Death of the Suburbs: Part Nauseum

kcsuburbs.gif

For decades, those who know best have been chronicling the death of the suburbs. In every new announcement of demographic data, they find evidence that people are “moving back” to the core cities, even though they never moved away. The coverage of the latest Bureau of the Census city population estimates set a new standard. “Cities Grow at Suburb’s Expense During Recession” was the headline in The Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News headlined “Census Shows Cities are Growing More Quickly than Suburbs.”

Robert E. Lang, co-director of Washington’s Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech noted that inner suburbs that have developed transit systems grew more last year and that others will begin to grow faster in the future. Lang specifically cites the Washington, DC suburbs of Alexandria and Arlington. William Frey of the Brookings Institution told Time magazine that the cities are “a lot better” able to withstand the “ups and downs” in the economy.

This is something for which no evidence was reported, but it was the “inside-the-beltway” (Washington) spin that Time and other media have been eager to adopt. Even the latest government numbers still showed the suburbs with a growth rate more than 20 percent above that of the core cities.

Premature Death Syndrome?

Despite the spin, an analysis of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population indicates that the nation’s suburbs are in no danger of being displaced as growth leaders by the central city. To start with, suburbs represent nearly 75 percent of the nation’s major metropolitan population. Further, the overwhelming evidence is that people continue to move out of the core cities in far larger numbers than they are moving in (net domestic migration).

In 2008, the core cities accounted for 23 percent of growth in the largest metropolitan areas. This is up from the decade annual average of 16 percent (Note 1). But this improvement is not the result of more people moving to the core cities but a huge decline in domestic migration, which has driven suburban growth for decades. Thus, the story in the latest census estimates is not that the cities are growing faster. It is rather that people are generally staying put amidst the steepest economic decline since the Great Depression. Stunted hopes, not a sudden enthusiasm for urban living, have driven the relative change.


Table 1
Metropolitan Area, Suburban and Core City Population: 2000-2008
Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000
  Metropolitan Area Suburbs Core City
Metropolitan Area 2000 2008 Change 2000 2008 Change 2000 2008 Change Share of Growth
Atlanta       4,282       5,376       1,094       3,861       4,838          977          421          538          117 11%
Austin       1,266       1,653          387          602          895          293          664          758            94 24%
Baltimore       2,557       2,667          110       1,909       2,030          122          649          637          (12) -11%
Birmingham       1,053       1,118            64          811          889            77          242          229          (13) -21%
Boston       4,402       4,523          121       3,813       3,914          101          589          609            20 16%
Buffalo       1,169       1,124          (45)          877          853          (24)          292          271          (21)
Charlotte       1,340       1,702          362          770       1,014          244          570          687          117 32%
Chicago       9,118       9,570          452       6,222       6,717          494       2,896       2,853          (43) -9%
Cincinnati       2,015       2,155          141       1,683       1,822          138          331          333              2 1%
Cleveland       2,148       2,088          (60)       1,671       1,655          (17)          477          434          (43)
Columbus       1,620       1,773          154          904       1,018          114          716          755            39 26%
Dallas-Fort Worth       5,196       6,300       1,104       4,006       5,020       1,014       1,190       1,280            89 8%
Denver       2,194       2,507          313       1,638       1,908          270          556          599            43 14%
Detroit       4,458       4,425          (32)       3,512       3,513              1          945          912          (33)
Hartford       1,151       1,191            40       1,027       1,066            40          124          124            (0) 0%
Houston       4,740       5,728          989       2,761       3,486          725       1,978       2,242          264 27%
Indianapolis       1,531       1,715          184          749          917          168          782          798            16 9%
Jacksonville       1,126       1,313          187          390          505          116          737          808            71 38%
Kansas City       1,843       2,002          159       1,442       1,563          122          401          439            38 24%
Las Vegas       1,393       1,866          473          909       1,307          399          484          558            74 16%
Los Angeles     12,401     12,873          472       8,697       9,039          342       3,704       3,834          130 28%
Louisville       1,165       1,245            80          613          687            74          552          557              6 7%
Memphis       1,208       1,224            16          518          554            36          690          670          (20) -130%
Miami       5,027       5,415          388       4,663       5,002          338          363          413            50 13%
Milwaukee       1,502       1,549            47          905          945            40          597          604              8 16%
Minneapolis-St. Paul       2,982       3,230          248       2,599       2,847          248          383          383              0 0%
Nashville       1,318       1,551          233          772          954          183          546          596            51 22%
New Orleans       1,316       1,134        (182)          832          822          (10)          484          312        (172)
New York     18,353     19,007          653     10,338     10,643          305       8,016       8,364          348 53%
Oklahoma City       1,098       1,206          108          590          654            64          508          552            44 41%
Orlando       1,657       2,055          398       1,464       1,824          360          193          231            37 9%
Philadelphia       5,693       5,838          146       4,179       4,391          212       1,514       1,447          (66) -46%
Phoenix       3,279       4,282       1,003       1,952       2,714          762       1,326       1,568          242 24%
Pittsburgh       2,429       2,351          (78)       2,095       2,041          (54)          334          310          (24)
Portland       1,936       2,207          271       1,406       1,650          244          530          558            28 10%
Providence       1,587       1,597            10       1,413       1,425            12          174          172            (2) -23%
Raleigh          804       1,089          284          514          696          182          290          393          102 36%
Richmond       1,100       1,226          126          902       1,024          121          198          202              4 3%
Rochester       1,042       1,034            (8)          822          827              5          219          207          (13)
Riverside-San Bernardino       3,278       4,116          838       3,020       3,821          800          258          295            38 4%
Sacramento       1,809       2,110          301       1,399       1,646          247          409          464            55 18%
St. Louis       2,724       2,841          116       2,378       2,486          109          347          354              7 6%
Salt Lake City          973       1,116          143          791          934          143          182          182            (0) 0%
San Antonio       1,719       2,031          312          555          680          125       1,164       1,351          187 60%
San Diego       2,825       3,001          176       1,597       1,722          124       1,228       1,279            51 29%
San Francisco       4,137       4,275          137       3,360       3,466          106          778          809            31 23%
San Jose       1,740       1,819            79          841          871            29          899          948            50 63%
Seattle       3,052       3,345          292       2,489       2,746          258          564          599            35 12%
Tampa-St. Petersburg       2,404       2,734          329       2,100       2,393          293          304          341            37 11%
Tucson          849       1,012          163          359          470          111          489          542            52 32%
Virginia Beach       1,580       1,658            78       1,346       1,424            78          234          234            (0) 0%
Washington       4,821       5,358          537       4,249       4,766          517          572          592            20 4%
Total   152,409   166,323     13,914   109,318   121,097     11,778     43,090     45,226       2,136 15%
Population in 000s                    
City share column blank where both metropolitan area & city lost population          
Metropolitan areas are named after their largest city or cities. The first city listed is the core city, except in Virginia Beach where the core city is Norfolk.
Italization indicates that core city was largely built out in 1960 and has annexed little or no territory.
Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data for county based metropolitan areas  



On close examination, the recent better relative performance of the cities stemmed from three factors, none of which involved people moving to them from the suburbs or anywhere else in the nation.

(1) Decline in Domestic Migration

Suburban growth has declined because the economic downturn has reduced the number of residents moving from one part of the country to another (domestic migrants). In 2008, net domestic migration fell to 30 percent below the decade average. The suburbs and exurbs were the largest gainers from domestic migration in past and have thus declined the most. This is not surprising, given the fact that a major part of subprime mortgage crisis that precipitated the Panic of 2008 (or the Great Recession) was the granting of mortgages to under-qualified households who stretched their financial resources to move to places where housing was the least expensive. Many of these households defaulted on their mortgages, were forced out of their houses and moved away.

Nonetheless, as a new Bureau of the Census report indicated, in each of 12 large metropolitan areas analyzed the percentage growth in the exurbs was greater than in the core city. So even in the worst of times, the basic claim by the “inside-the-beltway” analysts and the media were totally off-base.

The slowdown in net domestic migration also has pushed up city population growth. Fewer people moved away from the core cities than in the past. This, however, is different from people moving into the cities from the suburbs.

It seems likely that stronger domestic migration gains will be restored to the suburbs when the economy improves. In the meantime, the growth rates of both the core cities and the suburbs have converged toward the natural rate of growth (births minus deaths).

(2) Net International Migration

County level data indicates that net international migration was only 9 percent below the decade average in 2008. The core cities have routinely attracted more international migrants than the suburbs. This, combined with a decline in domestic migration among metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population helped to improve the growth rate of the core counties relative to the suburbs.

(3) Not Adding Up: City Estimates

Putting it frankly, the births minus deaths, plus domestic migration and international migration fall far short of the increases being reported in the core cities. This can be shown by examining the only core cities for which full “component of population change” data is available (natural increase, net domestic migration and net international migration). The Bureau of the Census does not release component data at any level of government below counties or their equivalents. In five cases, cities are fully consolidated with counties.

The consolidated city-counties are New York (an amalgamation of five counties, or boroughs), Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore and Washington (DC). Some places referred to as consolidated city-county governments are not genuine amalgamations, because some separate cities remain, such as in Miami, Jacksonville, Louisville and Indianapolis. An examination of the components of population in the five genuinely consolidated city-county jurisdictions reveals huge unallocated discrepancies (the Bureau of the Census term is “residuals”).

Combining the births, deaths, net domestic migration and net international migration all of the five cities produces a population loss. The difference is the unallocated residual, which is huge in four of the five city-counties and a number of others and is small in most places that are not core cities.

This unexplained “residual” is largely the result of the Bureau of the Census population “challenge” program. Four of the five consolidated cities have mounted successful challenges to their estimates and have thus added significantly to their populations. In San Francisco and Washington, the challenges added more population than the 2000-2007 gain (2008 challenges are yet to be filed). In New York, the challenges amounted to 80 percent of the 2000-2007 growth (Table 2).




Table 2
Unallocated Residuals & Estimates Challenges : 2000-2007
Fully Consolidated City-County Jurisdictions
  Change in Population: 2000-2007 Unallocated Residual: 2000-2007 Successful Census Challenges: 2000-2007
With Successful Challenges      
Baltmore               (8,400)            34,700                 56,400
New York            294,500          325,000               236,100
San Francisco              21,700            37,400                 34,200
Washington              16,100            19,900                 31,500
Subtotal            323,900          417,000               358,200
No Successful Challenges      
Philadelphia             (65,200)             (6,800) 0
Unallocated Residual: Population Change not accounted for in births, deaths, international migration or domestic migration
Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data.  



This is just the beginning of the story. More than one-half of the core city growth in the decade has been attributable to similar challenges. In contrast, only three percent of suburban population growth has been attributable to challenges. It does seem curious that the Bureau of the Census that has produced such erroneous estimates in places like New York (230,000), Atlanta’s Fulton County (110,000) and St. Louis (40,000), missed not a soul Los Angeles, Chicago, Cleveland, Phoenix and a host of other core cities and thousands of counties. The next census (2010) may be a good gauge of the challenge program’s accuracy, although it is not beyond imagining that anti-suburban elements may seek to politicize the results.

Inner Suburbs

Further, the theory of inner suburban growth is left wanting, even in the Washington area. Despite their transit improvements, between 2000 and 2008, Arlington and Alexandria lost 45,000 domestic migrants, both losing in every year except 2008 (in both cases, additions due to challenges were greater than the 2000-2007 population increase). Washington’s other inner suburbs, Fairfax County, Montgomery County and Prince Georges County are served by the same transit system (largely paid for by the taxpayers around the country), yet between them have lost another 240,000 domestic migrants between 2000 and 2008. On the other hand, the second ring suburbs have gained 112,000 migrants and the exurbs have gained 104,000 (See Figure). During the last year, the inner suburbs grew at approximately one-third the rate of the outer suburbs. And despite the subprime induced distress in the exurbs, the inner suburbs could achieve no better a rate. Analysts may trade anecdotes at coffee houses about people moving to the city or the inner suburbs from the exurbs or beyond. However, the Bureau of the Census data is clear. For every anecdote that that moves in, more than one moves out.

The Numbers Tell it All

When the 2008 county and metropolitan area population estimates were published a few months ago, we showed that the central counties (Note 2) continue to lose residents at a rapid rate. Among the metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population, central counties lost 4.6 million domestic migrants, while suburban counties gained 2.0 million domestic migrants between 2000 and 2008. Over the past year, the core counties lost a net 314,000 domestic migrants while the suburbs gained 197,000 (Table 3).


Table 3
Domestic Migration: Core and Suburban Counties: 2000-2008
Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population
  Latest Year: 2007-2008 Decade: 2000-2008
Metropolitan Area Suburban Core Total Suburban Core Total
Atlanta          32,925          10,126          43,051        395,836          (1,749)        394,087
Austin          24,216          10,825          35,041        156,890          41,142        198,032
Baltimore          (6,000)          (6,352)        (12,352)          32,952        (67,923)        (34,971)
Birmingham            5,658          (2,356)            3,302          48,700        (25,755)          22,945
Boston          (2,889)          (5,372)          (8,261)      (154,086)        (99,006)      (253,092)
Buffalo             (358)          (4,127)          (4,485)          (5,933)        (48,232)        (54,165)
Charlotte          21,327          13,060          34,387        125,223          93,513        218,736
Chicago               921        (43,031)        (42,110)        160,765      (667,507)      (506,742)
Cincinnati            3,803          (7,372)          (3,569)          65,905        (85,538)        (19,633)
Cleveland               861        (15,757)        (14,896)          14,726      (141,445)      (126,719)
Columbus            3,325             (826)            2,499          64,211        (40,624)          23,587
Dallas-Fort Worth          62,022        (18,847)          43,175        514,011      (254,016)        259,995
Denver          13,940            3,932          17,872          86,262        (50,881)          35,381
Detroit        (17,020)        (45,140)        (62,160)        (53,478)      (273,695)      (327,173)
Hartford               379          (4,065)          (3,686)          10,789        (21,639)        (10,850)
Houston          38,559          (1,835)          36,724        279,389        (89,222)        190,167
Indianapolis          11,747          (5,040)            6,707        113,378        (51,262)          62,116
Jacksonville            8,723          (3,955)            4,768        101,954          20,185        122,139
Kansas City            4,908          (3,495)            1,413          57,007        (34,481)          22,526
Las Vegas (*)
Los Angeles        (12,033)      (103,004)      (115,037)      (232,281)   (1,006,985)   (1,239,266)
Louisville            4,281               818            5,099          38,420          (9,798)          28,622
Memphis            5,986        (10,533)          (4,547)          49,979        (52,412)          (2,433)
Miami        (18,598)        (28,399)        (46,997)          31,551      (252,098)      (220,547)
Milwaukee               939          (7,382)          (6,443)          13,987        (86,392)        (72,405)
Minneapolis-St. Paul            1,179          (4,619)          (3,440)          61,162        (86,920)        (25,758)
Nashville          17,172             (547)          16,625        128,921        (19,094)        109,827
New Orleans          (2,520)          22,856          20,336        (72,561)      (233,021)      (305,582)
New York        (68,081)        (76,018)      (144,099)      (672,435)   (1,118,025)   (1,790,460)
Oklahoma City            5,707             (226)            5,481          42,399        (10,302)          32,097
Orlando          10,495          (7,342)            3,153        174,428          55,611        230,039
Philadelphia          (9,639)        (12,209)        (21,848)          36,553      (144,849)      (108,296)
Phoenix          22,614          28,463          51,077        117,550        411,697        529,247
Pittsburgh            1,169          (3,601)          (2,432)            5,221        (60,564)        (55,343)
Portland          10,641            7,355          17,996        106,163          (4,247)        101,916
Providence          (3,983)          (6,643)        (10,626)        (13,399)        (34,136)        (47,535)
Raleigh            6,030          23,238          29,268          35,263        132,769        168,032
Richmond            5,625               937            6,562          76,608          (4,095)          72,513
Riverside-San Bernardino (*)
Rochester             (425)          (3,325)          (3,750)          (7,121)        (36,181)        (43,302)
Sacramento            8,255          (3,731)            4,524          97,304          34,798        132,102
St. Louis               561          (6,253)          (5,692)          17,988        (57,090)        (39,102)
Salt Lake City            1,407          (1,164)               243          10,191        (41,646)        (31,455)
San Antonio          10,850          11,941          22,791          69,824          84,409        154,233
San Diego (*)
San Francisco            4,092            1,414            5,506      (269,093)        (80,543)      (349,636)
San Jose             (528)          (2,097)          (2,625)          (6,119)      (221,378)      (227,497)
Seattle            7,894            3,975          11,869          61,244        (38,132)          23,112
Tampa-St. Petersburg            8,610          (2,100)            6,510        169,346          91,106        260,452
Tucson (*)
Virginia Beach        (11,093)          (4,430)        (15,523)            7,486        (15,941)          (8,455)
Washington        (16,637)          (1,622)        (18,259)        (77,894)        (43,457)      (121,351)
Total        197,017      (313,875)      (116,858)     2,015,186   (4,645,051)   (2,629,865)
* Indicates no suburban county(ies)
Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data for county based metropolitan areas



There is a simple test that the reporters and the analysts can apply. When the cores experience net domestic migration gains and the suburbs experience net domestic migration losses, only then can it be claimed that people are moving to the cores are gaining at the expense of the suburbs. The reality is that between 2000 and 2008, there was not a single instance out of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population where there was suburban net out-migration and core county net in-migration. There was one case in 2008, but it was an anomaly. The suburbs of New Orleans lost a modest number of domestic migrants, while the city gained strongly. This occurred because people moved back to the city in large numbers, after more than half left due to Hurricane Katrina.

Spin can change perceptions, but not reality. People are not moving from the suburbs to the core cities. The reverse continues to be true, even in the worst of times.


Note 1: Excludes New Orleans due to significant population variations from Hurricane Katrina.

Note 2: Counties are the smallest jurisdiction for which the Bureau of the Census publishes migration data.

Reference: Demographia 2000-2008 Metropolitan Area Population & Migration: http://www.demographia.com/db-metmic2004.pdf

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris. He was born in Los Angeles and was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley. He is the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.



















Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

For decades, those who know

For decades, those who know best have been chronicling the death of the suburbs. In every new announcement of demographic data, they find evidence that people are “moving back” to the core cities, even though they never moved away. The watch anime online coverage of the latest Bureau of the Census city population estimates set a new standard. “Cities Grow at Suburb’s Expense During Recession” was the headline in The Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News headlined “Census Shows read manga online Cities are Growing More Quickl

For decades, those who know

For decades, those who know best have been Ansatsu Kyoushitsu chronicling the death of the suburbs. In every new announcement of demographic data, they find evidence that people are “moving back” to the core cities, even though they never moved away. The coverage of the latest Bureau of the Census city population hunter x hunter anime watch estimates set a new standard. “Cities Grow at Suburb’s Expense During Recession” was the headline in The Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News headlined “Census Shows Cities are Growing More Quickl

I really like your manner of

I really like your manner of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site record and can be checking again soon. Pls check out my website as well and let me know what you think. ChatRandom

reverse mortgage north carolina

"A north-carolina Reverse Mortgage can help seniors who would like to stay in their home the financial security and piece of mind. In order to qualify for a reverse mortgage, a homeowner must be at least 62 years or older, live in their home, have enough equity in their home and the home be a qualified property type.

Reverse Mortgage in north-carolina"

http://www.reversemortgagelendersdirect.com/north-carolina-reverse-mortg...

The author is completely delusional

This is the most ridiculous article I've read regarding this topic. People are obviously moving back into the cities and inner cores. Anyone who lives in Washington, Arlington or Alexandria can confirm this. I live in the Court house neighborhood of north Arlington on the 20th floor of a high rise that was built in 2000. From my apartment, I can see 40 other high rises that were built within the last 10 years. The population within walking distance of the metro spots has exploded. I don't have any numbers to quantify this, but there is zero chance that the population growth can exceed that in the burbs. The same can be said for downtown D.C. Neighborhoods continue to be gentrified and people are moving back into the city. The 2010 census will confirm this trend. I don't have any manipulated numbers to confirm my observations, but it's very obvious that the population has exploded in the Arlington and downtown D.C within the last 10-20 years. His manipulated numbers way indicate otherwise because the poor are moving OUT of cities while highly skilled professionals move IN. This is very important because this trend suggests increased home values in the downtown and inner core, and seriously depressed values in the outer burbs. The fact that he doesn't touch on the increased crime in the burbs and decrease in the cities and inner core clearly shows his numbers aren't telling the whole story

It is clear that urban sprawl has reached a tipping point. Home prices far from inner cores without access to public transportation will deteriorate into slums within the next 25-50 years. The cost of transportation and inefficiencies of living in the suburbs will depress home values further. Most suburban communities are already experiencing increased crime, poverty, and budget shortfalls. This will continue to depress property values further. Single-family homes will be converted into multi-family apartments.

The fact that crime and poverty rates are increasing in the suburbs and decreasing in the city is a clear indication of the migration from the burbs to city, and vice versa. The author is completely clueless of the impeding massive exodus from the burbs..

Suburban Growth

When the home market crashed those that oppose the suburbs shouted for joy as the end of sprawl. People will no longer go to the outer edge to seek their space in characterless cookie-cutter subdivisions because they could not afford the combined house payments, nor the increased gas bill to fill their SUV(s). This new age of city dwellers in higher density communities close to the cities core (everybody does work in the core, don't they?) will stop greenhouse gases dead in their track - finally! Well, not so... The initial development of much of the suburban regions, especially in suburban middle class was characterless, dysfunctional, and lacking trails, walks, and services. However in the past decade there has been a shift, in some areas slowly, in others more agressive to create better suburban neighborhoods without over-densifying - creating a more desirable outer edge. In this next decade when the market recovers there will be even more of a shift attracting more urban dwellers outside the core cities.

As far as gas prices determining commute distance, thanks to the new CAFE rules, those 12MPG SUV(s) of the past will soon get twice the gas mileage, but more important is that families will choose much more efficient transportation to live on the edge, perhaps with 3 or 4 times the efficiency, thus if gas shoots up to $4 or $5 a gallon, their cost to commute will still be less than a few years ago.

Moving to the urban core more than likely means moving into an older home that will be much less efficient than a newer suburban home built in the 1990's or today. In fact there is legislation to emulate the CAFE for new homes, that if passed pretty much guarantees that a new suburban home would be far more efficient than an older urban home. Yes you could upgrade the older urban home, but to even get remotely close to the efficiency of a new suburban home means switching windows, HVAC, and tearing up the home to insulate the thin 4" walls ... a prospect that should set one back $50,000 or $33,000 after the tax credits apply. Payments and interest on this home improvement will take a very long time to pay back, if ever.

So the arguement for commute expense is weak... pay at the gas pumps (not true if they trade in the SUV, now aided by the proposed $4,500 tax credit being pushed through)... in return for monthly utility bills being $200 or more than that efficient suburban home or much more when the new legislation forces more efficient new homes. Yes gas at the pumps will go up, but it's probably matched by increasing home energy prices. And lastly those in the suburbs can always car pool, you can't house pool utility bills.

Rick Harrison

Another good article

@Wendall,

Another good article with lots of data. As someone who lives in the core city of Denver, I can tell you that the burbs will see higher growth for the foreseeable future.
1. Lower housing costs. Denver is 2x for comparable buildings.
2. Larger lot sizes. Denver is 8-10 to the acre.
3. Better schools. Denver's suck. Data show abysmal scores.
4. Newer buildings. Americans like new. Hate old.

@Arlington,

Good point. For example: San Diego. 370 square miles. Approximately equal to every city and town inside Route 128 around Boston. I exaggerate, but only slightly.

Agreed

Responding to Arlington...

Could not agree more. Will write on this in the future.

Best regards,
Wendell Cox

census data classification really needs improvement

How many people who buy a 4 br home on 1 acre within the limits of Charlotte, Jacksonville, or San Jose feel that they are moving to the "core city"? They're choosing the same suburban lifestyle as someone in Marietta, San Mateo, or Newton.

A better way of classifying would be by density of census tracts, not by jurisdictional boundaries.