Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl

Paul A. Jargowsky University of Texas at Dallas and

Centre de Sciences Humaines

Basic Argument

 Rapid suburban development (or “Sprawl”) in the US undermines the Central Cities  The development pattern increases economic segregation by concentrating the poor in the inner cities  It also helps to maintain high levels of racial segregation despite the elimination of

de jure

controls on black residential location

Suburban Autonomy

 US Suburbs are independent political units  Little or no external control on growth and development  New suburbs in competition with each other, as well as older suburbs and central city  Incentives favor rapid growth geared towards low-density, automobile-dependent neighborhoods serving high-income households, mostly white

Washington DC Metro Area

Washington DC Counties State

Washington DC Maryland Virginia W. Virginia

Washington DC Metropolitan Area: Population by State

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950

Year

1960 Wasington, DC Maryland Counties Virginia Counties 1970 1980 W. Virginia Counties 1990 2000

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1900-1910 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1910-1920 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1920-1930 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1930-1940 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1940-1950 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1950-1960 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1960-1970 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1970-1980 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1980-1990 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County

Percent Change, 1990-2000 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

Metropolitan Areas with Central City Population Declines, 1990-2000 Metorpolitan Area Philadelphia, PA/NJ Wash., DC/MD/VA/WV Detroit, MI St. Louis, MO/IL Baltimore, MD Miami, FL Cleveland, OH Newark, NJ Cincinnati, OH/KY/IN Milwaukee, WI New Orleans, LA Hartford, CT Rochester, NY Louisville, KY/IN Richmond, VA Greenville, SC Birmingham, AL Albany, NY Akron, OH Gary, IN Growth Rate (%), 1990-2000 Overall 3.6

16.6

4.1

4.4

7.2

16.3

2.2

6.1

7.9

4.8

4.1

2.2

3.4

8.1

15.1

15.9

9.6

1.6

5.7

4.4

Central Cities Suburbs -4.5

-0.4

-6.1

-9.6

-10.7

-0.2

-4.8

-0.6

-9.0

-3.4

-2.1

-9.7

-5.1

-3.8

-4.1

-5.3

-8.7

-5.3

-2.7

-10.2

7.8

20.8

8.2

8.9

15.7

21.3

5.1

7.2

13.2

12.3

8.2

4.4

5.7

13.7

22.5

19.7

18.1

4.4

10.9

9.3

• • Of the 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas 30 had central city declines (for example, those to the left) 51 more had central city growth less than suburban growth

Suburban Growth Is Not Neutral



Robert Park (1926): social distances are translated to physical distances



In US, class is more uncertain, increasing pressure to separate



Middle- and upper-income households have relocated further and further towards the periphery of urban space



Sharp contrast to the suburban development patterns of many other nations, e.g. India, France

Percentage of Blacks and Poor Persons, 2000, in Suburbs by Growth Rate, 1990-2000

Population Change (%), 1990-2000 Black Poor Black and Poor Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% 100% or more 22.4

12.1

8.5

9.9

5.3

14.2

11.9

9.7

7.8

6.8

6.1

2.8

1.5

1.3

0.6

(Includes all suburban places in metropolitan areas.)

Sprawl’s contribution to Concentration of Poverty

 Rich move to the newest suburbs  Middle class moves to older suburbs  Poor are left behind in low-density, declining neighborhoods  The social and economic decay of these neighborhoods frightens the middle class, and creates a vicious cycle

Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

1970

Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

1980

Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

1990

Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

2000

Detroit: the Bigger Picture

The large poverty area in 1970….

Detroit: the Bigger Picture

…and in 1990

Population Changes, 1970 1990: The MSA Hollows Out

The Process Continues, 1990-2000

Change in Poverty Rates, 1990-2000 Detroit MSA

The central city did better, but the inner-ring suburbs did not.

Dallas

Change in Poverty Rates 1970-1990 Paul A. Jargowsky, University of Texas at Dallas 1990-2000 November 1, 2002

Cleveland

Change in Poverty Rates 1970-1990 1990-2000

St. Louis

Change in Poverty Rates 1970-1990 1990-2000

Modeling Sprawl’s Contribution to Racial Segregation

 Identify all neighborhoods (census tracts) that grew between 1990 and 2000 (net new housing units)  Count all whites and blacks who moved into growing tracts  Ask the question: what if suburban development had been racially neutral?

 To be racially neutral, such growth would have to be mixed income across broad areas.

Two Methods to Model Sprawl’s Effect on Segregation

 Fixed proportion method: assign 1990 movers to growing census tracts in proportion to their share of total movers into new housing.  Random moves method: randomly assign white and black movers to growing census tracts until all new slots are filled.

Results for 10 Metropolitan Areas with Largest Black Population

Detroit, MI Chicago, IL New York, NY Philadelphia, PA/NJ Los Angeles, CA Baltimore, MD Atlanta, GA Houston, TX Wash., DC/MD/VA/WV Dallas, TX 0 .2

.4

1990 2000 (Fixed) .6

.8

2000 (Actual) 2000 (Random)

Implications

 Exclusivity: racial and economic exclusion from growth zones  Increases economic segregation  Help to maintain high levels of racial segregation  Lower density: greater physical and social distance between groups  Political fragmentation:   Balkanization of fiscal base Interacts with segregation to limit access to high quality education and other public amenities

Policy Directions

 Housing construction is highly regulated to protect health and safety  Need to also regulate the growth process  Pace of peripheral growth should be tied to metropolitan growth rate, so it does not undermine existing areas   Each suburban community must build a full range of housing types Public transportation needed to improve access to geographically dispersed opportunities

Conclusion

 Housing construction is near permanent  Once built, becomes the architecture of segregation  Individual & local decisions have significant externalities  Regulation of suburban growth is needed to:   Break down racial and economic segregation Protect the long-term health of the community  Promote the geographic access to public resources necessary for equality of opportunity