The Crossroads of State and Local: Can Harrisburg “row in the same direction”?

Subscribe to the Small City Stories Substack here.

Harrisburg draws thousands of people into the city every day. Can the same forces that make the city a center support and sustain the people who live there? As Pennsylvania’s capital, the city navigates a defining tension between state centrality and local needs.

In this Small City Stories conversation, policy professional Tree Zuzzio reflects on a city shaped by its crossroads – with rail and highway infrastructure that draws commuters and state workers from as far as Philadelphia – as well as a local governing landscape working to strengthen neighborhood economic nodes and resident life. The Susquehanna River has become one bridge between the two – the origin of Harrisburg’s role as state center and a cornerstone of local civic life.

Harrisburg sits along the Susquehanna River in the south-central part of the state, with much of the city stretching north to south along the waterfront. Harrisburg was established as the capital mainly for its “strategic location.” Flowing generally west to east at this point, the river made the city a transfer site between boat travel from the east and on-land travel, including rail around the nineteenth century. This connective travel infrastructure endures today. Harrisburg is in close reach of several major metropolitan areas: Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. are approximately 90 minutes away by car and are accessible via Amtrak. New York City and Pittsburgh are roughly three hours away, reiterating the city’s key state and regional centrality.

State Street from State Capitol Steps; Photo by Warren LeMay [CC BY-SA]

Around the same period that Harrisburg was designated as the state capital, the city emerged in the nineteenth century as a manufacturing center for steel and iron production and a major railroad hub during a period of rapid national rail expansion. Unlike many peer steel towns, Harrisburg began experiencing industrial decline earlier, between the 1920s and 1970s. However, because of its role as a state center by this time, Harrisburg maintained its passenger rail system after industrial closures reshaped the region, allowing for continued movement in and out of the city.

Harrisburg’s unique position, simultaneously serving as the state center, county seat, and a municipality of roughly 51,000 residents, creates an ongoing balancing challenge between commuter and local populations. Thousands of state employees pass through the area each day, but many make up what Tree describes as “a commuter population.” The Keystone Line continues to run multiple times a day, allowing commuters to travel easily from Lancaster and Philadelphia. “People commute into Harrisburg every day, whether that be driving or via the train,” Tree says. “I know people take the train from Lancaster and Philly. People commute across the river from Cumberland County or from Lebanon County or Lancaster or York. A lot of people drive in every day and then leave in the evenings.”

The sustained rail infrastructure and the steady flow of commuters is often framed as an asset, and in many ways it is. It increases daytime activity and creates the impression of economic vitality. However, it also complicates efforts to build a city that serves residents and sustains local activity. Relying on a commuter population has its limits. “We can try and supplant [population loss] with people outside of the city, but that’s a lot more difficult than just making the city a great place for people to stay over time.”

Commuter demand has driven up parking costs and commercial rents, while many nearby residential buildings remain vacant or underutilized. Near the capitol complex, the imbalance is especially pronounced. As Tree notes, “downtown is really expensive, which has been a big hindrance.” Some of the highest parking rates in the city deter residents and “has really hurt a lot of those small businesses.” The largely transient daytime population and limited residential presence has made businesses struggle to build a reliable customer base. Turnover becomes the norm, and the consistent, resident-driven activity needed to anchor downtown never fully takes hold.

The effects of this have left Harrisburg’s “downtown core about 50% occupied,” says Tree. “If we’re looking at storefronts, restaurant fronts…there are a lot of empty businesses. A lot of businesses open up and then close pretty quickly, which has been really disappointing.” In many cities that continue to experience similar economic decline, planning efforts consistently concentrate attention and resources on “activating” the downtown. In Harrisburg, the city’s attention is distributed to create conditions that encourage residents to stay and invest in the city over the long term. When asked about the priorities of Harrisburg’s local government, Tree emphasizes that unlike other smaller cities, “the focus isn’t always downtown.”

Instead, the city established economic nodes that distribute activity, density, and investment across multiple neighborhoods rather than concentrating them solely in the downtown core, catering towards residents rather than solely commuters and state workers. Tree explains, Harrisburg recognizes “a couple other… finance or community cores throughout the city,” and directs attention toward these neighborhood centers.

Midtown is one such core, which Tree describes as having “downtown’s mixed-use” and “more low-rise mixed-use development along the Third Street corridor.” Additional investment and planning attention extends eastward into Allison Hill, where, as Tree says, the neighborhood runs “up through about 13th Street,” with intersections at “13th and Market” and “13th and Derry” functioning as economic corridors.

These commercial corridors are distributed throughout neighborhoods and are zoned for higher-density development. Beyond the economic corridors, Harrisburg contains six local historic districts, several of which are listed on the national register, that preserve a similarly diverse building stock. Much of the city is zoned for medium-density residential use, where they allow for attached and semi-attached buildings by-right and larger multi-family units with special exception. The low-density residential uses are limited, primarily located near the golf course and farther east from the riverfront.

This mindset goes further than that of many peer smaller cities, even within Pennsylvania, which often do not encourage the levels of density or housing diversity needed to support varied tenancy needs. In total, 93.7 percent of the city’s land area permits attached or multifamily development, and 65.1 percent of existing housing units are attached or multifamily. This zoning structure reflects an intentional commitment to a compact, walkable urban form capable of accommodating a wide range of residents and tenancy needs. Rather than concentrating density, walkability, and middle housing solely in the downtown or urban core, Harrisburg’s approach signals aspirational goals to extend these benefits across neighborhoods citywide.

This model of distributing development and activity is also connected to the city’s waterfront. As the downtown experiences a tension between commuter and local activity, the Susquehanna river is a place where that converges. The river is a key reason for Harrisburg’s centrality in the state and functions as a regional connector. At the same time, the river serves as an important local civic asset.

Investment has been funneled to Harrisburg’s waterfront, reclaiming the space into Riverfront Park. Riverfront Park was invested in and conceived very early relative to other reclaimed waterfronts. Planning for the park began in 1901, decades before industrial decline forced many cities to reconsider their riverfronts. It emerged from the nationwide “City Beautiful Movement” when Harrisburg was grappling with severe pollution, flooding, and sanitation issues from their industries that directly threatened public health. In 1902, the city committed more than $1 million to infrastructure improvements, including the installation of a modern sewage system and the paving of streets. By 1904, the city had acquired 45 acres along the Susquehanna River, and Riverfront Park was formally established in 1912.

What had once been an industrial and polluted edge of the city was reshaped into a civic landscape, using Olmsted-era planning ideals to design large public parks within urban environments. Today, Riverfront Park remains central to the city’s civic identity. Tree’s description of the Susquehanna River makes clear that it is a crucial piece of the community’s identity and has shaped how residents feel about their city. “We have the Susquehanna River, which is one of the oldest rivers in the world… It’s a very rare geological feature.” He continues to describe Riverfront Park as a key public space: “it is very accessible, unlike a lot of places where it’s very disconnected. But I think in Harrisburg… it is easier for a lot of people to access those green spaces, which is really, really nice.” The esplanade has been maintained for more than a century and continues to serve residents and visitors alike.

However, the river’s civic transformation came at a cost. Expansion of the park displaced a working-class waterfront neighborhood known as Hardscrabble. In 1921, a judicial order required residents to vacate their properties so the city could extend the park to create formal gardens.

Stallions Bar; Photo by Warren LeMay [CC BY-SA]

As Harrisburg continues to navigate the pressures of serving as Pennsylvania’s capital while remaining home to 51,000 residents, the central question is how to align state-scale influence with local stability. Tree proposes a solution centered on comprehensive planning. “I think a comprehensive planning effort, a comprehensive goal, would help with that. So even if everyone’s not necessarily talking, we are all working in the same direction.” He notes that without these efforts “the silos are always going to go up, and you’re not necessarily going to know where they are.”

“I think creating an overarching goal that is well publicized that most people can get on board with and everyone starts to row in the same direction…it gets us to where we want to be.” Tree notes that it shouldn’t be the priority to dismantle inevitable institutional silos, but to establish shared objectives that can transcend them. He hopes that these efforts will better serve current residents. He describes a goal in which someone born in Harrisburg can grow up and say, “I still have opportunities here… I still have the ability to buy a house in the city. I still have the ability to get a good job. I still have the ability to get where I need to be and be civically or emotionally or socially engaged in some way.” If Harrisburg can define and commit to a shared civic direction, its role as capital doesn’t need to stand in tension with local needs. Instead, the very conditions that create its centrality and political importance can be leveraged to build long-term stability for the people who live there.