A resident of Wooten Park, Veronica moved from Ft. Worth to Austin to be close to friends and family. Migration Patterns in New Gateways of Texas The Innerburbs Pamela A. Rogers, Ph.D. Low-Income Housing and Urban Renovation in the First Suburbs Conference LBJ School of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin April 20, 2009
Introduction As international migration increased to record levels in the 1990s, understanding current migration and mobility trends has become increasingly important. Immigrants not only contribute to inter-urban migration as they move from Los Angeles to Dallas, but as they settle permanently in the United States contribute to local or intra-urban mobility patterns to adjust housing needs. At the same time, the 2000 decade has seen changes in housing affordablity and overall the affordability of modestly priced homes for families declined in 2000s. The barriers to affordable housing and homeownership for minorities ies and immigrants continue to be the redevelopment (and loss) of affordable housing properties the reduced employment and income insufficient cash resources and tight credit non-resident status.
New Immigrant Settlement Patterns In 2007-08 08 Like Dallas, three other metro areas Houston, Phoenix and Atlanta added more than 100,000 people. Only Houston grew in greater numbers than the previous year. Austin was the second-fastest fastest-growing metro area in the country, behind Raleigh. Dallas-Fort Worth area added 146,532 people in 2007-08, 08, even as the region grew at a slower pace than 23 other metropolitan areas with 50% of growth contributed to immigrants according to Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. In 2000, the US foreign-born population increased by 57% between 1990 and 2000 In 1990s the foreign-born population began settling in areas beyond traditional gateway cities of NYC, LA, and Chicago (US Census 2000; Suro and Singer 2002) New Latino destinations, such as Charlotte, NC, and Plano, TX, recorded r hypergrowth (296%, 293%) during 1990s (Suro and Singer 2002) Dallas, Phoenix, and Atlanta transitioned from being secondary ports p of entry to emerging gateway cities because of increase in foreign-born population in 1990s (Suro and Singer 2002) The highest percentage change in immigrant populations in Texas occurred in Austin (172%), Dallas (152%), and Ft. Worth (130.7%)
Migration to Texas Texas 2002 % 2004 % 2005-07 % Tot Pop 21,215,494 21,912,164 23,385,340 FB 3,225,201 15.20 3,309,064 15.10 3,700,449 15.82 MX 2,093,137 64.9 2,117,635 64.0 2,330,995 63.0
Current Mexican Migration Texas Houston -Sugar Land Austin-- San Marcos, TX MSA Dallas-- Fort Worth, TX CMSA San Antonio MSA 2000 1,879,369 455,854 84,213 456,962 113,089 2002 2,093,137 0.11 108,655 0.29 532,678 0.17 108,480 (0.04) 2004 2,117,635 0.01 88,645 (0.18) 524,363 (0.02) 125,254 0.15 2005-07 2,330,995 0.10 565,994 0.24 117,619 0.33 605,498 0.15 152,944 0.22
City New Latino Gateway Cities of Foreign-Born, 2000 City foreign-born population (1990) City population (2000) City foreign-born population (2000) Percent change in foreign-born population, cities, 1990-2000 Charlotte, NC 15,119 247,385 59,849 295.90% Plano, TX (DFW) 9,648 207,525 37,923 293.10% Greensboro, NC 4,839 197,790 18,146 275.00% Aurora, CO 12,519 360,798 44,692 257.00% Las Vegas, NV 26,494 332,695 90,656 242.20% Nashville-Davidson, TN 12,171 478,393 38,936 219.90% Mesa, AZ 14,014 425,257 44,546 217.90% Memphis, TN 8,298 198,688 26,075 214.20% Glendale, AZ 8,878 219,766 27,797 213.10% Raleigh, NC 10,434 484,674 32,410 210.60% Phoenix, AZ 84,672 461,381 257,325 203.90% Grand Rapids, MI 7,456 225,442 20,814 179.20% Denver, CO 34,715 542,131 96,601 178.30% Austin, TX 39,626 572,059 109,006 175.10% Omaha, NE 9,402 277,569 25,687 173.20% Garland, TX (DFW) 15,970 782,414 43,588 172.90% Fort Wayne, IN 3,829 195,419 10,187 166.00% Irving, TX (DFW) 19,560 448,627 50,696 159.20% Des Moines, IA 6,076 227,920 15,713 158.60% Indianapolis, IN 13,963 343,997 36,067 158.30% Lincoln, NE 5,169 313,587 13,246 156.30% Arlington, TX (DFW) 20,006 505,963 50,911 154.50% Source: US Census; Brookings Institution (Suro and Singer 2001)
Implication for Texas Only second to California, the Mexican immigrant population nearly doubled Legend in Texas to 1.9 million by 2000 and 2.3 million by 2007 60 percent of Mexican immigrants live in Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, San Antonio, or Austin and 50 percent are located in the state s largest metropolitan areas -- Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston. In 2000 1.6 out of every 10 Mexican immigrants settled in San Antonio By 2004 all of the gateway cities became minority-majority White Alone: Houston (28.5%); Dallas (30%); San Antonio (30%) Austin (49.7%) (ACS)
Place of Birth for the Foreign Born in Texas, ACS 2005-07 Texas Austin-Round Rock Dallas-Fort Worth- Arlington Houston-Sugar Land- Baytown San Antonio Estimate % Estimate % Estimate % Estimate % Estimate % Total: 3,700,449 215,479 1,056,341 1,167,565 213,908 Europe: 164,832 4.5 14,752 6.8 48,121 4.6 55,610 4.8 14,108 6.6 Asia: 603,415 16.3 49,320 22.9 220,158 20.8 239,791 20.5 25,584 12.0 Africa: 106,017 2.9 6,785 3.1 49,302 4.7 39,889 3.4 2,257 1.1 Oceania: 6,969 0.2 582 0.3 2,616 0.2 2,633 0.2 320 0.1 Americas: 2,819,216 76.2 144,040 66.8 736,144 69.7 829,642 71.1 171,639 80.2 Latin America: 2,777,369 98.5 140,368 97.5 722,848 98.2 815,872 98.3 169,040 98.5 Caribbean: 50,338 1.8 3,993 2.8 10,979 1.5 26,251 3.2 2,558 1.5 Central America: 2,627,001 94.6 130,077 92.7 683,827 94.6 739,463 90.6 161,235 95.4 South America: 100,030 3.6 6,298 4.5 28,042 3.9 50,158 6.1 5,247 3.1 Northern America: 41,847 1.5 3,672 2.5 13,296 1.8 13,770 1.7 2,599 1.5
FIGURE 1 Percentage of Foreign-Born by Census Year in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Fort Worth, and Austin: 1900-2000 30.0 25.0 20.0 Percent 15.0 Dallas Houston San Antonio Ft. Worth Austin 10.0 5.0 0.0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Census Year
Datasets and Population 2000 Census, 5% Public-Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) 85 Public-Use Microdata Areas (PUMAS) from Houston CMSA, Dallas-Ft. Worth CMSA, San Antonio MSA, and Austin-San Marcos MSA Entire dataset includes 20.8 million individuals, 7.4 million households, 1.9 million Mexican immigrants, and 679,908 Mexican households. Census Summary Files (SF1 and SF3) for 2000 Census and ACS 2005-07 07 data files
Methodology Used Change of Residence data 1995-2000 in PUMS to identify native-born and Mexican immigrant household movers and census tract data from summary files. Categorical data analysis identified most significant variables among intra-urban urban movers regarding household size, education, time of arrival, housing tenure, occupational structure, citizenship, and residence in metropolitan areas (central city vs. v urban ring vs. suburban) Identified major settlement areas of immigrants with summary files and confirmed settlement patterns through spatial analysis Selected key variables for two logistic regression models to predict residential mobility (homeownership) among all groups, separate metropolitan areas and Mexican immigrant groups
Hypotheses 1. As immigrants settle permanently in the United States, they contribute to urban mobility. 2. Immigrant settlement patterns differ among metropolitan areas because of urban sprawl, population density, and migration. 3. As the majority of householders arrived in the 1980s, social and occupational mobility occur alongside residential mobility. 4. The main determinants of native-born residential mobility (life course, homeowner vs. renter [housing tenure]) only partially explain immigrant mobility.
Findings The majority of immigrant movers arrived ten to fifteen years prior to the census, were primarily renters living in urban areas in central cities or in older suburbs adjacent to Latino barrios and living in overcrowded large apartment settings typical of the vecindad rather than the New Urbanist barrio. Immigrants are more mobile than native-born not only because of international migration but because they enter the housing market more frequently as low-wage wage renters Metropolitan areas with high immigration tend to have higher intra- and inter-urban mobility as immigrant residents and newcomers adjust housing and employment ent needs. Latino immigrants (Mexican and Central American) were more mobile than the Latino native-born and the non-latino native born Latino immigrants were less mobile than other immigrants because of timing of immigration Residential and social mobility vary considerably when households s are broken down by age, marital status, citizenship, and nativity
Findings Majority of immigrants settled in central city AND urban ring because of extension of settlements, urban sprawl, and housing accessibility. Settlement patterns differed partially as a result of available affordable housing In San Antonio the majority of movers settled in single-family homes or small apartment buildings with 20 apartments or less In Austin, Dallas, and Houston the majority of movers settled in large apartment complexes with high population density, high rents, and overcrowded conditions Apartment wards or vecindades outside of (Houston/Dallas/Austin) or adjacent to barrios (Dallas/Houston) Class B and C apartments built in the 1970s and earlier Originally built for middle-class non-hispanic population Currently housing the majority of immigrants High mobility because of renter status, changes in employment, and redevelopment of properties under-development development or shifting to Class A dwellings
GEOGRAPHICAL MOBILITY IN THE PAST YEAR BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS FOR CURRENT RESIDENCE - POPULATION 1 YEAR + Texas Austin-Round Rock Dallas-Fort Worth- Arlington Houston-Sugar Land- Baytown San Antonio Estimate % Estimate % Estimate % Estimate % Estimate % Total: 23,001,298 1,507,616 5,879,028 5,395,973 1,908,085 Foreign born: 3,698,240 16.1 215,342 14.3 1,055,637 18.0 1,166,922 21.6 213,728 11.2 Naturalized U.S. citizen 1,132,145 30.6 59,276 27.5 291,960 27.7 379,050 32.5 76,179 35.6 Not a U.S. citizen 2,566,095 69.4 156,066 72.5 763,677 72.3 787,872 67.5 137,549 64.4 Same house 1 year ago: 2,919,714 78.9 158,848 73.8 814,630 77.2 913,543 78.3 167,831 78.5 Naturalized U.S. citizen 993,188 34.0 49,053 30.9 250,293 30.7 333,415 36.5 66,402 39.6 Not a U.S. citizen 1,926,526 66.0 109,795 69.1 564,337 69.3 580,128 63.5 101,429 60.4 Moved within same county: 468,007 12.7 31,121 14.5 149,275 14.1 163,306 14.0 25,150 11.8 Naturalized U.S. citizen 83,503 17.8 5,675 18.2 25,279 16.9 28,300 17.3 5,341 21.2 Not a U.S. citizen 384,504 82.2 25,446 81.8 123,996 83.1 135,006 82.7 19,809 78.8 Moved from different county within same state: 98,291 2.7 8,262 3.8 30,908 2.9 24,274 2.1 5,978 2.8 Naturalized U.S. citizen 25,706 26.2 1,981 24.0 8,265 26.7 7,941 32.7 1,640 27.4 Not a U.S. citizen 72,585 73.8 6,281 76.0 22,643 73.3 16,333 67.3 4,338 72.6 Moved from different state: 78,139 2.1 6,154 2.9 21,611 2.0 24,629 2.1 5,655 2.6 Naturalized U.S. citizen 25,679 32.9 2,150 34.9 7,048 32.6 8,168 33.2 2,604 46.0 Not a U.S. citizen 52,460 67.1 4,004 65.1 14,563 67.4 16,461 66.8 3,051 54.0 Moved from abroad: 134,089 3.6 10,957 5.1 39,213 3.7 41,170 3.5 9,114 4.3 Naturalized U.S. citizen 4,069 3.0 417 3.8 1,075 2.7 1,226 3.0 192 2.1 Not a U.S. citizen 130,020 97.0 10,540 96.2 38,138 97.3 39,944 97.0 8,922 97.9
GEOGRAPHICAL MOBILITY IN 2005-07 BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS FOR CURRENT RESIDENCE - Not a U.S. citizen 97.0% 96.2% 97.3% 97% 97.9% Texas Austin- Round Rock Dallas-Fort Worth- Arlington Houston-Sugar Land- Baytown San Antonio Total Population 23,001,298 1,507,616 5,879,028 5,395,973 1,908,085 Total Pop Foreign Born 3,698,240 215,342 1,055,637 1,166,922 213,728 Foreign born/tot pop: 16.1% 14.3% 18% 21.6% 11.2% Naturalized U.S. citizen 30.6% 27.5% 27.7% 32.5% 35.6% Not a U.S. citizen 69.4% 72.5% 72.3 % 67.5% 64.4% Same house 1 year ago: 78.9% 73.8% 77.2% 78.3% 78.5% Naturalized U.S. citizen 34.0% 30.9% 30.7% 36.5% 39.6% Not a U.S. citizen 66.0% 69.1% 69.3% 63.5% 60.4% Moved within same county: 12.7% 14.5% 14.1% 14% 11.8% Naturalized U.S. citizen 17.8% 18.2% 16.9% 17.3% 21.2% Not a U.S. citizen 82.2% 81.8% 83.1% 82.7% 78.8% Moved from different county within same state: 2.0% 3.8% 2.9% 2.1% 2.8% Naturalized U.S. citizen 26.2% 24% 26.7% 32.7% 27.4% Not a U.S. citizen 73.8% 76% 73.3% 67.3% 72.6% Moved from different state: 2.1% 2.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.6% Naturalized U.S. citizen 32.9% 34.9% 32.6% 33.2% 46% Not a U.S. citizen 67.1% 65.1% 67.4% 66.8% 54% Moved from abroad: 3.6% 5.1% 3.7% 3.5% 4.3% Naturalized U.S. citizen 3.0% 3.8% 2.7% 3% 2.1%
Geographic Mobility by Nativity and Race for the Native Born and Immigrant Populations Aged 20 to 64 in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin: 1995 to 2000 Residence 5 years ago Nativity Non- Movers Lived Abroad Moved in US Total Native Born 43% 0.9% 56% 3,063,727 Non-Hispanic Native Born 43% 0.9% 56% 2,646,750 White Alone 44% 0.8% 56% 2,096,665 Black Alone 42% 1% 57% 490,656 Asian Alone 24% 1.6% 75% 9,568 Hispanic Native-Born 43% 1.1% 56% 416,977 Foreign-born 36% 15% 50% 735,461 Hispanic Immigrants 38% 12% 50% 351,921 Asian Immigrants 36% 14% 50% 58,141 East Indian 33% 22% 45% 42,667
Houston Sharpestown/Bellaire Asian enclave: apartment vecindades for Mexican immigrants San Antonio West SA enclave: single-family homes and small apartments Dallas NWHighway/Old Love Field enclave: single-family homes and apartment vecindades Austin Riverside and Pleasant Valley apartment vecindades
Austin Findings The majority of Mexican immigrant movers had already been in the United States for ten years or more, 62% were renters, and lived within the central city 71% of the households had children with 10.8 female-headed households Lived in overcrowded conditions with an average household size of 4.5 and person-toroom ratio of 1.4. The largest majority (48 percent) lived in medium-sized to large apartment buildings with twenty or more residents. However, 34 percent lived in single-family homes with a median home value between $70,000 and $79,999.
Austin Findings While 96 percent of the population spoke Spanish as a household language, only 30.7 percent were citizens, and 65 percent had no high school degree or college. Although the majority of households (33.7 percent) had arrived during the 1980s, the median household income was $42,977 and the median personal earnings were $23,474. Only 6.2 percent of the Mexican immigrant population was self-employed, with the majority either working in construction or services. Only 9 percent of local movers were professional. In contrast native-born movers were just as likely to be homeowners as renters, earned on average $40,940 or $64,473 as household income, and over 53 percent lived in single-family homes. While nearly 40 percent of the native-born were college educated, they were primarily employed as professionals (44.9 percent) or self-employed (10.2 percent).
Highest Concentrations Considering population distribution by census tract for 2000, areas with the highest number of Hispanic foreign-born, including both Mexican and Central American immigrants, were 49.1 to 74.4 percent Hispanic and 34.8 to 47.4 percent, foreign-born. The highest concentrations was located along Riverside and Pleasant Valley Road close to Elmont Avenue in Southeast Austin, a large centrally located apartment community where the greatest population growth occurred between 1990 and 2000 as the population increased by 117 percent from 3,198 to 6,955.
Other Concentrations Other large apartment communities, or vecindades are located between Cameron Road and 183; between US Highway 183 and Rundberg; Highway 290 East and Springdale in East Austin;
CT 23.04 Population= 7,394; foreign born = 45.5%, not a citizen = 89.5% ; 62.2% arrived 1995
The local immigrant flea market, or pulga, on the corner of Pleasant Valley Road and Elmont Drive is a popular meeting place although zoning regulations, parking restrictions, and city enforcement have threatened the existence of the market. The spatial analysis shows that Austin s large apartment or vecindad wards are comparable in size to those found in Houston and Dallas.
CT 18.12 Population= 6,955; % foreign born = 47.4, 88.5% not a citizen; 55.8% arrived 1995>
The detached four-plex is one source of affordable housing in North and South Austin.
Demographic Change All of the immigrant-dominated census tracts, except one, showed a negative change in the percentage of non-hispanic Whites and non-hispanic Blacks with the increase in the foreignborn population. Along Northeast Drive and Springdale, 27.05 percent of Whites and 10.09 percent of Blacks moved during the 1990s. Between Stassney and Ben White, 19.4 percent of Whites moved, and 13.5 percent of Blacks moved. Between I83 and Rundberg, a typically integrated neighborhood by all accounts during the 1990s, the percentage of non-hispanic Whites declined by 24.44 percent and of non-hispanic African Am erican, by2.43 percent.
Houston 1990 and 2000 Increase in Foreign-Born Population: 77.7% 1990 2000
Dallas 1990 and 2000 Increase in Foreign-Born Population: 130.8% 1990 2000
San Antonio 1990 and 2000 Increase in Foreign-Born Population: 52.7% 1990 2000
Austin 1990 and 2000 Increase in Foreign-Born Population: 175.1% 1990 2000
The average Mexican immigrant family who moved arrived during the 1980s or early 1990s and lives in a 3.7-room apartment with 4.3 persons per household = room ratio was 1.4. The median household earnings are $30,000, 48% are linguistically isolated, 69% have not completed high school, yet unemployment rates were lower (4.4%) than for native-born non-movers (6.5%). The average non-hispanic White family lives in a 5.8-room house with 2.6 persons per household = room ratio was 0.6. The median household earnings are $58,200 for all native-born nonmovers, only 12% had no high school degree and 33% had a college degree. The median household earnings were $72,697 for non-hispanic native-born, only 9.3% had no high school degree, and 30.3% was a college graduate
The main determinants of immigrant residential mobility (homeownership) are similar to those of native-born. The main determinants are household structure (married, female-headed household), age, income, citizenship, and type of metropolitan residence (suburban vs. central city) Timing of immigration, citizenship, and length of time in the United States important in aggregate data cross- tabulations contribute to immigrant mobility Interaction terms (Linguistic Ability*Year of Arrival and Citizenship*Year of Arrival) were only significant predictor for 1990s arrivals who were citizens Predictors differed by metropolitan area
Odds Ratios For All Metros for Mexican Homeowners Aged 20 to 64 FAMILY 4.6** FEMALEHH 2.5** AGE55to64 4.7** HHINCOME 1.8** CITIZEN 1.7** LINGUIST 1.7** CIT90s 1.5* SUBURB 2.3** BACHELORSDEG 1.5**
Conclusions While gateway cities are distinguished by the high percentage of immigrants, which is impressive by all accounts, the major characteristics of gateway cities are 1) the concentration and absolute size of immigrant communities; 2) the growth of recognizable immigrant enclaves; 3) the high intra-urban mobility patterns of immigrants; 4) the rising segregation from the majority; and 5) the diverse yet polarized socioeconomic status of immigrants in these cities.
Significance Contributes to our knowledge of intra-urban mobility and underlying relationships of spatial and segmented assimilation and housing tenure (Massey 1985; Portes and Rumbaut 1990) Fills a gap in the Texas literature on intraurban mobility and contributes to existing studies on inequalities and stratification in Texas gateways
Scenes from Study
Upward and Downward Mobility
The Hispanic Rental Market in Dallas and Austin
Immigrant Affordable Housing
Types of Enclaves in Dallas and Austin
Problems with Crime