POPUlATION BULLETINVol. 45, No.2, July 1990
MetropolitanAmerica:Beyond theTransitionBy William H. Frey
~ A publication of the~ Population Reference Bureau, Inc.
,~"...~. '1'"~' .., •/f" ,._>~
.r-'. ~':.o.'
Abstract-Americans have always gravitated toward cities, and for most of this century,urban growth has conti nued at a fast pace. During the 1970s,however, non metro pol itan areas grew at the expense of many large metropolitan areas, especially thosein the industrial centers of the Northeast and Midwest. New patterns of populationdistribution appeared to be emerging. This Bulletin analyzes the trends of the 1970s,the so-called "transition decade," the shifting patterns of the 1980s, and likelyprospects for future growth in metropolitan areas. The "rural rennaisance" resultedfrom a combination of forces, including improved infrastructure in nonmetropolitanareas, growing demand for retirement and recreation spots, the entrance of thelarge baby-boom cohort into the labor force, and the economic situation both athome and abroad. Some of these same forces have shifted settlement patterns inthe 1980s, helping create "World Cities," like New York and San Francisco, andregional "Command and Control Centers" such as Atlanta and Minneapolis-St.Paul, that will continue to gain in both population and influence. Yet nonmetropolitan areas still attract retirees and other former urbanites.
The distribution of minority groups among metropolitan populations is also undergoing significant change. The heavy immigration of Hispanics and Asians in the1980s has increased the proportion of these groups, particularly in metropolitanareas in the South and West. More black Americans are moving to suburbs formerlydominated by whites. Yet large pockets of poverty-of both blacks and whitesremain in both suburban and central city areas.
Editor: Bryant RobeySeries Editor: Mary Mederios KentAssistant Editor: Kane Scarlett
Production Manager: Tracey A. SmithProduction Assistant: Martha HerrGraphics: Type & Graphics, Inc.
The Population Bulletin is published four times a year and is distributed along with the other publicationslisted on the back cover to members of the Population Reference Bureau. If you would like to order additionalcopies of this Bulletin or join PRB, contact the Population Reference Bureau, Inc., Circulation Department,777 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; telephone: (202) 639-8040. Visa and MasterCard accepted.Annual PRB membership rates inside the United States: individuals, $45; educators, $30; students, $25;libraries/nonprofit organizations, $55; other organizations, $200. Outside the United States: individuals, $56;educators, $38; students, $28; libraries/nonprofit organizations, $68; other organizations, $250.
For information on other Population Bulletins, see page 50.The suggested citation, if you quote from this publication, is: William H. Frey, "Metropolitan America: Beyond
the Transition," Population Bulletin, Vol. 45, NO.2 (Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau, Inc.,July 1990). For permission to reproduce substantial portions from the Population Bulletin, write PopulationReference Bureau, Inc., Permissions, 777 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20005.
<D 1990, by the PopUlation Reference Bureau, Inc.
The Population Bulletin is indexed in GEO Abstracts, PAIS Bulletin, Population Index, Social SciencesIndex, and Social Sciences Citation Index. It is included in the coverage of Current Contents/Socialand Behaviorial Sciences, Biosciences Information Service of Biological Abstracts and the CICRED/UNFPA Review of Population Reviews, and is available in microform from University Microfilms Inc.,300 North Zeeb, Ann Arbor, MI48106. Selected Bulletins are alSo included in the coverage of and areavailable on microfiche through ERIC Systems.
,
)
Metropolitan America: Beyond the TransitionPage
Introdu ction 3The Fortunes of the Metropolis 5The Regional Dimension 14The Top 20 Metropolitan Areas 17Metropol itan Winners and Losers 24The Metropolitan Minority Population 30Central Cities and Their Suburbs 33Conclusion: Beyond the Transition 38References 40Appendix Table: U.S. Metropolitan Areas Ranked by 1988 Population 43Suggested Readings 48Discussion Points 49
Boxes1. Defining the Metropolitan Area 62. Measuring Metropolitan Change 73. Theories Explaining the Metropolitan Transition 104. The Demography of Population Growth and Decline 20
Tables1. Number and Population of U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1910-1988 52. Average Annual Population Change for Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas
within U.S. Regions: 1960-70, 1970-80, and 1980-88 153. The 20 Largest Metropolitan Areas, 1988 184. Top 10 Metropolitan Area Gainers and Losers in North, South, and West
Regions, 1980-1988 265. Baby-Boom Magnets and Losers: Metropolitan Areas with 250,000 or More
Residents in 1985 286. Elderly Magnet Metropolitan Areas, 1985 297. Metropolitan Areas with the Largest Populations of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians
and Other Races, 1985 31
Figures1. Average Annual Population Growth for Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas,
1960-1988 122. Metropolitan Areas by Region, United States, 1988 143. Average Annual Change for the 20 Largest Metropolises, 1970-1980 and 1980-1988 194. Annual Population Change, Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1970-1988 225. Racial and Ethnic Composition of Central Cities and Suburbs in Large
Metropol itan Areas, 1988 346. Racial and Ethnic Composition of Selected Central Cities, 1988 357. Percent of Central City and Suburban Households in Poverty by Race, Large
Metropolitan Areas, 1988 368. Baby Boom and Older Household Heads by Level of Affluence, Central Cities
and Suburbs, 1988 38
POPUlATION BULLETIN
Vol. 45, No.2, July 1990
.1
2
::J.•~::J
lD
~B";;;
'>•••c:oE~c:oU
>'Z
Metropolitan America: Beyond the Transition
By William H. Frey
William H. Frey is Research Scientist and Associate Director for Training of the Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.He is also Adjunct Professor of Sociology anda faculty affiliate of the Program in Urban,Technological and Environmental Planning.Dr. Frey received a Ph.D. in sociology fromBrown University in 1974, and has formerlyheld positions at the University of Washingtonand the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In1980-81 he was a Visiting Research Scholarat the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Austria) and in 1988 was theAndrew W. Mellon Research Scholar at thePopulation Reference Bureau. Dr. Frey haswritten widely on issues relating to migration,population redistribution, and the demography of metropolitan areas. He is author (withAlden Speare, Jr.) of the 1980 census monograph, Regional and Metropolitan Growthand Decline in the United States (New York:Russell Sage, 1988).
In preparing this Bulletin, the author hasbenefited from the suggestions of AldenSpeare, Jr. of Brown University, Richard L.Forstall of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, andGlenn V. Fuguitt of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Useful data and backgroundmaterials were provided by the U.S. Bureauof the Census, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. At the University of Michigan, computer programming was performed by CathySun and research assistance was renderedby Anne Croisier. The author also wishes toacknowledge the expert editorial assistanceprovided by Mary Kent and Bryant Robey ofPRB.
The concentration of America's population in large, expanding cities has beenamong the most powerful and longstanding of this nation's demographictrends. Throughout most of our history,cities have attracted larger populationsthan the countryside. The reasons are
many. Since the early days of the nation,immigrants clustered in the centralcities of large ports of entry. The declineof agriculture in favor of manufacturingand services-initiated by the IndustrialRevolution-created a stream ofmigrants who left the countryside forurban areas. Big cities offered employment and the hope of a better life. Suburbs grew up around the cities to provide housing for the expanding workforce and its families. By the middle ofthis century, the growth of metropolitanareas-central cities and their suburbs-was in full force.
Then during the 1970s,this long-standing trend toward population concentration suddenly appeared to reverse itself.Nonmetropolitan areas across much ofthe country started growing faster thanmetropolitan areas. So strong was thisnew trend that it gave rise to the term"rural renaissance." Several of thenation's largest metropolises actuallylost population, while some parts of therural South and West gained rapidly.
These developments represented asignificant shift in historic populationredistribution patterns. The 1970s weredescribed by some observers as a "transition decade.'" The fact that similarreversals were taking place in otherdeveloped nations lent credence to theview that fundamental changes wereoccurring in America.2
In the 1980s, nonmetropolitan Americadid not fare as well as in the 1970s,though population growth appeared tobe reviving in some nonmetropolitanareas toward the end of the decade.While the 1980s also treated many smallmetropolitan areas in manufacturing
3
regions poorly, several large northernmetropolitan areas made impressivecomebacks, and their central citiesstemmed the severe population declinesof the 1970s. Many large metropolitanareas in the nation's heartland have yetto recover from the economic declinesof the 1970s; other areas, particularly onthe two coasts, have managed to transform their economies.
Asian immigrants contributed heavilyto population growth in some large metropolitan areas in the 1980s, includingLos Angeles and San Francisco. Mexican immigration also spurred growth inthese areas and along our southern border. America's large and increasinglymobile elderly population has broughtgains to many fast-growing metropolitan areas in Florida and other retirementmagnets. Other metropolitan areas inthe South and West are building onregional reputations to become national"Command and Control Centers."
New regional alliances are emergingout of current economic and demographic trends. Much heralded tensionsbetween Snowbelt and Sunbelt, andbetween metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas that arose in the 1970s arebeing replaced by new strains.
As the 1990s begin, population growthcontinues to be most robust along the
nation's East and West Coasts. Theiramenities and attractiveness to immigrants combine with national and international economic trends which favorareas that provide advanced services,"World Cities," and "Defense Perimeters."3 Some of this growth has been atthe expense of interior regions that oncespecialized in heavy industry, petroleum, and farming, but whose declinehas challenged them to restructure theireconomies or face population losses.
This Bulletin examines recent population distribution trends, evaluating theexperience of the 1980sagainst the stunning metropolitan and regional patternsof the previous decade. In doing so, itanswers such questions as whether"rural renaissance" was only a shortterm trend, whether northern metropolises will grow or decline in the future,and whether the South and West willcontinue to boom. The Bulletin alsolooks at such important trends as gentrification and the emergence of urban poverty zones.
Population redistribution affects manyaspectsof American life-political representation, taxing and spending, corporate investment, and even the fate of thenation itself. As metropolitan Americamoves "beyond the transition," whatdoes the future hold in store?
New York, one of only six U.S. metropolitan areas with 1 million or more residents in 1910, is still the nation'slargest, with 18.1 million residents in 1988.
4
I. •
Table 1. Number and Population of U.S.Metropolitan Areas, 1910-1988
19101930195019701988
Number of metropolitan areasAll areas
71115169243283Areas with 1 million or more residents
610143337
Metropolitan area populations (millions)All areas
34.561.084.8139.4189.4Areas with 1 million or more residents
16.531.744.980.6120.4
Percent of U.S. populationin metropolitan areasAll areas
37.549.756.068.677.0Areas with 1 million or more residents
17.525.829.639.649.0
Total U.S. population (millions)
92.0122.8151.3203.2245.8
Source: Bogue, Donald, Population Growth in Standard Metropolitan Areas, 1900-1950 (Washington, D.C.:Housing and Home Finance Agency, 1953); U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1950 and 1970 Censuses of Population,and 1988 population estimates compiled by the Population Division.
The Fortunes of
the MetropolisThe nation's largest cities and the territory around them, particularly on theEast Coast, have grown continuouslysince the nation's early years. Much ofthe metropolitan growth in our first century reflected the steady flows of European immigrants to America. Toward theend ofthe 1800s, as America turned fromfarming to industry as the engine of itseconomic growth, large streams of ruralmigrants began to flow into citiesthroughout the country.
Metropolitan growth has remainedstrong throughout most of the 20th century (see Table 1). Between 1910 and1988,while the national population grewby 167percent, the metropolitan population grew by 449 percent, and metropolitan areas with at least 1 million residentsgrew by 630 percent. In contrast, the population in non metropolitan territory hovered within a narrow range (between 56and 67 million) throughout this 78-yearperiod.
The growth of areas with populationsof 1 million or more has been an impor-
tant aspect of metropolitan development. In 1910, only 6 areas, all in theNortheast or eastern Midwest (NewYork, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh,Chicago, and St. Louis) had 1 millionor more residents. By 1950, the numberhad reached 14, with all but 2 (LosAngeles and San Francisco) in the Northeast or Midwest. Since then, the numberhas almost tripled. This rapid growth isthe result not only of populationincrease itself but also the "graduation"of smaller metropolitan areas into themillion-plus category.
The very concept of the metropolitanarea is the result of historic populationtrends. Standard metropolitan areadefinitions were used in the 1950Censusto reflect the steady and massive concentration of population in cities and theirsuburbs.4 Beginning with the 1960 Census, these areas were labeled "Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas"(SMSAs). Later, the expansion of somelarge metropolitan areas led to the concept of the "Consolidated MetropolitanStatistical Area" (CMSA), established bythe federal government in 1983. At thesame time, the government dropped theterm "SMSA" in favor of "MSA," for
5
\ .
6
, .
"Metropolitan Statistical Area" todenote the more typical metropolitanarea unit (see Box 1 for current definitions of metropolitan area types).
The 37 metropolitan areas with morethan 1 million residents in 1988 consistof 20 CMSAs and 17 MSAs. Approximately half of the national populationlives in these major metropolitan areas,and almost a quarter lives in the country's 7 most populous metropolitanareas-the CMSAs of New York, LosAngeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston.
The Metropolitan Turnaround
Until the 1970s, metropolitan areas helda strong population growth advantageover non metropolitan areas duringevery decade of this century except the1930s. Metropol itan growth tapered offduring the Depression years of the1930s, following several decades of
explosive expansion, then rocketedupward again after World War II. No deviation from the trend toward populationconcentration has been greater than inthe 1970s, when non metropolitan andmetropolitan growth patterns changeddirection completely (see Box 2).
A second redistribution reversal in the1970s was the slower rate of growth formajor metropolitan areas over 1 millionpopulation. In the past, the nation's"million-plus" areas grew faster thansmaller-sized areas. The reversal of thistrend in the 1970s is as remarkable asthe increased population growth in nonmetropolitan territory. This reversal isevident in Figure 1. In the 1960s, largemetropolitan areas grew faster thansmaller metropolitan areas, and muchfaster than non metropolitan areas. Inthe 1970s, the large areas grew at abouthalf the rate of smaller metropolitanareas or nonmetropolitan areas, basedon constant boundaries establishedJune 30, 1989.
r
7
These shifts in the 1970s are signs ofpervasive deconcentration of thenational population. Approximately 80percent of the nation's non metropolitancounties gained population in the 1970s,compared to less than 45 percent in thetwo prior decades. Extensive analysesby population experts Calvin Beale,Glenn Fuguitt, and Kerry Richter pointout the dramatic change from net outmigration to net in-migration of the nonmetropolitan population for most of the26 economic subregions of the UnitedStates.5
While the great majority of nonmetropolitan counties gained population, metropolitan population losses in the 1970swere concentrated among major metropolitan areas of the Northeast and Midwest. Eight metropolitan areas over 1million population in the Northeast andMidwest lost population in the 1970sNew York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee,and Buffalo. Large metropolitan areas inthe South and West did not decline, buttheir population gains were lower in the1970s than in the 1960s. In contrast,small metropolitan areas, particularlythose with populations under 250,000located in the South and West, grewfaster than all the other metropol itan categories.
Explaining the 1970s Reversals
These two redistribution reversals-thenonmetropolitan turnaround and themetropolis growth slowdown-were notspread uniformly across the 1970s.Researchers Larry Long and DianaDeAre demonstrated that the non metropolitan growth advantage began in thelate 1960s and peaked in 1974-75,before tapering off at the end of thedecade.6 Census Bureau metropolitanarea expert Richard Forstall's analysisshows that the reversal in growth ratesamong metropolitan areas according totheir size peaked in 1973-75.7
Large metropolitan areas lost employment opportunities in the severe reces-
8
sion of 1973-75 and therefore, found itdifficult to attract people, particularly inmetropolitan areas where employmentwas dominated by cyclical industries.The decline in military expenditurestoward the end of the Vietnam War contributed to employment losses in metropolitan areas with significant defenseindustries, among them Seattle, LosAngeles, and Boston.
The fact that both reversals becameaccentuated during the 1973-75 recession suggests at least one "period"influence that may have affected population redistribution in the 1970s (see Box3, page 10, for analysis of th ree differentexplanations for the 1970s trends).Period explanations also help explainsome of the population growth in nonmetropolitan areas.8 A worldwide foodshortage in 1972-73, coupled with anOPEC-induced oil shortage in 1973-74,led to an increase in demand for foodand fuel-related commodities. Althoughemployment in agriculture had alreadydropped to low levels in the 1960s, therising price of food braked furtherdecline in largely agricultural areas.
The energy crisis precipitated non metropolitan growth even more than thefood shortage by spurring developmentof extractive industries in the Southwest, Mountain West, and Appalachia.Further, the weakened U.S.dollarduringthe early 1970sserved to counter international competition for products of thelabor-intensive manufacturing activitiesthat had already moved to nonmetropolitan areas, where costs were lower.
Another important period stimulus fornon metropolitan growth involved thelarge baby-boom generation reachingcollege age, which increased the enrollments at state universities and community cQlleges located in nonmetropolitanareas. The entry of baby boomers intothe labor market during this period alsoaccentuated the movement away frommetropolitan areas with decliningemployment prospects. Finally, largenumbers of people were entering theirreti rement years during this period, sti m-
;:I, •
ulating demand for retirement homes innonmetropolitan territory. These majorevents of the 1970s combined to reducethe attractiveness of large metropolitanareas and to stimulate populationgrowth in nonmetropolitan areas.
While period effects surely played arole, the severe declines in populationand employment suffered by severallarge metropolitan areas were evenmore the result of a fundamental restructuring of the economy. Mounting foreigncompetition, rising labor costs, growingobsolescence in our industrial infrastructure, and declining profitabilitycombined to scale down manufacturingproduction, a trend that has beenlabeled deindustrialization. This economic adversity particularly affectedmetropolitan areas such as Pittsburghand Buffalo, where heavy manufacturing constituted a key economic sector.These areas suffered substantial reductions in employment and selective outmigration. In some cases, lower-levelproduction activities relocated tosmaller metropolitan areas orto nonmetropolitan areas with low labor costs andmore hospitable business climates. Inother cases, these activities moved overseas or were eliminated entirely.
The 1970s also saw the emergence ofsocial and economic conditions that permitted both employers and individualsto live in small communities, which surveys show most Americans prefer.9These new conditions form the basis ofthe "deconcentration" explanation ofthe 1970s reversals, as explained in Box3. The groundwork for this deconcentration trend was laid in earlier decades,when infrastructure improvements (forexample, all-weather road constructionand rural electrification) facilitated themovement of some nonagriculturalemployment to smaller communitiesduring the 1960s. Changes in production and communication technologies inthe 1970s gave rise to new employmentopportunities outside of metropolitanareas, which in turn brought to nonmetropolitan communities a growing num-
berof amenities previously found primarily in the cities.
Strong population gains were registered both in non metropolitan countiesadjacent to the suburbs of metropolitanareas-the exurbs-and in remote counties that lay beyond the reach of commuting, although the growth of the lattercounties tapered off at the decade's end.The growth of non metropolitan countiesspecializing in resort and recreationalactivities also contributed to populationdeconcentration. The growth of resortand recreation counties continued undiminished into the 1980s, unliketheexperience of many other nonmetropolitancounties, where growth began to sagtoward the end of the decade.
Trends of the 1980s
In the 1980s, some of the forces that hadbrought about both the nonmetropolitan turnaround and the major metropolitan decline began to shift. The nonmetropolitan turnaround, in fact, disappearedfrom 1980 to 1984, when metropolitanareas grew at an annual rate of 1.2 percent compared to only 0.8 percent fornon metropolitan areas. Only 70 percentof all non metropolitan counties gainedpopulation during this period, downfrom the pace of the 1970s.1O Still, nonmetropolitan growth levels in the early1980scontinued to exceed their very lowgrowth of the 1950s and 1960s, and thevast majority of non metropolitan counties were gaining in population.
But as mid-decade approached, population growth in non metropolitan counties plummeted to levels reminiscent ofpre-1970 days. During 1983-86, only 45percent of non metropolitan countiesgained population. Although the average loss per county was not as large asin earlier decades, Calvin Beale pointsout, the incidence of this loss acrosscounties was similar to that observedduring the 1950s and 1960s, the peakyears of farm consolidation.l1 While therural renaissance appeared to cometo a screeching halt in the mid-1980s,
9
\ .
10
:
population estimates for the late 1980sshow a moderation of non metropolitandeclines that is fairly pervasive.12 Theadverse economic "period effects" onnonmetropolitan growth (discussedbelow) may have subsided.
As to the fate of major metropolitanareas in the 1980s, they showed clearsigns of reviving from their dismal 1970sgrowth performance. Statistics for1980-84 and 1984-88 show populationgains forthe nation's "million-plus" metropolitan areas exceeding the gains ofnonmetropolitan areas (see Figure 1,page 12). Average annual percentchanges for these areas rose from 1.1percent in 1980-84 to 1.25 percent in1984-88. These are significant increases over the growth rate of the1970s, but are far below the rate of the1960s.
In three large metropolitan areasNew York, Philadelphia, and St. Louissizable population declines of the 1970sended and growth reappeared, boostingthe national totals for the "million-plus"metropolitan category. These threeareas as a whole lost 780,000 residentsduring the 1970s but gained 945,000between 1980 and 1988. However, fourother large metropolitan areas with sizable 1970s population declines (Detroit,Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo) continued to lose population in the 1980s, insome cases to a greater degree than inthe 1970s. As a group, these areas lost444,000 people in 1970-80, and 404,000people in 1980-88.
The vast majority of large metropolitanareas grew during both decades. Some,such as Phoenix, San Diego, andTampa-St. Petersburg, have been growing at consistently high rates, a trenddiscussed later. On balance, the shiftingfortunes of the large northern metropolitan areas have provided a major shareof the fluctuations in the nation's metropolitan trends as a whole.
Metropolitan areas below 1 million inpopulation grew more slowly during the1980s than during the 1960s or 1970s.Although national trends mask wide vari-
11
Figure 1.Average Annual Population Growth for Metropolitan and NonmetropolitanAreas, 1960-1988
1.75l••1.50
•...
III 1.25Q) >-(j;c.. 1.00l8 III~ 0.75
(.) c-cQ) 0.50(.)(j;a. 0.25
0.00
1960-70 197~ 1980-84 1984-88
Metropolitan areas{_1 million or more residents in 1988•• Less than 1 million residents in 1988
Nonmetropolitan areas ••
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1960. 1970. and 1980 Population Censuses, and post-censal countyestimates compiled by the Population Division.
ations across individual areas andregions, the slowdown of growth insmaller metropolitan areas has becomepervasive. Areas with less than 250,000residents were among the fastest growing during the 1970-80 period, but theirgrowth declined by about one-third during the 1980s. Moreover, 32 of the 158metropol itan areas of th is size lost population in the 1980s, compared to only 10in the 1970s.
Explaining the 1980s Shifts
Some analysts contended that thestrong period influences of the 1970sdistorted "natural" urbanization tendencies and predicted that these tendencieswould re-emerge. But their predictions
12
neglected to consider equally significant period influences specific to the1980s:two severe recessions, an overvalued dollar, a worldwide decline in foodprices, a decline in oil prices, and a stockmarket crash. On balance, the cumulative impact of these forces had greateradverse consequences for nonmetropolitan population growth than for metropolitan growth.
Calvin Beale's analysis of non metropolitan growth trends suggests why thismight be the case.13 First, nonmetropolitan areas specializing in labor-intensivemanufacturing production were particularly hard hit by the recessions and overvalued dollar of the early 1980s. In 1980,these counties housed approximately 40percent of the nonmetropolitan popula-
\ .
tion. Their average annual populationgrowth rates declined from 1.14 percentin the 1970s to only 0.36 percent overthe 1980-86 period.
Second, the world agricultural surplusand the ensuing domestic farm financialcrisis led to a decline in nonmetropolitancounties that specialized in agriculture.These counties, which stemmed longterm declines during the 1970s, housedapproximately 15 percent of the country's nonmetropolitan population in1980. Their response to the farm crisiswas delayed but severe. Average annualgrowth rates dropped from 0.56 percentin the early 1980sto a minus 0.08 percentin the mid-1980s. In Iowa, 80 of 84 suchcounties lost population as the agricultural crisis took its toll.
The dramatic rise and then sharpdecline in petroleum prices contributedto the most volatile sequence of growthand decline. Counties specializing inmining (oil, coal, and metal), which contained just 7 percent of the 1980 nonmetropolitan population, saw their growthturn from an annual average rate of 0.14percent in the first three years of the1980s to a decline of minus 0.58 percentin 1983-86.
As was true of their nonmetropolitancounterparts, production-oriented metropolitan areas declined in populationduring the early 1980s, but showed agreater capacity to rebound as the recession subsided and the value of the dollardeclined. The petroleum price rollercoaster took metropolitan areas bothlarge and small for a wild ride. Somewere forced to diversify their economicbase in order to survive. Toward the endof the decade, areas with major involvement in defense faced the possibility ofcutbacks in federal financial support.The stock market crash in October 1987,and the ensuing drop in the financialservices industry led to ripples of declinein the New York metropolitan area.
A more dominant influence on metropolitan growth in the 1980s was industrial restructuring. The heavy losses ofjobs and population sustained as a
result of deindustrialization in the 1970swere replaced, in some cases, byemployment and population growth associatedwith more diversified local economies.Some areas, such as New York and Boston, were well-positioned to build ontheir strengths in financial services orhigh-tech development.14 Yet for otherareas, of which Detroit is the majorexampie, decline related to deindustrialization was felt the most in the early 1980s.Located largely in the Midwest, theseareas were centers for durable goodsmanufacturing such as primary metals,motor vehicles, rubber, and non-electrical machinery.15
Smaller metropolitan areas that weredependent on old-line manufacturingproduction were hit hard as well andfaced employment and populationdeclines. As much of this decline is structural rather than cyclical, these areas willneed to diversify their economies to sustain growth in the future.
While the period economic forces of
A willingness to commute long distances hasfavored growth in exurban counties.
13
the 1980s were not particulary kind tononmetropolitan America, there was evidence of a continued rural renaissancein selected communities. The fastestgrowing nonmetropolitan areas of the1980s were in counties specializing inresort and recreation. In second place,after 1983, were exurban counties adjacent to the suburbs of large metropolitan areas and with strong commutingties to the metropolis.
The ability of these exurban countiesto withstand major economic shockssince the beginning of the 1970s and tobe relatively strong population gainersindicates the powerof Americans' preferencesfor living in low-density, high-amenity areas-even if it means commutingincreasingly long distances to work.Some of these exurban counties arelikely to become part of the adjacentmetropolis when metropolitan area revisions are made after the 1990 Census.
The Regional Dimension
Even prior to the 20th century, the Northhas been the nation's most heavi Iyurbanized region.16 Many of the North's metropolitan areas began as trade and commercial centers in the early days of thenation. During this century, northernmetropolitan areas grew because theirlocation and large labor force gave theman advantage for manufacturing activities. In 1950, the North (defined in thisBulletin as a combination of the Northeast and Midwest regions) had morethan two-thirds of the nation's manufacturing jobs, contained 10 of the country's 14 "million-plus" metropolitanareas, and was home to 65 percent ofthe total metropolitan population. Eventoday, the North contains fully 52 percent of the population living in all "million-pius" metropolitan areas, and 47
Figure 2. Metropolitan Areas by Region, United States, 1988
Metropolitan areas81 million or more
residents, 1988• Less than 1 million
residents, 1988
Source: u.s. Bureau of the Census; see Appendix Table.
14
:
Table 2. Average Annual Population Change for Metropolitan andNonmetropolitan Areas within U.S.Regions: 1960-70, 1970-80, and 1980-88
-0.1 +0.4+0.5
+0.4+0.8
+0.1
+2.1
+2.1+2.0
+ 1.6+ 1.5
+0.7
+ 1.8
+2.2+2.8
+2.0+2.7
+1.4+1.1+1.1+0.3
Average annual population change (percent)1960-70 1970-80 1980-88Region/area
NorthLarge metropolitan areas'Other metropolitan areasNonmetropolitan areas
SouthLarge metropolitan areas' + 2.8Other metropolitan areas + 1.5Nonmetropolitan areas +0.1
West
Large metropolitan areas' + 2.6Other metropolitan areas +2.2Nonmetropolitan areas +0.9
'Metropolitan areas with 1 million or more residents in 1988.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1960, 1970. and 1980 Population Censuses, and county populationestimates compiled by the Population Division.
percent of the total metropolitan population (see Figure 2).
Metropolitan areas in the South andWest grew as the result of the continuedwestward expansion that has characterized American history. Even so, by 1950,only 2 western metropolitan areas, LosAngeles and San Francisco, and 2 southern areas, Baltimore and Washington,D.C., were among the nation's 14 "million-pius" metropolitan areas. Butmetropolitan populations in the South andWest were about to surge. By 1988, thenumber of southern and western "million-pius" metropolitan areas rose to 20,compared to 17 in the North.
Despite their different growth patterns, each of the nation's regionsshared the urbanization patterns of the1950sand 1960s and the counter-urbanization of the 1970s (seeTable 2). Historically, within each region metropolitanareas grew significantly faster than nonmetropolitan areas. Building on traditional manufacturing strengths, theNorth's metropolitan areas continued togrow in the postwar economic prosperity, and their suburbs expanded. Western metropolitan areas grew at consider-
ably faster rates as the boom in such"home-grown" industries as aerospaceand electronics attracted new residents.Southern metropolitan areas gained,particularly in the 1960s, as this oncelagging region became better linked tothe national economy through the interstate highway system, improved infrastructure and educational systems, andpro-growth business attitudes.
The Surprises of the 1970s
In the 1970s-in contrast to the 1960sall regions saw declines in growth intheir "million-plus" metropolitan areasand gains in population growth in nonmetropolitan territory. Yet the Northbore the brunt of the metropolitan population decline, and the South and Westbenefitted most from the nonmetropolitan population increase. While actualpopulation losses were concentrated ina few large areas, all "million-plus"northern areas either suffered losses orhad smaller population gains in the1970s than in the 1960s.
Even in the rapidly growing South andWest, "million-plus" metropolitan areas
15
r
\ .I...
faced reduced growth in the 1970s.There were a few exceptions wheremajor metropolitan areas enjoyedeconomies that were strongly linked totourism and retirement growth (TampaSt. Petersburg and Phoenix) to the period's oil boom (Houston), and to specialized industries such as defense-relatedmanufacturing (San Diego, which alsooffered an attractive lifestyle). But forthe most part, the "million-plus" areasof the South and West faced diminishedgrowth. There were many reasons,including the economic attractions ofsmall metropolitan areas and non metropolitan places within these regions,which drew migrants from the largestmetros. Most large Sunbelt metropolitanareas had a net loss of migrants in theirexchanges with smaller and non metropolitan areas within the regionY
Southern metropolitan areas have grown as aresult of stronger links to the national economy.
16
National nonmetropolitan gains in the1970s reflect the experiences of theSouth and West. The continuing relocation of manufacturing activities into theSoutheast, the growth of extractiveindustries in the Southwest and Mountain West, and the recreation-relatedgrowth in Florida and other Sunbeltareas all contributed to this pattern. To alesser extent, northern nonmetropolitanareas outside the great plains alsogained population from these trends during the 1970s, especially in the UpperGreat Lakes states and New England.
The national population flows of the1970s contributed heavily to a regionalpopulation redistribution-out of theNorth and into the South and West.These trends gave rise to the popularnotion of a Snowbelt and a Sunbelt.Although these terms did not fullyexplain the dynamics of population distribution in the 1970s-after all, snowyAlaska and New Hampshire were growing rapidly, while sunny Los Angeles wasnot-they effectively captured the frustration of major northern industrial citiesand the good times down South and outWest.
The 19805' Bi-Coastal Boom
In the 1980s, metropolitan growthincreased most rapidly in areas near thePacific or Atlantic coasts, while nonmetropolitan population declines becameincreasingly concentrated within thenation's interior. To be sure, the familiarregional dichotomy between the slowgrowing North on the one hand and therapidly growing South and West on theother (the Snowbelt versus the Sunbelt)remains useful in explaining overall population redistribution trends. But it isless useful in explaining the recentchanges in population growth than anew dichotomy that distinguishes thenation's coastal areas from its interiorterritory.
This new scheme links an AtlanticCoast region (the states that border onthe Atlantic) with a Pacific Coast region
;:, .
(Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, andWashington). It contrasts these regionswith an interior region that includes thestates of the Midwest, Rocky Mountains,and most of the South. Although thestates bordering on the Gulf of Mexicoare on a coast and, therefore, not "interior," they share many of the currentdemographic characteristics of America's heartland.
Large metropolitan areas on bothcoasts are increasing their populationgains, while the interior, or heartland,metropolitan territory shows sharplyreduced growth. In the Atlantic coastalstates all types of territory, includingnonmetropolitan areas, have been gaining population since the mid-1980s. Metropolitan areas have been increasingfastest, and the largest metropolitanareas on both coasts showed the mostsustained pattern of increase during thedecade of the 1980s.
The most characteristic pattern of thenation's heartland in the 1980s is its nonmetropolitan decline. This trend becameaccentuated in mid-decade as the interior states bore the brunt of the manufacturing, agricultural, and energy-extraction downturns, or the rolling recession.The large metropolitan areas in thenation's heartland also showed moresensitivity to various booms and bustsduring the 1980s than did coastal areas.
Prospects for the 19905
The prospect is fairly bright for continued growth among the East and WestCoast metropolitan areas. These areas,located in what has been called "thetrade and defense peri meter" have developed niches as centers of advanced service and manufacturing industries thatare highly competitive in the international marketplace.18
Nor are the prospects for the non metropolitan heartland as dim as they mightappear from their experience in the1980s. Still, many of the interior areaswill need to develop more diversifiedeconomic bases to insulate them from
the ups and downs of worldwide commodity prices.19 And coastal cities thatare too heavily concentrated in defenserelated areas may need to find otherstrengths if the federal government cutsback on national defense.
The biggest uncertainties for the1990s concern the growth prospects forheartland metropolitan areas whoseeconomies remain tied to specialized,less-than-competitive industries. Economic diversification will be necessary,and there is evidence that this is occurring in Detroit, Cleveland, and Houston.Also, high housing prices and laborcosts could brake the continued growthof the East and West Coast metropolitancenters. Citing the nation's bi-coastal"regional gentrification," RD. Nortonspeculates that escalating living costs inlarge coastal areas and labor shortageselsewhere may push residents and jobsfurther inland.20 (For a discussion of thedemographic factors in regional population shifts see Box 4, page 20.)
The Top 20Metropolitan Areas
The nation's top 20 metropolitan areascontain about half of the total population of the United States. An examination of how these areas are faring provides clues about the forces likely toshape metropolitan growth or decline asa whole in the 1990s. Some have faredmuch better than others.
The 20 largest metropolitan areas allhave 1988 populations over 2 million,but they are dominated by New York's18.1 million people and Los Angeles'13.7 million (see Table 3). The combinedpopulations of the largest 5 areas on thislist exceed the combined populations ofthe remaining 15 by a wide margin.
The top rankings have remained surprisingly stable over the course of U.S.history. New York has been the nation'slargest metropolitan area since thebeginning of the 19th century. Philadel-
17
, .
Table 3. The 20 largest Metropolitan Areas, 1988
Metropolitan Area
New York CMSA
Los Angeles CMSAChicago CMSASan Francisco CMSA
Philadelphia CMSADetroit CMSABoston CMSA
Dallas CMSA
Washington, D,C, MSAHouston CMSAMiami CMSACleveland CMSAAtlanta MSASI. Louis MSA
Seattle CMSA
Minneapolis-SI. Paul MSASan Diego MSABaltimore MSA
Pittsburgh CMSAPhoenix MSA
Size
(millions)
18.113.78.16.05.94.64.1
3.73.73.63.02.72.72.4
2.42.32.32.32.22.0
1988
1234567
89
1011121314
151617181920
Rank
1970
1236457
128
1316
91811
171522141034
Change
+2-1-1
+4-1+3+5-3+5-3
+2-1+5-4-9
+14
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Population Census and county estimates for 1988 prepared by thePopulation Division.
phia and Boston have ranked close tothe top from the beginning of nationhood, and Chicago for the past century.The seven largest metropolitan areas in1988were also the seven largest in 1950.However, since 1970, San Franciscomoved to fourth place, pushing Philadelphia and Detroit down to fifth and sixth.
This stability among the top 7 masksthe turmoil in the lower rankings. Amongthe 13 other areas in the top 20, Cincinnati and Milwaukee have fallen out ofthe group since 1970 (using constantboundaries) and have been replaced bySan Diego and Phoenix. Seven of the 13(including the 2 new ones) moved upin rank. Miami-Fort Lauderdale climbedfrom 16th to 11th, Atlanta advanced from18th to 13th, and Dallas-Fort Worth rosefrom 12th to 8th. Phoenix jumped anastonishing 14 places, from 34th to 20th.San Diego moved up 5 places, from 22ndto 17th. Among the decliners, Pittsburghplunged from 10th to 19th, Baltimoredropped from 14th to 18th, Clevelandfrom 9th to 12th, and S1.Louis from 11thto 14th place.
18
The net effect of these recent rapidchanges in rank among the second echelon of major metropolitan areas, whosepopulations are between 2 and 4 million,has been to elevate the importance ofmetropolitan areas in the West andSouth and reduce the influence of theslower growing older northern areas.
The Forces Behind Growth
and Decline
The simple Sunbelt-Snowbelt distinction does not tell the whole story of thepast two decade's fortunes for majormetropolitan areas. It is true that withonly three exceptions (Minneapolis-S1.Paul in the North, and Baltimore andWashington, D. C. in the South), each ofthe large northern Snowbelt metropolitan areas grew more slowly than each ofthe large southern and western Sunbeltareas in both the 1970s and the 1980s.But other patterns are also important(see Figure 3).
Deindustrialization largely explains
,:\ .
the population declines of major northern metropolitan areas in the 1970s.Areas associated with heavy industrymanufacturing (Pittsburgh and Cleveland) were the greatest population losers, as measured by the annual averagerate of change. Areas with more diversification, but also with large manufacturing components (New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis) sustained losses as well.Detroit did poorly in the 1970s (anddeclined even more in the 1980s than inthe 1970s, because its auto industry washit harder by the recession and foreigncompetition). Two other diversifiednorthern areas, Chicago and Boston, didsomewhat better in the 1970s.
Within the South and West, older,more established areas grew less rapidlythan the average for these regions in the1970s. Baltimore and Washington in theSouth, and San Francisco, Seattle, andLos Angeles in the West, all grew lessthan 1.5 percent per year, versus growthrates for the other large Sunbelt areas ofbetween 2.2 percent (Dallas-Fort Worth)and 4.4 percent (Phoenix). In otherwords, it was not enough simply to belocated in the Sunbelt for robust growthto occur, nor did a Snowbelt locationnecessarily portend demographicdoom.
The declines from deindustrializationin most large northern metropolitanareas and in older southern and westernareas contrasted with the strong growthamong selected sun-and-fun destinations such as Phoenix or booming industrial places such as Houston in the1970s. This distinction broke down inthe 1980s, however, as northern areas,though slow-growing, varied moresharply from each other in their population growth rates. In the South and West,moreover, the differences apparent inthe 1970s became less striking in the1980s, as older, established areasrebounded, while younger "sun spots"grew less rapidly.
These shifts in the fortunes of individual large metropolises are consistentwith the bi-coastal growth patterns
Figure 3. Average Annual Change for
the 20 Largest Metropolises, 1970-1980and 1980-1988
Source: u.s. Bureau of the Census, 1970 and 1980Population Censuses, and post-censal countyestimates compiled by the Population Division.
19
\ .
After two decades of population decline, Detroit will need to diversify its economy to attract new residents.
20
\ .
reported earlier in this Bulletin. In thiscontext, it is significant that only 3 of thetop 20, all industrial metropolises in thenation's heartland (Detroit, Cleveland,and Pittsburgh), lost population in the1980s, a decade when other largermetropolises in the North revived to register gains.
Prospects for Growth
Which of the nation's major metropolitan areas face the brightest prospectsfor the future? That will depend to alarge extent on the structure of theireconomies, which will signal their success or failure in creating jobs andattracting population. It is useful to dis-
tinguish four broad categories of largemetropolises for this purpose.21
World Cities: The term "World Cities"characterizes those metropolitan areasthat are strong financial and tradingactors in the international economy.These areas, such as New York, London,Frankfurt, and Tokyo play major roles intheir national economies as well. Withthe increasing globalization of the worldeconomy, such areas will become evenmore dominant as centers of international finance, headquarters for multinational corporations, and major exportersof advanced services.
Four U.S. metropolitan areas meetWorld City criteria. They are New York,Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Fran-
21
\ .
cisco.22 Together, they are home to alarge share of the nation's biggest commercial banks, diversified financial companies, law firms, accounting firms, andconsulting services with internationalexpertise in management, advertising,and related activities.
The significance of the strong"advanced services" sectors in theseeconomies is reflected in the populationgrowth patterns for the New York andLos Angeles metropolitan areas (see Figure 4). New York in particular overcameits unprecedented population declinesof the 1970s. Throughout the 1980s, andeven during the recessionary periods,New York enjoyed sustained employment growth and population increases.Much of the area's employment growthcame from the strength of its advancedservice sector, particularly in financialservices.
The Los Angeles metropolitan area,
while gaining population both in the1970s and 1980s, sustained slowdownsin the early 1970s from recession anddeclines in the defense industry. Itsstrong advanced service sector, however, complemented by a diversifiedeconomy, contributed to its risinggrowth levels during the 1980s.
National Command and Control Centers:Just asthe World Cities should prosper in the post-industrial global economy, a second echelon of major "Command and Control Centers" will becomekey actors in the domestic economicarena. These metropolitan areas are alsoheavily engaged in advanced serviceand complex corporate economic activities, but are (at least for now) less oriented to the international marketplacethan are the World Cities.
These metropolitan areas tend to becenters of national and regional financial and corporate decision making ac-
Figure 4, Annual Population Change, Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1970-1988
Source: u.s. Bureau of the Census, 1970 and 1980 Population Censuses, and post-censal county estimatescompiled by the Population Division.
22
;:\ .
tivities and also serve as distributioncenters for various national consumermarkets. Some of them, such as Philadelphia, Boston, and St. Louis are building on their historical strengths asnational control centers, while others,such as Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth andMinneapolis-St. Paul, have evolved ashubs of regional activity.
Specialized Areas: While all of thenation's 20 largest metropolitan areashave diversified economies, some haverelied heavily on one or two main economic sectors. Such areas run the riskof sustaining severe downturns duringperiods when these sectors fail, thoughin turn they will fare far better than average when the sectors prosper.
Houston is a good case in point. Whenthe price of oil soared during the 1970sand lines formed at gas pumps throughout the nation, the rapid increase inemployment in oil-related industries andits multiplier effects led to a surge inHouston's economic and populationgrowth. This growth was particularlystrong between 1979-82 when otherlarge areas, such as Detroit, suffered serious recessions. The oil-price crash of1982 and energy glut in 1985, on theother hand, led to severe employmentlosses and a sharp slowdown in Houston's population growth, as Figure 4makes plain.
Houston's celebrated "boom andbust" should serve as warning to otherareas whose future growth prospectsdepend primarily on specialized activities. Washington, D.C.'s enormousgrowth in the 1980s reflects the growthof the government-related private sector. San Diego's growth is heavily relatedto the defense industry, including bothmilitary personnel and government contracts.
Some areas, such as Miami and Phoenix, have grown and diversified beyondthe one or two industries that shapedtheir initial growth, but they have not yetachieved national Command and Control Center status. As Figure 4 demonstrates, they display above-average fluc-
tuations in their annual populationgrowth rates.
Smokestack Areas: Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh warrant the separate category of "Smokestack Area."The economic base of each of theseareas has been dominated by heavyindustry such as steel and automobiles.As these industries declined in importance nationally during the 1970s (and1980s, in the case of Detroit), employment and population declined. Thesemetropolitan areas can no longer counton their basic industry as the major stimulus for growth, and have made effortsto diversify. To some degree an increasein the number of high-level service andresearch jobs has compensated for theloss of production employment. Yetthese areas have had greater difficultydiversifying their economies than theWorld Cities or Command and ControlCenters.
Continued population growth is likelyfor the World Cities and Command andControl Centers. Both types of areas possess the kinds of advanced services thatcan produce "agglomeration economies" in today's world in the same waythat port cities and manufacturing centers attracted population growth in thepast.
The Specialized Areas will probablycontinue to diversify their economies sothat they will not be subject to the samebooms and busts that many of themexperienced in the 1970s and 1980sthough for many, growth will remaindependent on the level of federaldefense expenditures.
The growth prospects for the threeSmokestack Areas is less easy to forecast. The 1990s wi II be a crucial decadefor Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland.Each hasthe capital, managementexpertise, and educated labor force necessaryto expand and diversify its industrialbase. The question for all three will behow successful their existing industries,along with the newly added ones, will bein the post-industrial environment of the1990s.
23
\ .
Minneapolis-Sf. Paul has emerged as a hub of regional financial activity and is gaining in population.
Metropolitan Winnersand Losers
Considering the experience of all 283metropolitan areas in the country, thepopulation changes have been muchmore varied than among the 20 largest.From 1980 to 1988, for example, Naples,Florida grew 61 percent, but Casper,Wyoming declined 10 percent. Themedian growth rate for all metropolitanareas was 7.4 percent over this period inthe 1980s. But almost a quarter of allmetropolitan areas grew at twice thisrate, and each of the 10 fastest-growingareas grew at better than five times thisrate. At the other extreme, 50 metropolitan areas lost population over the1980-88 period, more than twice the 23that lost population during the 1970s.
The metropolitan areas that gainedpopulation in the 1980s differ from othermetropolitan areas both in their number
24
and in their growth characteristics. The70 fastest growing areas, which form theupper quartile of metropolitan growthrates, are disproportionately located inthe Sunbelt. All but four (Rapid City andSioux Falls, South Dakota; Manchester,New Hampshire; and Portsmouth, NewHampshire-Maine) are located in theSouth and West. In contrast, more than40 percent of all metropolitan areas arelocated outside these two regions. Further, there are relatively fewer small metropolitan areas with populations under250,000 among the fast-growing groupthan there are among metropolitanareas as a whole.
Twenty-one of the areas that qualifiedfor inclusion in this fast-growing quartilein the 1980s were different than thosethat qualified in the 1970s. Areas thatmoved into the category were larger insize than those they replaced. Six newmembers of the group were "millionpius" areas (Dallas-Fort Worth, SanAnto-
I. •
nio, Los Angeles, Norfolk-VirginiaBeach-Newport News, Seattle, andWashington, D.C.), while only one thatdropped out was a major area (Miami).In contrast, 16 of the 21 areas movingout of the fast-growing group were smallmetropolitan areas with populationsunder 250,000. Many of these werelocated in the Pacific Northwest, theMountain West, and in the oil-producingregions of the South.
The 50 areas that lost population inthe 1980s are also distinct from the rest.Over three-quarters of them are locatedin the North, and more than 60 percentare small areas. Thirty-four are small ormoderate-sized manufacturing areas inthe North, primarily in the Great Lakesstates, in western Pennsylvania, and inupstate New York. Another 12 arelocated in mining areas of West Virginiaand Kentucky, or in largely energydependent areas of the Southwest andMountain West.
Only 4 of the areas that lost populationin the 1980sare "million-plus" metropolitan areas (pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit,and Cleveland). This contrasts sharplywith the 1970s, when 8 of the 23 areasthat lost population were large areas(including the 4 losers of the 1980s plusPhiladelphia, St. Louis, New York, andMilwaukee).
In the 1970s, metropolitan decline asa whole was heavily influenced by thelarge population losses of the nation'smajor industrial metropolitan areas.Declines were relatively uncommon forsmaller areas in all regions. However,the economic downturns of the 1980saffected smaller metropolitan areasmore, resulting in slower populationgrowth for many of them. At the sametime, larger areas were reviving, both inthei r econom ic fortu nes and in thei r population growth.
Southern and Western Gainers
Among the nation's individual metropolitan areas one finds strong gainers, andareas with population loss, in each of
the nation's regions, and in both the1970s and 1980s. In general, however, alarge number of areas in the South andWest grew faster than any of the areasin the North, both in the 1970s and the1980s.Likewise, a large number of northern areas declined in both decades.
The top 10 gainers in the South andWest between 1980 and 1988 (see Table4, page 26) are also the top gainersnationwide. Eight of these are located inFlorida, and half have 1988 populationsunder 250,000. Many are strong magnetsfor retirees. This list also includes 3areas that may approach "1 million" status in the 1990s-0rlando and WestPalm Beach, Florida, and Austin, Texas.Austin and Orlando have improved theiralready high-growth rankings in the1970s and have continued to developdiversified economies.
While many of these rapidly growingareas in the South and West have fairlyspecialized economies, some have beenconsistent population gainers. The 4fast-growing areas in Table 4, page 26were also the fastest-growing areas inthe 1970s. West Palm Beach has beenamong the top 10 gainers since 1960.
The growth levels of the top 10 gainersin the North still lie well below growthlevels of many Sunbelt areas. Rapid City,South Dakota, though the top rankedSnowbelt gainer, grew more slowly than60 other metropolitan areas in the Southand West. Minneapolis-St. Paul, whichranks 10th on the list of Northern gainers, ranks only 86th on the nationwidelist.
The top 10 northern metro pol itan gai ners are primarily small areas. Seven havepopulations under 250,000 and 5 ofthese are under 150,000.Five are locatedwest of the Mississippi River and 3 inNew England.
The 3 largest of the 10 fastest growingnorthern metropolitan areas are symbolic of current growth trends. Minneapolis-St. Paul, a large diversified metropolis, has developed newer industriesand service center functions. AtlanticCity is a resort area. And Lancaster is
25
, .
Table 4. Top 10 Metropolitan Area Gainers and Losers in North, South, and
Top gainers-North
Area
1. Rapid City, SD MSA2. Manchester, NH MSA3. Portsmouth, NH-ME MSA4. Sioux Falls, SD MSA5. Lancaster, PA MSA6. Lawrence, KS MSA7. Springfield, MO MSA8. Burlington, VT MSA9. Atlantic City, NJ MSA
10. Minneapolis-SI. Paul, MN MSA
Top gainers-South and West
Percentgain
1980-88
+16.6+15.9+15.4+14.7+14.3+13.1+12.8+12.0+11.9+11.7
Size(l,OOOs)
1988
82150220126414
77234129309
2,388
Percent Sizegain (l,OOOs)
Area 1980-88 1988
1. Naples, FL MSA +61.1 1392. Ocala, FL MSA +55.0 1903. Fort Pierce, FL MSA + 53.3 2324. Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSA +50.6 3095. Melbourne, FL MSA +42.3 3886. West Palm Beach, FL MSA +41.9 8197. Austin, TX MSA +39.5 7498. Orlando, FL MSA + 38.8 9719. Las Cruces, NM MSA +37.0 132
10. Fort Walton Beach, FL MSA +37.0 151
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 Population Census and county estimates for 1988 prepared by the
one of several manufacturing areasclose to the New York-PhiladelphiaWashington metropolitan corridor thathave benefitted from the spillover of newindustries and residents in search of alower cost of living and of doing business. Lancaster's rise in rank is a likelyprecursor to future growth for moderate-size metropolitan areas at arm'slength from the large East Coast metropolises.23
The 10 metropolitan areas in the Northwith the largest percent decl ines in population from 1980 to 1988 span a regionfrom western Pennsylvania and NewYork state to Iowa and northern Minnesota. Most of them are smaller, production-oriented manufacturing towns that
26
continue to stagger from the aftershocks of deindustrialization. What issignificant about this list is the absenceof 3 large metropolitan areas thatappeared on it during the 1970s-NewYork, Cleveland, and St. Louis. Also,while 6 small metropolitan areas (withpopulations less than 250,000) are onthis list, only 3 such areas were on thelist in the 1970s.
The most striking aspect of the list oflosers for the South and West is thatthese are not Sunbelt areas at all. Fiveof the metropolitan areas lie close toindustrialized areas of the Snowbelt.The decline of extractive and manufacturing industries in the Appalachianregion, adjacent to Pennsylvania and the
, .
West Regions, 1980-1988
Top losers-North
Area
1. Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV MSA2. Duluth, MN-WI MSA3. Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA MSA4. Peoria, IL MSA5. Muncie, IN MSA6. Elmira, NY MSA7. Decatur, IL MSA8. Pittsburgh, PA CMSA9. Youngstown-Warren, OH MSA
10. Buffalo, NY CMSA
Top losers-South and West
Area
1. Casper, WY MSA2. Wheeling, WV-OH MSA3. Enid, OK MSA4. Cumberland, MD-WV MSA5. Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA6. Danville, VA MSA7. Charleston, WV MSA8. Great Falls, MT MSA9. Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH MSA
10. Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA
Population Division.
Percentloss
1980-88
-9.8-9.5-9.2-7.0-6.6-6.1-5.9-5.7-5.6-5.4
Percentloss
1980-88
-10.0
-7.6-7.2-5.0-4.2-3.3-3.3-3.1-2.2-1.9
Size(1,000s)1988
148241
148
340
120
92124
2,284502
1,176
Size(1,000s)1988
65172
58102
322
108
26178
154270
Great Lakes states, has contributed tolosses in 5 small metropolitan areas inWest Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky.The remaining 5 areas are broadly distributed across the Mountain West, thePacific Coast, Oklahoma, and Virginia.Besides these 10, only 2 additional Sunbelt areas (Beaumont-Port Arthur,Texas, and Gadsden, Alabama) lost population in the 1980s. Only 1 lost population in the 1970s-Great Falls, Montana,out West to be sure, but scarcely "Sunbelt."
Baby-Boom Magnets
Which metropolitan areas will be mostattractive to the baby-boom generation
as its members reach their most productive and affluent years? Which areas arelikely to lose large numbers of boomers?All 10 of the boomer magnets are locatedin the Sunbelt (see Table 5, page 28).Six of them-Denver, Washington, D.C.,Houston, Atlanta, San Francisco, Dallas-are "million-plus" areas. Nine ofthe least attractive spots for the babyboomers are located in old industrialsections of Pennsylvania, New York,Massachusetts, Ohio, and West Virginia.
Magnets for the baby-boomers aredefined as those areas with the largestproportion of adult baby boomers intheir 1985populations and which experienced a 1980-85 growth in their babyboom population of at least 9.5 percent.
27
;:\ .
Table 5. Baby-Boom Magnets and Losers: Metropolitan Areas with 250,000 orMore Residents in 1985
Adult baby boomers"
Proportion of Percent change1985 population 1980-1985Metropolitan Area
Magnets·1. Denver, CO CMSA2. Washington, DC-MD-VA MSA3. Houston, TX CMSA4. Austin, TX MSA5. Atlanta, GA MSA6. San Francisco, CA CMSA7. Dallas, TX CMSA8. Colorado Springs, CO MSA9. Portsmouth, NH-ME NECMA
10. Las Vegas, NV MSA
0.320.310.310.300.300.290.290.290.280.27
+14.4+14.7+15.4+12.1+19.9+ 9.9+19.7+ 9.6+13.1+14.4
Losersc
1. Scranton-Wilkes·Barre, PA MSA 0.212. Buffalo, NY CMSA 0.223. Johnstown, PA MSA 0.224. Youngstown, OH MSA 0.225. Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA 0.236. Pittsburgh, PA CMSA 0.237. Duluth-Superior, MN-WI MSA 0.238. Erie, PA MSA 0.239. Springfield, MA NECMA 0.23
10. Syracuse, NY MSA 0.23
"Born between 1945-1960 (ages 25-40 in 1985).·Baby-boom proportion above 0.27 and percent change above +9.5 percent.CBaby-boom proportion under 0.24 and percent change under - 5.0 percent.
- 5.4-12.9- 6.1- 9.4- 5.8- 7.2-15.4- 7.5- 9.9- 6.8
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Population Estimates (Experimental) by Age, Sex, and Race,1980-1985, computer data files.
Loser areas are those with the smallestproportions of adult baby boomers as of1985 and which experienced a 1980-85decline in their baby-boom populationof more than 5 percent. This analysisincludes only those baby boomers bornbetween 1945 and 1960 (between theages of 25 and 40 in 1985) in order toexclude the youngest members of theboom generation (born between 1961and 1964) who were under age 25 in1985.
It is not surprising to find that boomersare drawn to Washington, D.C., and SanFrancisco. Particularly for educated andaffluent baby boomers, the capitol isattractive for its high-level governmentservice and scientific employmentopportunities. San Francisco is equally
28
attractive to this group as a cosmopolitan financial center and World City. Bothcities offer a high-quality lifestyle; SanFrancisco and Washington, D.C., rankedsecond and fourth, respectively, on anindex of overall quality of life reportedin The Places Rated Almanac in 1989.24
The remaining four "million-plus"baby boom magnets are also large,highly diversified metropolises. Although Houston's and Denver's hold onthe baby-boom generation may haveslipped somewhat since the mid-1980sas the energy boom ended, these areasare high-level, advanced service centers, like Atlanta and Dallas. Moreover,all ofthe six "million-plus" boomer magnets rank in the top 15 percent of allmetropolitan areas on The Places Rated
:, .
Almanac's measures of employmentprospects through 1995,cultural amenities, and overall quality of life.
The remaining smaller boomer magnets rank lower on most of these measures but provide the attractions of aneducation and industrial center (Austinand Colorado Springs), a growing resorteconomy (Las Vegas), and a moderatesized diversified area (Portsmouth).25
The out-migration of baby boomersfrom the most unpopular areas is relatedto declines in employment opportunitiesduring the late 1970s and early 1980s.None of the 10 least attractive spots withthe baby-boom generation score highon The Places Rated Almanac's measureof projected employment opportunities.
Pittsburgh ranks third on the overallquality of life index, however, and in thetop 15 percent of all metropolitan areason the arts and cultural amenities measure. With new community-driven initiatives to boost employment, this onceprosperous area could gain baby boomers in the 1990s. As for all of the "loser"areas, the loss of so many baby boomersin their prime moving ages will make itdifficult to replace them once they settledown and become less likely to move.Following them in the migratory agegroups will be the much smaller babybust generation.26
Elderly Magnets
At a time when the national populationis aging, and the elderly population hasbecome increasingly mobile, a numberof metropolitan areas may expect futuregrowth as magnets for people of retirement age. Several metropolitan areas inFlorida-a traditional destination forretirees-have already capitalized onthe rising number of elderly migrants.Over the 1975-80 period, Floridaattracted 428,000 elderly migrants, closeto a 60 percent increase over a similarperiod 10 years earlier. The elderly constitute almost a quarter of total migration for all ages to Florida from otherstates, and have helped to establish anumber of "elderly magnet" areas. 27
Areas with large proportions of theelderly (aged 65 and over) are not necessarily magnets, perse, because their population mix may simply reflect a net outmigration of younger people, leaving theelderly behind. Magnet areas that attractthe elderly are defined as those with thegreatest proportions of elderly residentsin 1985and increases intheelderlypopulation between 1980and 1985exceeding19.5 percent (see Table 6).
Five of the 10 elderly magnets areamong the 6 fastest-growing metropolitan areas of the 1980s, which confirms
Table 6. Elderly Magnet Metropolitan Areas,a 1985
Population ages 65 +Proportion of Percent change
Metropolitan Area 1985 population 1980-85
1. Sarasota, FL MSA 0.31 +21.72. West Palm Beach, FL MSA 0.23 +22.63. Fort Myers, FL MSA 0.23 +31.44. Fort Pierce, FL MSA 0.21 +32.95. Naples, FL MSA 0.20 + 39.86. Ocala, FL MSA 0.18 +39.37. Lakeland, FL MSA 0.15 +21.88. Medford, OR MSA 0.15 +19.59. Melbourne, FL MSA 0.14 +34.7
10. Tucson, AZ MSA 0.13 +21.1
'Proportion of population over age 65 equal to 0.13 or more, and the percent change 19.5 or greater.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Population Estimates (Experimental) by Age, Sex, and Race,1980-1985, computer data files.
29
I. •
Pittsburgh lost population in the 1970s and 1980s,yet offers a highly rated quality of life.
that the elderly population is contributing significantly to gains of fast-growingareas in Florida (West Palm Beach, FortMyers, Fort Pierce, Naples, and Melbourne). Sarasota, where the elderly arethe highest proportion of the total population and have enjoyed strong recentgains, is Florida's premier elderly magnet. But other metropolitan areas arealso gaining population because theyare attractive to retirees.
The MetropolitanMinority PopulationSome metropolitan areas have seen arapid increase in their minority populations in recent years. Nationally, the population of racial and ethnic minoritieshas been growing faster than have nonHispanic whites. The 1980-85 growth
30
rates for Hispanics, blacks, and Asianand other races were 22.9 percent, 8.3percent, and 36.1 percent, respectively.The total U.S. population grew only 5.4percent during the period.
Blacks, Mexicans, and other Hispanicand Asian groups live in all parts of thecountry and in virtually every metropolitan area. To a much greater degree thanthe majority population, however, minorities concentrate in specific metropolitan areas. Estimates prepared by DavidL. Word of the U.S. Census Bureau forareas with large concentrations ofblacks, Hispanics, and members of otherraces (most of whom are Asians) appearin Table 7.
Since 1970, black metropolitan redistribution patterns have come closerto white patterns than was the case inthe 1950s or 1960s.28 The 1940s saw astrong out-migration of blacks from theSouth to selected large metropolitanareas in the North-particularly NewYork, Philadelphia, Chicago, andDetroit. During this period thewhite population showed a net out-migration fromthe North to metropolitan areas in theWest and South.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, blacksalso began moving to the South. Largesouthern metropolitan areas showedhigher rates of growth in the black population than the northern areas that hadattracted blacks in the past. While blacksdid not participate in the nonmetropolitan turnaround of the 1970s, nonmetropolitan areas gained blacks to a greaterextent during that decade than they hadin the past.
The movement of blacks across allparts of the country is evident in DavidWord's population estimates for 1985,which show that 223 of the nation's metropolitan areas contained black populations exceeding 10,000. In all but 6 ofthese areas the black populationincreased between 1980 and 1985. YetWord'sestimatesalso pointto the conti nued concentrations of blacks in selectedplaces. Almost 30 percent of the blackmetropolitan population is located in
;:I, •
Table 7. Metropolitan Areas with the largest Populations of Blacks, Hispanics,and Asians and Other Races, 1985
MinorityPercentProportionpopulation 1985
increaseof totalMetropolitan Area"
(l,OOOs)1980-85population
Black populations exceed 500,000
Blacks
1. New York MSA
3,201+ 8.80.182. Chicago MSA
1,645+ 5.20.203. Los Angeles CMSA
1,194+12.10.094. Philadelphia CMSA
1,109+ 6.20.195. Washington, D.C. MSA
965+10.30.276. Detroit CMSA
949+ 3.10.207. Houston CMSA
641+13.60.188. Atlanta MSA
608+15.60.259. Baltimore MSA
592+ 5.60.2610. San Francisco CMSA
524+11.20.09
Hispanic populations exceed 500,000
Hispanics
1. Los Angeles CMSA
3,660+32.30.282. New York CMSA
2,346+14.70.133. Miami CMSA
815+30.00.284. San Francisco CMSA
775+ 19.40.135. Chicago CMSA
757+22.20.096. Houston CMSA
595+33.30.177. San Antonio MSA
568+16.90.47
Asian/Other populations exceed 500,000
Asian/Other
1. Los Angeles CMSA
1,061+51.20.082. San Francisco CMSA
752+45.50.133. New York CMSA
604+40.40.034. Honolulu MSA
539+13.90.64
"Metropolitan areas with 500,000 or more blacks, Hispanics, or Asians and Other Races.
Source: Word, David L., "Population Estimates by Race and Hispanic Origin for States, Metropolitan Areas,and Selected Counties: 1980 to 1985," Current Population Reports, P-25, No. 1040-RD-l (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989).
just 4 large metropolitan areas-NewYork, Philadelphia, Chicago, andDetroit. The 10 areas with black populations over one-half million comprisednearly half of the total black metropolitan population in 1985.
America's Hispanic ethnic groups arealso concentrated in a few metropolitanareas, primarily in the Southwest and inlarge immigrant ports of entry. California and Texas together were home tonearly 55 percent of the Hispanic population in 1985. Thetwo individual metropolitan areas with the largest numbers ofHispanics are Los Angeles, with 3.6 million, and New York, with 2 million.Miami, San Francisco, Chicago, Hous-
ton, and San Antonio follow, all withmore than 500,000 Hispanics. In 1985,94 metropolitan areas had Hispanic populations exceeding 10,000, and each ofthese experienced gains over the1980-85 period.
There is clearly a dispersion of Hispanics across metropolitan areas, with thegreatest concentrations in the Southand West, reflecting the proximity toLatin America. By and large, the threemajor Hispanic groups-Mexicans,Cubans, and Puerto Ricans-cluster indifferent areas. Mexican Americans liveprimarily in metropolitan areas of theSouthwest, Cubans in Miami, andPuerto Ricans in the New York area.
31
\ .
oW...Jo
The Census Bureau's "Asian andOther Races" category includes Asians,Pacific Islanders, American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts. Asians are by far thelargest group within this category, and,with Pacific Islanders, make up at least70 percent of the total. U.S. Asians arehighly concentrated in metropolitanareas, reflecting the fact that many arerecent immigrants who locate in ethniccommunities in large ports of entry.
Four such areas dominate as residential locations for Asians-Los Angeles,San Francisco, New York, and Honolulu.Together, these 4 areas are home toalmost 40 percent of the nation's Asianpopulation. Moreover, the 1980-85growth rate for this population in thefirst 3 areas exceeds their growth ratenationwide. Still, there are signs of dispersion. In 1985,65 metropolitan areashad more than 10,000 people in theAsian-and-Other-Race category, and allof these increased their totals over the1980-85 period. The Houston and Dallasmetropolitan areas, in particular, sustained high rates of growth in their Asianand other race populations.29
U.S.Asians are highly concentrated in metropolitanareas.
32
Will Minorities Become the Majority?
Rapid immigration from Asia and LatinAmerica, combined with low fertilityrates for the total U.S. population, hasprompted forecasts of minorities eventually becoming the majority, outnumbering non-Hispanic whites. If so, the trendwill occur first in the metropolitan areaswith large concentrations of minorities.Asians and Pacific Islanders are alreadynearly two-thirds of Honolulu's total population-not surprising given Hawaii'sstatus as a Pacific island that is closerto Tokyo than to Chicago. Hispanics arenearly a majority of San Antonio's population.
There are 6 smaller metropolitan areasthat have majority Hispanic populations,all of which are located close to the Mexican border. * Also, several small southern metropolitan areas with traditionallylarge black communities have black proportions that approach a majority.** Butas of 1985, most large metropolitanareas are not close to becoming dominated by any single minority group. In all10 of the metropolitan areas with largeblack populations, their proportion iswell below half. Aside from Honoluluand San Antonio, the same is true forareas with large numbers of Hispanicsand Asians.
In two large metropolitan areas, however, the combination of minoritygroups exceeds the non-Hispanic whitepopulation. In Los Angeles the combined proportions of Hispanics, blacks,and the Asian-and-Other-Races category is above 50 percent. And in SanAntonio, the large Hispanic populationcombined with the black population alsoforms a majority of the total metropolitan population. Miami, with its largeblack and Cuban populations, is closeto having a "minority majority." In New
* The Texas metropolitan areas of Laredo,McAllen, Brownsville, EI Paso, and CorpusChristi, and Las Cruces, NM.
** Including Pine Bluff, AR; Jackson, MS;Albany, GA; and Memphis, TN.
\ .
York and San Francisco, where nonHispanic whites are still a large majority,the population of blacks, Hispanics, andAsians and other races is growing fasterthan the non-Hispanic white population.
Heavy immigration from Asia and LatinAmerica, and low levels of immigrationfrom Europe, are likely to continue inthe future. These trends suggest that inparticular ports of entry non-Hispanicwhites will eventually become a minority. Another factor will be the extent towhich blacks remain concentrated inmajor metropolitan areas in the future,or share more fully in the broad population redistribution trends of the majoritypopulation.
Central Cities andTheir Suburbs
The past two decades have seen dramatic changes in population dynamicswithin metropolitan areas-betweencentral cities and their suburbs, the twometropolitan components. Central-cityblacks began moving to the suburbs inthe 1970s, and pockets of "gentrification" emerged in central cities as white.baby boomers restored homes in downtown neighborhoods. These trendshelped to change the image of "blackcities, white suburbs," though notenough to curtail the emergence of newpockets of underclass poverty in cities.
The metropolitan-wide growth slowdown of the 1970s led to lower rates ofsuburbanization compared to the 1950sand 1960s. Still, it was the central citiesof many large areas that bore the bruntof these metropolitan-wide populationdeclines. Several central cities-St.Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Detroitlost more than one-fifth of their populations in the 1970s. The experience of the1980ssuggests that some of these citiesmay become specialized, gentrified"nodes" within larger multi-centeredmetropolitan areas. Many central citieswill become more racially diverse as they
house growing concentrations of newimmigrant groups.
The nation's largest metropolitanareas are continuing to experience theslow suburban growth in the 1980s thatcharacterized the 1970s.* While many ofthe newer southern and western suburbs have been growing much fasterthan their central cities, even these differences have become smaller since 1980.
What is new in the 1980s are higherrates of population growth (or lowerrates of decline) for the central cities ofthese large metropolitan areas. Seven ofthe 25 central cities in this group thatlost population in the 1970s (New York,Boston, Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, Indianapolis, San Francisco-Oakland, Portland, and Seattle-Everett) gained during1980-88. All of the remaining 18 haveregistered lower average annualdeclines since 1980.
A clue as to why central cities haverebounded from their 1970s losses canbe drawn from the experiences of thenation's oldest industrial centers, thoselarge northern areas that faced population losses in the 1970s. The greatest1980s gains have accrued to the WorldCities and Command and Control Centers among this group. A prime exampleis New York City, which lost 10 percentof its population during the 1970s, butgained 4 percent between 1980 and1988.Similar central city gains, or lesserdeclines, were evident in other northernareas with established advanced serviceindustries (Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, and Cincinnati).
Twelve metropolitan areas in theSouth and West differed sharply fromthe general trend of central-city declinein the 1970s, as both their central cities
"The large metropolitan areas examined inthis section do not conform precisely to thedefinitions used in previous sections of thisBulletin. With the exception of the New Yorkand Paterson-Clifton-Passaic areas, they follow the SMSA definitions used in the 1980Census and are the 39 areas with 1980populations exceeding 1 million.30
33
:\ .
57.7
Figure 5. Racial and Ethnic Composition
of Central Cities and Suburbs in largeMetropolitan Areas, 1988
60
Central Suburbs Central Suburbscities cities
All large North-Decliningmetropolitan metropolitan
areas· areas··
• Non-Hispanic white• Asian/other• Hispanic, all races• Black
o
10
50
Cil
.Q 40
"Defined in footnote, page 33.
""Based on a typology developed by Frey andSpeare (see reference 36); North-Decliningincludes New York, Philadelphia, Boston,Cincinnati, SI. Louis, Buffalo, Chicago, Newark,Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, andPaterson-Clifton-Passaic.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, public usedata files from the March 1988 CurrentPopulation Survey.
E~30.Q§5.. 20oa..
panics as a group have higher rates ofsuburban residence and neighborhoodintegration than the black population.35Figure 5 shows the central city and suburb distributions of these groups for alllarge metropolitan areas and for the"North-Declining" areas identified byFrey and Speare.36
Minorities in Central Cities
and Suburbs
The racial composition of today's citiesand suburbs is far more diverse thanbefore. The "white flight" to the suburbsof the 1950s and 1960s, coupled withsteady black migration to the cities,resulted in suburbs that were primarilywh ite and central cities that were increasingly black. Then, the 1970s saw thebeginning of a black suburbanizationmovement.31The Civil Rights Act of 1968significantly reduced racial discrimination in the housing market. Also, the economic circumstances of many blacksimproved at a time when large numbersreached the home-buying age groups.32
Certainly, the black suburbanizationof the 1970s was not sufficient to erasedecades of racial segregation.33 High levels of community and neighborhood segregation between blacks and whitesremained within the suburbs by the endof the decade.34 Still, the magnitude ofblack suburbanization in the 1970s farexceeded that of earlier decades.
Also, the rising number of immigrants,particularly Hispanics and Asians,added considerable racial and ethnicdiversity to many of the largest centralcities and their suburbs. Immigrantstend to settle in central cities. Despitethe recent waves of immigrants fromAsia and Latin America, Asians and His-
and suburbs grew, in some cases at phenomenal rates. These areas generallyhave expansive central cities with ampleroom for development withi n thei r corporate limits. Many of them are fairly specialized in their economic functions.These southern cities are San Antonio,Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Tampa-St.Petersburg, Miami, and Ft. LauderdaleHollywood. The western cities are Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, Phoenix,Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario, andAnaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove. Thesemetropolitan areas typically grew moreslowly in the 1980s than in the 1970s.
34
\ .
By 1980, within 14 of the nation'slargest metropolitan areas, nonHispanic whites either had alreadydropped below half of the central citypopulation, or were about to do so. Figure 6 shows the mix of blacks, Hispanics,and Asians in the central cities of foursuch areas in 1988. In these four centralcities, minorities as a group are a majority of the total population, and in Detroit,the black population alone is a majority.
Central City Poverty
The 1970s saw the widespread elimination and relocation of manufacturing
employment that used to offer social andeconomic advancement opportunitiesfor immigrants and minorities in centralcities. As employment opportunitiesavailable to inner-city minorities driedup, joblessness and poverty rose.37
Some scholars have reported a selective out-migration of central city middleand working-class minorities, leavingbehind the more poverty-prone.38 Thesetrends have given rise to concentratedinner-city poverty areas cut off frommainstream city neighborhoods. Although these "pockets of poverty" are amatter of great concern, there are twomisconceptions about city poverty. The
Figure 6. Racial and Ethnic Composition of Selected Central Cities, 1988
IBlacks 81.1% Hispanics 0.7%
Detroit
Asian/other 6.0% Asian/other 1.3% Non-Hispanic whites 16.9%I ' I
Blacks 22.4%
I
IHispanics 25.0% Non-Hispanic whites 46.6%
New York
Asian/other 9.5%I
INon-Hispanic whites
46.3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach
Blacks 12.7%
I
IHispanics 31.5%
Asian/other 4.0%I
INon-Hispanic whites
45.9%Houston
Blacks 27.3%
I
IHispanics 22.7%
Source: u.s. Bureau of the Census, public use data files from the March 1988 Current Population Survey.
35
first is that most of the poverty population in the United States resides withinthe central cities of large metropolitanareas. The second is that a substantialproportion of central city residents areminorities living in poverty.
A careful study of poverty by Bane andJargowsky indicates that less than 30percent of the total national poverty population lives in the largest centralcities.39 Some 80 percent of nonHispanic white poor people live in thesuburbs of these large metropolitanareas, in smaller metropolitan areas, andin rural or non metropolitan America.40Nevertheless, the vast majority of blackpoverty households are in central cities.
Large central cities are not dominatedby black poverty, however. In the central
cities ofthe nation's 39 largest metropol itan areas, for example, the black povertypopulation represents 7.5 percent ofthetotal population, and the total povertypopulation represents less than 18 percent of all residents (see Figure 7). Norare these black poverty households amajority of all black central city households, though the proportion is aboutone black household in three.
There are alarming pockets of blackpoverty within large central cities. Baneand Jargowsky estimate that only about9 percent of poor city whites-but 35percent of poor blacks-live in concentrated poverty neighborhoods.41 Thesocial and economic isolation faced byresidents of concentrated poverty neighborhoods are leading to severe eco-
Figure 7. Percent of Central City and Suburban Households in Poverty by Race, Large
Metropolitan Areas, 1988
Large metropolitan areas*All areas
Central cities
1
Suburbs
North-Declining areas**
Central cities
Suburbs
Black povertyAll other povertyBlack above povertyAll other above poverty
Percent of household heads
'Defined in footnote, page 33.
"Based on a typology developed by Frey and Speare (see reference 36); North-Declining inCludes NewYork, Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, S1. Louis, Buffalo, Chicago, Newark, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee,Pittsburgh, and Paterson-Clifton-Passaic.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, public use data files from the March 1988 Current Population Survey.
36
\ .
Since the 1970s, more and more middle-class blackfamilies have moved into suburban areas.
nomic and social consequences forthese people and their children. Theproblems are greatest in those citieswhere there are extensive neighborhoods of minorities and where minorities are a large percentage of all residents. The majority of the nation's concentrated poverty households arelocated in only about 10 of the largestcentral cities.
Baby-Boom Suburbanization
One hope held by many people in the1970swas that as the baby-boom generation reached the household formationages their preference for settling in thecities would revitalize sagging urbanneighborhoods. This hope of "gentrification" was based on the premise thatyoung adults tend to prefer a central cityresidence, at least until they settle down
and have families. Central cities have traditionally served as "staging areas" foryoung adults before marriage and childbearing.42
People also anticipated that the babyboomers, more so than earlier groups,would be likely to stay in the city beyondthe early adult years. This expectationrested on the trends of delayed marriageand childbearing and the idea that thecultural amenities and professionalemployment opportunities located incentral cities would appeal to moreaffluent baby boomers as they aged intotheir 30s and 40s.
The record of the 1970s suggests thatthe gentrification trend was less important than had been anticipated.43Undoubtedly, the sheer number of babyboomers staved off even greater population declines for central cities thanwould otherwise have occurred, but asthe 1980s ended the majority of babyboomers had already reached their 30sand early 40s, and they are not remaining in the central cities.
Figure 8, page 38, shows that the distribution between cities and suburbs is nodifferent for baby boomers than for olderadult households, either for the 39largest metropolitan areas as a whole orforthe 131arge"North-Declining" metropolitan areas.44 It is the higher-incomeboomers who are primarily responsiblefor the greater suburbanization of allbaby boomers. Nonaffluent baby boomers are fairly equally distributed betweenthe central cities and the suburbs, butaffluent boomers are more than twice aslikely to locate in the suburbs than thecity. In this respect, the baby boomersalso parallel the experiences of olderhouseholds.
Pockets of gentrification exist withinmost large central cities and, as suggested earlier, these pockets are morenumerous within such cosmopolitancities as San Francisco and Washington,D.C. But it appears that the baby-boomgeneration has followed the patterns ofearlier generations by moving to the suburbs as they begin to raise their families.
37
\ .
The hope that affluent baby boomerswould reinvigorate the nation's largestcentral cities seems to have evaporated.
Conclusion: Beyondthe Transition
Figure 8. Baby Boom and Older
Household Heads by Level of Affluence,
Central Cities and Suburbs, 1988
Baby {_ Affluentboomers _ Nonaffluent(Age 25-44)
Older {_ Affluenthouseholders _ Nonaffluent(Age 45+)
Note: Affluence is defined as a household incomein the top 30th percentile of all householdincomes 1988; nonaffluence is the bottom 70percent of incomes.
"Defined in footnote. page 33.
"Based on a typology developed by Frey andSpeare (see reference 36); North-Decliningincludes New York, Philadelphia. Boston,Cincinnati, Sf. Louis, Buffalo, Chicago, Newark,Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, andPaterson-CI ifton-Passaic.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, public usedata files from the March 1988 CurrentPopulation Survey.
Throughout most of America's history.people have moved from small townsand villages to ever-expanding cities.This growing concentration of the population in metropolitan areas hasreflected powerful economic forces. Inretrospect, the rural renaissance of the1970s, which many people thoughtmarked atransition away from metropolitan growth toward a new deconcentration of the population, was not all that itseemed to be at the time. The economicadversity of the 1980s quickly put thebrakes on population deconcentrationtrends, allowing a moderate metropolitan growth to emerge .
Still, the strong metropolitan growthtrends of the 1950s and 1960s are notlikely to reappear, as the restructuringof the national economy continues andnew employment opportunities are created in communities of all sizes. Mostcertainly, national and worldwide economic restructuring will continue to playa role in shaping America's employmentand residential distribution patterns inthe future.
As America's production and consumption become increasingly linked toglobal economic activities, the 1990swill likely bring further vitality to thenation's two major World Cities, NewYork and Los Angeles. The increasedpopulation pressure on already denselysettled coastal areas will probably spurthe spread of population growthinland-westward beyond the megalopolis on the Atlantic Coast, and eastwardinto central California and other areaslinked to the Pacific Coast.
Such Command and Control Centersas Atlanta and Dallas should also continue to prosper. Many large southernand western metropolitan areas thatwere hit hard by the rolling recessionsof the 1980s will successfully diversifyand rebound economically and demo-
Central Suburbscities
North-Decliningmetropolitan
areas··
20.1
Central Suburbscities
All largemetropolitan
areas·
en 25c.Q
.s 20+
LO
C\l 15Q)OJell
~ 10ellQ)
.s:::.
]2 5o.s:::.
Q)Vl
5 0:I:
38
I. •
Gentrification, the much-touted salvation ofdeclining urban neighborhoods by affluent babyboomers, was less important than anticipated.
graphically. Immigration from Asia andLatin America will continue to boost thepopulations of major ports of entry inthe 1990s. The large and increasinglymobile elderly population is likely to foster further population gains for fastgrowing retirement centers in Floridaand other Sunbelt destinations.
The greatest question marks for the1990s concern the growth prospects ofolder large "smokestack" metropolisesaround the Great Lakes, and smallerindustrial areas throughout the Mid-
west. Many of these areas still specializeheavily in less-than-competitive industries. The key to their future growth prospects lies in their capacity to diversify.
The economic forces of the 1980sdealt some sharp blows to nonmetropolitan America. While these negative forcesapparently diminished by the end of thedecade, it is not certain how quicklythese areas can rebound from the economic adversity of this period. If theycan, there is the potential for renewedpopulation gain: The strong deconcentration patterns of the 1970s demonstrated that many people prefer the amenities and quality of life offered bysmaller communities when economicconditions permit.
If the trends of the past two decadeshave taught us anything, it is thatregional and metropolitan populationgrowth in the United States has becomemuch more volatile and responsive toboth local and worldwide forces. The"transition" that has taken place is reallythe change to a new redistribution process rather than to a specific geographicpattern. Improvements in communication and production technologies, thediffusion of urban amenities throughoutthe country, and the rise of aglobal economy have created new distributiondynamics.
Many of the constraints underlying traditional regional and metropolitangrowth patterns have been lifted. As aresult, the fortunes of metropolitanareas and smaller communities increasingly will be determined by corporatedecisions, people's residential preferences and, perhaps most important ofall, how effectively areas can adapt torapidly changing economic conditions.D
39
\ .
References1. Frey, William H. and Alden Speare, Jr., Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline in the
United States, 1980 Census Monograph (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988).2. Vining, Daniel R., Jr., "Migration Between the Core and the Periphery," Scientific American,
247, No. 12 (1982) pp. 44-53; Frey, William H., "Migration and Metropolitan Decline inDeveloped Countries: A Comparative Study," Population and Development Review, Vol. 14,NO.4(December 1988) pp. 595-628; A G. Champion, ed., Counterurbanization: TheChangingPace and Nature of Population Deconcentration (London: Edward Arnold, 1989).
3. Markusen, Ann R. and Virginia Carlson, "Deindustrialization in the American Midwest:Causes and Responses," in Lloyd Rodwin and Hidehiko Sazanami, eds., Deindustrializationand Regional Economic Transformation: TheExperience of the United States (Boston: UnwinHyman, 1989).
4. Shyrock, Henry S., "The Natural History of Standard Metropolitan Areas," American Journalof Sociology, Vol. 63 (1957) pp. 163-170.
5. Beale, Calvin L and Glenn V. Fuguitt, "The New Pattern of Nonmetropolitan PopulationChange," in Karl E.Taeuber, Larry L Bumpass and James A Sweet, eds., Social Demography(New York: Academic Press, 1978) pp. 157-177; Richter, Kerry, "Non metropolitan Growth inthe Late 1970s: The End of the Turnaround?," Demography, Vol. 22, No.2 (May 1985)pp. 245-263.
6. Long, Larry and Diana DeAre, "U.S. Population Redistribution: A Perspective on the Nonmetropolitan Turnaround," Population and Development Review, Vol. 14, No.3 (1988)pp. 433-450.
7. Forstal', Richard L, "Population and Estimated Net Migration by Region and MetropolitanStatus: 1960-85," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association ofGeographers, April 1987.
8. Discussions of influences on nonmetropolitan population dynamics in the 1970s can befound in: Glenn V. Fuguitt, "The Nonmetropolitan Turnaround," Annual Review of Sociology,Vol. 11 (1985) pp. 259-280; Richter, "Non metropolitan Growth in the Late 1970s: The End ofthe Turnaround?"; and Glenn V. Fuguitt, David L Brown and Calvin Beale, Rural and SmallTown America, 1980 Census Monograph (New York: Russell Sage, 1989).
9. A theoretical statement of this perspective can be found in: John M. Wardwell, "Toward aTheory of Urban-Rural Migration in the Developed World," in David L Brown and John M.Wardwell, eds., New Directions in Urban-Rural Migration (New York: Academic Press, 1980)pp.71-118.
10. These characterizations are based on Calvin Beale's estimates for the 1980-1983 periodin: Calvin L Beale, "Americans Heading for the Cities, Once Again," Rural DevelopmentPerspectives, Vol. 4, NO.3 (June 1988) pp. 2-6.
11. Ibid.12. Unpublished tabulations by Glenn Fuguitt and Calvin Beale, personal communication with
Glenn Fuguitt.13. These analyses draw heavily from Beale, "Americans Heading for the Cities, Once Again,"
1988; and Fuguitt, Brown and Beale, Rural and Small Town America (1989).14. Harrison, Bennett and Jean Kluver, "Reassessing the 'Massachusetts Miracle': the Sources
and Patterns of Employment and Economic Growth in the Revitalization of a 'Mature'Region," in Lloyd Rodwin and Hidehiko Sazanami, eds., Deindustrialization and RegionalEconomic Transformation: The Experience of the United States (Boston: Unwin Hyman,1989); Drennan, Matthew, "New York in the World Economy," Survey of Regional Literature,NO.4 (December 1987) pp. 13-19; Summers, Anita A, and Thomas F. Luce, "EconomicReport on the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area, 1985."
15. Garnick, Daniel H., "Local Area Economic Growth Patterns: A Comparison of the 1980s andPrevious Decades," in G.H. McGeary and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., eds., Urban Change andPoverty (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988) pp. 199-254.
16. Long, John F., "Population Deconcentration in the United States," Special DemographicAnalysis CDS 81-5 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981); Frey andSpeare, Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline in the United States (1988).
17. Frey, William H., "United States: Counterurbanization and Metropolis Depopulation," in AG.Champion (ed.), Counterurbanization ... , pp. 34-61.
40
\ .
18. Markusen and Carlson, "Deindustrialization in the American Midwest," 1989.19. Brown, David L. and Kenneth L. Deavers, "Rural Change and the Rural Economic Policy
Agenda for the 1980s," in David L. Brown, Jane Norman Reid, Herman Bluestone, David A.McGranahan and Sara M. Mazie, eds., Rural Economic Development in the 1980s: Prospectsfor the Future, Rural Development Research Report No. 69 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988).
20. Norton, R. D., "Housing Price Booms and Regional Cycles," Journal of Regional Literature,NO.9 (March 1989) pp. 2-12.
21. A more detailed typology of metropolitan economic functions, based on similar considerations, is advanced in: Thierry J. Noyelle and Thomas M. Stanback, Jr., TheEconomic Transforma,tion of American Cities (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld, 1984).
22. Ibid. Note: These four areas are classed as "National Diversified Service Centers" in theNoyelle and Stanback typology.
23. See discussion of "The Northeast Megalopolis and other Groupings of MSAs" in DonaldE. Starsinic and Richard Forstall, "Patterns of Metropolitan Area and County PopulationGrowth: 1980to 1987," Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No.1 039 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988) pp. 23-26; Glaberson, William, "The Little Engines ThatCould," The New York Times, May 1, 1988; Lyons, Richard D., "Lure for Long Commute:Cheaper Homes," The New York Times, September 20, 1987.
24. Boyer, Richard and David Savageau, The Places Rated Almanac (New York: Prentice Hall,1989). This almanac ranks metropolitan areas on based on a index of statistical indicators ofquality of life: cost of living, job outlook, crime rates, health care, transportation, education,recreation, and climate.
25. This portion of the analysis employs the census NECMA metropolitan area definition forareas within the New England states (see Box 1).
26. The mobility patterns of the baby-boom cohorts, as they age, are examined in: WilliamH. Frey, "Lifecourse Migration and Redistribution of the Elderly across U.S. Regions andMetropolitan Areas," Economic Outlook USA, second quarter (1986) pp. 10-16.
27. Rogers, Andrei and John Watkins, "General versus Elderly Interstate Migration and Population Redistribution in the United States," Research on Aging, Vol. 9, No.4 (December 1987)pp. 483-529.
28. Frey and Speare, Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline in the United States, 1988,Chapter 6; Lichter, Daniel T., Tim B. Heaton and Glenn V. Fuguitt, "Convergence in Blackand White Population Redistribution in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 67,NO.1 (March 1986).
29. Within the "Asian and Other Race" category, Asian and Pacific Islanders are far moreurbanized than are Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts. In 1980, greater than 90% of Asian andPacific Islanders resided in metropolitan areas, while just over half of the remaining raceswere metropolitan residents. See Fuguitt, Brown and Beale, Rural and Small Town America(1989) Chapter 5.
30. Frey and Speare, Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline in the United States, 1988,pp. 175-427.
31. Ibid.32. Farley, Reynolds and Walter R. Allen, The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America, 1980
Census Monograph (New York: Russell Sage, 1987).33. This is demonstrated in: Frey, William H., "Life Course Migration of Metropolitan Whites and
Blacks and the Structure of Demographic Change in Large Cities," American SociologicalReview, Vol. 49 (1984) pp. 803-27.
34. Logan, John R. and Mark Schneider, "Racial Segregation and Racial Change in AmericanSuburbs, 1970-80," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 89 (1984) pp. 874-888; Massey,Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton, "Suburbanization and Segregation in U.S. MetropolitanAreas," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, No.3 (November 1988) pp. 592-626.
35. Frey and Speare, Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline in the United States, 1988,Chapter 8; Massey and Denton, "Suburbanization and Segregation in U.S. MetropolitanAreas," 1988.
36. Data from the 1988 Current Population Survey were used to approximate the North-Decliningareas used by Frey and Speare, 1988. Contact author for details.
41
:\ . ---~-j
37. Kasarda, John D., "Jobs, Migration, and Emerging Urban Mismatches," in Michael G.McGeary and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., eds., Urban Change and Poverty (Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press, 1988) pp. 148-198.
38. Wilson, William Julius, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1987); Wacquant, LoisJ.D. and William Julius Wilson, "The Cost of Racial and Class Exclusionin the Inner City," in William Julius Wilson, ed., "The Ghetto Underclass: Social SciencePerspective," The Annals, Vol. 501 (January 1989).
39. Bane, Mary Jo and Paul A. Jargowsky, "Urban Poverty Areas: Basic Questions ConcerningPrevalence, Growth and Dynamics," Paper prepared for the Committee on National UrbanPolicy, National Academy of Sciences (February 1988).
40. O'Hare, William P., "The Rise of Poverty in Rural America," Population Trends in PublicPolicy, No. 15 (Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau, 1988).
41. Bane and Jargowksy, "Urban Poverty Areas: Basic Questions Concerning Prevalence,Growth and Dynamics," 1988. These estimates pertain to poor non-Hispanic whites andblacks residing in the nation's 100 largest cities in 1980. Concentrated poverty neighborhoodsare census tracts with poverty rates greater than 40 percent.
42. Long, Larry H., "Back to the Countryside and Back to the City in the Same Decade," in ShirleyB. Laska and Daphne Spain, eds., Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation(Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1980) pp. 61-76.
43. Nelson, Kathryn P., Gentrification and Distressed Cities: An Assessment of Trends in Intrametropolitan Migration (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988).
44. Baby-boomer households are approximated, here, by those with heads ages 25-44 in 1988(born between 1944 and 1963). Affluent baby-boom households are in the upper 30 percentileof the household income distribution. Affluent older households are also in the upper 30percentile of the income distribution.
42
:I. •
Appendix Table: U.S.Metropolitan Areas Ranked by1988 Population Size
PercentSize
(1,000s)GrowthGrowthRank
MSAlCMSA State(s)19881980-88Rank
1
New York-Northern N.J.-Long Island CMSA NY-NJ-CT18,120.23.31922
Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside CMSA CA13,769.719.8513
Chicago-Gary-Lake County CMSA IL-IN-WI8,180.93.11954
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CMSA CA6,041.812.6805
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton CMSA PA-NJ-DE-MD5,963.35.01726
Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA Ml4,620.2-2.82517
Boston-Lawrence-Salem CMSA MA-NH4,109.93.51878
Dallas-Fort Worth CMSA TX3,766.128.5209
Washington MSA DC-MD-VA3,734.214.96710
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria CMSA TX3,641.517.55711
Miami-Fort Lauderdale CMSA FL3,000.513.57512
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain CMSA OH2,769.0-2.324713
Atlanta MSA GA2,736.628.02314
St. Louis MSA MO-IL2,466.73.818415
Seattle-Tacoma CMSA WA2,420.815.66516
Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA MN-WI2,387.511.78617
San Diego MSA CA2,370.427.32518
Baltimore MSA MD2,342.56.515419
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley CMSA PA2,284.1-5.727320
Phoenix MSA AZ2,029.534.51421
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA FL1,995.123.63522
Denver-Boulder CMSA CO1,858.014.86923
Cincinnati-Hamilton CMSA OH-KY-IN1,728.54.118024
Kansas City MSA MO-KS1,575.49.910725
Milwaukee-Racine CMSA WI1,571.70.123226
Portland-Vancouver CMSA OR-WA1,414.29.012527
Sacramento MSA CA1,385.225.92828
Norlolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News MSA VA1,380.219.05429
Columbus MSA OH1,344.38.113130
San Antonio MSA TX1,323.223.43631
New Orleans MSA LA1,306.94.018232
Indianapolis MSA IN1,236.66.016033
Buffalo-Niagara Falls CMSA NY1,175.6-5.427134
Providence-Pawtucket-Fall River CMSA RI-MA1,125.43.918335
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA NC-SC1,112.014.57236
Hartford-New Britain-Middletown CMSA CT1,067.65.316837
Salt Lake City-Ogden MSA UT1,065.017.06038
Rochester MSA NY980.10.922739
Memphis MSA TN-AR-MS979.37.214440
Nashville MSA TN971.814.37441
Orlando MSA FL971.238.8842
Louisville MSA KY-IN967.01.122043
Oklahoma City MSA OK963.811.98444
Dayton-Springfield MSA OH948.00.622945
Greensboro-Winston'Salem-High Point, MSA NC924.78.612846
Birmingham MSA AL923.44.517647
Jacksonville MSA FL898.124.33348
Albany-Schenectady- Troy MSA NY850.81.821449
Richmond-Petersburg MSA VA844.310.99450
Honolulu MSA HI838.510.010651
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach, MSA FL818.541.9652
Austin MSA TX748.539.5753
Scranton-Wilkes'Barre MSA PA736.61.122454
Tulsa MSA OK727.610.79655
Raleigh-Durham MSA NC683.521.94156
Allentown-Bethlehem MSA PA-NJ677.16.6149
43
\ .
Appendix Table continues
Size
PercentSize
(1,OOOs)GrowthGrowthRank
MSAlCMSA State(s)19881980-88Rank
57
Grand Rapids MSA MI665.210.69758
Syracuse MSA NY650.31.122359
Tucson MSA AZ636.019.75260
Las Vegas MSA NV631.336.31261
Omaha MSA NE-IA621.66.215762
Greenville-Spartanburg MSA SC621.49.012363
Toledo MSA OH616.5-0.123464
Fresno MSA CA614.819.55365
Knoxville MSA TN599.65.916266
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle MSA PA591.16.315667
EI Paso MSA TX585.922.13968
Baton Rouge MSA LA536.58.612969
New Haven-Meriden MSA CT523.74.717470
Springfield MSA MA522.51.421671
Bakersfield MSA CA520.029.01872
Little Rock-North Little Rock MSA AR513.18.113273
Charleston MSA SC510.818.75674
Youngstown-Warren MSA OH501.7-5.627275
Albuquerque MSA NM493.117.35876
Mobile MSA AL485.69.511677
Wichita MSA KS483.19.211978
Columbia MSA SC456.511.38979
Stockton MSA CA455.731.21580
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol MSA TN-VA442.32.021181
Chattanooga MSA TN-GA438.12.720182
Flint MSA MI430.7-4.426283
Lansing-East Lansing MSA MI428.42.120884
Worcester MSA MA415.73.219385
Lancaster MSA PA414.114.37386
York MSA PA410.47.613987
Saginaw-Bay City-Midland MSA MI406.2-3.625988
Canton MSA OH401.4-0.823789
Augusta MSA GA-SC396.414.67190
Jackson MSA MS396.29.411891
Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA FL395.823.03792
Colorado Springs MSA CO393.927.32493
Des Moines MSA IA391.86.615194
Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA FL388.342.3595
McAlien-Edinburg-Mission MSA TX387.936.91196
Fort Wayne MSA IN367.43.718597
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline MSA IA-IL364.2-5.326998
Beaumont-Port Arthur MSA TX363.9-2.524999
Shreveport MSA LA359.17.8137100
Corpus Christi MSA TX358.09.7111101
Spokane MSA WA356.44.3178102
Madison MSA WI352.89.0124103
Pensacola MSA FL349.920.846104
Salinas-Seaside-Monterey MSA CA348.820.149105
Daytona Beach MSA FL348.434.613106
Lexington-Fayette MSA KY347.99.6113107
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc MSA CA343.114.968108
Modesto MSA CA341.028.322109
Peoria MSA IL34Q.4-7.0277110
Reading MSA PA329.15.3169111
Huntington-Ashland MSA WV-KY-OH322.3-4.2261112
Appleton-Oshkosk-Neenah MSA WI312.97.4142113
Utica-Rome MSA NY312.6-2.4248114
Atlantic City MSA NJ309.211.985115
Fort Myers-Cape Coral MSA FL309.150.64116
Montgomery MSA AL300.810.399
44
\ .
SizePercentSize
(l,OOOs)GrowthGrowthRank
MSA/CMSAState(s)19881980-88Rank
117
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA CA297.921.243118
Macon-Warner Robins MSA GA286.78.8126119
Rockford MSA IL282.21.0225120
Evansville MSA IN-KY281.21.8215121
Erie MSA PA277.0-1.0238122
Eugene-Springfield MSA OR270.1-1.9244123
Salem MSA OR269.88.0133124
Brownsville-Harlingen MSA TX264.025.929125
Poughkeepsie MSA NY262.27.0147126
Charleston MSA WV260.8-3.3256127
Sarasota MSA FL260.628.919128
Binghamton MSA NY260.2-1.2239129
New London-Norwich MSA CT-RI259.33.4191130
Fayetteville MSA NC255.73.5189131
Johnstown MSA PA250.6-5.3268132
Columbus MSA GA-AL246.93.2194133
Savannah MSA GA244.410.895134
South Bend-Mishawaka MSA IN244.21.1222135
Provo-Orem MSA UT242.711.390136
Duluth MSA MN-WI241.4-9.5281137
Reno MSA NV239.723.834138
Killeen-Temple MSA TX239.611.687139
Huntsville MSA AL236.720.248140
Springfield MSA MO234.312.879141
Fort Pierce MSA FL231.853.33142
Tallahassee MSA FL228.620.150143
Lubbock MSA TX226.87.2145144
Hickory MSA NC222.19.6114145
Roanoke MSA VA221.60.5230146
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester MSA NH-ME220.415.466147
Anchorage MSA AK218.525.331148
Kalamazoo MSA MI217.92.6203149
Waterbury MSA CT215.85.3170150
Portland MSA ME212.29.5117151
Lincoln MSA NE211.69.7112152
Lafayette MSA LA209.610.2101153
Gainesville MSA FL207.621.144154
Biloxi-Gulfport MSA MS205.012.581155
Boise City MSA ID200.715.963156
Amarillo MSA TX196.313.078157
Springfield MSA IL191.72.1209158
Green Bay MSA WI191.29.1121159
Ocala MSA FL189.855.02160
Waco MSA TX188.010.1105161
Bradenton MSA FL186.925.930162
Yakima MSA WA185.57.6138163
Houma-Thibodaux MSA LA183.13.5188164
Fort Collins-Loveland MSA CO182.022.040165
SI. Cloud MSA MN181.211.092166
Bremerton MSA WA180.922.938167
Fort Smith MSA AR-OK180.711.093168
Chico MSA CA174.521.342169
Asheville MSA NC173.17.5140170
Lake Charles MSA LA172.43.1196171
Champaign-Urbana-Rantoul MSA IL172.12.2206172
Wheeling MSA WV-OH171.5-7.6279173
Cedar Rapids MSA IA171.51.0226174
Merced MSA CA170.026.326175
New Bedford MSA MA167.90.7228176
Longview-Marshall MSA TX166.69.8109
45
, .
Appendix Table continues
Size
PercentSize
(1.oo0s)GrowthGrowthRank
MSA/CMSA State(s)19881980-88Rank
177
Benton Harbor MSA MI166.6-2.8252178
Topeka MSA KS164.86.4155179
Muskegon MSA MI161.32.4205180
Clarksville-Hopkinsville MSA TN-KY158.95.7164181
Lima MSA OH156.71.3218182
Olympia MSA WA156.626.127183
Parkersburg-Marietta MSA WV-OH154.4-2.2246184
Tyler MSA TX152.618.955185
Elkhart-Goshen MSA IN151.110.1103186
Fort Walton Beach MSA FL150.637.010187
Manchester MSA NH149.915.964188
Jackson MSA MI149.5-1.3240189
Fargo-Moorhead MSA ND-MN148.47.8135190
Waterloo-Cedar Falls MSA IA147.8-9.2280191
Steubenville-Weirton MSA OH-WV147.7-9.8282192
Richland-Kennewick-Pasco MSA WA146.41.3219193
Medford MSA OR145.910.1104194
Lynchburg MSA VA145.53.0198195
Tuscaloosa MSA AL145.45.7165196
Athens MSA GA144.711.388197
Monroe MSA LA144.03.4190198
Anderson MSA SC143.17.4141199
Jamestown-Dunkirk MSA NY141.3-3.8260200
Redding MSA CA139.720.945201
Battle Creek MSA MI139.2-1.7243202
Naples MSA FL138.561.11203
Eau Claire MSA WI138.45.7163204
Alexandria MSA LA137.81.9212205
Janesville-Beloit MSA WI136.3-2.2245206
Greeley MSA CO136.210.398207
Joplin MSA MO136.06.6153208
Florence MSA AL135.50.4231209
Decatur MSA AL132.710.2100210
Terre Haute MSA IN132.6-3.4258211
Altoona MSA PA132.5-3.0253212
Las Cruces MSA NM132.037.09213
Anderson MSA IN131.8-5.4270214
Dothan MSA AL131.17.0148215
Burlington MSA VT129.112.083216
Mansfield MSA OH129.0-1.6242217
Laredo MSA TX128.929.916218
Pascagoula MSA MS128.18.6127219
Pueblo MSA CO127.61.3217220
Jacksonville MSA NC126.512.182221
Panama City MSA FL125.528.421222
Sioux Falls MSA SO125.514.770223
Lafayette-West Lafayette MSA IN125.43.0199224
Bloomington-Normal MSA IL124.74.6175225
Odessa MSA TX124.78.1130226
Wichita Falls MSA TX124.62.9200227
Charlottesville MSA VA123.89.0122228
Decatur MSA IL123.7-5.9274229
Anniston MSA AL123.33.0197230
Sharon MSA PA122.4-4.6264231
Abilene MSA TX121.89.8108232
Muncie MSA IN120.1-6.6276233
Texarkana MSA AR-TX119.45.6166234
Lawton MSA OK119.36.1159235
Bellingham MSA WA118.711.291236
Yuba City MSA CA118.416.162
46
" .
SizePercentSize
(l,OOOs)GrowthGrowthRank
MSNCMSAState(s)19881980-88Rank
237
Williamsport MSA PA118.3-0.1235238
Florence MSA SC118.07.1146239
Hagerstown MSA MD117.84.1181240
Wilmington MSA NC117.313.476241
Bryan-College Station MSA TX116.624.532242
Billings MSA MT116.47.8136243
Albany MSA GA116.33.5186244
Glens Falls MSA NY116.15.9161245
State College MSA PA115.72.6202246
Sioux City MSA IA-NE115.7-1.5241247
Wausau MSA WI113.41.9213248
Santa Fe MSA NM112.520.847249
Fayetteville-Springdale MSA AR110.610.1102250
Danville MSA VA108.1-3.3257251
Midland MSA TX107.329.817252
Burlington MSA NC105.86.6152253
Columbia MSA MO105.85.4167254
Bloomington MSA IN103.14.3179255
Sheboygan MSA WI103.02.0210256
Gadsden MSA AL102.9-0.2236257
Cumberland MSA MD-WV102.4-5.0267258
Rochester MSA MN101.09.7110259
San Angelo MSA TX99.317.159260
Kokomo MSA IN98.9-4.6263261
Fitchburg-Leominster MSA MA98.14.4177262
Kankakee MSA IL97.9-4.9265263
Sherman-Denison MSA TX97.99.1120264
La Crosse MSA WI95.54.9173265
Elmira MSA NY91.7-6.1275266
Dubuque MSA IA90.9-3.0254267
Pine Bluff MSA AR90.80.1233268
Owensboro MSA KY87.82.1207269
Lewiston-Auburn MSA ME87.02.5204270
Iowa City MSA IA86.76.1158271
Bismarck MSA ND85.87.2143272
SI. Joseph MSA MO85.4-2.8250273
Bangor MSA ME84.81.1221274
Rapid City MSA SD82.016.661275
Pittsfield MSA MA79.3-5.0266276
Jackson MSA TN78.25.0171277
Great Falls MSA MT78.2-3.1255278
Lawrence MSA KS76.513.177279
Cheyenne MSA WY75.29.5115280
Victoria MSA TX74.37.9134281
Grand Forks MSA ND70.56.6150282
Casper MSA WY64.7-10.0283283
Enid MSA OK58.3-7.2278
47
:\ .
Suggested Readings
Bane, Mary Jo and Paul A. Jargowsky, "Urban Poverty Areas: Basic Questions ConcerningPrevalence, Growth and Dynamics," Paper prepared for the Committee on National UrbanPolicy, National Academy of Sciences (February 1988).
Beale, Calvin L., "Americans Heading for the Cities, Once Again," Rural Development Perspectives, Vol. 4, NO.3 (June 1988).
Brown, David L., Jane Norman Reid, Herman Bluestone, David A. McGranahan and Sara M. Mazie,eds., Rural Economic Development in the 1980s: Prospects for the Future Rural Development,Research Report No. 69 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988).
Champion, A.G., ed., Counterurbanization: the Changing Pace and Nature of PopulationDeconcentration (London: Edward Arnold, 1989).
Clark, W.A.V., "The Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography: Urban Restructuring from a Demographic Perspective," Economic Geography, Vol. 63 (April 1987) pp. 103-125.
Frey, William H., "Migration and Depopulation of the Metropolis: Regional Restructuring or RuralRenaissance?," American Sociological Review, Vol. 52 (April 1987) pp. 240-257.
Frey, William H., "Migration and Metropolitan Decline in Developed Countries: A ComparativeStudy," Population and Development Review, Vol. 14, No.4 (December 1988) pp.595-628.
Frey, William H. and Alden Speare, Jr., Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline in theUnited States, 1980 Census Monograph (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988).
Fuguitt, Glenn V., "The Nonmetropolitan Turnaround," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 11(1985) pp.259-280.
Fuguitt, Glenn V., David L. Brown and Calvin L. Beale, Rural and Small Town America, 1980Census Monograph (New York: Russell Sage, 1989).
Hall, Peter and Ann Markusen, eds., Silicon Landscapes (Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1985).Long, Larry, Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States, 1980 Census Monograph
(New York: Russell Sage, 1988).Long, Larry and Diana DeAre, "U.S. Population Redistribution: A Perspective on the Nonmetropoli
tan Turnaround," Population and Development Review, Vol. 14, No.3 (1988) pp. 433-450.Markusen, Ann R., Peter Hall and Amy Glasmeier, High Tech America: The What, How, Where,
and Why of the Sunrise Industries (Winchester, Massachusetts: Allen and Unwin, 1986).McGeary, Michael G. and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., eds., Urban Change and Poverty (Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988).Morrison, Peter A., A Taste of Country: A Collection of Calvin Beale's Writings (University Park,
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1990).Nelson, Kathryn P., Gentrification and Distressed Cities: An Assessment of Trends in Intrametro
politan Migration (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988).Norton, R. D., "Housing Price Booms and Regional Cycles," Journal of Regional Literature, No.
9 (March 1989) pp. 2-12.Noyelle, Thierry J. and Thomas M. Stanback, Jr., The Economic Transformation of American
Cities (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld, 1984).O'Hare, William P., "The Rise of Poverty in Rural America," Population Trends in Public Policy
(Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau, 1988).Rodwin, Lloyd and Hidehiko Sazanami, eds., Deindustrialization and Regional Economic Trans
formation: The Experience of the United States (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989).Starsinic, Donald E. and Richard L. Forstall, "Patterns of Metropolitan Area and County Popula
tion Growth: 1980-1987," Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 1039 (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989).
Vining, Daniel R., Jr., "Migration Between the Core and the Periphery," Scientific American, 247,No. 12 (1982).
Weinstein, Bernard L. and Harold T. Gross, "The Rise and Fall of Sun, Rust, and Frost Belts,"Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 2, No.1 (February 1988) pp. 9-18.
White, Michael J., American Neighborhoods and Residential Differentiation, 1980 Census Monograph (New York: Russell Sage, 1988).
Wilson, Franklin D., "Aspects of Migration in an Advanced Industrial Society," American Sociological Review, Vol. 53 (February 1988) pp.113-126.
48
" .
Discussion Points
1. Discuss the patterns and timing of population growth in large metropolitan, small metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan areas since 1910.
2. What factors contributed to the slow-down of metropolitan area growth compared to nonmetropolitan areas during the 1970s? Highlight the contribution of international factors.
3. Why did metropolitan areas regain their growth momentum during the 1980s? Did all metropolitan areas participate? Explain.
4. Select a metropolitan area not discussed in this Bulletin. Describe its responses to the influences that affected population distribution during the 1970s and 1980s.
5. How did the experiences of the top 20 metropolitan areas between 1970 and 1988 reflectregional shifts in the country's population?
6. How would you expect factors that shaped metropolitan area growth or decline during thepast 20 years to correlate with the life cycle changes and settlement patterns of the babyboom generation?
7. Examine the effects of immigration on the racial/ethnic composition of metropolitan areas.Are all metropolitan areas equally affected?
8. Discuss the impact that actual and potential social, economic and political events worldwide(e.g. perestroika, the growing importance of the Pacific Rim, the debt crisis in Latin America)could have on metropolitan growth in the United States. Use specific metropolitan areas asexamples.
Prepared by Kimberly A. Crews
49
I, •
Recent Population Bulletins
Population Bulletin prices: single issue, $8, prepaid; bulk order prices on request to: PopulationReference Bureau, Inc., Circulation Department, 777 14th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20005;Telephone: (202) 639-8040 or 1-800-877-9881 for ordering information only.
Volume 45 (1990)Metropolitan America: Beyond the Transition, by William H. Frey NO.2America's Children: Mixed Prospects, by Suzanne M. Bianchi NO.1
Volume 44 (1989)American Education: The Challenge of Change, by Jeanne E. Griffith, Mary J. Frase,
and John H. Ralph NO.4Africa's Expanding Population: Old Problems, New Policies, by Thomas J. Goliber No.3The Graying of Japan, by Linda G. Martin NO.2Two Hundred Years and Counting: The 1990 Census, by Bryant Robey NO.1
Volume 43 (1988)The Demography of Islamic Nations, by John R. Weeks NO.4America's Elderly, by Beth J. Soldo and Emily M. Agree NO.3Food and Population: Beyond Five Billion, by Peter Hendry NO.2Demographics: People and Markets, by Thomas W. Merrick and Stephen J. Tordella NO.1
Volume 42 (1987)Understanding Population Projections, by Carl Haub No.4Redefining Procreation: Facing the Issues, by Stephen L. Isaacs and Renee J. Holt NO.3Population, Resources, Environment: An Uncertain Future, by Robert Repetto. April 1989
reprint. NO.2Europe's Second Demographic Transition, by Dirk J. van de Kaa No.1
Volume 41 (1986)Immigration to the U.S.: The Unfinished Story, by Leon F. Bouvier and Robert W. Gardner NO.4Population Pressures in Latin America, by Thomas W. Merrick, with PRB staff NO.3World Population in Transition, by Thomas W. Merrick, with PRB staff. December 1989
reprint. No.2Demographics and Housing in America, by George Sternlieb and James W. Hughes NO.1
Volume 40 (1985)Asian Americans: Growth, Change, and Diversity, by Robert W. Gardner, Bryant Robey,
and Peter C. Smith. February 1989 reprint. NO.4Poverty in America: Trends and New Patterns, by William P. O'Hare. February 1989
updated reprint. NO.3Adolescent Fertility: Worldwide Concerns, by Judith Senderowitz and John M. Paxman NO.2
Send orders with checks to: Population Reference Bureau, Inc.Circulation DepartmentP.O. Box 96152Washington, D.C. 20090-6152
50
I. •
51
\ .
Population Reference Bureau, Inc.
PRB gathers, interprets, and disseminates information on the facts and implicationsof national and world population trends. Founded in 1929, it is a private, nonprofiteducational organization that is supported by grants and contracts, individual andcorporate contributions, memberships, and sales of publications. It consults with othergroups in the United States and abroad, operates information and library services, andissues the publications described on the outside back cover. PRB also assists thedevelopment of population education through formal and nonformal programs.
Officers
'Joseph L Fisher, Chairman of the Board'Thomas W. Merrick, President'Frances Garcia, Secretary of the Board'Bert T. Edwards, Treasurer of the Board
Trustees
Melissa Ashabranner'Barry C. BishopEllen S. Blalock
'Emily DiCiccoJunia DoanLenneal J. Henderson, Jr.John N. Irwin III
Wesley C. McClureF. Ray MarshallJessica T. MathewsAnne Firth MurrayRobert ParkeMartha H. PhillipsIsabel V. Sawhill
Charles S. TidballBarbara Boyle TorreyRafael ValdiviesoVivian H. WaltonCharles F. Westoff
'Montague YudelmanMarvin Zonis
Michael P. Bentzen, CounselMildred Marcy, Chair EmeritaConrad Taeuber, Chairman Emeritus and Demographic Consultant
Advisory CommitteeSamuel BaumCalvin L. BealeDonald J. BogueLester R. BrownPhilander P. Claxton, Jr.
Caroline S. CochranMercedes B. ConcepcionPhilip M. HauserCarl A. Huether
Richard K. ManoffBenjamin VielSloan R. Wayland
'Members of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees
:\ .
\ .