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

:\ .

\ .