The Changing Dynamics of Urban America Executive Summary March 30 , 2004 (original) (raw)

Growth and Change in U.S. Cities and Suburbs

Growth and Change, 2001

Differential rates of growth and decentralization are processes that characterized U.S. urban areas over the past three decades. This paper examines the determinants of growth in cities and suburbs during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. The modeling approach adopted in the study allows for simultaneity between population and employment, and between cities and suburbs, while also taking into account a range of other explanatory factors. Results indicate that population and employment growth in cities tend to be jointly determined, but that growth of employment in the suburbs tends to drive growth of suburban population. Results also suggest that suburban and city growth are interrelated, but that the nature of these interrelationships varies over time: suburban growth promoted city growth during the 1970s and 1980s, while city and suburban growth were jointly determined during the 1990s. Other factors that consistently explain variation in city growth include demographics, population density, crime rates, and income inequality. Factors consistently explaining suburban growth include regional location and climate.

Human capital and the rise of American cities, 1900–1990

Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2002

We propose that cities that start out with proportionately more knowledgeable people grow faster in the long run because (a) knowledge spillovers are geographically limited to the city and (b) much knowledge is most productive in the city within which it is acquired. We found that city-aggregates and metropolitan areas with higher average levels of human capital grew faster over the 20th century. The estimated effects of human capital were large: a standard deviation increase in human capital in 1900 was associated with a 38% increase in average annual employment growth of city-aggregates over the period 1900-86. The estimated effects for metropolitan areas were smaller but still economically significant: a standard deviation increase in 1940 human capital was associated with an increase in average annual employment growth over the period 1940-90 of about 15%. Although the rise of the automobile appears to have overwhelmed the importance of human capital in cities dominated by manufacturing early on, human capital seems to have been economically more important in manufacturing cities than in non-manufacturing cities later on. Moreover, the estimated effects of human capital persisted for very long periods of time, suggesting either that adjusting to the steady state is very lengthy, or that shocks to growth are correlated with the presence of human capital. Seattle, although competitors such as Loughhead (Lockheed) and Douglas set up shop in Southern California. George Eastman chose Rochester, and Bill Gates Seattle, for the same reason.

Components of Urban Growth for Large Urban Areas in the U.S., 1950-2010

Urban growth refers to both increases in the population and number of housing units in an urban area and the spatial expansion of the urban area. The growth of urban areas is frequently attributed to the development of new housing units in rural areas on the urban fringe, resulting in those areas being added to the urban area. The total increases in housing units in 57 large urban areas from 1950 to 2010 are divided into 4 components, the percentages of that growth that is new development in rural areas that become urban, housing units already present in those rural areas, areas added to the urban areas that were already urban but were not included previously because they were not contiguous to the urban area, and increases in housing units within the existing urban area. On average the development of new units in rural areas constituted only a small fraction of urban housing unit growth, with increases in the existing urban area accounting for on average over half of that growth.

Urban America (a review)

IJURR, 2009

Urban America: Growth, Crisis and Rebirth begins with an account of population distribution, jobs and the main economic indicators in urban America in 1950, when the US was separated into three regions (North-East, South and West), each showing distinct cultural and economic characteristics. In 1950, the NorthEast was the region with the majority of urban centers (including Chicago, then the second largest city) and home to 58% of the nation's population. The South was home to 44 million people, but had no urban centers of more than 1 million; it was also home to 63% of the nation's black population. The West, in 1950, was sparsely populated, accounting for 13% of the nation's population. The two largest urban centers were in California-Los Angeles and the Bay Area (San Francisco-Oakland). The infrastructure, good weather and oil gave way to rapid population growth in Californian cities, with many migrants moving to the state in the hope of a better future. McDonald then tackles the period 1950-70, an era characterized by urban growth and prosperity in the country as a whole. This was a period of great changes for the US, one of the most significant being, of course, the increasing labor force due to the participation of women. Another was the Great Migration of African Americans to the NorthEast. Suburbanization (triggered, in part, by racial tensions in central cities) is the most significant trend of the second half of the twentieth century. The population growth of the suburbs was equal to 28.7 million people, which accounts for 55% of the nation's population growth. The outcome of these changes was a very different labor force from the one that had existed up to then, with urban centers being most affected. The rapid growth of the West was another significant change of this era. Cities such as St Louis, Boston, Pittsburgh and Buffalo experienced a population decline of more than 20%, while, at the same time, the metropolitan areas of those same cities grew. During these two decades, the population of the South increased by 31.6%. Atlanta became the economic capital of the SouthEast , with the population growing by 131%. The population of Los Angeles doubled in 20 years, from approximately 5 million to 10 million, and the city became the second largest city in the US. The next section of the book is devoted to the years of urban crisis, which started in the 1970s. Racial riots expanded to many cities, including Cleveland, Detroit, Newark and Washington. The average population growth of the 17 NorthEastern metropolitan areas was 5.6% in 1970-90, compared to 40% in 1950-70. The population of cities such as New York, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Buffalo shrank. The median family income, which increased by 89% from 1949-69, increased by only 7.6% from 1969 to 1998, with the average income actually declining in Detroit. The decline of most metropolitan centers was evident in the collapsing central cities of New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Detroit. Another change that took place during this era was the change in the racial composition of the cities. The black population of the above cities skyrocketed, especially in Detroit (the city that suffered the worst urban riot of the 1960s in terms of lives lost), where the population of the central city was largely black and the suburbs almost exclusively white. Cities that suffered the least from the urban crisis of this era were those that were away from the industrial area of the NorthEast (Baltimore, Kansas City and Minneapolis). The urban crisis was less evident in the Sunbelt (South and West) but still had an effect on various cities. Atlanta was able to establish itself further as the economic center of the 'Old South', but was not able to avoid inner-city problems. Metropolitan Miami boomed in the 1970s and 1980s, but had its own share of

Human Capital in Large Metropolitan Areas in the United States

The Open Urban Studies Journal, 2009

The evidence indicates that human capital is an increasingly important determinant of where firms and households locate in the United States. Further, large metropolitan areas have been shown to have an advantage in attracting and producing highly skilled workers. The research in this study provides new information on the relationship between specific large metropolitan areas and educational attainment. The effects of metropolitan areas on educational attainment are separated out from the effects of demographic and family background, household location at age sixteen, and migration. It is shown that metropolitan areas either have no effect or very modest effects on attainment with a few exceptions. Data from the National Opinion Research Center's "General Social Survey" (GSS) are used. The GSS is a large cross-sectional national sample of respondents who are at least eighteen years old and live in a non-institutional setting. It has been taken either annually or biannually since 1972. Data are used for samples from 1993 to 2008 so that the paper has a contemporary focus.

Rapid Metropolitan Growth and Community Disparities

Growth and Change, 1992

Does rapid growth in a metropolitan area amplify or reduce disparities among its differentiated communities? Theoretical economic and political arguments can support both tendencies but lean in the direction of greater differentiation and disparities following a period of rapid regional growth. This article examines uneven population, employment and tax base growth as both causes and consequences of economic and social disparities. The analysis posits that growth bypasses the built-up and lowest income communities in favor of the more distant middle-income suburbs with extensive land for development. The implications of these uneven growth patterns are widening inter-municipal disparities consistent with growth rates. The analysis is carried out for the 365 contiguous jurisdictions in northern New Jersey, a region that experienced modest growth in the 1970s and rapid growth in the 1980s. The findings confirm the uneven pattern of growth and widening disparities during the growth spurt of the 1980s. N THIS PAPER, WE EXAMINE INCOME DIFFERENCES among the I numerous contiguous communities of a large metropolitan area, the effects of these income differences on the distribution of population and economic growth, and the effects of rapid growth on the distribution of income among communities. Aggregate city-suburban extreme differences in income as well as wealth, j o b access, race, provision of public services, and government institutions have been the traditional research focus for the study of metropolitan disparities. Prominent examples of such studies include those by Bradford and Kelejian (1973), Guest and Nelson (1978), Logan (1978), Logan and Schneider (1982), and Oakland (1979). We focus on pronounced income and related differences (i.e. disparities) in relation to growth because metropolitan areas increasingly exhibit greater income extremes among their own communities than across metropolitan areas themselves.

Small Cities Blues:" Looking for Growth Factors in Small and Medium-Sized Cities

Economic Development Quarterly, 2006

The purpose of this exploratory study is to attempt to identify particular public policies which have the potential to increase the economic viability of smaller metropolitan areas and cities. We identify characteristics associated with smaller metro areas that performed better-than-expected (winners) and worse-than-expected (losers) during the 1990s, given their resources, industrial mix, and location as of 1990. Once these characteristics have been identified, we look for evidence that public policy choices may have promoted and enhanced a metro area's ability to succeed and to regain control of its own economic destiny. Methodologically, we construct a regression model which identifies the small metro areas that achieved higher-than-expected economic prosperity (winners) and the areas that saw lower-than-expected economic prosperity (losers) according to the model. Next, we explore whether indications exist that winners and losers are qualitatively different from other areas in ways that may indicate consequences of policy choices. A cluster analysis is completed to group the metro areas based on changes in a host of social, economic, and demographic variables between 1990 and 2000. We then use contingency table analysis and ANOVA to see if "winning" or "losing," as measured by the error term from the regression, is related to the grouping of metro areas in a way that may indicate the presence of deliberate and replicable government policy. In today's dynamic global economy, smaller metropolitan areas in the United States have lost much of their economic role and vitality. These areas often are held hostage to decisions made in large company boardrooms . In particular, in the wake of corporate mergers, many areas are becoming branch plant production locations that, in turn, do not generate a social or civic environment attractive to professional workers. Moreover, because of mergers and closures, these areas often lose key private sector stakeholders who, in the past, would have been major players in creating and implementing public and private policies to bolster the area against the negative impacts of downsizing and relocations of major employers. In short, some question whether these smaller places really have a role in today's global economy Glaeser and Shapiro 2003).