in 1943, a public–private partnership formed by some 150 civic leaders that drove the next two decades of urban regeneration. Local leadership was a key factor in the coordination of a strategic response to the city's problems. Two powerful individuals dominated the coalition: Richard Mellon, heir to a large financial consortium, representing the interests of the local business elite, and David Lawrence, political leader of the city's Democratic Party, representing the interests of the working class. Despite their differences, they cooperated closely in preparing a development plan, which elicited the support of the local population and corporate leaders.