1 / 37

Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl

Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl. Paul A. Jargowsky University of Texas at Dallas and Centre de Sciences Humaines. Basic Argument. Rapid suburban development (or “Sprawl”) in the US undermines the Central Cities

baker-york
Download Presentation

Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl Paul A. Jargowsky University of Texas at Dallas and Centre de Sciences Humaines

  2. Basic Argument • Rapid suburban development (or “Sprawl”) in the US undermines the Central Cities • The development pattern increases economic segregation by concentrating the poor in the inner cities • It also helps to maintain high levels of racial segregation despite the elimination of de jure controls on black residential location

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

  4. Washington DC Metro Area

  5. Washington DC Metropolitan Area: Population by State

  6. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1900-1910

  7. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1910-1920

  8. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1920-1930

  9. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1930-1940

  10. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1940-1950

  11. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1950-1960

  12. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1960-1970

  13. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1970-1980

  14. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1980-1990

  15. Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1990-2000

  16. Metropolitan Areas with Central City Population Declines, 1990-2000 • Of the 100 Largest • Metropolitan Areas • 30 had central city declines (for example, those to the left) • 51 more had central city growth less than suburban growth

  17. Suburban Growth Is Not Neutral • Robert Park (1926): social distances are translated to physical distances • In US, class is more uncertain, increasing pressure to separate • Middle- and upper-income households have relocated further and further towards the periphery of urban space • Sharp contrast to the suburban development patterns of many other nations, e.g. India, France

  18. Percentage of Blacks and Poor Persons, 2000, in Suburbs by Growth Rate, 1990-2000 Population Change (%), Black and 1990-2000 Black Poor Poor Decline 22.4 14.2 6.1 0 to 25% 12.1 11.9 2.8 25 to 50% 8.5 9.7 1.5 50 to 100% 9.9 7.8 1.3 100% or more 5.3 6.8 0.6 (Includes all suburban places in metropolitan areas.)

  19. Sprawl’s contribution to Concentration of Poverty • Rich move to the newest suburbs • Middle class moves to older suburbs • Poor are left behind in low-density, declining neighborhoods • The social and economic decay of these neighborhoods frightens the middle class, and creates a vicious cycle

  20. 1970 Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

  21. 1980 Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

  22. 1990 Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

  23. 2000 Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

  24. Detroit: the Bigger Picture The large poverty area in 1970….

  25. Detroit: the Bigger Picture …and in 1990

  26. Population Changes, 1970-1990: The MSA Hollows Out

  27. The Process Continues, 1990-2000

  28. Change in Poverty Rates, 1990-2000Detroit MSA The central city did better, but the inner-ring suburbs did not.

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

  30. Cleveland Changein Poverty Rates 1970-1990 1990-2000

  31. St. Louis Changein Poverty Rates 1970-1990 1990-2000

  32. Modeling Sprawl’s Contribution to Racial Segregation • Identify all neighborhoods (census tracts) that grew between 1990 and 2000 (net new housing units) • Count all whites and blacks who moved into growing tracts • Ask the question: what if suburban development had been racially neutral? • To be racially neutral, such growth would have to be mixed income across broad areas.

  33. Two Methods to Model Sprawl’s Effect on Segregation • Fixed proportion method: assign 1990 movers to growing census tracts in proportion to their share of total movers into new housing. • Random moves method: randomly assign white and black movers to growing census tracts until all new slots are filled.

  34. Results for 10 Metropolitan Areas with Largest Black Population

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

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

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

More Related