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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Washington DC Metro Area

5. Washington DC Metropolitan Area: Population by State

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

7. Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1910-1920 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

8. Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1920-1930 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

9. Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1930-1940 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

10. Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1940-1950 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

11. Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1950-1960 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

12. Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1960-1970 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

13. Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1970-1980 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

14. Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1980-1990 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

15. Washington DC Metro Area, 1900-2000, Population Change by County Percent Change, 1990-2000 Decline 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% More than 100%

16. 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

17. 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

18. Percentage of Blacks and Poor Persons, 2000, in Suburbs by Growth Rate, 1990-2000 Population Change (%),Black and 1990-2000BlackPoorPoor Decline22.414.26.1 0 to 25%12.111.92.8 25 to 50% 8.5 9.71.5 50 to 100% 9.9 7.81.3 100% or more 5.3 6.80.6 (Includes all suburban places in metropolitan areas.)

19. 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

20. 1970 Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000

21. 1980

22. Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000 1990

23. Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods, 1970-2000 2000

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

25. Detroit: the Bigger Picture …and in 1990

26. Population Changes, 1970- 1990: The MSA Hollows Out

27. The Process Continues, 1990-2000

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

29. Dallas 1970-19901990-2000 Paul A. Jargowsky, University of Texas at DallasNovember 1, 2002 Change in Poverty Rates

30. Cleveland 1970-19901990-2000 Change in Poverty Rates

31. St. Louis 1970-19901990-2000 Change in Poverty Rates

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Results for 10 Metropolitan Areas with Largest Black Population

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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