Metropolitan USA: Evidence from the 2010 Census

Population, Growth, Suburbs, MetropolitanI will review the major changes in the distribution of the metropolitan population of the United States (US), as revealed by the 2010 data recently released by the US Census. These data allow us to track recent changes and provide the basis for a discussion of longer-term trends identified in previous studies of US cities (Short 2006, 2007) and the city suburban nexus (Hanlon et al. 2010). In brief summary, the paper will show the continuing metropolitanization and suburbanization of the US population. A more nuanced picture will reveal evidence of stress in suburban areas and population resurgence in selected central city areas. Overall, the story is one of a profound revalorization and a major respatialization of the US metropolis.Hindawi Publishing CorporationInternational Journal of Population ResearchVolume 2012, Article ID 207532, 6 pagesdoi:10.1155/2012/207532Review ArticleMetropolitan USA: Evidence from the 2010 CensusJohn Rennie ShortDepartment of Public Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USACorrespondence should be addressed to John Rennie Short, jrs@umbc.eduReceived 27 November 2011; Accepted 14 March 2012Academic Editor: Shirlena HuangCopyright © 2012 John Rennie Short. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.I will review the major changes in the distribution of the metropolitan population of the United States (US), as revealed by the2010 data recently released by the US Census. These data allow us to track recent changes and provide the basis for a discussion oflonger-term trends identified in previous studies of US cities (Short 2006, 2007) and the city suburban nexus (Hanlon et al. 2010).In brief summary, the paper will show the continuing metropolitanization and suburbanization of the US population. A morenuanced picture will reveal evidence of stress in suburban areas and population resurgence in selected central city areas. Overall,the story is one of a profound revalorization and a major respatialization of the US metropolis.1. The Broad PictureThe mean center of the US mainland population is plottedfor each Census decade since 1790. The point marks thecentral fulcrum of the national population. In 1790 themean center was located in Maryland and over the years hassteadily moved westward in line with the westward shift ofpopulation. Between 1970 and 1980, the mean center crossedthe Mississippi River, and by 2000 it was located in PhelpsCounty Missouri. By 2010, it shifted further westwards andsouthward to Texas County in Missouri. The slow, steadyshift of the mean center marks the redistribution of theUS population to the expanding metro areas of the Southand West. Its slow progress, however, reminds us of thecontinuing population weight of the Northeast.The mean population center now passes through theinterior of the country, the so-called heartland. Yet it is aheart with an anemic demographic beat. The population ofsix counties in this region—Fayette, Marion, Randolph, andShelby in Illinois and Montgomery and Dent in Missouri—was 144,880 in 1950, rising to only 145,309 in 2010. Inmuch of the rural interior of the US, the story is one ofcontinuing relative population decline as the people moveto the city regions. The county that hosted the mean centerof population in 2010—Texas County, Missouri—saw onlyslight population increase from 18,992 in 1950 to 26,008 in2010. The percentage of persons in the county living belowthe poverty rate was 24.4 percent in 2010—almost double thenational average—and the median household income wasonly three-fifths of the national average. The rural heartlandis losing population and experiencing economic stress.2. ContinuingMetropolitanizationThe drift of population to large cities continues. The UScensus employs the term metropolitan statistical area (MSA)to refer to urban areas with a core area of at least 50,000 andeconomic links to surrounding counties. Using this statistical,rather than political division of municipal boundaries,it is possible to measure the metropolitanization of the USpopulation. In 1950 the metropolitan population was justover a half at 56.1 percent of the total US population. By 2010the figure was 83.6. The US population is increasingly andoverwhelmingly concentrated in metropolitan areas. Morethan 90 percent of the country’s entire population growth inthe last decade occurred within MSAs.A further 10 percent of the US population lives inmicropolitan statistical areas, which contain an urban core ofat least 10,000 and, in total, have less than 50,000 population.Only 6.3 percent (versus 6.8 percent in 2000) live outsidethese two types of urban areas. The US continues to becomea more urban and metropolitan society.2 International Journal of Population ResearchWhen we break down the metropolitan areas by size,there are differential growth rates. Table 1 shows the populationfor different sized MSAs from 1980 to 2010. Thegreatest growth was concentrated in the smaller sized metroareas. The steady growth of the largest, that is, greaterthan 5 million population, MSAs, from 1980 to 2000, isnow eclipsed by the increasing growth rate of the smallersized MSAs. This is partly a function of reclassification assmaller urban areas become classified as MSAs but alsoperhaps indicative of a greater spread of economic activityand population down the hierarchy of MSAs.Table 2 lists the twenty largest MSAs from 1950 to 2010.Notice the stability at the very top of the hierarchy with NewYork, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia and SanFrancisco keeping their position in the top ten over this 60-year period. There is also change as Sunbeltmetro areas enterthe top twenty. There were six metro areas in 2010 that werenot part of the top twenty in 1950—Atlanta, Dallas, Denver,Orlando, Sacramento, and San Juan. The inclusion of SanJuan, in Puerto Rico, now involves a wider definition of the“national” urban system than one restricted to mainlandUSA.3. Central CitiesThe metropolitan region can be divided into central city andsuburban areas. The most significant feature of the last sixtyyears is the suburbanization of the US population. In 1950only 23 percent of the US population was living in suburbs.This figure increased to 46.8 percent in 2010. The central citypopulation has remained relatively fixed at around one-thirdof the entire population. In 2010 it was 36.9 percent.The story of the central city of MSAs is complex. Shortand Mussman (forthcoming) plot the individual trajectoryof the population size at each successive Census since 1900of the top 100 cities and identify four model types. Thefirst type of city is steady decline. A typical city in thiscategory is Detroit that experienced a peak of 1.84 millionaround midtwentieth century and then continuous decline;its 2010 population was 713,777 down from 951,270 in2000. The city embodies the rise and rapid fall of the older,underbounded, industrial city. Other cities in this categoryinclude Akron, Baltimore, Birmingham, Buffalo, Cincinnati,Cleveland, New Orleans, Rochester, Toledo, and Pittsburgh.In these cities the loss of employment caused by the long slowdecline of manufacturing is yet to be replaced completelyby new forms of economic growth. These cities also bearthe brunt of an urban fiscal crisis as the steady loss ofpopulation and tax base erodes the revenues of the city. Thesecond type of city is continuous increase. Here the storyis of rising economic and population growth and ease ofannexation. A typical case is San Jose, CA, a Sunbelt citywith an expanding economy based largely on informationtechnology. In 1950 the city population was only 95,280,but by 2010 it was 945,942. Decades of spectacular growthfueled in particular by the Silicon Valley boom in hightechnologyand computer-related industries make San Joseone of the most prosperous and economically dynamic cities34567891900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Population (millions)DecadeFigure 1: Population of New York City.in the country. In 2010, San Jose’s median household incomewas $76,794, compared to the national median householdincome of $50,046. The city was also able to annex territory,increasing its area size from 17 square miles in 1950 to 177 in2010. Other examples of this type include San Diego, CA, LasVegas, NV, and Orlando, FL. The third model type is growthinterrupted. Here examples include New York City (NYC),Atlanta, San Francisco, and Seattle. These cities’ upwardpopulation trajectory saw some decline before returning togrowth and eventually surpassing their previous populationpeak. Figure 1 plots the trajectory of New York City wherethe population was relatively flat from 1950 to 1970 beforea 20-year decline and then resurgence after 1990. The city’sareal size remained constant at 303 square miles from1950 to2010. In Atlanta, there was rapid growth from 1950 to 1970followed by 30 years of decline before population began toup tick again after 2000. In the case of Seattle, populationpeaked in 1960 then declined before growth returned by the1990 census. The city was the same size in 2010—84 squaremiles—as it was in 1960. In this category some annexationsdid occur, but, especially for the large cities of Atlanta, NewYork, San Francisco, and Seattle, population growth withinstable boundaries was the most important process.Then there is the slowly resurgent city, where previouspeaks are not reached, but there is a slow steady returnof population. Examples include Boston, Philadelphia, andWashington, DC. In all three cases the areal size of the cityremained roughly the same. Washington DC’s populationpeaked in 1950, then saw continuous decline until 2000at which point the city’s population began a decade-longresurgence. Cities of this type are big urban areas that did notreach the free fall of continuous decline nor the pronouncedreturned upward trajectory of the growth-interrupted cities.These cities show signs of population recovery, if not quiteto past peaks, at least a bending of the curve from declineto upswing. And in most cases, population growth was notsimply the result of city annexation of suburban territory.The four categories are model types, and there is someoverlap between the categories. Chicago, IL, for example,lost considerable population from 1950 to 1990, gained over100,000 between 1990 and 2000, then lost 20,000 between2000 and 2010 all against a background of fixed areal sizesince 1960. It falls between steadily declining and resurgentcity categories. Other cities in this same liminal categoricalspace are Philadelphia, PA, and St. Paul, MN. Some citiesare located in the continuous growth category despite someInternational Journal of Population Research 3Table 1: Percentage of US population in metropolitan areas(MSAs), 1980–2010.MSA size 1980 1990 2000 2010Over 5 million 20.4 21.1 29.9 24.61 up to 5 million 25.2 28.9 27.6 29.5Up to 1 million 29.2 27.5 22.9 29.5Nonmetro areas 25.2 22.5 19.6 16.4Total 100 100 100 100small reductions from 2000 to 2010; these include Hialeah,FL, St. Petersburg, FL, Santa Ana, CA, and Tulsa, OK.Some of the causes of population resurgences includethe growing concentration of high-paying professional jobsin central cities, shrinking US household size that makessuburbs less attractive choices compared to central cities,changing immigration patterns as streams of foreign-bornmigrants move to central cities. Mikelbank [1, 2] highlightssome of the trajectories of change within metro regions andbetween suburban places. Declining crime rates also makecentral city living a more attractive proposition. There is alsoa marked uptick in commercial and residential reinvestmentin selected central city areas. Selected central city areas arebeing revalorized as capital and people move back to the city.The relative position of individual cities is shown inTable 3 that lists the relative size of the largest 20 citiesfrom 1950 to 2010. Two trends can be noted. First, therelative stability of the very largest cities of New York, LosAngeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia that remain within thetop ten. Second, the reshuffling of the top twenty as the olderindustrial areas such as Cleveland, St. Louis, and Buffalodrop out and the more rapidly growing Sunbelt cities suchas Houston, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and San Joseenter. From 2000 to 2010 three more Sunbelt cities enteredthe top twenty: Fort Worth, Charlotte, and El Paso. Andtwo rustbelt cities—Baltimore and Milwaukee—droppedout. The changes in rankings embody deeper economicrestructuring in the US economy and the associated rise andfall in urban fortunes.4. Suburban AreasThe suburban spread of population continues across thecountry. Between 2000 and 2010 most MSAs added suburbancounties to their metropolitan region. The Pittsburgh MSA,for example, added Armstrong County with a populationof 68,941. More dynamic MSAs significantly extended theirmetropolitan range of influence even further. Atlanta MSA,for example, added 8 new counties with a combined populationof almost 160,000 and total area of 2,250 square miles.The suburban frontier continues its outward movementturning even more of the US landscape into a metropolitansociety.There is considerable variation within the category ofsuburbs [1]. Hanlon et al. [3] describe the US suburbs as aplace of disparate and divergent realities. At one extreme iswhat Lang and LeFurgy [4] describe as boomburbs that theycharacterize asmunicipalities of more than 100,000 that werenot the major city of their MSA and experienced double-digitgrowth for three consecutive decades. Remember, however,that the data reflects different definitions of municipalities.Using 2000 data these authors identified 54 boomburbswith a combined population of 8.9 million. Using the samecriteria but updated with 2010 data, only 31 boomburbs wereidentified with a combined population of approximately 6million. The rate of red-hot growth has dipped as economicrecession, and housing market collapse has undercut veryrapid suburban growth. Even the experience of particularboomburbs has slumped since the housing market collapse.Flagler County in Florida, part of the Palm Coast MSA,grew an astonishing 92 percent between 2000 and 2010, afunction of the housing boom of 2001–2007. Since 2008however the housing market has collapsed with risingunemployment and foreclosure rates. The poverty rate inthe country has increased by almost fifty percent from 2000to 2010, from 11.3 percent of all persons to 15.1 percent.Across the metropolitan landscape, the growth in the formerboomburbs has stalled due to the housing crisis.At the other extreme, there is also what Hanlon [5]describes as “suburbs in crisis.” These are defined as suburbsthat witnessed population loss and economic retrenchment.Her analysis was based on 2000 data. We can get a morerecent snapshot by updating the story of just one of thesesuburbs. Dundalk, an industrial suburb in the BaltimoreMSA, experienced increased poverty and declining incomefrom 2000 to 2010. The poverty rate for individuals increasedfrom 9.2 percent to 12.4 percent in 2010, while the medianhousehold income fell from $46,035 to $45,088. The olderindustrial suburbs continue to decline.Over the past half century, the suburban experience hasdiverged. The difference between rich and poor suburbs hassubstantially increased. In the past decade the rapid growthof boomburbs has deflated due to the housing crisis and thedifference between rich and poor suburbs widens as povertycontinues to rise in the poorer suburbs.5.MegalopolisWe can consider some of the changes within metropolitanareas by considering one case study. One of the largestcontiguous areas of metropolitan counties is what JeanGottmann [6] first identified as Megalopolis, a regionspanning 600 miles from north of Richmond in Virginiato just north of Portland in Maine and from the shores ofthe Northern Atlantic to the Appalachians. A profile of theregion from 1950 to 2000 was undertaken by Short [7]. Theregion now includes the consolidated metropolitan areas ofWashington-Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Bostonand covers 52,000 square miles. In 2000 the populationof this giant urban region was 40.6 million. By 2010 ithas increased to 44.6 million with in situ growth and newcounties being added because of spreading metropolitaninfluence. It is the single biggest metropolitan concentrationof population. In both 2000 and 2010 it contained just over14 percent of the entire US population.4 International Journal of Population ResearchTable 2: The twenty largest metropolitan areas in the US by population, 1950–2010.Rank1950 1970 1990 2000 2010MSA name MSA name MSA name MSA name MSA name1NewYork—Northeastern NJNew York, NY New York (CMSA)New York, NY(CMSA)New York, NY (CSA)2 Chicago, ILLos Angeles/LongBeach, CALos Angeles, CA(CMSA)Los Angeles, CA(CMSA)Los Angeles, CA(CSA)3 Los Angeles, CA Chicago, IL Chicago, IL (CMSA) Chicago, IL (CMSA) Chicago, IL (CSA)4 Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia, PAWashington, DC(CMSA)Washington, DC(CMSA)Washington,DC/Baltimore, (CSA)5 Detroit, MI Detroit, MISanFrancisco/Oakland,CA (CMSA)SanFrancisco/Oakland,CA (CMSA)Boston, MA (CSA)6 Boston, MA San Francisco, CAPhiladelphia, PA(CMSA)Philadelphia, PA(CMSA)San Jose/SanFrancisco/Oakland,CA (CSA)7 San Fran/Oakland, CA Washington, DC Boston, MA (CMSA) Boston, MA (CMSA)Dallas/Ft.Worth, TX(CSA)8 Pittsburgh, PA Boston, MA Detroit, MI (CMSA) Detroit, MI (CMSA)Philadelphia, PA(CSA)9 St. Louis, MO Pittsburgh, PA Dallas, TX (CMSA) Dallas, TX (CMSA) Houston, TX (CSA)10 Cleveland, OH St. Louis, MO Houston, TX (CMSA) Houston, TX (CMSA) Atlanta, CSA11 Washington, DC Baltimore, MD Miami, FL (CMSA) Atlanta, GA (CMSA) Detroit, MI (CSA)12 Baltimore, MD Cleveland, OH Seattle,WA (CMSA) Miami, FL (CMSA) Seattle,WA (CSA)13Minneapolis/St. Paul,MNHouston, TX Atlanta, GA (CMSA) Seattle,WA (CMSA)Minneapolis/St. Paul,MN (CSA)14 Buffalo, NY Newark, NJCleveland, OH(CMSA)Phoenix/Mesa, AZ(CMSA)Denver, CO (CSA)15 Cincinnati, OHMinneapolis/St. Paul,MNMinneapolis/St. Paul,MN (MSA)Minneapolis/St. Paul,MN (MSA)Cleveland, OH (CSA)16 Milwaukee, WI Dallas, TX San Diego, CACleveland, OH(CMSA)St. Louis, MO (CSA)17 Kansas City, MO Seattle,WA St. Louis, MO San Diego, CA Orlando, FL (CSA)18 Houston, TX Anaheim, CA Pittsburgh (MSA) St. Louis, MO San Juan, PR (CSA)19 Providence, RI Milwaukee,WI San Juan, PR (CMSA) Denver, CO (CMSA)Sacramento, CA(CSA)20 Seattle,WA Atlanta, GAPhoenix/Mesa, AZ(CMSA)San Juan, PR (CMSA) Pittsburgh, PA (CSA)Bold denotes new to the top twenty. CMSA: combined metropolitan statistical area. CSA: combined statistical area.Within this region three trends can be noted from 2000 to2010. First, the urban core regions have retained their relativedemographic position. In 2000 the combined population ofBoston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington was 10.64million and by 2010 this increased to 10.88 million. All thesecities had established producer services, while Baltimore,with a relatively large manufacturing base, declined from651,154 in 2000 to 620,961 in 2010, reflecting the broadercontinuing shift of the dynamics of the US economy awayfrom manufacturing to producer services.Second, suburban dominance continued as the percentageof the regions’ total population increased from 72 to 74percent. Compared to earlier decades, however, the centralcity-suburban distribution now seems more stable as theyears of rapid suburban growth and central city decline arenow replaced by a more varied picture of resurgence inselected city centers with a leveling off in rapid suburbanincreases. There are still areas of rapid growth especiallyin the southern part of Megalopolis that includes countiesfringing the Washington Baltimore MSAs. Loudon Countyin the northern Virginia suburbs of the Washington MSA,for example, saw an absolute increase from 169,599 in 2000to 312,311 in 2010. Elsewhere in this particular growthregion, rapid growth slowed. Howard County, Maryland,for example, saw a huge population increase from 23,110in 1950 to 247,842 in 2000 but only a slight increase to287,085 by 2010. The growth was effectively a filling-inof the commuting corridor between Washington DC andBaltimore.Many of the former high growth suburbs are nowbuilt out. Throughout the region there was also evidence ofdecline in some of the older inner suburbs, what Puentes andWarren [8] describe as first suburbs. In Essex County in NewInternational Journal of Population Research 5Table 3: Twenty largest metropolitan cities in the US by population, 1950–2010.Rank1950 1970 1990 2000 2010City name City name City name City name City name1 New York, NY New York, NY New York, NY New York, NY New York, NY2 Chicago, IL Chicago, IL Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA3 Philadelphia, PA Los Angeles, CA Chicago, IL Chicago, IL Chicago, IL4 Los Angeles, CA Philadelphia, PA Houston, TX Houston, TX Houston, TX5 Detroit, MI Detroit, MI Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia, PA6 Baltimore, MD Houston, TX San Diego, CA Phoenix, AZ Phoenix, AZ7 Cleveland, OH Baltimore, MD Detroit, MI San Diego, CA San Antonio, TX8 St. Louis, MO Dallas, TX Dallas, TX Dallas, TX San Diego, CA9