Segregation and concentration of poverty the role of suburban sprawl
Download
1 / 37

Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 105 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl' - baker-york


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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
Basic Argument

  • Rapid suburban development (or “Sprawl”) in the US undermines the Central Cities

  • The development pattern increases economic segregation by concentrating the poor in the inner cities

  • It also helps to maintain high levels of racial segregation despite the elimination of de jure controls on black residential location


Suburban autonomy
Suburban Autonomy

  • US Suburbs are independent political units

  • Little or no external control on growth and development

  • New suburbs in competition with each other, as well as older suburbs and central city

  • Incentives favor rapid growth geared towards low-density, automobile-dependent neighborhoods serving high-income households, mostly white




Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county

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


Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county1

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


Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county2

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


Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county3

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


Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county4

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


Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county5

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


Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county6

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


Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county7

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


Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county8

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


Washington dc metro area 1900 2000 population change by county9

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


Metropolitan areas with central city population declines 1990 2000
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


Suburban growth is not neutral
Suburban Growth Is Not Neutral 1990-2000

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

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

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

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


Percentage of blacks and poor persons 2000 in suburbs by growth rate 1990 2000
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.)


Sprawl s contribution to concentration of poverty
Sprawl’s contribution to Concentration of Poverty Growth Rate, 1990-2000

  • 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


1970 Growth Rate, 1990-2000

Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000


1980 Growth Rate, 1990-2000

Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000


1990 Growth Rate, 1990-2000

Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000


2000 Growth Rate, 1990-2000

Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000


Detroit the bigger picture
Detroit: the Bigger Picture Growth Rate, 1990-2000

The large poverty area in 1970….


Detroit the bigger picture1
Detroit: the Bigger Picture Growth Rate, 1990-2000

…and in 1990



The process continues 1990 2000
The Process Continues, Growth Rate, 1990-20001990-2000


Change in poverty rates 1990 2000 detroit msa
Change Growth Rate, 1990-2000 in Poverty Rates, 1990-2000Detroit MSA

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


Dallas

Change in Poverty Rates Growth Rate, 1990-2000

Dallas

1970-1990

1990-2000

Paul A. Jargowsky, University of Texas at Dallas November 1, 2002


Cleveland
Cleveland Growth Rate, 1990-2000

Changein Poverty Rates

1970-1990

1990-2000


St louis
St. Louis Growth Rate, 1990-2000

Changein Poverty Rates

1970-1990

1990-2000


Modeling sprawl s contribution to racial segregation
Modeling Sprawl’s Contribution to Racial Segregation Growth Rate, 1990-2000

  • Identify all neighborhoods (census tracts) that grew between 1990 and 2000 (net new housing units)

  • Count all whites and blacks who moved into growing tracts

  • Ask the question: what if suburban development had been racially neutral?

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


Two methods to model sprawl s effect on segregation
Two Methods to Model Sprawl’s Effect on Segregation Growth Rate, 1990-2000

  • 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.



Implications
Implications Population

  • Exclusivity: racial and economic exclusion from growth zones

    • Increases economic segregation

    • Help to maintain high levels of racial segregation

  • Lower density: greater physical and social distance between groups

  • Political fragmentation:

    • Balkanization of fiscal base

    • Interacts with segregation to limit access to high-quality education and other public amenities


Policy directions
Policy Directions Population

  • Housing construction is highly regulated to protect health and safety

  • Need to also regulate the growth process

    • Pace of peripheral growth should be tied to metropolitan growth rate, so it does not undermine existing areas

    • Each suburban community must build a full range of housing types

    • Public transportation needed to improve access to geographically dispersed opportunities


Conclusion
Conclusion Population

  • 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


ad