Eric S. Belsky & Daniel McCue

Transcription

1 Comeback Cities or the New Melting Pots: Explorations into the Changing Cities in New England Eric S. Belsky & Daniel McCue New England Smart Growth Leadership Forum October 16-17, 2006 Post Conference Version

2 Categorizing the Cities by Population Changes Sustained Comeback (15 Cities) Recent Comeback (7 Cities) Failed Comeback (10 Cities) Cities i in Decline (7 Cities) Consistent Growth (11 Cities) Population growth the 1980s and the 1990s after previous losses Population growth in the 1990s after losses in the 70s or 80s Population loss in the 1990s after rebounding in the 1980s Cities with sustained declines Population gains in the 1970s, 80s and 90s

3 Category Population Changes in the 1990s Most Positive Growth Sustained Comeback Revere, MA (10.5%) Lynn, MA (9.6%) Least Positive Growth Pawtucket, RI (0.4%) Lowell, MA (1.7%) Recent Comeback Salem, MA (6.1%) Milford, CT (5.0%) Warwick, RI (0.4%) Newton, MA (1.5%) Failed Comeback Portland, ME (-0.2%) Burlington, VT (-0.6%) Hartford, CT (-13.0%) New Bedford, MA (-6.2%) Cities in Decline Woonsocket, RI (-1.5%) 15%) Lewiston, ME (-10.2%) Bridgeport, CT (-1.5%) Pittsfield, MA (-5.8%) Consistent Growth Barnstable, MA (16.8%) Middletown, CT (0.9%) Haverhill, MA (14.7%) Manchester, NH (7.5%)

4 Categorizing the Cities by Population Changes Distribution of Cities by City Change Category 22% 14% 30% 14% Sustained Comeback (15 cities) Recent Comeback (7 cities) Failed Comeback (10 cities) Cities in 19% Decline (7 cities) Consistent Growth (11 cities)

5 Categorizing the Cities by Population Changes Distribution of Total Population by City Change Category 15% 9% 19% 11% 44% Sustained Comeback (15 cities) Recent Comeback (7 cities) Failed Comeback (10 cities) Cities in Decline (7 cities) Consistent Growth (11 cities)

6 Categorizing the Cities by Population Changes Sustained Comeback Recent Comeback Failed Comeback City in Decline Consistent Growth City Population in , , ,000 75, ,000 50,000-75,000 <50,000

7 I) Sustained Comeback Cities Largest Cities in Boston/NYC/PROV CMSA, as well as smaller Metro Boston Cities 15 Cities: Boston, MA Worcester, MA Lowell, MA Cambridge, MA Lynn, MA Quincy, MA Lawrence, MA Malden, MA Peabody, MA Revere, MA Average Population in 2000: 93,280* Providence, RI Cranston, RI Pawtucket, RI *(Average Not Including Boston) Stamford, CT Norwalk, CT

8 II) Recent Comeback Cities Mostly Mid Sized, High-Cost & Highly Educated Boston/Providence Area Cities 7 Cities: Newton, MA Somerville, MA Waltham, MA Salem, MA Brockton, MA Warwick, RI Average Population in 2000: 70,235 Milford, CT

9 III) Failed Comeback Cities Large, Stand-Alone New England Cities Outside Influence of BOS/PVD/NYC Average Population 10 Cities: in 2000: Springfield, MA Chicopee, MA New Bedford, MA Fall River, MA 91,959 New Haven, CT Hartford, CT Waterbury, CT New Britain, CT Portland, ME Burlington, VT

10 IV) Cities in Decline Small, Stand-Alone New England Cities, Most Outside Influence of BOS/PVD/NYC 10 Cities: Bridgeport, CT Medford, MA Pittsfield, MA Average Population in 2000: 55,140 East Providence, RI Woonsocket, RI Lewiston, ME Rutland, VT

11 V) Consistent Growth Cities Smaller, mostly outer suburb cities of Boston extending into New Hampshire Average 11 Cities: Population in 2000: Haverhill, MA Taunton, MA Barnstable, MA Methuen, MA Attleboro, MA Leominster, MA Manchester, NH Nashua, NH Concord, NH Danbury, CT Middletown, CT 58,385

12 Economic Factors: Sustained Comeback Cities Cities Poverty Rate Change Income Growth Relative to State House Value Growth Relative to State MA, Boston -0.6% 1.15x 1.52x MA, Cambridge -2.2% 1.27x 1.94x MA, Quincy -0.9% 0.91x 1.12x CT, Norwalk +0.3% 1.01x 1.34x CT, Stamford +0.2% 1.02x 1.55x MA, Malden -0.2% 1.00x 0.99x MA, Peabody -0.6% 0.88x 0.99x RI, Cranston +0.0% 0.96x 0.91x MA, Lawrence +5.1% x x MA, Lowell +3.3% 0.92x 0.80x MA, Lynn +2.8% 0.85x 0.99x MA, Revere +4.0% 0.77x 0.90x MA, Worcester +3.5% 0.81x 0.84x RI, Pawtucket +5.1% 0.82x 0.76x RI, Providence +8.8% 0.84x 0.91x

13 Economic Factors: Recent Comeback Cities Cities Poverty Rate Change Income Growth Relative to State House Value Growth Relative to State CT, Milford -0.2% 1.05x 1.04x MA, Newton -1.5% 1.19x 1.56x MA, Waltham -1.1% 1.01x 1.14x MA, Salem -0.9% 1.02x 0.99x MA, Somerville +0.1% 1.18x 1.39x RI, Warwick -0.7% 0.92x 0.95x MA, Brockton +1.9% 0.84x 0.83x

14 Economic Factors: Failed Comeback Cities Cities Poverty Rate Change Income Growth Relative to State House Value Growth Relative to State ME, Portland -1.3% 1.13x 1.20x CT, Waterbury +1.9% 0.77x 1.03x MA, Fall River +2.3% 0.81x 1.02x CT, Hartford +5.4% 0.69x 0.71x CT, New Britain +4.6% 0.69x 0.65x CT, New Haven +1.2% 0.91x 0.87x MA, Chicopee +3.5% 0.70x 0.72x MA, New Bedford +4.0% 0.73x 0.88x MA, Springfield +5.3% 0.69x 0.71x VT, Burlington +3.8% 0.87x 0.93x

15 Economic Factors: Declining Cities Cities Poverty Rate Change Income Growth Relative to State House Value Growth Relative to State MA, Medford -1.2% 1.00x 1.14x CT, Bridgeport -2.0% 0.89x 0.72x MA, Pittsfield +1.1% 0.67x 0.63x ME, Lewiston +2.1% 0.80x 0.79x RI, East Providence +1.5% 0.83x 0.92x RI, Woonsocket +5.2% 0.91x 0.87x VT, Rutland +4.1% 0.68x 0.68x

16 Economic Factors: Consistent Growth Cities Cities Poverty Rate Change Income Growth Relative to State House Value Growth Relative to State MA, Haverhill -1.4% 1.23x 1.01x MA, Taunton -0.5% 0.93x 1.08x CT, Middletown -2.2% 1.02x 0.90x MA, Attleboro -0.8% 0.99x 0.91x MA, Barnstable -1.3% 1.00x 0.74x MA, Methuen -0.3% 0.86x 0.77x NH, Concord -1.0% 0.87x 0.90x CT, Danbury +1.2% 0.99x 1.03x MA, Leominster +0.2% x x NH, Manchester +0.2% 0.85x 0.83x NH, Nashua +0.3% 0.89x 0.82x

17 Growth in Foreign Born Has Driven City Comebacks Population Change by Change in Share Foreign Born, by City Change Category 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -10% -5% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% -10% -15% Popchange Decliner PopChange Sustained Comeback PopChange Consistent Improvers PopChange Failed Comeback PopChange Recent Comeback TrendLine Excluding Consistent Improvers

18 Growth in Foreign Born Has Driven City Comebacks Total Population Change (Thousands) by Nativity by City Change Category Sustained Comeback Recent Improver Failed Comeback Decliners Consistent Improver Thousands Native Born Foreign Born

19 Growth in Foreign Born Has Driven City Comebacks Average City Percent Change in Population by Nativity Sustained Comeback Recent Improver Failed Comeback Decliners Consistent Improver -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% NativeBorn Foreign Born

20 Growth in Foreign Born Has Driven City Comebacks Sustained Comeback Cities (15 Cities): Trend: Foreign born gains offset native born losses in the 1980s and 90s. Exceptions: Peabody, MA and Cranston, RI, had both native and foreign born growth. Recent Comeback Cities (7 Cities): Trend: Foreign born gains in the 1990s offset native born losses. Exceptions: Salem, MA, increased both native and foreign born populations in the 1990s. Failed Comeback Cities (10 Cities): Trend: Native born gains in 1980s then losses in 1990s; only modest foreign born gains 90s Exceptions: Fall River and New Bedford lost native and foreign born in the 1990s. Cities in Decline (7 Cities): Trend: Native born population losses with stable or declining foreign born populations. Exceptions: Bridgeport, CT & Medford, MA, native born losses exceed foreign born gains. Consistently Growing Cities (11 Cities): Trend: Growth in both foreign and native born with higher native born growth. Exceptions: Danbury/Middletown CT, recent declines in native born; Taunton, MA, consistent foreign born losses.

21 Minority Growth Has Also Driven City Comebacks Population Change (Thousands) by Minority Status by City Change Category Sustained Comeback Recent Comeback Failed Comeback Decliners Consistent Improver White, NonHispanic Minority

22 Minority Growth Has Made Cities More Diverse Average City Change in Share Minority by City Change Category Sustained Comeback Recent Comeback Failed Comeback Decliners Consistent Improver 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Average City Change in Minority Share

23 And Has Made Cities Younger Share of Residents Under 35 by Minority Share of Population in % Share of Resident ts Under Ag ge 35 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Minority Share of Population Percent Under 35

24 Comebacks Occurred in Spite of a Boomer Exodus Thousand ds Total Baby Boomers by City Change Category 0 Sustained Comeback Recent Comeback Failed Comeback Decliners Consistent Improver Baby Boomers 1980 Baby Boomers 1990 Baby Boomers 2000

25 Comebacks Also Meant Rising Education Levels 35% Average City Share of Adults with a College Degree % 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Sustained Comeback Recent Comeback Failed Comeback Decliners Consistent Improver

26 And Rising Education Levels Led To Rising Incomes Change in Median City Household Incomes Relative to State Change as me Growth ehold Incom ate Growth 1 edian House rcent of Sta City Me Per 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% +0% +5% +10% +15% +20% +25% +30% Change in Share of Adults who are College Graduates

27 Demographics of City Comebacks: Two Major Findings: I) City Comebacks Were Driven by Dramatic Growth in Foreign Born Immigration Has Made Comeback Cities Younger with Higher Minority Shares City Comebacks Have Occurred in Spite of a Boomer Exodus Growth in Foreign Born Poor May Signal Return to Cities as Stepping Stones II) Higher Education Levels Have Also Been Key to City Comebacks The Educational Divide is Widening: Comeback Cities Have Had the Highest Shares of College Educated Adults , and the Greatest Growth in Shares Low Education Levels Diverted Economic Recovery in Cities such as New Bedford, Fall River, & Woonsocket, Each Having Under 7 Percent of Adults with College Degrees in 1980.

28 Housing Development Receded in the 1990s 25% New Housing as Percent of Total by City Change Category 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Sustained Comeback Recent Comeback Failed Comeback Decliners Consistent Improver 1970s 1980s 1990s

29 Consistent Growth Cities Had High Development Total Population in 2000 Total Units Built in the 1990s 15% 9% 44% 19% 11% 28% 6% 37% Sustained Comeback (15 cities) Recent Comeback (7 cities) Failed Comeback (10 cities) 10% Cities in 19% Decline (7 cities) Consistent Growth (11 cities)

30 Comebacks Didn t Lead to Increased Development I) Tax Reform Act of 1986: Severely affected development levels in all New England cities in the 1990s, cutting most in half. Removed the incentive for investment in rental housing construction.

31 Conclusions: I) Population Rebounds Have Diverse Citywide Economic Consequences Few have combination of lower poverty and higher growth in income & house values II) Metro Area Location is a Large Component of City Comeback Boston area cities have seen population and economic growth Cities outside large metros had population and economic declines III)City Comebacks Were Driven by Dramatic Growth in Foreign Born Without Immigration, many more city declines would have occurred. IV) Growth in Foreign Born is Making Cities Younger and More Diverse Parallel growth in Immigrants, Minorities, and Residents under 35 V) Higher Education Levels Have Also Been Key to City Comebacks Population & economic growth both associated with more education VI) Comebacks Did Not Foster High Housing Development Levels 1986 Tax Laws led to widespread declines in housing development in 90s

32 Policy Questions: I) Why do certain places rebound while other seemingly similar places even en in location decline? II) How to accommodate and attract young, foreign-born residents? III)How can a city best capitalize on transitions in the broader regional economy? IV) How best to develop a highly educated, skilled workforce? V) How can struggling cities tap into the vitality of the largest cities and large metro areas. VI) How does looking at changes in composition rather than net losses and gains in population alter policy view and inter city comparisons?

33 Appendix Tables & Charts:

34 Top 10 Cities by Current Poverty Rate 2000: GEOGRAPHY Category Poverty Rate 2000 Change in Poverty Rate CT, Hartford Failed Comeback 30.6% +5.4% RI, Providence Sustained Comeback 29.1% +8.8% CT, New Haven Failed Comeback 24.4% +1.2% MA, Lawrence Sustained Comeback 24.3% +5.1% MA, Springfield Failed Comeback 23.1% +5.3% MA, New Bedford Failed Comeback 20.2% +4.0% VT, Burlington Failed Comeback 20.0% +3.8% MA, Boston Sustained Comeback 19.5% -0.6% RI, Woonsocket Decliner 19.4% +5.2% CT, Bridgeport Decliner 18.4% -2.0%

35 Top 10 Cities by Change in House Value GEOGRAPHY Category Median City House Value 2000 Median State House Value 2000 City House Value Growth Relative to State MA, Cambridge Sustained Comeback $ 398,500 $185, x MA, Newton Recent Comeback $438,400 $185, x CT, Stamford Sustained Comeback $ 362,300 $166, x MA, Boston Sustained Comeback $ 190,600 $185, x MA, Somerville Recent Comeback $ 214,100 $ 185, x CT, Norwalk Sustained Comeback $ 270,100 $ 166, x ME, Portland Failed Comeback $121,200 $98, x MA, Medford Decliner $ 226,800 $185, x MA, Waltham Recent Comeback $ 250,800 $185, x MA, Quincy Sustained Comeback $185,700 $ 185, x

36 Top 10 Cities by Change in Median Income Income Median City Household Income Median State Household Income Change Relative to State Change GEOGRAPHY Category MA, Cambridge Sustained Comeback $47,979 $50, x MA, Haverhill Consistent Improver $49,833 $50, x MA, Newton Recent Comeback $86,052 $50, x MA, Somerville Recent Comeback $46,315 $50, x MA, Boston Sustained Comeback $39,629 $50, x ME, Portland Failed Comeback $35,650 $37, x CT, Milford Recent Comeback $61,167 $53, x CT, Middletown Consistent Improver $47,162 $53, x CT, Stamford Sustained Comeback $60,556 $53, x MA, Salem Recent Comeback $44,033 $50, x

37 Top 10 Cities by Residents Age 65+: GEOGRAPHY Category Percent over 65 MA, Barnstable Consistent Improver 20% RI, East Providence Decliner 19% MA, Pittsfield Decliner 19% VT, Rutland Decliner 18% ME, Lewiston Decliner 18% MA, Chicopee Failed Comeback 18% MA, Peabody Sustained Comeback 17% RI, Cranston Sustained Comeback 17% MA, Medford Decliner 17% RI, Warwick Recent Comeback 17%

38 Top 10 Cities by Residents Age Under 35: GEOGRAPHY Category Percent Under 35 RI, Providence Sustained Comeback 60% CT, New Haven Failed Comeback 59% VT, Burlington Failed Comeback 59% MA, Cambridge Sustained Comeback 59% MA, Somerville Recent Comeback 58% MA, Lawrence Sustained Comeback 58% CT, Hartford Failed Comeback 58% MA, Boston Sustained Comeback 57% MA, Lowell Sustained Comeback 56% CT, Bridgeport Decliner 55%

39 Failed Comebacks Had Brief Growth in Native Born Change in City Population by Nativity , Select Cities Average of Failed Comeback Cities CT, Hartford MA, Springfield CT, New Haven CT, Waterbury MA, Fall River MA, New Bedford Change native born Change native born Change foreign born Change foreign born Thousands

40 Findings Summary: Sustained Comeback Cities I) Comprised of New England s largest cities Also includes smaller cities close to Boston, Providence and NYC II) Growth driven by turnaround in Boston economy Association becomes apparent in economic indicators III)Growth has been largely associated with: Consistent Growth in Foreign Born, by number and share Increases in poverty rates (except High-Cost cities) High and increasing levels of college educated persons IV) Growth has come despite: Sustained losses in native born, whites, & Baby-Boomers Significantly reduced housing production in the 90s Low growth in incomes/house values (Except Boston/Camb)

41 Findings Summary: Recent Comeback Cities I) Comprised of High-Cost, Highly Educated Inner-Ring Metro Cities Also includes smaller cities close to Boston, with the exception of Milford, CT. II) Growth driven by late 1990s turnaround in Boston economy Highly positive economic indicators III)Growth has been largely associated with: Recent Growth in Foreign Born, by number and share Decreases in poverty rates Highest and increasing levels of college educated persons IV) Growth has come despite: Sustained losses in native born, whites, & Baby-Boomers Significantly reduced housing production in the 90s

42 Findings Summary: Failed Comeback Cities I) New England s Other Large Cities Stand-Alone cities outside influence of BOS/PVD/NYC II) Minimal participation in recent turnaround in Boston economy Highly negative economic indicators III)Population rise/fall was associated with: 1990s turnaround in native-born growth of the 1980s Net losses in foreign born population Recent losses in native born, whites, & Baby-Boomers Lowest levels and lowest increases in college educated adults Poverty Rate increases with below-state growth in incomes and house values

43 Findings Summary: Cities in Decline I) New England s Small Cities Small Stand-Alone cities outside influence of BOS/PVD/NYC II) Largely disconnected from Boston/NYC economy Economic indicators show increasing disparity with Metro Cities III)Population decline was associated with: No change foreign born population Consistent losses in native born, whites, & Baby-Boomers Aging in Place: Highest Shares of Age 65+, Lowest Shares under age 35 (Except for Barnstable, MA) Lowest levels and small increases in college educated adults Poverty Rate increases with below-state growth in incomes and house values

44 Findings Summary: Consistent Growth Cities I) Comprised Mostly of Suburban Outer-Ring Boston Metro Cities Also includes Barnstable, MA and 2 Conn. Cities II) Growth driven by confluence of Boston / I495 growth As less built-out cities, they ve been conducive to new construction III)Growth has been largely associated with: Sustained growth in native born, whites, & Baby-Boomers Relatively Small Growth in Foreign Born Decreases in poverty rates High and increasing levels of college educated persons High shares of new construction as a percent of total stock IV) Growth has come despite: Below-state growth in incomes / house values