The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Alan Berube, Senior Research Analyst Census 2000: Key Trends & Implications for Cities Presentation to the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism Cities, Suburbs, and Beyond October 30, 2003
Overview I. II. III. IV. About Census 2000 4 Major Trends in the 1990s (and beyond) How Cities Stack Up What to Look For
About Census 2000? I. About 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
Urban Center II. Four Major Trends in the 1990s (and beyond) 1. 2. 3. 4. Population Revitalization & Decentralization Growth of the New Sunbelt Immigration Widening Inequality (Among People & Places)
1. Revitalization and Decentralization
I. Revitalization & Decentralization Large cities grew faster in the 1990s than they did in the 1980s and 1970s 12% 50 largest cities, population 1970-2000 10% 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
I. Revitalization & Decentralization Several large cities gained population during the 1990s after losing population in the 1980s 20% 18.6% Selected cities, population 1990-2000 15% 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
I. Revitalization & Decentralization Still, population is decentralizing in nearly every U.S. metropolitan area Selected cities and suburbs, population 1990-2000 50% 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
I. Revitalization & Decentralization Even in growing cities, most population increase is occurring far from the core San Antonio, population: 1990-2000 Source: Berube and Forman, Living on the Edge, October 2002
2. Growth of the New Sunbelt
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: 1990-2000 Source: Bill Frey calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data
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, 1990-2000 15% 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
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
3. Immigration
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, 1900-2000 30 25 20 15 10 5 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 0% Source: Lindsay and Singer, Changing Faces: Immigrants and Diversity in the Twenty-First Century, June 2003
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, 1990-2000 15% 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
III. Immigration Destinations for the foreign-born are shifting Former Gateways have declining immigrant shares 45 40 35 30 Buffalo Cleveland Detroit Milwaukee Pittsburgh St. Louis Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data Years
III. Immigration Continuous Gateways remain significant ports of entry for the foreign-born. 45 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 Boston Chicago New York San Francisco 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data
III. Immigration The foreign-born are growing rapidly in Emerging Gateways that have little history as immigrant destinations 45 40 35 Percent 30 25 20 Dallas Washington DC Atlanta Ft. Worth 15 10 5 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data Year
III. Immigration And also in Re-Emerging Gateways where the foreign-born presence was very low just 30 years ago 45 40 35 30 San Jose Seattle Denver Portland Phoenix Tampa Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data Year
III. Immigration In Emerging Gateways, the locus of immigration is the suburbs, not the central city 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
III. Immigration Changing the picture of immigrant business districts from this (Washington Heights) Source: Singer Studios
III. Immigration to this (Buford Highway outside Atlanta) Source: Singer Studios
4. Widening Inequality
Income and Poverty Midwestern and Southern cities had broad income gains in the 1990s; Northeastern and CA cities lagged Twin Cities +9% Detroit +17% Boston +1% Sacramento +1% Chicago +9% Cleveland +8% New York -4% Baltimore -7% % change in median household income: 1990-2000 Los Angeles -12% San Diego +4% San Antonio +14% Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data Nashville +9% Atlanta +16%
IV. Widening Inequality Many cities like Philadelphia have an unbalanced distribution of incomes 200,000 Philadelphia households by income quintile, 1990-2000 Households 160,000 120,000 80,000 40,000 0 Low-Income Moderate- Income Middle- Income Upper- Middle- Income Upper- Income 1990 2000 Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data
IV. 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): 1990-2000 0-1,000-2,000-3,000-4,000-5,000 Cleveland Detroit Milwaukee St. Paul San Francisco -6,000-7,000-8,000 Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data
IV. Widening Inequality Income growth tracks educational attainment - and some places are pulling away from the pack % adults w/ bachelor s degree, selected cities, 1990-2000 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 28.7 35.2 34.6 26.6 22.4 19.1 16.2 12.4 5 0 Minneapolis- St. Paul Atlanta Kansas City Miami 1990 2000 Source: Brookings calculations of U.S. Census Bureau data
Urban Center III. How Cities Stack Up Coastal Giants Talent Magnets Regional Hubs Challenged Cores
Coastal Giants Urban Center Examples Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Washington Dominant Census Characteristics Stable/Increasing Population Strong Immigration Employment Centers High Inequality - Income and Educational Attainment Very High Housing Costs Key Challenges Retain and Build Middle Class - Schools, Safety Promote Postsecondary Education, Entrepreneurship Preserve Affordable Housing
Talent Magnets Urban Center Examples Atlanta, Austin, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, San Jose, Seattle Dominant Census Characteristics Increasing Population, but Significant Decentralization High Domestic Migration and Immigration Two Economy Workforce Rapidly Escalating Housing Costs Key Challenges Balanced Metropolitan Growth Pathways to Colleges & Universities for Workers Metro-wide Affordable Housing Strategies Connect Residents to Income Supports (Tax Credits, Health Insurance)
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 Key Challenges Balanced Metropolitan Growth Revitalization Beyond Downtown Regional Employment/Skills Strategies for Low-Wage Workers Move Families Toward Asset- Building, Homeownership
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 Key Challenges Fix Basics Safety, Vacant Land, Adult/Child Literacy Build on Assets Location, Sectoral Strengths Create Quality Neighborhoods Market Housing Affordability Balanced Metropolitan Growth
What to Look For? IV. Metropolitan Definitions Have Changed! Metropolitan area revised from eight to 13 counties The Tennessean (Nashville), June 13, 2003 Roanoke, New River Valleys still separate The Roanoke Times, June 23, 2003 Changes muddy metro area numbers; Fort Wayne MSA grew or shrank, depending on new definitions Fort Wayne News Sentinel, June 10, 2003 Feds give Long Island an identity crisis Newsday (New York), June 12, 2003
What to Look For? Some areas have been combined Changes to the Dallas- Ft. Worth metro area, 2000 2003 Palo Pinto Cooke Wise Denton Collin DALLAS-FORT WORTH- ARLINGTON METRO SARockwall Parker Tarrant Dallas Hood Somervell Johnson Ellis Kaufman Hunt Delta Henderson W N E 2000 PMSA - Dallas 2000 PMSA - Forth Worth 2003 Metro SA 2003 CSA Metro Micro S
What to Look For? Some areas have grown and changed names, Changes to the Atlanta metro area, 2000 2003 Pickens Dawson GAINESVILLE METRO SA Hall Bartow Cherokee Forsyth ATLANTA-SANDY SPRINGS- MARIETTA METRO SA Gwinnett Barrow Polk Cobb Paulding Walton Fulton De Kalb Haralson Douglas Rockdale Newton Clayton Carroll Henry Fayette Butts Coweta Spalding Heard Jasper Pike Lamar Troup Meriwether Chambers Upson 2000 MSA 2003 Metro SA 2003 CSA Metro Micro W N S E
What to Look For? Population shifts in response to definitional shifts Increases New York, NY PMSA 9.3 million New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA Metro 18.3 million Miami, FL PMSA 2.2 million Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metro 5.0 million Decreases Boston, MA-NH PMSA Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metro 6.1 million 4.4 million 2.3 million 2.1 million
Urban Center Where to Look for Census 2000 Info: The Brookings Urban Center! 1. Living Cities Databooks (this fall) - compilation of tables, maps, charts depicting key comparative Census trends for 23 of the nation s largest cities 2. Our website (this fall) - interactive, downloadable Census data for nation s 100 largest cities 3. The Living Cities Census Series (ongoing) - analyses by leading demographers of key demographic/economic trends across nation s largest metro areas
Urban Center Upcoming Releases The Trajectory of Poor Neighborhoods in Southern CA Paul Ong, UCLA Integrated Neighborhoods in the 1990s David Fasenfest and Kurt Metzger, Wayne State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Neighborhoods Lance Freeman, Columbia University Reversal of Fortune: Black Migration to the South in the 1990s Bill Frey, Brookings Who Lives Downtown Today? Genie Birch, University of PA Concentrated Homelessness in Metropolitan Areas Barry Lee, Penn State
www.brookings.edu/urban