“Fixing the Rust Belt by Shrinking It
Kaid Benfield. Jan 4, 2012
A close look at population data reveals that, while the populations within central cities’ jurisdictional boundaries have declined substantially, their suburbs have actually grown. The result is that, if one defines “city” as the contiguous urbanized area within a metro region, regardless of political boundaries – the definition that matters to the economy and the environment – the shrinkage may vanish or be shown as far less than we think.
In short, “shrinking cities” have really been hollowing out more than shrinking. Any policy tools that fail to recognize this have little chance of improving the situation, in my opinion.
A new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland lends weight to the argument that a dense urban core is important to the overall strength of a metro region. The researchers examined population changes in census tracts within 180 metro areas, noting the location of tracts that gained or lost population – and by how much – in the 1980s, 1990s and from 2000-2010.
They found that, where regions grew, tracts near the center held relatively steady compared to those in the suburbs. But, in those regions that shrank overall, a disproportionately greater share of the losses took place in the centers.
Indeed, in metro areas that grew in population (like the Sun Belt regions and stronger older regions such as Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia), the greatest growth from 2000 to 2010 took place not just near the center but in downtown census tracts.
The comeback of America’s downtowns and adjoining older neighborhoods is real. But in those metros that lost population (e.g., Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo), losses remained greatest near the cores. A sign of encouragement for the shrinking regions, however, may be that their downtowns lost significantly less population after 2000 than did census tracts between three and fifteen miles from the central business district. “
Via: The Atlantic
Image: Brandon Bartoszek/Creative Commons
