Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl

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

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Popu

latio

n (M

illio

ns)

Wasington, DC Maryland Counties Virginia Counties W. Virginia Counties

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

Percent Change, 1900-1910Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

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

Percent Change, 1910-1920Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

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

Percent Change, 1920-1930Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

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

Percent Change, 1930-1940Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

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

Percent Change, 1940-1950Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

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

Percent Change, 1950-1960Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

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

Percent Change, 1960-1970Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

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

Percent Change, 1970-1980Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

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

Percent Change, 1980-1990Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

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

Percent Change, 1990-2000Decline

0 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 100%

More than 100%

Metropolitan Areas with Central City Population Declines, 1990-2000

Metorpolitan Area OverallCentral Cities Suburbs

Philadelphia, PA/NJ 3.6 -4.5 7.8Wash., DC/MD/VA/WV 16.6 -0.4 20.8Detroit, MI 4.1 -6.1 8.2St. Louis, MO/IL 4.4 -9.6 8.9Baltimore, MD 7.2 -10.7 15.7Miami, FL 16.3 -0.2 21.3Cleveland, OH 2.2 -4.8 5.1Newark, NJ 6.1 -0.6 7.2Cincinnati, OH/KY/IN 7.9 -9.0 13.2Milwaukee, WI 4.8 -3.4 12.3New Orleans, LA 4.1 -2.1 8.2Hartford, CT 2.2 -9.7 4.4Rochester, NY 3.4 -5.1 5.7Louisville, KY/IN 8.1 -3.8 13.7Richmond, VA 15.1 -4.1 22.5Greenville, SC 15.9 -5.3 19.7Birmingham, AL 9.6 -8.7 18.1Albany, NY 1.6 -5.3 4.4Akron, OH 5.7 -2.7 10.9Gary, IN 4.4 -10.2 9.3

Growth Rate (%), 1990-2000

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

PopulationChange (%), Black

and 1990-2000 Black Poor Poor

Decline 22.4 14.2 6.10 to 25% 12.1 11.9 2.825 to 50% 8.5 9.7 1.550 to 100% 9.9 7.8 1.3100% or more 5.3 6.8 0.6

(Includes all suburban places in metropolitan areas.)

Sprawl’s contribution to Concentration of Poverty

Rich move to the newest suburbsMiddle class moves to older suburbsPoor are left behind in low-density,

declining neighborhoodsThe social and economic decay of these

neighborhoods frightens the middle class, and creates a vicious cycle

1970

Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

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, 1990-2000Detroit MSA

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

Dallas

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

Change in Poverty Rates

Cleveland

1970-1990 1990-2000

Change in Poverty Rates

St. Louis

1970-1990 1990-2000

Change in Poverty Rates

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.

0 .2 .4 .6 .8

Dallas, TX

Wash., DC/MD/VA/WV

Houston, TX

Atlanta, GA

Baltimore, MD

Los Angeles, CA

Philadelphia, PA/NJ

New York, NY

Chicago, IL

Detroit, MI

1990 2000 (Actual)2000 (Fixed) 2000 (Random)

Results for 10 Metropolitan Areas with Largest Black Population

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