The Brookings Institution

Transcription

1 The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Bruce Katz, Director Census 2000: Key Trends & Implications for Cities Macalester College September 8, 2003

2 Overview I. II. III. About Census Major Trends in the 1990s (and beyond) How do these trends play out across different types of cities? IV. Where do the Twin Cities fit in? V. Where do we go from here?

3 About Census 2000? I. What is Census 2000? Conducted in April 2000 Every household in the U.S. answered a few basic?s # people; age; race/ethnicity; sex; relationship; housing tenure One in six U.S. households answers additional?s Place of birth; place of work; occupation; education; income; rent/mortgage Census provides counts for numerous types of areas States, metro areas, cities & towns, neighborhoods, zip codes, Cong. Districts

4 About Census 2000? I. Does Census 2000 Still Matter Today? Unemployment rate in April 2000: 3.8% (30-year low!) Unemployment rate in June 2003: 6.4% but... (1) Stats like age, education, tenure, industry unlikely to change dramatically in three years (2) Relative rankings of places probably similar (3) 2000 economic stats set high-water mark for Aughts

5 Urban Center II. Five Major Trends in the 1990s (and beyond) Population Revitalization - & Decentralization Growth of the New Sunbelt Immigration Aging of the Boomers Widening Inequality (Among People & Places)

6 1. Revitalization and Decentralization

7 I. Revitalization & Decentralization Large cities grew faster in the 1990s than they did in the 1980s and 1970s 12% 50 largest cities, population % 8% 6% 4% 6.3% 9.8% 2% 0% -1.6% -2% -4% 1970s 1980s 1990s Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

8 I. Revitalization & Decentralization Several large cities gained population during the 1990s after losing population in the 1980s 20% 18.6% Selected cities, population % 10% 5% 1980s 5.7% 1990s 4.0% 6.5% 0% -5% -10% -5.1% -5.5% -7.3% -7.4% Atlanta Chicago Denver Memphis Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

9 Cities in growing areas grew; cities in slow growth areas generally declined City Category Number of Cities City Population Change MSA Population Change Rapid Growth (over 20%) 14 32% 25% Significant Growth (10 to 20%) 22 15% 22% Moderate Growth (2 to 10%) 36 7% 13% No Growth (-2 to 2%) 6 0% 11% Loss (below -2%) 20-7% 6%

10 I. Revitalization & Decentralization Still, population is decentralizing in nearly every U.S. metropolitan area Selected cities and suburbs, population % 40% 30% 20% 44% 16% 19% 37% City 22% Suburbs 18% 10% 6% 4% 7% 9% 0% Atlanta Chicago Denver Memphis Top 100 Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

11 2. Growth of the New Sunbelt

12 II. Growth of the New Sunbelt Most population growth in the 1990s occurred in Southeastern and Western states--the New Sunbelt States with above-average population growth: Source: Bill Frey calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

13 II. Growth of the New Sunbelt New Sunbelt growth is largely attributable to domestic migration, often from the Old Sunbelt Immigration Migration Natural Increase Selected states, components of growth, % 10% 5% 0% 12.2% 10.4% 10.0% 8.6% 7.4% 8.1% 1.9% 1.6% -5% -7.2% -10% Source: Bill Frey calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data California Colorado Georgia

14 II. Growth of the New Sunbelt New Sunbelt cities are larger geographically, and often incorporate a more suburban-like population Phoenix Philadelphia Married with kids Married without kids Single parent Other family Household types, selected cities, 2000 Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data Singles and nonfamilies

15 3. Immigration

16 III. Immigration Immigration to the U.S. increased in the 1990s & the foreignborn share of population approaches that in the early 1900s 35 Population Percentage of Population 16% Number of foreign-born and share of population, United States, % 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% % Source: Lindsay and Singer, Changing Faces: Immigrants and Diversity in the Twenty-First Century, June 2003

17 Central City Growth in the 1990s was fueled by Asians and Hispanics

18 III. Immigration If not for immigration, several of the nation s largest cities would not have grown during the 1990s 20% 18.1% Overall Without immigration Selected cities, population with and without foreign-born, % 10% 5% 0% -5% 1.7% 9.4% -1.4% 4.6% -3.9% 4.0% -1.7% 2.6% -3.9% -10% Dallas New York Minneapolis- St. Paul Chicago Boston Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

19 In 2000, the top hundred cities became majority minority White Black Hispanic Asian Multi-racial

20 III. Immigration Yet in many metro areas, the locus of immigration is shifting from the central city to the suburbs Washington region, share foreign-born by census tract, 2000 ON OUDOUN I 270 MONTGOMERY I 95 Route 50 ARLINGTON ALEXANDRIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAIRFAX I 495 Percent Foreign Born (by Census Tract) Less than 5% 5% - 15% 16% - 25% 26%- 35% Greater than 35% UQUIER I 66 PRINCE W ILLIAM I 95 CHARLES PRINCE GEORG CA Source: Singer, At Home in the Nation s Capital, June 2003

21 Suburbanization of the foreign-born is most pronounced in emerging gateways, many in the New Sunbelt Metro Area III. Immigration FB Growth % FB Living in Suburbs Established Gateways Los Angeles, CA 19% 56% Chicago, IL 61% 56% San Francisco, CA 26% 49% Emerging Gateways Atlanta, GA 263% 94% Las Vegas, NV 248% 65% Orlando, FL 140% 86% Washington, DC 70% 91% Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

22 4. Boomer Aging

23 IV. Boomer Aging The nation s age profile is in transition from a pyramid to a pillar Population Population Source: Riche, The Implications of Changing U.S. Demographics for Housing Choice and Location in U.S. Cities, March 2001

24 IV. Boomer Aging Most Boomers live in the suburbs--and are aging in place 72% Share of population in suburbs by age, large metros, % 68% 66% 64% 68% 64% 63% 70% 70% 69% 62% 60% 58% and up Source: Frey, Boomers and Seniors in the Suburbs, February 2003

25 IV. Boomer Aging As Boomers age, their households will grow smaller 3.5 Average household size by age of householder, United States, Under and up Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, June 2003

26 IV. Boomer Aging Metros with large Boomer shares may have an opportunity to attract smaller households back to cities 15 Suburbs in Which Boomers Make Up 1/3 of Population 1 San Francisco, CA 9 Vallejo, CA 2 Denver, CO 10 Jacksonville, FL 3 Seattle, WA 11 Columbus, OH 4 Washington, DC 12 Ann Arbor, MI 5 Milwaukee, WI 13 Memphis, TN 6 Richmond, VA 14 Baltimore, MD 7 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 15 Fort Worth, TX 8 Raleigh-Durham, NC Source: Frey, Boomers and Seniors in the Suburbs, February 2003

27 5. Widening Inequality

28 V. Widening Inequality Many cities--like Philadelphia--lost significant numbers of middle-class households in the 1990s 200,000 Philadelphia households by income quintile, Households 160, ,000 80,000 40,000 0 Low-Income Moderate- Income Middle- Income Upper- Middle- Income Upper- Income Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

29 V. Widening Inequality Even in cities where incomes rose generally, the size of the middle class often shrank Change in middle-income households ($34k to $52k): ,000-2,000-3,000-4,000-5,000 Cleveland Detroit Milwaukee St. Paul San Francisco -6,000-7,000-8,000 Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

30 V. Widening Inequality Income growth tracks educational attainment - and some places are pulling away from the pack % adults w/ bachelor s degree, selected cities, Minneapolis- St. Paul Atlanta Kansas City Newark Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data

31 V. Widening Inequality Still, race-based differences cut across these trends in nearly every city 100% 88% Educational attainment: 100 largest cities, % 60% 40% 49% 72% 37% 39% 75% 20% 10% 14% 0% Hispanic Black White Asian Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data % Bachelor's % HS

32 Urban Center III. How do these trends play out across different types of cities? Coastal Giants Talent Magnets Regional Hubs Challenged Cores

33 Coastal Giants Urban Center Examples Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Washington Dominant Census Characteristics Stable/Increasing Population Strong Immigration Boomer Magnets Employment Centers High Inequality - Income and Educational Attainment Very High Housing Costs

34 Talent Magnets Urban Center Examples Atlanta, Austin, Denver, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, San Jose, Seattle Dominant Census Characteristics Increasing Population, but Significant Decentralization High Immigration and Domestic Migration Two Economy Workforce Rapidly Escalating Housing Costs

35 Regional Hubs Urban Center Examples Columbus, Dallas, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Louisville, Oklahoma City, Nashville, San Antonio Dominant Census Characteristics Moderate to High Growth Significant Decentralization Metro-Wide and Within City Lower, but Growing Immigration Strong Middle Class High Levels of Work More Affordable Housing

36 Challenged Cores Urban Center Examples Baltimore, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Hartford, Miami, Newark, New Orleans Dominant Census Characteristics Significant Population Loss Highly Segregated Metros Little to No Immigration Employment Suburbanized Very Low Education Levels; Mostly Low-Wage Workforce Moderately-Priced Housing Out of Reach for Residents

37 IV. Where do the Twin Cities fit in?

38 Modest city growth The population of the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul was stable in the 1980s and experienced modest growth in the 1990s Percent change in population,

39 Modest city growth Making Minneapolis the 45th largest central city and St. Paul the 59th largest central city Minneapolis St. Paul

40 Rapid Metro Growth The Twin Cities metro grew at a faster rate than most other midwestern metros in both the 1980s and 1990s (and it surpassed the 100 largest metros rate of 14% in the 1990s) Percent change in population,

41 Making it the 13th largest metro area Rapid Metro Growth Total population, 2000 Metro Population 2000 Rank Dallas, TX PMSA 3,519,176 9 Boston, MA-NH PMSA 3,406, Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA 3,254, Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 3,251, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 2,968, Orange County, CA PMSA 2,846, San Diego, CA MSA 2,813, Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA 2,753, St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 2,603,607 17

42 Rapid Metro Growth The central cities failed to keep pace with the rapid growth in the surrounding suburbs 30% Percent change in population, % 20% Central City 21.9% Suburbs 21.1% 15% 10% 5% 4.6% 0% -5% -0.1% 1980s 1990s

43 Immigration The cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are currently experiencing a new increase in immigration 45% Percent of foreign born residents, % 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Minneapolis-St Paul Cleveland New York, NY Chicago Dallas, TX

44 Immigration In both Minneapolis and St. Paul, foreign born residents make up 14% of the population Percent of foreign-born population, 2000 Foreign Born 100 Largest Cities Percent Rank Austin, TX 16.6% 34 Fort Worth, TX 16.3% 35 Aurora, CO 16.2% 36 Arlington, TX 15.3% 37 Minneapolis, MN 14.5% 38 St. Paul, MN 14.3% 39 Tucson, AZ 14.3% 40 Bakersfield, CA 13.6% 41 Portland, OR 13.0% 42 Washington, DC 12.9% 43

45 Immigration The Twin Cities are experiencing rapid growth rates in foreignborn population in both the central cities and the suburbs Percent change in foreign born,

46 The increased immigration is contributing to Minneapolis and St. Paul s growing diversity In 1990, whites represented a large majority of the population in the central cities Black/African American Percent share 10% of population, 1990 Asian 5% Hispanic or Latino, 3% White 80% Shifting demographics White Black/African American American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut Asian or Pacific Islander Other race Hispanic or Latino

47 Shifting demographics by 2000, whites reduced their share of the central cities population by almost 20 percentage points Hispanic or Latino 8% Two or more races 3% Percent share of population, 2000 Asian or Pacific Islander 9% Indigenous 2% Black/African American 15% White 63% White Black/African American Indigenous Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latino Two or more races

48 Education The two central cities are national leaders: Minneapolis ranks 10th in educational attainment and St. Paul ranks 22nd. St. Paul s rate is 8 percentage points higher than the national rate of 24% and Minneapolis rate is 13 points higher Minneapolis Share of Pop. Over 25 w/b.a.s 100 Largest Cities 2000 Rank Plano, TX 53.3% 1 Madison, WI 48.2% 2 Seattle, WA 47.2% 3 San Francisco, CA 45.0% 4 Raleigh, NC 44.9% 5 Scottsdale, AZ 44.1% 6 Fremont, CA 43.2% 7 Austin, TX 40.4% 8 Washington, DC 39.1% 9 Minneapolis, MN 37.4% 10 St. Paul Share of Pop. Over 25 w/b.a.s 100 Largest Cities 2000 Rank Colorado Springs, CO 33.6% 18 Lincoln, NE 33.3% 19 Portland, OR 32.6% 20 Glendale, CA 32.1% 21 St. Paul, MN 32.0% 22 Albuquerque, NM 31.8% 23 Baton Rouge, LA 31.7% 24 San Jose, CA 31.6% 25 Honolulu, HI 31.1% 26 Oakland, CA 30.9% 27

49 Income and Employment Both St. Paul s and Minneapolis s median household income rank in the middle of the 100 largest cities Median household income, 1999 Resident Median Income 100 Largest Cities 2000 Rank Boston, MA $39, Denver, CO $39, Nashville-Davidson, T $39, St. Paul, MN $38, Chicago, IL $38, Des Moines, IA $38, New York, NY $38, Albuquerque, NM $38, Minneapolis, MN $37, Columbus, OH $37, Tacoma, W A $37, Jersey City, NJ $37,862 52

50 Income and Employment Poverty Among the nation s 100 largest cities, the poverty rates of Minneapolis and St. Paul poverty rates rank in the middle Share of persons living below Poverty line, 1999 Central City Poverty 100 Largest Cities Percent Rank Akron 17.5% 47 San Antonio 17.3% 48 Minneapolis 16.9% 49 Oklahoma City 16.0% 50 Fort Worth 15.9% 51 Spokane 15.9% 52 Tacoma 15.9% 53 Phoenix 15.8% 54 Riverside 15.8% 55 Grand Rapids 15.7% 56 St. Paul 15.6% 57 Yonkers 15.5% 58

51 Education BUT MIND THE GAP The white educational attainment level is at least double every other race or ethnic group in the two central cities Share of 25+ population with BA, % 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% White Black Asian Latino American Indian Hmong MexicanSubsaharan African

52 Income and Employment Whites have the highest median income among the race and ethnic groups in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul $45,000 Median household income per race/ethnic groups, 1999 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 White Black/African American Hispanic or Latino Asian American Indian Hmong Mexican Subsaharan African

53 Poverty The Hmong community has the highest poverty rate, followed by sub-saharan Africans Subsaharan African Persons living below the poverty line, 1999 Mexican Hmong American Indian Latino Asian Black White 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

54 Housing White homeownership rates are higher than all other race and ethnic groups 60% Homeownership rate, % 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% White Black Asian Latino American Indian Hmong Mexican Subsaharan African

55 Policy Agenda V. The New Competitive Cities Agenda 2 Build on Assets 3 Create Quality Neighborhoods 1 FIX THE BASICS 4 Build Family Wealth 5 Influence Metropolitan Growth

56 Policy Agenda Fix the Basics Good schools Safe streets Competitive taxes and services 21 st century infrastructure Functioning real estate market

57 Policy Agenda Build on Assets Fixed institutions (universities and hospitals) Employment clusters Downtown Waterfront Cultural institutions/parks

58 Policy Agenda Create Quality Neighborhoods Neighborhood markets Mixed-income communities Home-ownership Opportunities Access to capital

59 Policy Agenda Build Family Wealth Access to quality jobs Income and work supports Access to financial institutions Asset building

60 Policy Agenda Influence Metropolitan Growth Metropolitan governance Land-use reform Transportation reform Access to metropolitan opportunity Urban reinvestment

61