Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl

Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl Paul A. Jargowsky University of Texas at Dallas and Centre de Sciences Humaines

Basic Argument • Rapid suburban development (or “Sprawl”) in the US undermines the Central Cities • The development pattern increases economic segregation by concentrating the poor in the inner cities • It also helps to maintain high levels of racial segregation despite the elimination of de jure controls on black residential location

Suburban Autonomy • US Suburbs are independent political units • Little or no external control on growth and development • New suburbs in competition with each other, as well as older suburbs and central city • Incentives favor rapid growth geared towards low-density, automobile-dependent neighborhoods serving high-income households, mostly white

Washington DC Metro Area

Washington DC Metropolitan Area: Population by State

Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100% Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1900-1910

Metropolitan Areas with Central City Population Declines, 1990-2000 • Of the 100 Largest • Metropolitan Areas • 30 had central city declines (for example, those to the left) • 51 more had central city growth less than suburban growth

Suburban Growth Is Not Neutral • Robert Park (1926): social distances are translated to physical distances • In US, class is more uncertain, increasing pressure to separate • Middle- and upper-income households have relocated further and further towards the periphery of urban space • Sharp contrast to the suburban development patterns of many other nations, e.g. India, France

Percentage of Blacks and Poor Persons, 2000, in Suburbs by Growth Rate, 1990-2000 Population Change (%), Black and 1990-2000 Black Poor Poor Decline 22.4 14.2 6.1 0 to 25% 12.1 11.9 2.8 25 to 50% 8.5 9.7 1.5 50 to 100% 9.9 7.8 1.3 100% or more 5.3 6.8 0.6 (Includes all suburban places in metropolitan areas.)

Sprawl’s contribution to Concentration of Poverty • Rich move to the newest suburbs • Middle class moves to older suburbs • Poor are left behind in low-density, declining neighborhoods • The social and economic decay of these neighborhoods frightens the middle class, and creates a vicious cycle

1970 Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

Detroit: the Bigger Picture The large poverty area in 1970….

Detroit: the Bigger Picture …and in 1990

Population Changes, 1970-1990: The MSA Hollows Out

The Process Continues, 1990-2000

Change in Poverty Rates, 1990-2000Detroit MSA The central city did better, but the inner-ring suburbs did not.

Change in Poverty Rates Dallas 1970-1990 1990-2000 Paul A. Jargowsky, University of Texas at Dallas November 1, 2002

Cleveland Changein Poverty Rates 1970-1990 1990-2000

St. Louis Changein Poverty Rates 1970-1990 1990-2000

Modeling Sprawl’s Contribution to Racial Segregation • Identify all neighborhoods (census tracts) that grew between 1990 and 2000 (net new housing units) • Count all whites and blacks who moved into growing tracts • Ask the question: what if suburban development had been racially neutral? • To be racially neutral, such growth would have to be mixed income across broad areas.

Two Methods to Model Sprawl’s Effect on Segregation • Fixed proportion method: assign 1990 movers to growing census tracts in proportion to their share of total movers into new housing. • Random moves method: randomly assign white and black movers to growing census tracts until all new slots are filled.

Results for 10 Metropolitan Areas with Largest Black Population

Implications • Exclusivity: racial and economic exclusion from growth zones • Increases economic segregation • Help to maintain high levels of racial segregation • Lower density: greater physical and social distance between groups • Political fragmentation: • Balkanization of fiscal base • Interacts with segregation to limit access to high-quality education and other public amenities

Policy Directions • Housing construction is highly regulated to protect health and safety • Need to also regulate the growth process • Pace of peripheral growth should be tied to metropolitan growth rate, so it does not undermine existing areas • Each suburban community must build a full range of housing types • Public transportation needed to improve access to geographically dispersed opportunities

Conclusion • Housing construction is near permanent • Once built, becomes the architecture of segregation • Individual & local decisions have significant externalities • Regulation of suburban growth is needed to: • Break down racial and economic segregation • Protect the long-term health of the community • Promote the geographic access to public resources necessary for equality of opportunity

Segregation and Concentration of Poverty: The Role of Suburban Sprawl