city families and suburban singles - william h. frey€¦ · city families and suburban singles: an...
TRANSCRIPT
City Families andSuburban Singles:An Emerging Household Story from Census 2000William H. Frey, University of Michigan Population Studies Center and Milken Institute andAlan Berube, Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy
Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy
■ In the 1990s, central city popula-tion growth was at a three-decadehigh, but household growth was at athree-decade low. Growing citiesadded population faster than house-holds in the past decade, whiledeclining cities lost population fasterthan households.
■ Fast-growing cities in the Southand West experienced significantincreases in married couples withchildren, while slow-growing citiesin the Northeast and Midwest expe-rienced declines in these families.In 12 of the 15 central cities with thelargest population declines in the1990s, single parents with childrennow represent a larger share of allhouseholds than “married with chil-dren” households.
■ Suburbs now contain morenonfamily households—largelyyoung singles and elderly peopleliving alone—than married coupleswith children. In 2000, 29 percent ofall suburban households werenonfamilies, while 27 percent weremarried couples with children.Overall, suburbs experienced fastergrowth in every household type thantheir cities in the 1990s.
■ Cities in high-immigration metrosare becoming more “suburban” intheir household composition, whilesuburbs in slow-growing Northernmetros are becoming more “urban”in theirs. “Melting Pot” cities regis-tered strong growth in marriedcouples with children, while suburbsof the Northeast and Midwest regionsexperienced the bulk of their growthin nonfamily and single-parent households.
FindingsAn analysis of population, household, and household type changes in the 102 most popu-lous metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2000 indicates that:
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 1
“…the types of
households that
fueled city and
suburban
population
growth in the
1990s differed
widely across
U.S. regions.”
I. Introduction
Changes in population duringthe 1990s have been thefocus of much of the debatethus far around the meaning
of the 2000 Census with regard tocities and metropolitan areas. It was adecade of population gains for mostlarge cities, including some that stag-nated or declined in previous decades,like New York and Chicago. Yetsuburban population growthcontinued to outpace that of the cities.Regional distinctions were also impor-tant: both cities and suburbs grewfastest in the South and West, whileseveral cities in the Northeast andMidwest continued to experiencepopulation declines.1
Still, focusing exclusively on popula-tion change offers only a partialpicture of metropolitan growthdynamics in the 1990s. Change in thenumber and composition of house-holds may be a better indicator ofchanges in metropolitan housingdemand, tax base, and services needsthan population change. For instance,in the 1990s the city of Washington,D.C., lost 6 percent of its population,but the number of householdsremained relatively stable (1 percentloss). This implies that, on net, thecity lost larger families with childrenbut gained and retained smaller, child-less households. Looking at householdchange and not just population changehelps to explain the continued highdemand for housing in that city. Wash-ington’s experience, though, isdifferent from that of other cities suchas New York, Detroit, Phoenix and LosAngeles. Recent household changedynamics differ sharply across metro-politan areas, reflecting shiftinghousehold types and location prefer-ences that are shaping cities andsuburbs in new ways.
The present survey interprets theresults of the 2000 Census to revealimportant differences between house-hold growth and population growth inU.S. metropolitan areas and their
component central cities and suburbsduring the 1990s. Additionally, thesurvey shows that the types of house-holds that fueled city and suburbanpopulation growth (or that served tostem city population loss) differedwidely across U.S. regions.
II. Methodology
Metropolitan Area Definitions This study evaluates population andhousehold changes during the 1990sfor the country’s 102 largest metropol-itan areas—namely, those metros with500,000 or more inhabitants asreported in Census 2000. The metro-politan areas analyzed are thosedefined by the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) as MetropolitanStatistical Areas (MSAs) and PrimaryMetropolitan Statistical Areas(PMSAs), and in the New Englandstates, as New England County Metro-politan Areas (NECMAs).
Definition of Central City and Suburbs The present analysis defines centralcities and their suburbs (the portion ofthe metropolitan area located outsideof the central city) largely in accor-dance with OMB definitions in effectfor the 2000 Census. These defini-tions are applied consistently to both1990 and 2000 census data. OMBstandards sometimes combinemultiple cities to form the official“central city” for a given metropolitanarea.2 These standards were modifiedslightly for purposes of this analysis, inthat the largest or best-knowncity/cities in most large metropolitanareas have been designated as the“central city.” We generally treat ascentral cities the place or places listedin the official OMB metropolitan areaname. In the “Detroit, MI PMSA,” forexample, OMB recognizes the cities ofDetroit, Dearborn, Pontiac, and PortHuron as the combined “central city.”Our analysis includes only Detroit asthe “central city” and the remainder ofthe Detroit PMSA is treated as
suburbs. We have in this mannermodified the official definition of“central city” for 56 of the 102 metro-politan areas in this study.3 Centralcities are designated for only 97 of the102 metropolitan areas in our study, sothe populations of the remainingmetro areas are classified as suburban.
Metropolitan Area Typology Portions of this analysis employ ametropolitan area typology introducedin a previous Brookings Census 2000Series survey.4 The typology distin-guishes among metropolitan areas onthe basis of their regional locationsand dominant racial-ethnic structures.This typology is useful in the presentstudy because the nature of householdgrowth in the 1990s is reflective ofboth of these factors. The 102 metro-politan areas are classified as follows:
■ Melting Pot metros (35 metro areas)
■ North—largely white-blackmetros (6 metro areas)
■ North—largely white metros (29 metro areas)
■ South—largely white-blackmetros (19 metro areas)
■ South and West—largely whitemetros (13 metro areas)
“Melting Pot Metros” such as NewYork, Los Angeles, El Paso, andBakersfield have large proportions ofHispanic, Asian, AmericanIndian/Native Alaskan, other races,and multi-racial populations, and arelocated primarily in high-immigrationzones of the U.S.
The two metro categories in theNorth include primarily slow-growingmetropolitan areas in the censusNortheast and Midwest regions.“North—largely white-black” areassuch as Philadelphia and Detroit havesignificant African-American popula-tions; and “North—largely white”areas such as Boston and Minneapolishave smaller minority populations.
Metropolitan areas in the South andWest categories are located in those
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 2
faster growing census regions.“South—largely white-black” metrosinclude areas like Atlanta, Baltimore,and Little Rock that have significantAfrican-American populations; and“South and West—largely white” areasinclude those with a smaller minoritypresence, such as Seattle, ColoradoSprings, and Tampa.5 Appendix Bcontains a complete listing of the 102metro areas arranged by their classifi-cations.
Household Type Definitions Our study distinguishes among fivedifferent household types in accor-dance with definitions established bythe decennial census. Table 1 presentsthese categories and the shares of allU.S. households that each one repre-sented in 1990 and 2000.
Families are defined by the presenceof two or more people in the house-hold related by birth, marriage oradoption, and children refer to aparent’s own children under the age of18. A great deal of demographic diver-sity exists not only among but alsowithin these household types. Each ofthe five major household typescomprises a spectrum of householdswith a wide range of service needs andwith varying abilities to contribute tothe local tax base—differencesdictated in large part by householdsize and by the age of householdmembers. The five households typesare as follows:
■ Married with children: As thechildren of Baby Boomers ageand leave home, the traditional“nuclear family” household typeaccounts for a shrinking portionof all U.S. households. In 2000,less than one-fourth of all house-holds nationwide were of thistype, compared to 40.3 percent ofall households in 1970.
■ Married without children: The 28percent of households that aremarried couples without children
includes young, often two-earnercouples who have not yet hadchildren, older “empty nester”couples whose children mayrecently have left home, andelderly couples who may havegrandchildren of their own.
■ Other families with children:These households are usuallysingle-parent family households,and four out of five of them areheaded by females. While disad-vantaged single mothers whogave birth at a young age makeup a significant portion of thesehouseholds, the category alsoincludes most divorced and sepa-rated parents with children,never-married mothers whochose to have children at a laterage, and unmarried partnerswith children.
■ Other families without children: These householdsinclude single adults withparents living in their home,single parents with children over18 living in their home, andadult relatives (such as brothersand sisters) living in the samehousehold.
■ Nonfamilies: More than 80percent of nonfamily householdsare single persons living alone; ofthese, more than one-third are65 years and older. Othernonfamily households consist ofnon-relatives living together,including unmarried partnerswith no children.
The reader should keep in mindthat household growth and declinecan occur in a more dynamic, variedfashion than population change. Asidefrom in-migration or out-migration,changes in the number of householdsresult from household formation anddissolution. New households formlargely when “coming of age” lateteens and young adults leave theirparents’ homes to form their own.Changes in other existing householdscan also affect household growth: forinstance, two nonfamily single house-holds may combine to form a marriedcouple household; likewise, a divorcemay create two households from one.Life transitions can also lead tochanges in household type, as when amarried couple without childrenhousehold experiences the birth of achild (thus creating a married couplewith children household), or thedeath of a spouse (thus creating anonfamily household).
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 3
Table 1: Share of all U.S. Households by Household Type,1990 and 2000
1990 2000Family Households 70.2 68.1
Married Couple 55.1 51.7With own children under 18 26.7 23.5No own children under 18 28.4 28.1
Other Family 15.0 16.4With own children under 18 9.3 9.2No own children under 18 5.7 7.1
Nonfamily Households 29.8 31.9Persons Living Alone 24.6 25.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
III. Findings
A. In the 1990s, central city popula-tion growth was at a three-decadehigh, but household growth was at athree-decade low. Metropolitan household and popula-tion changes in the last decadeoccurred within the context of largerU.S. demographic forces, with the1990s representing a dramatic shift inhousehold and population dynamicsfrom just two decades prior. In the1970s, U.S. population growth wasslower than in the 1950s and 1960s,as the Baby Boomers entering adult-hood during that decade had childrenat lower rates than did their earliercounterparts. At the same time,however, households grew at recordpace in the U.S. during the 1970s. Asthey entered traditional householdformation ages, Boomers were notonly more numerous than previousgenerations at those ages, but alsothey waited longer than their parentsto “double up” and form couples tostart families, thus creating morehouseholds per capita.
With the Boomers dominating theAmerican demographic landscape, thenumber of U.S. households in the1970s in fact grew at more than twicethe rate of U.S. population (27percent versus 11.4 percent) (seeFigure 1). This growth differentialnarrowed somewhat during the 1980s,but the household gains generated bythe late Boomers during that decadestill exceeded population gains bymore than half. In the 1990s, however,the gap between U.S. population andhousehold growth narrowed consider-ably. Household growth was at athree-decade low, and populationgrowth at a three-decade high.
Following the national trend,central cities in all metropolitan areasexperienced faster population growthand slower household growth in the1990s than in the 1970s or 1980s. AsFigure 2 shows, central city popula-tion growth during the 1970s wasbarely positive (0.1 percent), became
much stronger in the 1980s (7.0percent), and continued on thisupward trend during the 1990s (9.8percent). Over the same period, citiesexperienced declines in the householdgrowth rate similar to, though lesssteep than, the nation as a whole—
from 14.6 percent in the 1970s to 9.9percent in the 1990s.
This shift in the direction of house-hold-versus-population growth isbased on separate demographic forces.The recent declines in householdgrowth are attributable to the smaller
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 4
Figure 1: U.S. Household and Population Growth by Decade, 1970–2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1970–80 1980–90 1990–2000
Household GrowthPopulation Growth
27
11.4
16
9.8
14.713.2
Per
cen
tage
Ch
ange
Figure 2: Central City Household and Population Growth by Decade, 1970–2000*
*Central cities of all U.S. metropolitan areas
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1970–80 1980–90 1990–2000
Household GrowthPopulation Growth
14.5
0.1
10.8
7.0
9.9 9.8
Per
cen
tage
Ch
ange
post-Boomer generation entering itshousehold formation years in the1990s. The recent increases in popula-tion growth can be attributed in largepart to immigrant population waveswhose first, second and third genera-tions are living in cities, and haveyounger age structures and oftenhigher birth rates. In addition, the
households these newcomers form aredifferent from those formed in the1970s by “coming of age” BabyBoomers. Immigrants and children ofimmigrants are more likely to marryearlier and form larger, married couplewith children households. As weexplore later in greater detail, thecharacter of city households, espe-
cially in fast-growing cities, is quitedifferent today from what it was 20 to30 years ago.
One implication of these trends isthat the household growth “cushion”that central cities enjoyed duringearlier decades no longer exists. In the1970s, cities that declined or grewonly modestly in population could
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 5
Table 2: Population and Household Growth Rates 1990-2000Central Cities with Greatest Population Growth and Decline in Metro Areas
with Population Over 500,000
Central City Growth RatesPOPULATION HOUSEHOLD Difference
METRO AREAS WITH GREATEST CENTRAL CITY POPULATION GROWTH1. Las Vegas, NV-AZ MSA 85 77 -82. Bakersfield, CA MSA 41 34 -83. Austin, TX MSA 41 38 -34. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 40 47 65. Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA 39 35 -46. Charlotte, NC-SC MSA 37 36 -17. Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 35 28 -78. Raleigh-Durham, NC MSA 34 32 -29. Colorado Springs, CO MSA 28 28 -1
10. Greensboro—Winston-Salem—High Point, NC MSA 25 25 011 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 22 19 -312 San Antonio, TX MSA 22 24 213 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA 21 21 -114 Fresno, CA MSA 21 15 -615 Orange County, CA PMSA 21 11 -10
METRO AREAS WITH GREATEST CENTRAL CITY POPULATION DECLINE1. Hartford, CT NECMA -13 -13 02. St. Louis, MO-IL MSA -12 -11 13. Youngstown-Warren, OH MSA -12 -10 24. Gary, IN PMSA -12 -7 55. Baltimore, MD PMSA -12 -7 56. Buffalo, NY MSA -11 -10 17. Syracuse, NY MSA -10 -8 28. Pittsburgh, PA MSA -10 -6 39. Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA -9 -4 5
10. Birmingham, AL MSA -9 -6 211 Dayton-Springfield, OH MSA -8 -6 212 Detroit, MI PMSA -7 -10 -313 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA -6 -4 214 Scranton-Hazleton, PA MSA -6 -4 315 Toledo, OH MSA -6 -1 4
Note: Pertains to MSAs, PMSAs, and (in New England) NECMAs, as defined in June, 2000 by OMB with modifications for central cities. See text.
Source: William H. Frey analysis of decennial census data
nevertheless count on continueddemand for housing among newBoomer households. With populationgrowth and household growth virtuallyat parity during the 1990s, however,cities in general seemed able to enjoysustained housing demand andgrowing tax bases only if their popula-tions were increasing.
These dominant city trends ofreduced household formation andincreased population growth, espe-cially the growth of families withchildren among immigrant groups, didnot hold across all central cities.Among the cities in this study, popula-tion growth in the 1990s ranged froma decline of 13 percent (Hartford, CT)to a gain of 85 percent (Las Vegas,NV). Overall, three-fourths of centralcities showed population gains. Table2 displays the 15 central cities in thisstudy with the highest populationgrowth during the 1990s and the 15cities with the largest populationdeclines. Notably, the cities showingthe greatest population growth wereall located in the South and Westcensus regions; those with the greatestpopulation declines were overwhelm-ingly in the North and Midwest.6 (SeeAppendix A for a complete listing ofpopulation and household growthrates in the 102 metropolitan areas.)
Almost uniformly, the rapidlygrowing cities experienced fasterpopulation growth than householdgrowth. The most notable example wasLas Vegas. Its population growth rateover the decade was 85 percent, butits household growth rate was only 77percent. This implies that averagehousehold size in Las Vegas was onthe rise in the 1990s. A number oflikely reasons underlie this trend,including the city attracting largerhouseholds, births occurring amongfamilies already living in the city in1990, and families “doubling up” inone housing unit. Some other cities inwhich the population growth rate wasmuch higher than the householdgrowth rate during the 1990s areBakersfield, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Fresno,
CA; and the central cities of OrangeCounty, CA (Santa Ana, Anaheim, andIrvine). The housing pressures accom-panying the large population increasesin these cities were eased in part bytheir slower increases in numbers ofhouseholds.
Conversely, cities with falling popu-lations lost households also, but atslower rates than they lost population.Gary, IN; Baltimore, MD; and Cincin-nati, OH, all experienced much morerapid declines in population than inhouseholds. In effect, the household“cushion” still existed for these cities,although it was much smaller than inprevious decades. The problemsaccompanying their population losseswere perhaps muted to some extent bytheir slower declines in households.This pattern of faster populationdecline than household decline indi-cates that these cities lost, on net,larger families at higher rates thanthey did smaller families and single-person households. The relatively largenumber of elderly residents in thesecities also suggests that their fasterpopulation decreases may haveoccurred in part as a result of deathsin existing family households.7
B. Fast-growing cities in the Southand West experienced significantincreases in married couples withchildren, while slow-growing citiesin the Northeast and Midwest expe-rienced declines in these families.Looking more closely at changes in thetypes of households that lived in citiesin the 1990s, we see important differ-ences between fast-growing andslow-growing/declining cities. Overall,“married with children” families forma significantly smaller percentage ofall U.S. households than in previousdecades.8 Yet fast-growing cities in theU.S. South and West experiencedlarge increases in numbers of familyhouseholds—especially marriedcouples—with children.9 Meanwhile,in slow-growing cities of the Northeastand Midwest in the 1990s, married-couple family households, particularly
those with children, declined at muchfaster rates than did nonfamilies andother families. (See Appendix B for acomplete listing of central city house-hold type shares and household typegrowth rates for the 102 metropolitanareas.)
Fast-growing cities in the 1990s arecharacterized by the considerable pres-ence of married couples, includingthose with children, among their resi-dent and new-arrival populations(upper panel of Table 3). In 13 of the15 fastest-growing central cities,married-couple households (with andwithout children) account for morethan 40 percent of all city households,and they account for half or more ofcentral city households in metro areassuch as Las Vegas, NV; Bakersfield,CA; McAllen, TX; and Orange County,CA. (For purposes of comparison,married couples account for 39percent of combined central cityhouseholds for all metro areas in thisstudy.) In eight of these 15 metros, thecentral city’s “married with children”household share equals or exceeds thenational average of 23.5 percent. Inpart, the large percentages of married-couple households in thesefast-growing central cities in the Southand West reflect the fairly expansiveborders of these cities, which are notas “hemmed in” as most Northeast andMidwest cities. These cities are thusable to incorporate a more “suburban”population within their boundaries.
Married-couple households werenot the only types driving populationgrowth in the fast-growing cities of the1990s. Most of these cities experi-enced significant growth in all types ofhouseholds (upper right panel of Table3). Nearly all of the central cities inthese metros saw their nonfamilyhouseholds increase by more thanone-third, and their growth rates forfamilies not headed by a marriedcouple often exceeded those formarried-couple households. However,the growth of married-couple house-holds reinforced their already sizeablebase population in these fast-growing
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 6
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 7
Tabl
e 3:
200
0 H
ouse
hold
Typ
e S
hare
s an
d 19
90-2
000
Rat
es o
f H
ouse
hold
Typ
e G
row
thC
entr
al C
itie
s w
ith
Gre
ates
t P
opul
atio
n G
row
th a
nd D
ecli
ne i
n M
etro
Are
as w
ith
Pop
ulat
ion
Ove
r 50
0,00
0
CENT
RAL
CITY
HOU
SEHO
LD T
YPE
SHAR
ES19
90-2
000
RATE
S OF
HOU
SEHO
LD G
ROW
TH
MAR
RIED
COU
PLES
OTHE
R FA
MIL
IES
MAR
RIED
COU
PLES
OTHE
R FA
MIL
IES
NO
With
NOW
ITH
NON
NOW
ITH
NOW
ITH
NON
Cent
ral C
ities
of M
etro
Are
asCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DFA
M.
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
FAM
.
ME
TR
O A
RE
AS
WIT
H G
RE
AT
ES
T C
EN
TR
AL
CIT
Y P
OP
UL
AT
ION
IN
CR
EA
SE
1.L
as V
egas
, NV-
AZ
MS
A27
228
1034
7679
8570
972.
Bak
ersf
ield
, CA
MS
A24
297
1427
2735
5025
573.
Aus
tin,
TX
MS
A20
197
847
3131
5542
394.
McA
llen-
Edi
nbur
g-M
issi
on, T
X M
SA
2733
911
2050
3665
5543
5.Po
rtla
nd-V
anco
uver
, OR
-WA
PM
SA
2317
69
4528
3833
3745
6.C
harl
otte
, NC
-SC
MS
A23
218
1039
2030
2948
497.
Pho
enix
-Mes
a, A
Z M
SA
2424
711
3415
2548
3055
8.R
alei
gh-D
urha
m, N
C M
SA
2118
710
4422
3031
3649
9.C
olor
ado
Spr
ings
, CO
MS
A27
255
934
2418
5033
3710
.Gre
ensb
oro-
-Win
ston
-Sal
em--
Hig
h Po
int,
NC
MS
A24
178
1139
1420
2130
4411
Fort
Wor
th-A
rlin
gton
, TX
PM
SA
2325
811
347
1730
1949
12S
an A
nton
io, T
X M
SA
2424
912
3119
1436
3036
13W
est
Palm
Bea
ch-B
oca
Rat
on, F
L M
SA
2816
78
439
1913
2943
14F
resn
o, C
A M
SA
2125
915
304
1733
1130
15O
rang
e C
ount
y, C
A P
MS
A22
359
1024
025
9-1
32
ME
TR
O A
RE
AS
WIT
H G
RE
AT
ES
T C
EN
TR
AL
CIT
Y P
OP
UL
AT
ION
DE
CL
INE
1.H
artf
ord,
CT
NE
CM
A14
1212
2340
-23
-15
-7-6
-13
2.S
t. L
ouis
, MO
-IL
MS
A15
1112
1548
-27
-19
-9-1
-53.
Youn
gsto
wn-
War
ren,
OH
MS
A22
1311
1538
-24
-31
-44
44.
Gar
y, I
N P
MS
A19
1117
2033
-14
-36
12-8
75.
Bal
tim
ore,
MD
PM
SA
1710
1516
43-2
3-2
7-5
-27
6.B
uffa
lo, N
Y M
SA
1612
1017
45-2
6-2
4-8
7-4
7.S
yrac
use,
NY
MS
A16
128
1649
-24
-23
-10
14-3
8.P
itts
burg
h, P
A M
SA
2011
1010
48-1
9-2
0-1
82
59.
Cin
cinn
ati,
OH
-KY-
IN P
MS
A16
118
1451
-17
-25
-75
610
.Bir
min
gham
, AL
MS
A19
1314
1540
-23
-25
311
311
Day
ton-
Spr
ingf
ield
, OH
MS
A20
1410
1443
-18
-23
-42
412
Det
roit
, MI
PM
SA
1413
1721
35-2
3-1
32
-9-9
13A
lban
y-S
chen
ecta
dy-T
roy,
NY
MS
A17
128
1350
-19
-22
-14
273
14S
cran
ton-
Haz
leto
n, P
A M
SA
2416
99
42-1
5-1
8-1
223
915
Tole
do, O
H M
SA
2216
813
40-1
3-2
1-1
2011
Sou
rce:
Wil
liam
H. F
rey
anal
ysis
of d
ecen
nial
cen
sus
data
cities. As Table 4 indicates, eight ofthe 15 fastest-growing metro areacentral cities were also among the 15central cities with the highest share of“married with children” families in2000. In most of the nation’s fastest-growing central cites in majormetropolitan areas, large immigrantand migrant populations, and theattraction of young married couplesand married couples with children,create distinctive residential growthdynamics.
Cities that experienced populationdeclines in the 1990s offered a starkcontrast to the “married with children”phenomenon in growing cities. Indeclining cities in the 1990s, popula-tion tended to drop at a faster rate thandid households, and the number oflarger married-couple households—especially those with children—decreased faster than did other house-hold types. As the bottom right panelof Table 3 indicates, central cities infive of these 15 metro areas lost atleast a quarter of their total “marriedwith children” households: Youngstown-Warren, OH; Gary, IN; Baltimore, MD;Cincinnati, OH; and Birmingham, AL.Married couples with children madeup at least 20 percent of households inmost of the fastest-growing centralcities in 2000, but far less than 20percent of households in each of the15 declining central cities (bottom leftpanel of Table 3).
Yet only the top two decliningcities—Hartford, CT and St. Louis,MO—experienced net losses in all fivehousehold types. Many of thedeclining cities in fact continued toexperience growth in nonfamily house-holds in the 1990s. In most of thesecities, this household type—largelyrepresenting younger singles andelderly persons living alone—consti-tuted at least 40 percent of allhouseholds in 2000. The bottom rightpanel of Table 3 shows that ten ofthese 15 central cities experiencedmodest growth in their nonfamilyhousehold population. A rise innonfamily households in the declining
cities does not necessarily imply thatsuch cities continued to attractcoming-of-age singles in the 1990s. Asindicated earlier, this nonfamilygrowth could be attributable in part tothe death of spouses in elderlymarried-couple families; this may alsohelp to account for some of thedecreases in “married without chil-dren” households that these citieswitnessed over the decade.
Families with children not headedby a married couple were also on therise in most of the declining cities inthe 1990s. Ten of the 15 fastest-declining central cities saw growth inthis household type, which most oftenrepresents single parents with chil-dren, and in some cases cohabitingpartners with children. Three of theseten cities—Albany-Schenectady-Troy,NY; Scranton-Hazleton, PA; andToledo, OH—experienced greater than20 percent growth in this householdtype, and a nearly equivalent decline
in the number of married families withchildren. In 12 of the 15 fastest-declining cities, “other families withchildren” now account for a greatershare of households than “marriedwith children” households (bottom leftpanel of Table 3). In theory, the “otherfamilies with children” household typecould have grown as the result ofincreased divorce, spousal deaths, orfamilies of this type moving to thedeclining cities. In all likelihood,however, this growth reflects a numberof other trends in these cities,including continued births to youngerunwed mothers and increasing rates ofcohabitation among unwed parents.
The selective out-migration oflarger, married-couple family house-holds is characteristic of older,declining central cities. Most suchcities are located in regions of thecountry where neither central citiesnor suburbs are gaining residents from other parts of the U.S. Addition-
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 8
Table 4: “Married with Children” Central Cities, 2000(Major Metro Central Cities with Greatest Shares
of Married Couples with Children)
PercentMarried Couples
Metro Area Central Cities: with Children*1 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA 34.72 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 33.23 San Jose, CA 29.94 El Paso, TX 29.75 Bakersfield, CA 28.66 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 27.17 Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA 26.28 Stockton-Lodi, CA 25.99 Fresno, CA 25.410 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 25.211 Colorado Springs, CO 24.712 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 24.213 San Antonio, TX 24.114 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA 23.6National Average 23.515 Ventura, CA 22.7
*Married Couples with Children as percent of total Central City households
Source: William H. Frey analysis of decennial census data
ally, none of these central cities isbenefiting appreciably from the recentimmigration waves that have fueledgrowth in many of the fast-growingcities. In earlier decades, these citiescould count on Baby Boomer “comingof age” households—includingmarried-couple households—to locatethere prior to moving to the suburbs.Their prospects for growth from thissource are no longer so strong.
In between the fast-growing anddeclining cities lies a small group ofcities that staged a population “come-back” in the 1990s after losingpopulation in the 1980s.10 Householdstatistics indicate that different typesof households accounted for the turn-around in each of thesecities—Atlanta, GA; Chicago, IL;Denver, CO; and Memphis, TN. WhileDenver experienced increases inmarried couples with and without chil-dren, Atlanta and Memphis sawdeclines in this household type.Single-parent families with childrenwere on the decline in Atlanta andChicago, but increased by 28 percentin Memphis, where they now repre-sent 17 percent of all households. The“comeback” cities were similar,though, in that “coming of age” singlesrepresented a renewed source ofhousehold growth. Across all fourcities, nonfamily households increasedin number by 16 percent; thoseheaded by 25 to 34 year-olds increasedby 21 percent.
C. Suburbs now contain morenonfamily households—largelyyoung singles and elderly peopleliving alone—than married coupleswith children.Despite a three-decade high in centralcity population growth in the 1990s,suburban growth continued to domi-nate the metropolitan landscape. Thehousehold source of that suburbanpopulation growth, however, was quitedifferent than that traditionally asso-ciated with the suburban lifestyle.
Overall, while the population incentral cities of the top 102 metropol-
itan areas grew by 9 percent over thedecade, the number of suburban resi-dents in these metros grew by nearly17 percent. The suburbs maintainedan even more significant advantageover cities in household growth, withan increase of 18 percent in the1990s, versus 8.6 percent in cities.11
Faster suburban household growthwas not limited to certain types ofhouseholds. Across four of the fivemajor household types, suburbangrowth rates were roughly doublecentral city growth rates (Figure 3).And while central cities experienced anet loss of 2 percent of their “marriedwithout children” households, thesehouseholds actually grew by 10percent in the suburbs.
Notably, Figure 3 also shows thatthe suburbs of major metropolitanareas are home to growing numbers ofhousehold types traditionally associ-ated with cities. Overall, nonfamiliesand single-parent families were thefastest growing household types inmajor metropolitan suburbs in the1990s. The profile of these householdtypes in suburbs may differ somewhatfrom their profile in cities; forinstance, a greater share of “other
families with children” households inthe suburbs than in the cities may bethe product of divorce, separation orcohabitation.
Nonetheless, as a result of the riseof smaller nonfamily and single-parentfamily household types in the suburbs,household growth maintained an edgeover population growth in the suburbsin the 1990s. This implies that averagesuburban household size decreasedover the decade. In contrast, in thecentral cities, household and popula-tion growth were nearly equivalent,and average household size was stable.One implication of the decrease inaverage household size in suburbs inthe 1990s may be higher per capitahousing demand. The type of housingthat these smaller households seek,however, may be somewhat differentthan that demanded by the largerhousehold types that have traditionallypredominated in the suburbs.
This trend has changed the house-hold makeup of suburbs rathersignificantly. Figure 4 shows the shareof all households that each majorhousehold type represented in suburbsin 2000. It indicates that nonfamiliesnow represent a larger share of
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 9
Figure 3: Suburb and Central City Household Change by Household Type, 1990-2000, Metro Areas
with Population Over 500,000
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Central CitySuburbs
9
18
-2
10
6
1210
20 19
41
13
27
All Households Married-no children
Mariried-with children
Other Family-no children
Other Family-with children
Nonfamily
Household Type
Per
cent
age
Cha
nge
total suburban households than dotraditional “married with children”households. (See Appendix B for acomplete list of suburban householdtype shares and household type growthrates for the 102 metropolitan areas.)As they did in 1990, households withchildren under 18 still make up aboutone-third (35 percent) of all suburbanhouseholds. Now, however, nearly onein four (24 percent) suburban house-holds with children is not headed by amarried couple, as compared with lessthan one in five a decade ago.
D. Cities in high-immigrationmetros are becoming more“suburban” in their householdcomposition, while suburbs in slow-growing Northern metros arebecoming more “urban” in theirs.For much of the post-World War IIera, a suburban residence was gener-ally associated with child-raising. Cityhouseholds relocated to suburbancommunities chosen on the basis oftheir mix of available housing,community services, and quality ofschool systems. As a consequence, theshare of “married with children”central city households began to
shrink over time.12 Conversely, citieswere associated with “coming-of-age”singles and childless married couples,as well as with traditionally moredisadvantaged groups like single-parent families and elderlyhomeowners. To a large extent, theseresidential patterns still hold in muchof metropolitan America. But impor-tant regional trends emerged in the1990s that blur some of the long-established demographic distinctionsbetween cities and suburbs. Ingeneral, cities in high-immigrationmetros and in fast-growing metros inthe South and West experiencedincreases in “married with children”families, while in the suburbs ofslower-growing Northern metros thenumbers of single-parent family andsmall nonfamily households were onthe rise.
City Patterns by Metro TypeThe image of “suburbs only” asfavored locales for two-parent familiesis changing as new waves of immi-grants make their homes in centralcities, especially in selected “MeltingPot” metropolitan areas. Among newimmigrant minorities—Hispanics in
particular—birth rates are higher andmarried-couple families with childrenare more prevalent than among thegeneral population. The 2000 Censusshows that among Hispanics, 45percent of all families are marriedcouples with children, and 35 percentof females are in their prime childbearing ages (15-34), in comparisonwith 35 percent and 27 percentrespectively, for the total U.S. popula-tion. Comparable numbers for Asiansin 2000 are 46 percent marriedcouples with children, and 33 percentof women in their younger childbearing ages.
The right-hand panel of Table 5reveals that the highest rates of centralcity household growth were in MeltingPot metro areas, and in “New Sunbelt”metro areas located in the South andWest.13 Melting Pot central cities andcities in the South and West—largelywhite metros experienced significantincreases in “married with children”households. Cities in other metrotypes experienced net losses of suchhouseholds, as well as of married-couple households without children(see Appendix B for a list of 1990-2000 household type growth rates and2000 shares for all central cities).
In part because of the increases inthese families during the 1990s,Melting Pot metros led other metrocategories in the share of their cityhouseholds (20 percent) that aremarried couples with children (left-hand panel of Table 5). In fact, 13 ofthe top 15 metro areas for central city“married with children” householdshares are Melting Pot metros withsignificant Hispanic and/or Asianpopulations (Table 4). For instance,more than one-third of OrangeCounty’s central city households aremarried couple families with children.The combined population of SantaAna, Anaheim and Irvine—OrangeCounty’s central cities—is 52 percentHispanic, 14 percent Asian, and 30percent non-Hispanic white. Incontrast, Orange County’s suburbs are60 percent non-Hispanic white, and
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 10
Figure 4: Household Type Shares in Suburbs, 2000, Metro Areas with Population Over 500,000
Nonfamily29%
Other family-with children
8%
Other family-no children
7%
Married-no children
29%
Married-with children
27%
the married couple share of OrangeCounty’s suburban households (27percent) is lower than that of itscentral cities.
Central cities located in the Southand West—largely white metro areasalso exhibit relatively high shares ofmarried couple families both with (17percent) and without (23 percent)children in their central cities, as wellas significant growth (9 percent) in“married with children” households.Previous analyses found that most ofthese areas experienced significantdomestic in-migration over the 1990s,including an influx of married couplepopulations.14
The other “New Sunbelt” categoryof metros, the South—largely white-black areas, included a few cities withgrowing married-couple populations,such as Charlotte, Greensboro, andRaleigh, NC. But the majority of citiesin this category actually lost married-couple households, both with andwithout children. These include a fewcities with declining populations(Baltimore, MD; Birmingham, AL;Greenville, SC; New Orleans, LA; andRichmond, VA), as well as modestlygrowing central cities, such as Atlanta,GA. The cities in this group experi-enced substantial losses of whitefamilies in previous decades and now
house slightly above-average shares ofnonfamily households and single-parent households.
Northern metro areas, in general,were the most likely to experience slowgrowth or decrease in their central citypopulations and households duringthe 1990s. All six of the North—largely white-black metro central citiesdeclined in both population andhouseholds. These areas with signifi-cant inner-city black populationscontinued to lose white familiesduring the 1990s as they had inprevious decades. Consequently, thesecities have smaller “married with chil-dren” shares, and experienced larger
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 1 1
Table 5: 2000 Shares and 1990–2000 Rates of Growth for Household Types: Central Cities and Suburbs of Metro Areas with Population Over 500,000 by Metro Area Type
HOUSEHOLD TYPE SHARES, 2000 1990-2000 RATES OF HOUSEHOLD GROWTHMARRIED COUPLES OTHER FAMILIES NON MARRIED COUPLES OTHER FAMILIES NON TOTAL
Number NO CHILD W/CHILD NO CHILD W/CHILD FAM. NO CHILD W/CHILD NO CHILD W/CHILD FAM. HHsCENTRAL CITIESMELTING POTS 33 21 20 10 11 38 2 13 14 21 12 11NORTH—Largely White-Black 6 17 13 13 17 40 -20 -17 -1 5 1 -5NORTH—Largely White 26 20 16 8 12 44 -9 -8 1 17 11 3SOUTH—Largely White-Black 19 21 16 10 13 40 -1 -3 12 22 21 11SOUTH & WEST—Largely White 13 23 17 7 9 44 2 9 16 24 20 13
Central City Total 97 21 18 10 12 40 -2 6 10 19 13 9
SUBURBSMELTING POTS 35 28 28 7 9 28 11 18 26 43 22 19NORTH—Largely White-Black 6 30 25 7 8 31 4 2 10 31 27 12NORTH—Largely White 29 30 26 6 7 30 5 4 6 34 25 12SOUTH—Largely White-Black 19 30 27 7 9 28 21 15 32 55 40 27SOUTH & WEST—Largely White 13 31 25 6 8 30 18 15 36 45 36 25
Suburbs Total 102 29 27 7 8 29 10 12 20 41 27 18
Source: William H. Frey analysis of decennial census data
1990-2000 declines in these shares,than cities in other metro types. Some-what similar household andpopulation dynamics characterize theNorth—largely white metros. Centralcities in 14 of these 26 metro areaslost population in the 1990s, and anumber are included in the decliningcentral cities listed in Table 2 andTable 3. Because of selective subur-banization over many decades, mostcities in this category now housesomewhat smaller shares of marriedcouples than do cities in other types ofmetros. Table 5 also shows thatoverall, central cities in North—largelywhite metros lost married-couple fami-lies during the 1990s.
The importance of married-couplefamily households to city growth in the1990s is most apparent in a compar-ison of household growth rates inMelting Pot cities versus North—largely white cities. Differencesbetween the growth of nonfamily andsingle-parent family households,which combined represent roughlyhalf of all households in these cities,are rather small. But the loss ofmarried-couple families in theNorthern cities stands in starkcontrast to the Melting Pot cities’significant gains in “married with chil-dren” households and modestincreases in childless married couplehouseholds. As a result, overall house-hold growth in Melting Pot citiessignificantly outpaced that in North—largely white cities.
Suburban Patterns by Metro TypeAcross the suburbs of all types ofmetro areas, the number of single-parent and nonfamily householdsincreased by double-digit rates. InMelting Pot metros and New Sunbeltmetros, these single-parent andnonfamily household increases wereaccompanied by considerable growthin married couple families (Table 5).However, in Northern suburbs (forboth largely white-black and largelywhite metros), growth in nonfamily
and single-parent family householdsvirtually dwarfed married-couplefamily growth. While married-couplefamilies grew between 2 and 5 percentoverall in these Northern suburbs,single-parent and nonfamily house-holds grew at rates exceeding 25percent. By 2000, nonfamily suburbanhousehold share exceeded “marriedwith children” suburban householdshare by significant amounts in eachof the Northern metro types.
In Northern metros, the differenceswere stark not only between differentsuburban household types, but alsobetween the suburbs and the centralcities. Because of past migrationpatterns, married-couple families stillconstitute more than 50 percent oftotal households in the suburbs ofeach of these metropolitan areas—much higher than their 30 percentshare in the cities. In a number ofthese metros, however, that gapnarrowed in the 1990s. The suburbs ofthe North—largely white-black metrossaw their nonfamily households growby 27 percent in the 1990s; in theircities, however, nonfamilies grew byonly 1 percent. The city of Detroit, forinstance, lost 9 percent of itsnonfamily households in the 1990s,while its suburbs saw this householdtype grow by nearly a third (seeAppendix B). Similarly, single-parentfamilies also grew much faster in thesuburbs of North—largely white-blackmetros (31 percent) than in the cities(5 percent). Three of those six metroareas actually showed absolutedeclines in their suburban “marriedwith children” households during thedecade. Thus, several household typestraditionally associated with the city—”coming of age” singles, single parents,and elderly people living alone—arebecoming increasingly common inslow-growing Northern suburbs.
While the majority of householdgrowth in Northern suburbs came inthe form of single-parent families andsmaller nonfamilies, other metro typesuburbs experienced significant
growth in all types of households. Thelargest increases occurred in the NewSunbelt suburbs of the South andWest, where the total number ofhouseholds jumped by more than 25percent during the decade. In general,the New Sunbelt suburbs experiencedgrowth in all types of households atfaster rates than did the Northernsuburbs; the differential was greatestin the case of larger “married withchildren” households, which increasedat roughly five times the rate in NewSunbelt suburbs (15 percent) as theydid in Northern suburbs (3 percent).The large married-couple householdincreases in some suburbs of theSouth—largely white-black metroswere coincident with declines in thecentral city in this household type. Inthe Nashville metro area, for instance,the number of married-couple house-holds in the city declined, while thenumber in the suburbs grew by morethan 30 percent.
Melting Pot suburbs experiencedpatterns of household change mostsimilar to those occurring in theircities. As was the case in the cities, thegrowth of nonfamily households inMelting Pot suburbs during thedecade (22 percent) was comparableto the growth of “married with chil-dren” households (18 percent).Single-parent families were thefastest-growing household type in bothsuburbs (43 percent) and cities (21percent) alike. In part because ofthese similar growth patterns, citiesand suburbs in Melting Pot metroslooked more like one another in 2000than did cities and suburbs in othermetro area types, echoing earlier find-ings on the similarities in racial/ethnicmakeup between cities and suburbs inMelting Pot metros.15
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 12
IV. Conclusion
The 1990–2000 decadeushered in a new context forpopulation and householddynamics in the nation’s
metropolitan areas. Large demo-graphic trends—including the aging ofBaby Boomers, increased immigrationand fertility among immigrant fami-lies, and migration to New Sunbeltareas in the U.S. South and West—challenged conventional residentialpatterns in the nation’s cities andsuburbs.
The growth of child-centered citypopulations in America’s Melting Potand New Sunbelt metropolitan areaspresents several challenges. It maycreate new needs for public serviceslike child care and infant health care;it may further test the adequacy ofurban school systems; and it may putnew stresses on the fiscal positions ofthese cities. At the same time, though,household patterns in the fastest-growing cities suggest that burgeoningfamily populations create opportuni-ties for viable neighborhoods andcontinued growth that may not exist inother central cities.
The challenges and opportunitiespresented by the growth of smallerhouseholds in Northern suburbs arealso noteworthy. With increasingnumbers of nonfamily and single-parent family households calling thesesuburbs home, the need for affordablemultifamily housing in these jurisdic-tions also increases. The demand forservices like transportation and homehealth care for elderly homeownerswho are “aging in place” in thesuburbs may also be on the rise.
Further analysis will illuminatewhether the inner suburban communi-ties in these Northern metros arebeing transformed into functionalextensions of their central cities withrespect to household structures,housing and socioeconomic attributes.
The changing household makeup ofcities and suburbs, and the continueddecline of many Northern cities, areoccurring within a nationwide contextof decentralizing households andpopulation. The trend of fastersuburban than city growth is notconfined to certain types of metroareas nor to certain types of house-holds. It pervades fast-growing andslow-growing metros alike and is trueof married couple households, single-parent households, and singles. Whilethe actual degree of growth disparitybetween cities and suburbs differsacross different regions of the U.S.,the uniform suburban “edge” raisessignificant questions about how citiesare poised to compete in their metro-politan economies for jobs andresidents during the next ten years. Itremains to be seen whether increasingdemographic similarity between citiesand suburbs across the U.S. willbolster efforts to enhance regionalcooperation.
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 13
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 14
APPENDIX A: Population and Household Growth Rates 1990–2000 for Central Cities and Suburbs
Metro Areas with Population Over 500,000 by Metro Area Type
CENTRAL CITY GROWTH SUBURB GROWTHPop’n HHs Diff* Pop’n HHs Diff*
MELTING POT Metros
Albuquerque, NM MSA 17 19 3 29 35 6Austin, TX MSA 41 38 -3 56 54 -2Bakersfield, CA MSA 41 34 -8 12 5 -7Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA ** ** ** 7 7 -1Chicago, IL PMSA 4 4 0 16 16 0Dallas, TX PMSA 18 12 -6 40 38 -1El Paso, TX MSA 9 13 4 52 57 5Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA 2 3 1 33 27 -6Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 22 19 -3 28 29 0Fresno, CA MSA 21 15 -6 23 17 -6Honolulu, HI MSA 2 4 3 7 12 5Houston, TX PMSA 20 16 -3 31 29 -2Jersey City, NJ PMSA 5 8 3 14 12 -1Las Vegas, NV-AZ MSA 85 77 -8 82 78 -4Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA 6 5 -2 8 5 -3McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 40 47 6 53 55 2Miami, FL PMSA 1 3 2 20 14 -5Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ PMSA ** ** ** 15 15 0New York, NY PMSA 9 7 -2 7 7 0Newark, NJ PMSA -1 0 0 7 7 0Oakland, CA PMSA 7 4 -3 17 13 -4Orange County, CA PMSA 21 11 -10 17 14 -3Orlando, FL MSA 13 23 10 38 36 -1Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 35 28 -7 59 58 -1Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA 13 6 -6 28 22 -6Sacramento, CA PMSA 10 7 -3 26 25 -1San Antonio, TX MSA 22 24 2 15 17 2San Diego, CA MSA 10 11 1 15 13 -2San Francisco, CA PMSA 7 8 1 8 5 -3San Jose, CA PMSA 14 11 -4 10 7 -3Stockton-Lodi, CA MSA 14 13 -1 21 17 -4Tucson, AZ MSA 20 19 -1 37 41 4Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA PMSA 15 12 -3 15 15 0Ventura, CA PMSA 9 9 0 13 13 -1Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA -6 -1 5 20 22 1
continued on next page
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 15
CENTRAL CITY GROWTH SUBURB GROWTHPop’n HHs Diff* Pop’n HHs Diff*
NORTH—Largely White-Black Metros
Cleveland, OH PMSA -5 -5 1 4 9 4Detroit, MI PMSA -7 -10 -3 8 13 5Gary, IN PMSA -12 -7 5 8 13 5Milwaukee, WI PMSA -5 -3 1 12 20 7Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA -4 -2 2 7 11 3St. Louis, MO-IL MSA -12 -11 1 8 11 4
NORTH—Largely White Metros
Akron, OH PMSA -3 0 3 10 16 6Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA -6 -4 2 4 10 5Allentown-Bethlehem, PA MSA 1 0 -1 10 14 4Ann Arbor, MI PMSA 4 10 6 22 28 6Boston, MA-NH NECMA 3 5 2 7 10 3Buffalo, NY MSA -11 -10 1 2 6 4Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA -9 -4 5 13 18 5Columbus, OH MSA 12 17 5 16 21 4Dayton-Springfield, OH MSA -8 -6 2 3 8 5Fort Wayne, IN MSA 19 20 1 5 10 5Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI MSA 5 6 1 20 24 3Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA MSA -4 -3 2 9 13 3Hartford, CT NECMA -13 -13 0 4 8 3Indianapolis, IN MSA 7 10 3 27 30 3Kansas City, MO-KS MSA 1 2 1 19 22 3Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 5 1 -3 21 25 4Monmouth-Ocean, NJ PMSA ** ** ** 14 16 2Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA ** ** ** 6 7 2Bridgeport, CT NECMA -2 -4 -2 5 6 1Omaha, NE-IA MSA 16 17 1 8 12 4Pittsburgh, PA MSA -10 -6 3 0 4 4Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECMA 4 5 1 6 10 4Rochester, NY MSA -5 -5 0 6 9 4Scranton-Hazleton, PA MSA -6 -4 3 -1 4 5Springfield, MA NECMA ** ** ** 1 5 4Syracuse, NY MSA -10 -8 2 1 7 6Toledo, OH MSA -6 -1 4 8 15 6Wichita, KS MSA 13 13 0 11 13 2Youngstown-Warren, OH MSA -12 -10 2 3 7 5
continued on next page
CENTRAL CITY GROWTH SUBURB GROWTHPop’n HHs Diff* Pop’n HHs Diff*
SOUTH—Largely White-Black Metros
Atlanta, GA MSA 6 8 2 44 41 -3Baltimore, MD PMSA -12 -7 5 16 19 3Baton Rouge, LA MSA 4 7 3 21 28 6Birmingham, AL MSA -9 -6 2 18 22 4Charleston-North Charleston, SC MSA 17 30 13 5 11 7Charlotte, NC-SC MSA 37 36 -1 25 28 3Columbia, SC MSA 19 25 6 18 25 6Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC MSA 25 25 0 16 17 2Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA -5 -1 5 20 24 4Jacksonville, FL MSA 16 18 2 34 38 4Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR MSA 3 5 3 23 31 7Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA 7 9 3 22 28 6Mobile, AL MSA 1 4 3 22 29 7Nashville, TN MSA 12 15 3 38 42 4New Orleans, LA MSA -2 0 2 8 13 4Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA 2 7 6 18 20 2Raleigh-Durham, NC MSA 34 32 -2 42 42 0Richmond, VA MSA -3 -1 2 21 23 2Wilmington, DE-MD PMSA 2 0 -1 16 19 3
SOUTH & WEST—Largely White Metros
Colorado Springs, CO MSA 28 28 -1 35 41 6Denver, CO PMSA 19 13 -5 35 34 -1Knoxville, TN MSA 5 10 4 22 27 5Louisville, KY-IN MSA -5 -1 3 13 19 6Oklahoma City, OK MSA 14 14 1 12 17 4Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA 39 35 -4 21 21 0Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT MSA 16 9 -7 27 30 3Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 8 7 0 24 24 1Seattle, WA PMSA 9 9 0 22 23 1Tacoma, WA PMSA 10 9 -1 24 28 4Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 7 7 0 20 20 0Tulsa, OK MSA 7 7 0 20 23 3West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA 21 21 -1 33 31 -1
*Household growth rate minus population growth rate
**Metro area with no central city
Note: Pertains to MSAs, PMSAs, and (in New England) PMSAs, as defined in June, 2000 by OMB with modifications for central cities as discussed in text
and footnote 3.
Source: William H. Frey analysis of decennial census data
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 16
AP
PE
ND
IX B
: Cen
tral
Cit
y an
d S
ubur
b H
ouse
hold
Typ
e S
hare
s 20
00, a
nd H
ouse
hold
Typ
e C
hang
es 1
990-
2000
, for
Met
roA
reas
wit
h P
opul
atio
n O
ver
500,
000
by M
etro
Are
a T
ype
CENT
RAL
CITY
HOU
SEHO
LD T
YPES
CENT
RAL
CITY
HOU
SEHO
LD
SUBU
RB H
OUSE
HOLD
TYP
ES
SUBU
RB H
OUSE
HOLD
(sha
res
sum
to 10
0)GR
OWTH
RAT
ES(s
hare
s su
m to
100)
GROW
TH R
ATES
MAR
RIED
OT
HER
NON
MAR
RIED
OTHE
RNO
NM
ARRI
EDOT
HER
NON
MAR
RIED
OTHE
RNO
N
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
NO
WIT
HNO
WIT
HNO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
NO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
NO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
ME
LT
ING
PO
T M
etro
s
Alb
uque
rque
, NM
MS
A24
197
1139
104
2536
3030
278
1124
3710
5752
60A
usti
n, T
X M
SA
2019
78
4731
3155
3942
2932
58
2555
5068
7250
Bak
ersf
ield
, CA
MS
A24
297
1427
2735
5057
2527
297
1324
-40
2528
8B
erge
n-Pa
ssai
c, N
J P
MS
A**
****
****
****
****
**29
269
728
-612
529
13C
hica
go, I
L P
MS
A18
1712
1240
-64
5-1
929
307
728
614
1841
24D
alla
s, T
X P
MS
A19
199
1141
-217
2431
1128
316
926
3431
5661
43E
l Pas
o, T
X M
SA
2530
1013
2310
138
2421
2149
712
1061
3912
311
064
Fort
Lau
derd
ale,
FL
PM
SA
2111
79
52-1
0-1
012
1027
218
935
341
4085
29Fo
rt W
orth
-Arl
ingt
on, T
X P
MS
A23
258
1134
717
3049
1931
306
825
2517
4653
39F
resn
o, C
A M
SA
2125
915
304
1733
3011
2931
811
219
1635
3017
Hon
olul
u, H
I M
SA
2818
116
38-4
-413
1811
3231
108
1913
-950
3236
Hou
ston
, TX
PM
SA
2122
1011
3610
2025
2414
2835
69
2233
2152
4926
Jers
ey C
ity,
NJ
PM
SA
1918
1313
37-1
45
1015
2319
119
38-4
910
3023
Las
Veg
as, N
V-A
Z M
SA
2722
810
3476
7985
9770
2921
710
3366
7499
113
81L
os A
ngel
es-L
ong
Bea
ch, C
A P
MS
A19
2310
1138
-712
221
324
2910
1127
-48
1326
1M
cAlle
n-E
dinb
urg-
Mis
sion
, TX
MS
A27
339
1120
5036
6543
5526
428
1112
5848
8063
53M
iam
i, F
L P
MS
A22
1514
1238
-64
5-2
1026
2411
1128
417
3439
8M
iddl
esex
-Som
erse
t-H
unte
rdon
, NJ
PM
SA
****
****
****
****
****
3029
76
281
2010
4322
New
Yor
k, N
Y P
MS
A20
1812
1239
-511
1019
829
288
728
-612
133
13N
ewar
k, N
J P
MS
A16
1517
2032
-7-7
82
228
279
828
-511
532
13O
akla
nd, C
A P
MS
A18
1611
1243
-310
9-2
627
277
831
418
2222
12O
rang
e C
ount
y, C
A P
MS
A22
359
1024
025
932
-128
277
730
421
1733
13O
rlan
do, F
L M
SA
1913
812
482
830
4334
3024
79
3024
2854
7744
Pho
enix
-Mes
a, A
Z M
SA
2424
711
3415
2548
5530
3323
68
3154
5268
7361
Riv
ersi
de-S
an B
erna
rdin
o, C
A P
MS
A21
279
1528
-75
2232
427
307
1124
1118
4754
21S
acra
men
to, C
A P
MS
A20
189
1241
-63
2018
1128
256
1030
1720
4341
31S
an A
nton
io, T
X M
SA
2424
912
3119
1436
3630
3330
69
2319
039
4131
San
Die
go, C
A M
SA
2322
78
402
1312
1615
2827
710
283
1327
3016
San
Fra
ncis
co, C
A P
MS
A19
128
456
52
3-9
1328
247
635
-111
713
5S
an J
ose,
CA
PM
SA
2630
98
269
1215
710
2826
76
341
224
83
Sto
ckto
n-L
odi,
CA
MS
A23
268
1429
511
2136
1129
327
1022
719
2541
18co
ntin
ued
on n
ext
page
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 17
Tucs
on, A
Z M
SA
2218
811
428
836
3822
3722
57
2941
2356
5751
Valle
jo-F
airf
ield
-Nap
a, C
A P
MS
A26
268
1128
72
3831
1630
286
1026
104
4437
24Ve
ntur
a, C
A P
MS
A26
237
934
-17
1528
1329
337
923
611
2032
15W
ashi
ngto
n, D
C-M
D-V
A-W
V P
MS
A14
812
1154
-12
-7-9
55
2727
78
3114
1720
4927
NO
RT
H—
Lar
gely
Whi
te-B
lack
Met
ros
Cle
vela
nd, O
H P
MS
A16
1213
1841
-21
-20
-313
231
237
732
2-3
828
24D
etro
it, M
I P
MS
A14
1317
2135
-23
-13
2-9
-929
257
732
43
824
31G
ary,
IN
PM
SA
1911
1720
33-1
4-3
612
-87
3025
79
298
-323
3030
Milw
auke
e, W
I P
MS
A18
1410
1642
-20
-18
57
732
275
631
136
1043
42P
hila
delp
hia,
PA
-NJ
PM
SA
1914
1414
40-1
8-1
4-3
216
3026
77
292
57
3222
St.
Lou
is, M
O-I
L M
SA
1511
1215
48-2
7-1
9-9
-1-5
2925
79
305
-216
3825
NO
RT
H—
Lar
gely
Whi
te M
etro
s
Akr
on, O
H P
MS
A22
159
1340
-11
-14
217
933
256
729
104
1236
32A
lban
y-S
chen
ecta
dy-T
roy,
NY
MS
A17
128
1350
-19
-22
-14
273
3024
68
324
-41
4125
Alle
ntow
n-B
ethl
ehem
, PA
MS
A25
168
1140
-14
-11
035
934
256
628
72
949
31A
nn A
rbor
, MI
PM
SA
2018
45
521
25
617
3128
57
2926
1827
3741
Bos
ton,
MA
-NH
NE
CM
A16
1210
1152
-60
-612
1128
257
833
26
026
20B
uffa
lo, N
Y M
SA
1612
1017
45-2
6-2
4-8
7-4
3123
77
32-3
-42
3024
Cin
cinn
ati,
OH
-KY-
IN P
MS
A16
118
1451
-17
-25
-75
630
276
828
135
1440
37C
olum
bus,
OH
MS
A20
177
1245
33
1434
2832
285
827
169
1642
36D
ayto
n-S
prin
gfie
ld, O
H M
SA
2014
1014
43-1
8-2
3-4
24
3323
68
303
-10
1037
27Fo
rt W
ayne
, IN
MS
A23
197
1239
99
2139
2734
304
725
10-6
1138
28G
rand
Rap
ids-
Mus
kego
n-H
olla
nd, M
I M
SA
2119
813
39-8
-717
1020
3130
58
2718
1226
4940
Har
risb
urg-
Leb
anon
-Car
lisle
, PA
MS
A18
129
1545
-12
-17
-412
334
245
731
10-2
1046
25H
artf
ord,
CT
NE
CM
A14
1212
2340
-23
-15
-7-6
-13
3024
67
33-3
1-2
4420
Indi
anap
olis
, IN
MS
A23
188
1240
-3-7
1530
2232
295
826
2422
2655
42K
ansa
s C
ity,
MO
-KS
MS
A22
179
1240
-9-1
08
1610
3128
58
2917
1033
4433
Min
neap
olis
-St.
Pau
l, M
N-W
I M
SA
1715
710
51-1
4-3
212
729
295
829
2114
2641
40M
onm
outh
-Oce
an, N
J P
MS
A**
****
****
****
****
**31
267
630
712
1338
28N
assa
u-S
uffo
lk, N
Y P
MS
A**
****
****
****
****
**32
309
623
-47
730
22B
ridg
epor
t, C
T N
EC
MA
1817
1317
35-2
1-9
719
-329
257
831
-58
-130
15O
mah
a, N
E-I
A M
SA
2420
710
397
1218
2525
3131
58
2514
-423
2926
cont
inue
d on
nex
t pa
ge
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 18
CENT
RAL
CITY
HOU
SEHO
LD T
YPES
CENT
RAL
CITY
HOU
SEHO
LD
SUBU
RB H
OUSE
HOLD
TYP
ES
SUBU
RB H
OUSE
HOLD
(sha
res
sum
to 10
0)GR
OWTH
RAT
ES(s
hare
s su
m to
100)
GROW
TH R
ATES
MAR
RIED
OT
HER
NON
MAR
RIED
OTHE
RNO
NM
ARRI
EDOT
HER
NON
MAR
RIED
OTHE
RNO
N
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
NO
WIT
HNO
WIT
HNO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
NO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
NO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
Pit
tsbu
rgh,
PA
MS
A20
1110
1048
-19
-20
-18
25
3222
77
32-3
-7-2
2418
Pro
vide
nce-
Fall
Riv
er-W
arw
ick,
R
I-M
A N
EC
MA
2117
813
40-1
1-6
139
1330
237
832
1-1
544
24R
oche
ster
, NY
MS
A14
119
1947
-23
-23
-215
031
265
830
3-3
438
25S
cran
ton-
Haz
leto
n, P
A M
SA
2416
99
42-1
5-1
8-1
223
931
218
734
-1-1
0-7
2919
Spr
ingf
ield
, MA
NE
CM
A**
****
****
****
****
**26
207
1135
-4-7
021
19S
yrac
use,
NY
MS
A16
128
1649
-24
-23
-10
14-3
3025
69
312
-83
3724
Tole
do, O
H M
SA
2216
813
40-1
3-2
1-1
2011
3227
57
3014
-214
3830
Wic
hita
, KS
MS
A25
226
1037
48
2427
1833
324
823
93
2737
26Yo
ungs
tow
n-W
arre
n, O
H M
SA
2213
1115
38-2
4-3
1-4
44
3423
77
294
-11
1326
26
SO
UT
H—
Lar
gely
Whi
te-B
lack
Met
ros
Atl
anta
, GA
MS
A15
912
1351
-4-1
02
-523
2728
710
2831
3258
7648
Bal
tim
ore,
MD
PM
SA
1710
1516
43-2
3-2
7-5
-27
3026
78
298
916
5534
Bat
on R
ouge
, LA
MS
A21
1510
1341
-7-1
016
1818
2930
711
2432
546
5049
Bir
min
gham
, AL
MS
A19
1314
1540
-23
-25
311
332
267
727
179
2547
40C
harl
esto
n-N
orth
Cha
rles
ton,
SC
MS
A21
159
1342
18-4
4047
4930
268
1027
14-1
317
3632
Cha
rlot
te, N
C-S
C M
SA
2321
810
3920
3029
4948
3227
78
2621
1925
5341
Col
umbi
a, S
C M
SA
1813
912
487
919
4535
2925
710
2922
822
4541
Gre
ensb
oro-
-Win
ston
-Sal
em--
Hig
h Po
int,
NC
MS
A24
178
1139
1420
2144
3034
256
826
128
1646
30G
reen
ville
-Spa
rtan
burg
-And
erso
n, S
C M
SA
2113
1012
44-1
3-1
9-3
813
3224
79
2818
825
5541
Jack
sonv
ille,
FL
MS
A25
228
1233
103
2551
2433
256
828
4023
4058
46L
ittl
e R
ock-
Nor
th L
ittl
e R
ock,
AR
MS
A24
178
1239
-4-1
114
2614
3327
69
2631
747
5754
Mem
phis
, TN
-AR
-MS
MS
A19
1513
1737
-11
-716
2821
3231
69
2234
1338
4635
Mob
ile, A
L M
SA
2418
1013
35-4
-12
920
1333
267
924
319
3437
50N
ashv
ille,
TN
MS
A23
168
1042
1-4
1922
3032
306
824
3826
4970
65N
ew O
rlea
ns, L
A M
SA
1813
1316
40-1
0-1
28
07
2825
910
2812
-627
3024
Nor
folk
-Vir
gini
a B
each
-New
port
New
s,
VA-N
C M
SA
2424
712
33-1
-11
1641
2130
258
1127
188
2141
30R
alei
gh-D
urha
m, N
C M
SA
2118
710
4422
3031
4936
3029
57
2934
4127
6050
Ric
hmon
d, V
A M
SA
1710
1113
48-1
7-1
3-1
116
2926
710
2817
1224
5234
Wilm
ingt
on, D
E-M
D P
MS
A16
1113
1645
-14
-13
-424
429
257
930
108
2455
33co
ntin
ued
on n
ext
page
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 19
CENT
RAL
CITY
HOU
SEHO
LD T
YPES
CENT
RAL
CITY
HOU
SEHO
LD
SUBU
RB H
OUSE
HOLD
TYP
ES
SUBU
RB H
OUSE
HOLD
(sha
res
sum
to 10
0)GR
OWTH
RAT
ES(s
hare
s su
m to
100)
GROW
TH R
ATES
MAR
RIED
OT
HER
NON
MAR
RIED
OTHE
RNO
NM
ARRI
EDOT
HER
NON
MAR
RIED
OTHE
RNO
N
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
NO
WIT
HNO
WIT
HNO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
NO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
NO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
SO
UT
H &
WE
ST
—L
arge
ly W
hite
Met
ros
Col
orad
o S
prin
gs, C
O M
SA
2725
59
3424
1850
3733
3236
49
2041
2964
5555
Den
ver,
CO
PM
SA
2015
78
502
1422
1218
2828
59
3030
2649
4040
Kno
xvill
e, T
N M
SA
2213
810
48-6
-61
2124
3525
67
2725
1122
4747
Lou
isvi
lle, K
Y-IN
MS
A19
1210
1345
-18
-18
-215
1031
256
929
151
2231
40O
klah
oma
Cit
y, O
K M
SA
2620
711
379
320
3120
3025
69
3016
-336
3330
Port
land
-Van
couv
er, O
R-W
A P
MS
A23
176
945
2838
3345
3730
285
829
1514
3235
30S
alt
Lak
e C
ity-
Ogd
en, U
T M
SA
2221
79
41-1
1139
138
2837
68
2138
1679
3038
Sar
asot
a-B
rade
nton
, FL
MS
A27
127
945
-91
533
1841
145
634
1418
2567
37S
eatt
le-B
elle
vue-
Eve
rett
, WA
PM
SA
2013
65
56-4
63
217
2827
58
3115
1634
4132
Taco
ma,
WA
PM
SA
2319
712
401
221
2012
3028
510
2721
1547
5240
Tam
pa-S
t. P
eter
sbur
g-C
lear
wat
er, F
L M
SA
2315
810
43-1
04
830
1434
186
834
613
3063
33Tu
lsa,
OK
MS
A25
187
1040
-3-5
2125
1334
305
922
256
4151
35W
est
Palm
Bea
ch-B
oca
Rat
on, F
L M
SA
2816
78
439
1913
4329
3418
67
3517
3336
6540
**M
etro
are
a w
ith
no c
entr
al c
ity
Sou
rce:
Wil
liam
H. F
rey
anal
ysis
of d
ecen
nial
cen
sus
data
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 20
CENT
RAL
CITY
HOU
SEHO
LD T
YPES
CENT
RAL
CITY
HOU
SEHO
LD
SUBU
RB H
OUSE
HOLD
TYP
ES
SUBU
RB H
OUSE
HOLD
(sha
res
sum
to 10
0)GR
OWTH
RAT
ES(s
hare
s su
m to
100)
GROW
TH R
ATES
MAR
RIED
OT
HER
NON
MAR
RIED
OTHE
RNO
NM
ARRI
EDOT
HER
NON
MAR
RIED
OTHE
RNO
N
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
COUP
LES
FAM
ILIE
SFA
M.
NO
WIT
HNO
WIT
HNO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
NO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
NO
WIT
HNO
W
ITH
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
CHIL
DCH
ILD
Endnotes
1 Berube 2002.
2 OMB designates the city with the largest
population in each metropolitan area as a
central city. Additional cities qualify for
this designation if specified requirements
are met concerning population size,
commuting patterns, and employment/
residence ratios. These standards,
implemented after the 1990 Census,
can be viewed at www.census.gov/
population/www/estimates/mastand.html
3 For the present study, we have excluded
some officially designated central cities (in
metros with multiple central cities) to: (1)
include only central cities that are named
in the metropolitan area name (thus omit-
ting officially designated smaller cities
which were not named): (2) include only
one central city in the following multiple
central city metropolitan areas: Austin,
TX; Buffalo, NY; Charlotte, NC: Cleve-
land, OH; Milwaukee, WI; Richmond, VA;
Wilmington, DE; and Seattle, WA; and (3)
designate only two central cities in the
following metropolitan areas: Raleigh-
Durham, NC; Allentown-Bethlehem, PA;
and Scranton-Hazleton, PA. In other cases
the officially defined single or multiple
central cities were utilized.
4 Frey 2001.
5 Melting Pot Metros denote those in which
non-Hispanic whites comprise no more
than 69 percent of the 2000 population
and in which the combined populations of
Hispanics, non-Hispanic Asians, Hawai-
ians and other Pacific Islanders, Native
Americans and Native Alaskans, and those
of other race or of two or more races
exceed 18 percent of the population.
Largely white-black metros denote
remaining areas, in their respective
regions, in which blacks comprise at least
16 percent of the population; largely white
metros denote the residual areas in each
region. “South and West” pertains to
metros located in the South and West
census regions; “North” pertains to metros
located in the Northeast and Midwest
census regions.
6 Glaeser and Shapiro 2001.
7 The median age in 2000 in the 15 cities
with the largest population gains in the
1990s was 31.5; among the 15 cities with
the largest population declines, the
median age was 33.7.
8 Census 2000 indicates that less than one-
fourth (23.5 percent) of all households are
“married couples with children” (U.S.
Census Bureau 2001). Such households
constituted 40.3 percent of all households
in 1970, 30.4 percent in 1980 and 26.3
percent in 1990.
9 Frey 2002.
10 Berube 2002.
11 These figures, which are for central cities
in the 102 metropolitan areas discussed in
this study, differ slightly from those in
Figure 2, which are for central cities in all
OMB-defined metropolitan areas.
12 Frey and Kobrin 1982.
13 Frey 2002.
14 Frey 2002.
15 Frey 2001.
ReferencesBerube, Alan. 2002 (forthcoming). “Large City
and Metropolitan Population Change in the
1990s: Evidence from the 2000 Census.” Wash-
ington, D.C.: Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution.
Frey, William H. 2001. “Melting Pot Suburbs: A
Census 2000 Study of Suburban Diversity.”
Census 2000 Series. Washington D.C.: Center
on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brook-
ings Institution.
Frey, William H. 2002. “Metro Magnets for
Minorities and Whites: Melting Pots, the New
Sunblet, and the Heartland.” Research Report.
Ann Arbor, MI. Population Studies Center,
University of Michigan.
Frey, William H. and Elaine L. Fielding. 1995.
“Changing Urban Populations: Regional
Restructuring, Racial Polarization and Poverty
Concentration.” Cityscape. Washington D.C.:
Office of Policy Development and Research
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment. Vol. 1 No. 2 Pp. 166.
Frey, William H. and Douglas Geverdt. 1998.
“Changing Suburban Demographics: Beyond
the ‘Black-White, City-Suburb’ Typology.”
Research Report No. 98–422. Ann Arbor, MI
Population Studies Center, University of
Michigan.
Frey, William H. and Frances E. Kobrin. 1982.
“Changing Families and Changing Mobility:
Their Impact on the Central City.” Demography.
Vol. 19 Pp. 261–277.
Frey, William H. and Alden Speare Jr. 1988.
Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline
in The United States. New York: The Russell
Sage Foundation.
Glaeser, Edward L. and Jesse M. Shapiro. 2000.
“City Growth and the 2000 Census: Which
Places Grew, and Why.” Census 2000 Series.
Washington D.C.: Center on Urban and Metro-
politan Policy, The Brookings Institution.
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 21
Lucy, William H. and David L. Phillips. 2001.
“Suburbs and the Census: Patterns of Growth
and Decline.” Census 2000 Series. Washington
D.C.: Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy,
The Brookings Institution.
Orfield, Myron W. 1997. “Metropolitics:
A Regional Agenda for Community and
Stability.” Washington D.C.: The Brookings
Institution--Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Singer, Audrey, Samantha Friedman, Ivan
Cheung, and Marie Price. 2001. “The World in
a Zip Code: Greater Washington D.C. as a New
Region of Immigration.” Survey Series. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Center on Urban & Metropolitan
Policy, Brookings Greater Washington Research
Program, The Brookings Institution.
Speare, Alden Jr. 1993. “Changes in Urban
Growth Patterns, 1980–90.” Working Paper.
Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. “Households and
Families: 2000.” Census 2000 Brief. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.
February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 22
For More Information
William H. FreyUniversity of Michigan Population Studies Center andMilken InstitutePhone: 888-257-7244E-mail: [email protected]
Brookings Institution Center onUrban and Metropolitan PolicyPhone: (202) 797-6139Website:www.brookings.edu/urban
AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful tosenior project programmer CathySun and other support staff atthe University of MichiganPopulation Studies Center, tothe Milken Institute for assis-tance in preparing census data,and to Amy Liu and AudreySinger at the Brookings Centeron Urban and MetropolitanPolicy for advice and editorialexpertise.
The Brookings Center on Urbanand Metropolitan Policy wouldlike to thank the Annie E. CaseyFoundation, the Fannie MaeFoundation, the Joyce Founda-tion, the John T. and CatherineD. MacArthur Foundation, andthe Charles Stewart Mott Foun-dation for their support of ourwork on metropolitan growthand poverty issues.