census 2000: key trends & implications for cities

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY

Census 2000: Key Trends & Implications for Cities

Center on Urban and Metropolitan PolicyBruce Katz, Director

The Brookings Institution

Macalester College

September 8, 2003



About Census 2000

Overview

5 Major Trends in the 1990s (and beyond)II.

I.

How do these trends play out across different types of cities?

III.

Where do we go from here?

IV. Where do the Twin Cities fit in?

V.



I. What is Census 2000?

Conducted in April 2000

One in six U.S. households answers additional ?s

Every household in the U.S. answered a few basic ?s

Place of birth; place of work; occupation; education; income; rent/mortgage

# people; age; race/ethnicity; sex; relationship; housing tenure

About Census 2000 ?

Census provides counts for numerous types of areasStates, metro areas, cities & towns, neighborhoods, zip codes, Cong. Districts



I. Does Census 2000 Still Matter Today?

Unemployment rate in April 2000: 3.8% (30-year low!)

(1) Stats like age, education, tenure, industry unlikely to change dramatically in three years

Unemployment rate in June 2003: 6.4%

About Census 2000 ?

(2) Relative rankings of places probably similar

but...

(3) 2000 economic stats set high-water mark for “Aughts”



Population Revitalization - & Decentralization

II. Five Major Trends in the 1990s (and beyond)

1.

Growth of the “New Sunbelt”2.

Immigration3.

Aging of the Boomers4.

Widening Inequality (Among People & Places)5.

Urban Center



1. Revitalization and Decentralization



Large cities grew faster in the 1990s than they did in the 1980s and 1970s

6.3%

9.8%

-1.6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

1970s 1980s 1990s

I. Revitalization & Decentralization

50 largest cities, population 1970-2000

Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data



Several large cities gained population during the 1990s after losing population in the 1980s

-7.4%-5.1% -5.5%

5.7% 6.5%

-7.3%

4.0%

18.6%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Atlanta Chicago Denver Memphis

1980s 1990s

Selected cities, population 1990-2000





City Population

Change

Number of Cities

MSA Population

ChangeCity Category

Rapid Growth (over 20%) 14 32% 25%

Significant Growth (10 to 20%) 22 15% 22%

Moderate Growth (2 to 10%) 36 7% 13%

No Growth (-2 to 2%) 6 0% 11%

Loss (below -2%) 20 -7% 6%

Cities in growing areas grew; cities in slow growthareas generally declined



Still, population is decentralizing in nearly every U.S. metropolitan area

4%

19%

7%9%

44%

16%18%

6%

22%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Atlanta Chicago Denver Memphis Top 100

City SuburbsSelected cities and suburbs, population 1990-2000





2. Growth of the New Sunbelt



Most population growth in the 1990s occurred in Southeastern and Western states--the “New Sunbelt”

States with above-average population growth: 1990-2000

II. Growth of the New Sunbelt

Source: Bill Frey calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data



New Sunbelt growth is largely attributable to domestic migration, often from the “Old Sunbelt”

1.9% 1.6%

-7.2%

12.2%

10.0%10.4%

7.4% 8.1%8.6%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

California Colorado Georgia

Immigration Migration Natural Increase

Selected states, components of growth, 1990-2000


Source: Bill Frey calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data



New Sunbelt cities are larger geographically, and often incorporate a more “suburban-like” population

Household types, selected cities, 2000


Married with kids

Married withoutkids

Single parent

Other family

Singles andnonfamilies

Phoenix Philadelphia




3. Immigration



Immigration to the U.S. increased in the 1990s & the foreign-born share of population approaches that in the early 1900s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%Population Percentage of Population

Number of foreign-born and share of population, United States,1900-2000

III. Immigration

Source: Lindsay and Singer, “Changing Faces: Immigrants and Diversity in the Twenty-First Century,” June 2003



42.6%38.3%

-8.5%

6.4%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Hispanic Black Asian White

Central City Growth in the 1990s was fueled by Asians and Hispanics



If not for immigration, several of the nation’s largest cities would not have grown during the 1990s

9.4%

4.0%2.6%

-1.4%

-3.9%

4.6%

18.1%

1.7%

-1.7%

-3.9%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Dallas New York Minneapolis-St. Paul

Chicago Boston

Overall Without immigration

Selected cities, population with and without foreign-born, 1990-2000

III. Immigration




In 2000, the top hundred cities became majority minority

2000

23 44

24

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Multi-racial



Yet in many metro areas, the locus of immigration is shifting from the central city to the suburbs

III. Immigration

Washington region, share foreign-born by census tract, 2000

Source: Singer, “At Home in the Nation’s Capital,” June 2003

D ISTRICT O FCO LUMBIA

ARLING TO N

ALEX AND RIA

FAUQ UIER

CHARLES

LO UD O UN

FAIRFAX

MO NTG O MERY

PRINCE G EO RG E'S

CALVERT

PRINCE WILLIAM

JEFFERSO N

I 66

I 95

I 270

I 495

Route 50

I 95

Percent Foreign Born (by Census Tract)

Less than 5%

5% - 15%

16% - 25%

26%- 35%

Greater than 35%



Suburbanization of the foreign-born is most pronounced in “emerging” gateways, many in the New Sunbelt

III. Immigration

Metro Area FB Growth 1990-2000 % FB Living in SuburbsEstablished GatewaysLos Angeles, CA 19% 56%Chicago, IL 61% 56%San Francisco, CA 26% 49%

Emerging Gateways

Atlanta, GA 263% 94%Las Vegas, NV 248% 65%Orlando, FL 140% 86%Washington, DC 70% 91%




4. Boomer Aging



The nation’s age profile is in transition from a “pyramid” to a “pillar”

IV. Boomer Aging

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

<5

85+

Male Female

Population

2020

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

<5

85+

Male Female

Population

1970

Source: Riche, “The Implications of Changing U.S. Demographics for Housing Choice and Location in U.S. Cities,” March 2001



Most Boomers live in the suburbs--and are “aging in place”

64%63%

70% 70%69%

68%

58%

60%

62%

64%

66%

68%

70%

72%

0-14 15-24 25-34 35-54 55-64 65 andup

Share of population in suburbs by age, large metros, 2000

Source: Frey, “Boomers and Seniors in the Suburbs,” February 2003

IV. Boomer Aging



As Boomers age, their households will grow smaller

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Average household size by age of householder, United States, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, June 2003

IV. Boomer Aging



Metros with large “Boomer” shares may have an opportunityto attract smaller households back to cities

Source: Frey, “Boomers and Seniors in the Suburbs,” February 2003

IV. Boomer Aging

1 San Francisco, CA 9 Vallejo, CA

2 Denver, CO 10 Jacksonville, FL

3 Seattle, WA 11 Columbus, OH

4 Washington, DC 12 Ann Arbor, MI5 Milwaukee, WI 13 Memphis, TN6 Richmond, VA 14 Baltimore, MD7 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 15 Fort Worth, TX8 Raleigh-Durham, NC

15 Suburbs in Which Boomers Make Up 1/3 of Population



5. Widening Inequality



Many cities--like Philadelphia--lost significant numbers of middle-class households in the 1990s

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

Low-Income Moderate-Income

Middle-Income

Upper-Middle-Income

Upper-Income

Ho

us

eh

old

s

1990 2000

Philadelphiahouseholds by income quintile, 1990-2000

V. Widening Inequality




Even in cities where incomes rose generally, the size of the middle class often shrank

-8,000

-7,000

-6,000

-5,000

-4,000

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0Cleveland Detroit Milwaukee St. Paul San Francisco

Change in middle-income households ($34k to $52k): 1990-2000





Income growth tracks educational attainment - and some places are “pulling away” from the pack

28.726.6

19.1

8.5

35.2 34.6

22.4

9.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Atlanta Kansas City Newark

1990 2000

% adults w/ bachelor’s degree, selected cities, 1990-2000





Still, race-based differences cut across these trends in nearly every city

10%14%

37% 39%

49%

72%

88%

75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hispanic Black White Asian

% Bachelor's % HS

Educational attainment: 100 largest cities, 2000





III. How do these trends play out across different types of cities?

Urban Center

“Coastal” Giants Talent Magnets

Regional Hubs Challenged Cores



Urban Center“Coastal” Giants

Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Washington

Examples

• Stable/Increasing Population

• Strong Immigration

• Boomer Magnets

• Employment Centers

• High Inequality - Income and Educational Attainment

• Very High Housing Costs

Dominant Census Characteristics



Urban CenterTalent Magnets

Atlanta, Austin, Denver, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, San Jose, Seattle

Examples

• Increasing Population, but Significant Decentralization

• High Immigration and Domestic Migration

• “Two Economy” Workforce

• Rapidly Escalating Housing Costs




Urban CenterRegional Hubs

Columbus, Dallas, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Louisville, Oklahoma City, Nashville, San Antonio

Examples

• Moderate to High Growth

• Significant Decentralization Metro-Wide and Within City

• Lower, but Growing Immigration

• Strong Middle Class

• High Levels of Work

• More Affordable Housing




Urban CenterChallenged Cores

Baltimore, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Hartford, Miami, Newark, New Orleans

Examples

• Significant Population Loss

• Highly Segregated Metros

• Little to No Immigration

• Employment Suburbanized

• Very Low Education Levels; Mostly Low-Wage Workforce

• Moderately-Priced Housing Out of Reach for Residents




IV. Where do the Twin Cities fit in?



The population of the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul was stable in the 1980s and experienced modest growth in the 1990s

-0.10%

4.55%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15% 1980s 1990s

Percent change in

population, 1980-

2000

Modest city growth



Making Minneapolis the 45th largest central city and St. Paul the 59th largest central city

Modest city growth

Minneapolis St. Paul



The Twin Cities metro grew at a faster rate than most other midwestern metros in both the 1980s and 1990s (and it surpassed the 100 largest metros’ rate of 14% in the 1990s)

Percent change in

population, 1980-

2000

Rapid Metro Growth

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1980s 1990s



2000 RankDallas, TX PMSA 3,519,176 9Boston, MA-NH PMSA 3,406,829 10Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA 3,254,821 11Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 3,251,876 12Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 2,968,806 13Orange County, CA PMSA 2,846,289 14San Diego, CA MSA 2,813,833 15Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA 2,753,913 16St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 2,603,607 17

Metro Population

Making it the 13th largest metro area

Rapid Metro Growth

Total population,

2000



4.6%

21.1%

-0.1%

21.9%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1980s 1990s

Central City SuburbsPercent change in

population, 1980

- 2000

The central cities failed to keep pace with the rapid growth in the surrounding suburbs

Rapid Metro Growth



The cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are currently experiencing a new increase in immigration

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Minneapolis-St PaulClevelandNew York, NYChicagoDallas, TXPercent of foreign

born residents, 1900 -

2000

Immigration



In both Minneapolis and St. Paul, foreign born residents make up 14% of the population

100 Largest Cities Percent RankAustin, TX 16.6% 34Fort Worth, TX 16.3% 35Aurora, CO 16.2% 36Arlington, TX 15.3% 37Minneapolis, MN 14.5% 38St. Paul, MN 14.3% 39Tucson, AZ 14.3% 40Bakersfield, CA 13.6% 41Portland, OR 13.0% 42Washington, DC 12.9% 43

Foreign Born

Immigration

Percent of foreign-born population, 2000



The Twin Cities are experiencing rapid growth rates in foreign-born population in both the central cities and the suburbs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

Central City SuburbsPercent change in

foreign born, 1990 -

2000

Immigration



The increased immigration is contributing to Minneapolis and St. Paul’s growing diversity In 1990, whites represented a large majority of the population in the central cities…

Hispanic or Latino, 3%

White80%

Black/African American

10%

Asian 5%

White


American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut

Asian or Pacif ic Islander

Other race

Hispanic or Latino

Shifting demographics

Percent share of population,1990



…by 2000, whites reduced their share of the central cities’ population by almost 20 percentage points

Indigenous2%

Hispanic or Latino8%

Two or more races3%

Asian or Pacific Islander

9%


15%

White 63%

White


Indigenous

Asian or Pacific Islander

Hispanic or Latino

Two or more races

Shifting demographics

Percent share of population,2000



The two central cities are national leaders: Minneapolis ranks 10th in educational attainment and St. Paul ranks 22nd. St. Paul’s rate is 8 percentage points higher than the national rate of 24% and Minneapolis’ rate is 13 points higher

Share of Pop. Over 25 w/B.A.s

100 Largest Cities 2000 RankColorado Springs, CO 33.6% 18Lincoln, NE 33.3% 19Portland, OR 32.6% 20Glendale, CA 32.1% 21St. Paul, MN 32.0% 22Albuquerque, NM 31.8% 23Baton Rouge, LA 31.7% 24San Jose, CA 31.6% 25Honolulu, HI 31.1% 26Oakland, CA 30.9% 27

Education

Share of Pop. Over 25 w/B.A.s

100 Largest Cities 2000 RankPlano, TX 53.3% 1Madison, WI 48.2% 2Seattle, WA 47.2% 3San Francisco, CA 45.0% 4Raleigh, NC 44.9% 5Scottsdale, AZ 44.1% 6Fremont, CA 43.2% 7Austin, TX 40.4% 8Washington, DC 39.1% 9Minneapolis, MN 37.4% 10

Minneapolis St. Paul



Both St. Paul’s and Minneapolis’s median household income rank in the middle of the 100 largest cities

Median household

income, 1999

Resident Median Income100 Largest Cities 2000 Rank

Boston, MA $39,629 41Denver, CO $39,500 42Nashville-Davidson, TN $39,232 43St. Paul, MN $38,774 44Chicago, IL $38,625 45Des Moines, IA $38,408 46New York, NY $38,293 47Albuquerque, NM $38,272 48Minneapolis, MN $37,974 49Columbus, OH $37,897 50Tacoma, WA $37,879 51Jersey City, NJ $37,862 52

Income and Employment



Among the nation’s 100 largest cities, the poverty rates of Minneapolis and St. Paul poverty rates rank in the middle

Share of persons

living below

Poverty line,

1999

Poverty

100 Largest Cities Percent RankAkron 17.5% 47San Antonio 17.3% 48Minneapolis 16.9% 49Oklahoma City 16.0% 50Fort Worth 15.9% 51Spokane 15.9% 52Tacoma 15.9% 53Phoenix 15.8% 54Riverside 15.8% 55Grand Rapids 15.7% 56St. Paul 15.6% 57Yonkers 15.5% 58

Central City Poverty




BUT MIND THE GAP The white educational attainment level is at least double every other race or ethnic group in the two central cities

Share of 25+

population with

BA,

2000

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

White Black Asian Latino

AmericanIndian

Hmong MexicanSubsaharanAfrican

Education



Whites have the highest median income among the race and ethnic groups in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

Median household

income per

race/ethnic groups,

1999




The Hmong community has the highest poverty rate, followed by sub-Saharan Africans

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

White

Black

Asian

Latino

American Indian

Hmong

Mexican

Subsaharan African

Persons living

below the poverty

line, 1999

Poverty



White homeownership rates are higher than all other race and ethnic groups

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Whit

eBlac

k

Asian

Latin

o

Amer

ican

Indian

Hmon

g

Mex

ican

Subsa

hara

n Afri

can

Homeownership

rate, 2000

Housing



Build Family Wealth

4

FIX THE BASICS

1

Build on Assets

2

Influence Metropolitan Growth

5

Create Quality Neighborhoods

3

V. The New Competitive Cities Agenda

Policy Agenda



Policy Agenda

Fix the Basics

Good schools

Safe streets

Competitive taxes and services

21st century infrastructure

Functioning real estate market

Policy Agenda



Policy Agenda

Build on Assets

Fixed institutions (universities and hospitals)

Employment clusters

Downtown

Waterfront

Cultural institutions/parks



Policy Agenda

Create Quality Neighborhoods

Neighborhood markets

Mixed-income communities

Home-ownership Opportunities

Access to capital

Policy Agenda



Policy Agenda

Build Family Wealth

Access to quality jobs

Income and work supports

Access to financial institutions

Asset building

Policy Agenda



Policy Agenda

Influence Metropolitan Growth

Metropolitan governance

Land-use reform

Transportation reform

Access to metropolitan opportunity

Urban reinvestment

Policy Agenda



www.brookings.edu/urban

census 2000: key trends & implications for cities

Documents

s selected cities

average population growth

census bureau datacities

census bureau data2

census bureau data3

census bureauchart10

cities towns

largest cities