Transcript Come Back Cities, Have They Come Back?

Comeback Cities,
Have The Big Cities Come Back?
Edward W. (Ned) Hill
Harold Wolman
Kimberly Furdell
Funding from
The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy and the Fannie Mae
Foundation
Purpose
 What is the economic well-being
of city residents?
 Economic well-being getting better
or worse?
 How did Ohio’s central cities
perform?
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
2
Universe
 Central cities with 1980
populations of at least 125,000 in
metropolitan areas with at least
250,000 people
 98 cities
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
3
Two Measures for Two Stories
 Levels of resident distress
 How well are we doing?
 Improvement from 1990 to 2000
 How much are we improving?
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
4
Index of City Resident
Economic Distress
 Poverty rate
 Unemployment rate
 Median household income
 Missing is a measure of cost of living
Calculated as n-scores
Ni = (Xi – Median) / PSD
ni ~ Normal (Median, PSD)
PSD = (Interquartile range)/1.35
PSD Pseudo Standard Deviation
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
5
Index: Change in Resident
Economic Wellbeing: 1990 to 2000
Percent change from 1990 to 2000
 Per capita income
 Median household income
Percentage point change from 1990 to 2000
 Poverty rate
 Unemployment rate
 Labor force participation rate
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
6
How Big is Big?
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
7
Levels of Distress
The Relationship Has Been
Stable for 20 years
2000 vs. 1990
2000 vs. 1980
1990 vs. 1980
Index Values
Pearson's r
0.891
0.850
0.844
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
Rank Order
Spearman's rho
0.919
0.864
0.835
9
Does Region Matter?
Census
Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
Number
of
Cities
7
9
18
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
13
10
19
-0.05
-0.27
0.07
0.23
-0.19
-0.09
-0.09
-0.32
0.35
Mountain
Pacific
7
15
-0.26
0.44
-0.16
0.76
-0.27
0.39
Nation
98
-0.13
-0.04
-0.11
Average Value of Index
2000
1990
1980
-0.84
-0.29
-0.58
-1.07
-0.67
-1.09
-0.30
-0.54
-0.48
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
10
The Eastern Midwest
City
Ohio's Cities
Columbus
Akron
Toledo
Cincinnati
Dayton
Cleveland
Capitol Cities
Madison
Indianapolis
Lansing
Similar Cities
Rochester
Syracuse
Buffalo
Pittsburgh
Milwaukee
Flint
Detroit
Index Value
2000
1990
1980
National Rank
2000
1990
1980
0.58
-0.17
-0.20
-0.53
-0.92
-1.42
0.47
-0.52
-0.38
-0.66
-1.27
-2.08
0.15
-0.46
-0.31
-0.77
-1.18
-1.30
23
52
53
68
77
90
30
71
63
79
90
95
40
68
61
78
88
90
0.78
0.77
0.13
1.11
0.97
-0.05
0.85
0.51
-0.07
15
16
42
10
14
50
11
26
46
-1.21
-1.29
-1.66
-0.82
-0.61
-1.52
-1.54
-0.62
-0.60
-1.49
-0.70
-0.49
-2.66
-3.09
-0.32
-0.59
-1.69
-0.20
0.36
-2.03
-2.35
84
88
94
75
70
92
93
76
75
91
82
70
97
98
62
72
94
56
34
96
97
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
11
The Top 25 in 2000
City
San Jose
San Francisco
Colorado Springs
Charlotte
Raleigh-Durham
Seattle
Honolulu
Omaha
Anaheim
Austin
San Diego
Jacksonville
Wichita
Las Vegas
Madison
Indianapolis
Lexington
Nashville
Greensboro
Phoenix
Denver
Portland
Columbus
Des Moines
Albuquerque
2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rank out of 98
1990
1980
1
1
8
32
20
21
5
9
4
7
11
18
2
3
16
16
3
2
39
23
9
27
17
35
19
5
12
17
10
11
14
26
15
12
13
14
7
20
24
8
41
31
28
39
30
40
18
13
25
33
2000
2.62
1.68
1.34
1.19
1.16
1.11
1.01
0.95
0.93
0.91
0.88
0.85
0.83
0.79
0.78
0.77
0.72
0.68
0.61
0.61
0.59
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.57
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
Index value
1990
2.46
1.18
0.79
1.49
1.51
1.10
2.23
0.94
1.88
0.26
1.18
0.87
0.84
0.99
1.11
0.97
0.95
0.98
1.20
0.72
0.23
0.50
0.47
0.86
0.65
1980
1.89
0.41
0.60
0.92
1.09
0.64
1.55
0.76
1.75
0.56
0.50
0.31
1.21
0.65
0.85
0.51
0.85
0.79
0.61
0.93
0.47
0.19
0.15
0.84
0.39
12
The Top 25 in 1980
City
San Jose
Anaheim
Honolulu
Houston
Wichita
Tulsa
Raleigh-Durham
Phoenix
Charlotte
Oklahoma City
Madison
Lexington
Des Moines
Nashville
Dallas
Omaha
Las Vegas
Seattle
Riverside
Greensboro
Colorado Springs
Fort Lauderdale
Austin
Little Rock
2000
1
9
7
49
13
28
5
20
4
35
15
17
24
18
40
8
14
6
33
19
3
38
10
27
Rank out of 98
1990
1980
1
1
3
2
2
3
54
4
19
5
29
6
4
7
24
8
5
9
37
10
10
11
15
12
18
13
13
14
40
15
16
16
12
17
11
18
6
19
7
20
20
21
31
22
39
23
22
24
2000
2.62
0.93
1.01
-0.05
0.83
0.42
1.16
0.61
1.19
0.33
0.78
0.72
0.57
0.68
0.19
0.95
0.79
1.11
0.35
0.61
1.34
0.25
0.91
0.46
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
Index value
1990
2.46
1.88
2.23
-0.10
0.84
0.50
1.51
0.72
1.49
0.28
1.11
0.95
0.86
0.98
0.26
0.94
0.99
1.10
1.24
1.20
0.79
0.40
0.26
0.73
1980
1.89
1.75
1.55
1.22
1.21
1.17
1.09
0.93
0.92
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.84
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.65
0.64
0.62
0.61
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.56
13
The Bottom 25
City
Jackson
Pittsburgh
Shreveport
Dayton
Stockton
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Bergen
Fresno
Atlanta
Rochester
New Orleans
Birmingham
St. Louis
Syracuse
Providence
Cleveland
New Haven
Flint
Detroit
Buffalo
Miami
Gary
Newark
Hartford
Rank out of 98
2000
1990
1980
74
72
89
75
82
56
76
88
41
77
90
88
78
64
77
79
67
74
80
69
86
81
62
95
82
68
58
83
85
92
84
76
62
85
94
81
86
86
93
87
89
85
88
75
72
89
81
80
90
95
90
91
61
82
92
97
96
93
98
97
94
91
94
95
93
84
96
96
91
97
92
98
98
87
87
2000
-0.75
-0.82
-0.85
-0.92
-0.94
-0.95
-0.96
-1.07
-1.08
-1.20
-1.21
-1.23
-1.24
-1.27
-1.29
-1.29
-1.42
-1.44
-1.52
-1.54
-1.66
-1.71
-1.77
-2.07
-2.27
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
Index value
1990
-0.53
-0.70
-1.20
-1.27
-0.42
-0.43
-0.49
-0.35
-0.44
-0.93
-0.62
-2.00
-1.04
-1.27
-0.60
-0.70
-2.08
-0.34
-2.66
-3.09
-1.49
-1.83
-2.41
-1.76
-1.18
1980
-1.23
-0.20
0.07
-1.18
-0.70
-0.62
-1.09
-1.95
-0.27
-1.35
-0.32
-0.92
-1.50
-1.07
-0.59
-0.90
-1.30
-1.03
-2.03
-2.35
-1.69
-1.05
-1.32
-2.71
-1.16
14
Change in the Economic
Wellbeing of City Residents:
1990 to 2000
How Well Did Most Distressed in
1990 Do? The Low Lower 48
 The lower 1/3 of all cities with 125,000
population in 1990 on municipal
distress index
 Calculated improvement in economic
well being of residents from 1990 to
2000
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
16
Change in Economic Wellbeing of
City Residents: 1990 to 2000
Percent change from 1990 to 2000
 Per capita income
 Median household income
Percentage point change from 1990 to 2000
 Poverty rate
 Unemployment rate
 Labor force participation rate
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
17
The Results—Most Improved
Over 2 standard deviations above the
mean1 Detroit, MI
8.76
1 to 2 standard deviations above the
mean2 San Antonio, TX
6.14
3 Flint, MI
5.84
4 Cleveland, OH
4.70
5 New Orleans, LA
4.52
6 Akron, OH
4.28
1/2 to 1 standard deviation above the
mean7 Dayton, OH
3.89
8 Cincinnati, OH
3.50
9 Atlanta, GA
3.27
10 Louisville, KY
3.22
11 Spokane, WA
2.89
12 Chicago, IL
2.75
13 Columbus, GA
2.56
14 Shreveport, LA
2.48
15 Chattanooga, TN
2.34
16 Memphis, TN
2.22
17 Baton Rouge, LA
2.07
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
Mean index of
wellbeing improvement
= -0.002, standard
deviation = 4.017.
18
The Results—The Fallen
1/2 to 1 standard deviation below the mean
37 Baltimore, MD
-3.67
1 to 2 standard deviations below the mean
38 Springfield, MA
-4.03
39 Philadelphia, PA
-4.09
40 Rochester, NY
-4.38
41 Bridgeport, CT
-4.76
42 Syracuse, NY
-4.99
43 Newark, NJ
-5.52
44 Providence, RI
-5.81
45 San Bernardino, CA
-7.28
46 New Haven, CT
-7.78
Over 2 standard deviations below the mean
47 Hartford, CT
-8.54
48 Paterson, NJ
-9.12
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
19
What Is To Be Learned?
 Difference between perception &
reality—be wary of “best practices”
and copy-cat strategy
 It is not regression to the mean
 Industrial composition matters
 Manufacturing coupled with low
immigration
 Pay attention to fundamentals
Hill, Wolman & Furdell
20