Smart Growth Network: National Conversation on the Future of Our Communities February 2013 1 Greater attention must be given to smart growth policies that encourage urban industry. The smart growth movement’s continued relevance hinges on whether it recognizes manufacturing’s potential contribution to economic recovery in cities and regions and incorporates new ideas for revitalizing the nation’s urban industrial base. A New Normal After the Great Recession? Smart Growth Policies for Urban Industry Nathanael Z. Hoelzel and Nancey Green Leigh Many U.S. cities will be struggling to recover from the Great Recession for years to come, and creating quality jobs for local residents will dominate urban policy responses. While smart growth became a prominent framework for sustainable urban development prior to the Great Recession, a “new normal” for urban development has set in one that reasserts how important manufacturing is for local economic development and sustainability. In this essay, we argue that greater attention must be given to smart growth policies that encourage urban industry. The smart growth movement’s continued relevance hinges on whether it recognizes manufacturing’s potential contribution to economic recovery in cities and regions and incorporates new ideas for revitalizing the nation’s urban industrial base. Few sectors have received as much national attention as manufacturing in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Public and private sector leaders are increasingly focused on ways to extend manufacturing’s recovery and strengthen U.S. industrial competitiveness. “Reshoring” strategies to attract production back to the country, and new public policies and investments in innovation, sustainability, exports, and major infrastructure projects supportive of U.S. manufacturers are particularly gaining interest. The smart growth movement can benefit from this new attention on U.S. manufacturing, but only if it chooses to do so. Fortunately, new partnerships are emerging between smart growth advocates and supporters of urban manufacturing that can result in mutually beneficial policies and actions. Following are four considerations for Smart Growth Network members and their allies for capitalizing on this opportunity. 1. Acknowledging and Correcting Smart Growth’s “Blind Side” At times, smart growth approaches contradict efforts to support urban industry. In the Journal of the American Planning Association, we characterized this dilemma as smart growth’s “blind side” after comparing prominent policies by Smart Growth Network members to recent industrial policies of the city of Atlanta and other major U.S. cities (Leigh & Hoelzel, 2012). Our review led us to suggest that the smart growth movement has largely failed to “recognize connections between urban industrial land and the activities it supports with smart growth goals of limiting sprawl and revitalizing central cities” (p. 87). A recurring theme in local industrial policies is that industrial development is pitted against smart growth’s mainstays: mixed-use, retail, commercial, office, high-tech, residential, and transit-oriented development (TOD). Many cities are realizing