From Melting Pot Cities Boomtowns Rpt 2005

8/2/2019 From Melting Pot Cities Boomtowns Rpt 2005

1/26

NationalLeague

ofCities

From Meltingpot Cities

to Boomtowns:Redefining How We Talk

about Americas Cities

A Report from

NLCs

CityFutures Program


2/26

NLCS CITYFUTURES PROGRAM

The CityFutures Program engages city officials in analysis, outreach, andimpact around the trends and changes affecting Americas cities now and

in the future. The Program seeks to connect public and policy discussions

to the reality of what is happening in Americas cities. The Program was under-

taken with the belief that significant economic, demographic, and other changes

are transforming the contexts in which city governments function.

The Program has two objectives:

(1) to help city officials recognize and understand the emerging challenges their

communities face; and

(2) to foster and shape public discussion and policy debate aimed at developing

the arrangements needed to meet these challenges.

In essence, the Program seeks to strengthen government by providing new

perspectives on public issues and by challenging current assumptions.

The Program is carried out primarily through NLCs Advisory Council and

distinct CityFutures Panels of local officials from cities and towns of varying

size, location, and demographic composition. Panel activities revolve around

investigating the issues and options that confront cities in specific policy and

topical arenas, with a particular focus on trends, factors, and strategies.

Currently, the CityFutures Panels include:

CityFutures Panel on Community and Regional Development

CityFutures Panel on Democratic Governance

CityFutures Panel on Equity and Opportunity

CityFutures Panel on Public Finance

For more information about the Program, contact NLCs Center for Research

and Municipal Programs at (202) 626-3030.


3/26

December 2005

From Meltingpot Cities

to Boomtowns:

Redefining How We Talkabout Americas Cities


4/26


5/26

i

ACKOWLEDGEMENTS

e are pleased to present, From Meltingpot Cities to Boomtowns:Redefining How We Talk about Americas Cities. This project was a

joint effort between the National League of Cities and the MetropolitanInstitute at Virginia Tech to develop a framework based on social, economic, anddemographic characteristics that more appropriately distinguishes cities in a contextthat is useful for effective local decision-making. Particularly, Christiana Brennan,NLC Senior Research Associate conducted the analysis and developed this reportand Robert Lang, Director, Metropolitan Institute and Christopher Hoene, NLCResearch Manager provided guidance and oversight of the project.

We thank members of the CityFutures Panel on Community and RegionalDevelopment. The panel ensures leadership by elected officials on issues of localland use decision making, affordable housing, growth management, and regionaldevelopment strategies. It was their concern about the lack of a useful framework foraddressing a variety of land use issues that ultimately led to the development ofthis report.

2005 panel members include:Gary Campbell, Vice Mayor and City Director, Fort Smith, ARTommy Swaim, Mayor, Jacksonville, ARMark Mitchell, Vice Mayor, Tempe, AZBev Perry, Mayor, Brea, CACurren D. Price, Jr., Councilmember, Inglewood, CANancy Nadel, Councilmember, Oakland, CAIya Falcone, Councilmember, Santa Barbara, CAKen Fellman, Mayor, Arvada, CODoug Brown, Councilmember, Longmont, COWalt Skowron, Councilmember, Loveland, COCarlton Moore, Commissioner, Ft. Lauderdale FLKent Guinn, City Councilman, Ocala, FLLouise Shackelford, Councilmember, Dublin, GAAbdul Akbar, Councilmember, Clarkston, GAReginald Schmitt, Councilman, Waterloo, IADavid H. Bieter, Mayor, Boise, IDAl Larson, Village President, Schaumburg, ILDebbie Kring, Councilmember, Mission, KSSylvia Lovely, Executive Director/CEO, Kentucky League of Cities, Inc., KYRobert Porter, Mayor, Ferndale, MIHannah McKinney, Vice Mayor, Kalamazoo, MISylvia Jordan, Councilmember, Southfield, MISteven Elkins, City Council, Bloomington, MNKaren Anderson, Mayor, Minnetonka, MNPatrick McCrory, Mayor, Charlotte, NC

W


6/26

ii

Clyde Schultz, Councilmember, Beulah, NDJacquelyn E. Johnson, Councilwoman, East Orange, NJDaniel Pocek, Mayor, Bedford, OHMatthew Zone, Councilmember, Cleveland, OHPeggy Lehner, Councilmember, Kettering, OH

Darreyl Davis, Councilmember, Trotwood, OHDon W. Fox, Mayor, Lebanon, TNEd Oakley, Councilmember, Dallas, TXBob Day, Mayor, Garland, TXShep Stahel, Mayor Pro Tem, Plano, TXRichard Conlin, Councilmember, Seattle, WA


7/26

iii

FOREWARD

Our responsibility as stewards of the community and the public interest is to ensure that land

use decisions are made purposefully, both with an understanding of the challenges and theproblems our communities face and with a deep appreciation for the hopes and the dreams of

the people we represent (Building Quality Communities: Making Local Land UseDecisions by Choice, Not by Chance, 2001).

and use patterns play a fundamental role in shaping all American cities andthe regions in which they are located both their successes and theirchallenges. How land is used helps to shape virtually everything about a city's

character and the challenge of municipal governance. Local officials have importantroles to play in making or influencing land use choices in such a way that theypositively affect the quality of life in their communities.1 A framework that clarifiesthe local contexts in which city officials operate can help them more effectivelyapproach and understand these complex challenges.

The typology of cities presented in this report is intended to be a guiding frameworkfor those seeking to better understand cities, their challenges, and responses to thosechallenges. A framing for land use issues, in particular, is a logical use of this work.Not every city official will be able to identify their city in this framework, but maysee their city as a combination of two or more categories. In this way the typology isa beginning. It is not intended to be an all exhaustive list of city types, but instead ameans of furthering the dialogue about cities and land use challenges beyond thenarrow categorizations of central city, suburb, and rural.

The National League of Cities (NLC) increased focus on land use issues beganduring Minnetonka, Minnesota Mayor Karen Andersons year as NLC President in2002. Mayor Andersons Presidents Agenda, Building Quality Communities: Making

Local Land Use Decisions by Choice and Not by Chance, outlined ways in which

municipal officials can help ensure that local land use decisions are guided bypurposeful thinking about the future of their communities.2

NLCs CityFutures Panel on Community and Regional Development wasestablished in 2002 to institutionalize Mayor Andersons vision. The panel continuestoday to help city officials address topics such as improving local land use decision

12001 Futures Report Building Quality Communities: Making Local Land Use Decisions by Choice and Not by

Chance. The National League of Cities, Washington, D.C.2 The NLC Presidents Agenda is a specific topic chosen by the upcoming NLC President which isresearched and developed into findings and conclusions and implemented through many NLCactivities. It is part of NLCs CityFutures Process, a three-year cycle of activities devoted to thePresidents Agenda that provides a structured process for looking at issues today in the light of goodthinking about tomorrow.

L


8/26

iv

making, managing growth, and coordinating regional strategies for dealing withgrowth and development issues.

Since its inception, the panel has convened two summits of local elected officials,other local stakeholders, and experts to inform NLCs land use agenda; one that

examined the various perspectives of stakeholders in the land use debate and anotherthat focused on ways local land use decisions impact economic development, sprawl,the environment, social equity and regional governance. The result of these forumswas a report, Land Use and Development Challenges in Americas Cities, whichencouraged further panel investigations into land use issues and the need for atypology of cities to better address the diversity of realities across the landscape ofcities in the U.S.

This framework represents a continued effort on the part of NLC to help local electedofficials enhance the quality of life in their communities through informed land usedecision-making. The ultimate goal of the project is to develop a framework throughwhich cities can view the myriad of complex challenges they face in a purposeful andmeaningful way. This will lay the groundwork for future work around specific landuse topics, beginning with affordable housing.


9/26

v

Summary ............................................................................. 1

Introduction ......................................................................... 2

City Types Comparison Chart ............................................... 4

City Types............................................................................ 5

Conclusion and Next Steps...................................................10

Appendix A: Methodology...................................................11

Appendix B: Data................................................................12

Appendix C: Census Regions and Subregions........................14

Appendix D: Location of City Types.....................................15

Table of Contents


10/26


11/26

1

SUMMARY

This analysis investigates cities across a set of social, economic, and demographic variablesto distinguish a typology of cities and to develop a guiding framework to help policy makersand researchers examine local issues and strategies, particularly those related to land use.The National League of Cities joined with the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech toexamine nearly 1,000 cities ranging in population from 25,000 to 500,000. Six types ofcities emerged:

Spread cities represent thelargest proportion of citiesand are characterized by lowdensities, few householdswith children, and fewimmigrant residents. Manyof these are core cities inmedium-sized, low-densitymetropolitan areas, whileothers are larger suburbs.Examples of spread cities areLaCrosse, Wisconsin andGreenville, South Carolina,and Pinellas Park, Florida.

Gold coast cities have older, wealthier, and educated populations and tend to be

suburban communities in metropolitan areas. Walnut Creek, California (SanFrancisco Bay Area), Coral Gables, Florida (Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach

Area) and Wheaton, Illinois (Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Area) are examples of goldcoast cities.

Metro centers are larger, core cities in metropolitan areas that are diverse and havean older housing stock. Norfolk, Virginia and Tacoma, Washington are metrocenters.

Meltingpot cities are diverse, dense cities that have many families with youngchildren. Meltingpot cities are predominantly located in the Pacific region, andexamples include Hawthorne and Norwalk, California.

Boomtowns are characterized by rapid population growth, young housing stock,wealthy residents, and families with children. Gilbert, Arizona and Broken Arrow,Oklahoma are examples of boomtowns.

Centervilles are primarily core cities in micropolitan areas and are the smallest andleast dense cities in the study. This category sheds more light on the new Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) category of micropolitan areas. Although thesecities are similar to principal cities of metropolitan area in that they perform moreurban-like functions, they still maintain their rural character. Paducah, Kentucky andRichmond, Indiana are centervilles.


12/26

2

INTRODUCTION

There are over 19,000 cities in the United States (Census of Governments, 2002), eachconfronted with challenges and choices unique to their perspective.3 There is no "typical"city and no practical, realistic, or helpful one-size fits all approach to the varying issues thatcities face. A review of the literature about cities suggests that widely-held conceptionsabout the municipal landscape rely on antiquated notions of city forms and assumptionsabout the functions cities perform. As such, distinctions between cities, such as central city,suburb, and rural and metropolitan and non-metropolitan, and the policy prescriptions

based on them are increasingly less useful to decision-makers and others attempting tounderstand and ameliorate local challenges. Thus, local policy makers need a new framefrom which to better address their challenges.

The typology of cities presented here represents this framework; a more accurate reflectionof the changing nature of the municipal landscape and the diversity that exists among cities.Driven initially by an interest to develop a local land use frame, the proposed typology is

more broadly applicable to a variety of policy issues finance, governance, inequality,housing, and transportation are just a few examples.

A typology, in general, is a way to organize observations into distinct classifications.Essentially, each member of a particular group should be as similar as possible to others inthe group, but as distinct as possible from the members of other groups.4 A typology in amunicipal context is very helpful; it can provide a meaningful framework to examine localissues and strategies in reference to others that are occurring in similar places.

Central cities have been distinguished from one another in a typology, as have suburbs. 5, 6

But how do we analyze cities in such a way that is significant when the lines between

central cities, suburbs, and even rural places are blurred? For example, many suburbs,especially suburbs near urban core cities, have become some of the most racially andethnically diverse places in metropolitan areas, typically a central city characterization.7, 8

Similarly, jobs and economic growth and the services to sustain them have dispersed

3 City refers to a municipal corporation.4 Mikelbank, Brian. A Typology of U.S. Suburban Places.Housing Policy Debate, Volume 15, Issue 4. The

Fannie Mae Foundation, Washington, D.C. 2004; Pages 935-964.5

Furdell, Kimberly, Harold Wolman, and Edward W. Hill. Did Central Cities Come Back? Which Ones,How Far, and Why? Journal of Urban Affairs, Volume 17, Number 3. Blackwell Publishing, Boston, MA.

2005; Pages 283-305.6 Mikelbank, Brian. A Typology of U.S. Suburban Places.Housing Policy Debate, Volume 15, Issue 4. The

Fannie Mae Foundation, Washington, D.C. 2004; Pages 935-964.7 Frey, William. Meltingpot Suburbs: A Study of Suburban Diversity. InRedefining Urban and Suburban

America: Evidence from Census 2000, Volume 1. Edited by Bruce Katz and Robert E. Lang, The Brookings

Institution, Washington, D.C. 2003.8 Katz, Bruce. Forward inHalfway to Everywhere: A Portrait of Americas First-Tier Suburbsby William Hudnut

III. The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. 2003.


13/26

3

throughout metropolitan areas. City and suburb, in this respect, are antiquated termsassociated with an older economic structure in which central cities were the sole economicengines of metropolitan areas surrounded by residential suburbs.9 These changes occurringin cities in terms of their character, the types of functions they perform, and services theyprovide prompt a reexamination of the perceptions of uniformity of traditional city types. It

is their distinctive qualities that contextualize city problems and policy implications.

9 Atkinson, Robert and Paul Gottlieb. The Metropolitan New Economy Index: Benchmarking EconomicTransformation in the Nations Metropolitan Areas. Progressive Policy Institute and Case Western Reserve

University. 2001.


14/26

4

CITY TYPES COMPARISON CHART10

10 Figures in the chart are the mean, or average, for each variable, and as such, cities within a given categorywill not necessarily match all of these figures.


15/26

5

CITY TYPES

This study examines a valid sample of nearly 1,000 cities with populations 25,000 to500,000 using Census data.11 Six types of cities emerged from the analysis: Spreadcities, Gold coast cities, Metro centers, Meltingpot cities, Boomtowns, andCentervilles.

Spread Cities12

Spread cities arecharacterized byrelatively averagepopulation sizes(generally between50,000 and 65,000) and average densities (about 2,800 people per square mile). Thesecities have the lowest percentage of households with children under 18 (32%) and a

relatively low percentage of foreign born population (less than 10%).

Spread cities account for more than 40 percent of cities between 25,000 and 500,000.In addition, all spread cities are located in metropolitan areas and 70 percent areprincipal cities.13,14 This may indicate that the low densities of spread cities are aresult of their location in metropolitan areas with low densities. Spread cities areconcentrated in the East North Central subregion of the Midwest (24%) and theSouth Atlantic subregion of the South (18%) and are relatively evenly spread in otherareas of the country.15

11 See appendix A for methodology.12 The term spread cities was coined by Alvin Schwartz in Central City/Spread City: The Metropolitan

Regions Where More and More of Us Spend Our Lives(1927) and used again by the New York RegionalPlan Association in Spread City: Projection of Development Trends(1962). In the New York Regional

Planning Association publication, spread city is defined as not a true city because it lacks centers, nora suburb because it is not a satellite of any city, nor is it truly rural because it is loosely covered with

houses and urban facilities. The usage of the term in this analysis is not intended to reflect theprecise definition of earlier users, but instead to convey the more general sense of low density.13 According the Office of Management and Budget, metropolitan areas are contiguous counties withan urban core and are defined by population size and commuting patterns. The cores of metropolitanareas have at least 50,000 people.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html14 According the Office of Management and Budget, principal cities, formerly central cities, includethe largest places as well as other cities in metropolitan and micropolitan areas that meet populationand employment thresholds. http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html15 See Appendix C for a map of the Census regions and subregions.

SPREAD CITY PROFILESLaCrosse, WI Greenville, SC Pinellas Park, FL

Population: 51,818 56,002 45,658Population density: 2,578 2,146 3,106Households w/ children: 23% 25% 29%Foreign-born: 3% 4% 9%


16/26

6

Gold Coast Cities16

Gold coast cities have older, wealthier, and more educated populations than othertypes. The gold coast city category is dominated by cities with populations between50,000 and 65,000 and with densities of about 4,000 people per square mile. Goldcoast cities have the highest average median age (38), the highest average median

income ($62,000),and the highestaveragepercentage ofpeople 25 andover with a

bachelors degree(27%). Thiscategory isdominated bycities with a very high percentage of homeowners (nearly 70%) and a low percentage

of households with children (33%).

Although all gold coast cities are located in metropolitan areas, most are suburban(non-principal) cities (65%). Gold coast cities are primarily located in the Pacificsubregion of the West (38%) and East North Central subregion of Midwest (26%).

Metro Centers

Metro centers are larger, core cities in metropolitan areas that are diverse and havean older housing stock. Nearly all metro centers are principal cities (94%) with thelargest average populations in the study (more than 200,000 people). They have

above average populationdensities (about 4,200 people persquare mile) and are generallyconcentrated in the SouthAtlantic subregion of the South(20%) and the Pacific subregionof the West (18%).

Metro centers have a relativelylow percentage of home owners

(about 52%). This group is dominated by cities with old housing stock (44 years old),

low median household income ($36,000), and a relatively small percentage of non-Hispanic whites (52%).

16 The term gold coast cities was initially used by University of Chicago researchers in reference tothe neighborhoods on Chicago's North Shore.

METRO CENTER PROFILESNorfolk, VA Tacoma,

WA

Population: 234,403 193,556Population density: 4,365 3,863Homeowners: 46% 55% Age of housing: 46 46Median income: $31,815 $37,879Non-hispanic whites: 47% 67%

GOLD COAST CITY PROFILESWalnut Creek, CA Coral Gables, FL Wheaton, I

Population: 64,296 60,020 55,416Population density: 3,231 3,897 4,948Median age: 45 44 36Homeowners: 68% 66% 74%Median income: $63,238 $43,517 $73,385Percent w/ bachelors: 42% 40% 37%Households w/children: 22% 25% 38%


17/26

7

BOOMTOWNS CITY PROFILESGilbert, AZ Broken Arrow, OK

Population: 109,697 74,859Population density: 2,551 1,664Short-term growth: 266% 28%Long-term growth: 1,819% 109%Homeowners: 85% 79% Age of housing: 11 23Households w/children: 53% 48%Median income: $68,064 $53,550

Meltingpot Cities

Meltingpot cities are generally dense, with younger, more diverse, and less educatedpopulations. This group is dominated by cities with populations between 75,000 and100,000, and although only moderately above average in population size, cities inthis cluster have the highest population densities (averaging over 8,000 people per

square mile).

Meltingpots have the lowestmedian age (31 years old), thehighest percent of households withchildren under 18 (47%), thehighest percentage of populationthat is foreign born (33%), thelowest percentage of non-Hispanicwhites (30%), and the lowestpercentage of population 25 and

over with a bachelors degree (11%). Two-thirds of these cities are suburban (non-principal) cities and all are located in metropolitan areas. Most of these cities are locatedin the Pacific subregion of the West (65%), and specifically California specifically.

Boomtowns17

Boomtowns are characterized by rapid population growth, young housing stock, andwealthy, home-owning residents and families with children. This cluster is dominated bycities with populations between 75,000 and 100,000 and low densities (about 2,400 peopleper square mile). Boomtowns experienced rapid population growth in both the short-term(between 1990 and 2000, 45-65%) and longer-term (between 1980 and 2000, 150-300%).18

Boomtowns generally havethe highest percentage ofhomeowners (73%), theyoungest housing stock (21years old), a very highpercentage of householdswith children under 18(43%), and high medianhousehold income

17 Myron Orfield identifies a similar typology called Bedroom-Developing communities in his book,

American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. (2002).The Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.

This type is also similar to what Robert Lang and Patrick Simmons call boomburbs in "Boomburbs":

The Emergence of Large, Fast-Growing Suburban Cities in the United States, Census Note 6. (2001). The

Fannie Mae Foundation, Washington, D.C.18 Population is a strong variable in factors but only appears strong in the fifth cluster. A variable can

be dominate in terms of the process, but play less of a role in actual groupings.

MELTINGPOT CITY PROFILESHawthorne, CA Norwalk, CA

Population: 84,112 103,298Population density: 13,789 10,649Median age: 29 30Households w/children: 49% 55%Foreign-born: 33% 36%Non-hispanic whites: 13% 19%Percent w/ bachelors: 7 % 6%


18/26

8

($58,000). They are located in metropolitan areas and most are suburban (non-principle) cities (71%). Boomtowns are found primarily in the Sunbelt (West and theSouth) and certain areas in the Midwest.

Centervilles

Centervilles are primarily principal cities of micropolitan areas and characterize thesmallest (all less than 50,000 population) and least dense (less than 2,000 people persquare mile) places in the study. These places are concentrated in the Midwest (32%)and areas of the South (21% West South Central and 12% East South Central).Centervilles generally have the lowest percentage of people living in urban areas(1%), the lowest percentage of foreign born residents (5%), and the lowest medianhousehold income ($34,000).

The new designations of micro-politan areas and principal citiesare an effort by the U.S. Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB)to articulate a distinction betweenthose non-metropolitan areas thatserve a greater regional functionand those that are more traditionally deep rural and to make a connection betweenthe functions that principal cities serve regardless of their location.19,20 The new OMBclassification system recognizes rural counties where groups of growing, but smallercities together represent an urbanizing/urban region.21

The new distinctions are a step in the right direction of helping to uncover thevariations that exist within the landscape of local jurisdictions in the U.S. The

clustering of all micropolitan principle cities in our typology suggests that principalcities of micropolitan areas be viewed as more than just scaled down versions oflarge, metropolitan cores. These places still maintain their individual, rural character.In terms of characteristics in comparison to other city types, Centervilles andmicropolitan populations tend to be poorer, less educated, and less racially diversethan their metropolitan counterparts.22

19 Lang, Robert and Dawn Dhavale. (2004).Micropolitan America: A Brand New Geography. Census

Note 05:01. Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, Alexandria, Virginia.20 The Office of Management and Budget defines Micropolitan Areas in a parallel manner toMetropolitan Statistical Areas in that they are core-based, meaning they consist of one or morecounties centered on a contiguous urban area.21 Weiler, Stephen and Jason Henderson. (2004). Defining Rural America in The Main Street

Economist: Commentary on the Rural Economy. Center for the Study of Rural America, Federal Reserve

Bank of Kansas City.22 Frey, William, Jill H. Wilson, Alan Berube, and Audrey Singer. (2004). Tracking Metropolitan

America into the 21st Century: A Field Guide to the New Metropolitan and Micropolitan Definitions. The

Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

CENTERVILLE CITY PROFILESPaducah, KY Richmond, IN

Population: 26,307 39,124Population density: 1,349 1,686Foreign-born: 1% 2%Median income: 26,131 30,200


19/26

9

Other Types

Although most of the U.S. population lives in one of these six types of cities, thereare presumably other types of cities not included (due to population constraints) thatwould further broaden this frame.23 An examination of smaller, non-metropolitanplaces, such as traditional rural places outside of micropolitan areas would benefit

the typology. In addition, a review of mega metro centers, those cities over500,000 in metropolitan areas, would add to the comprehensiveness and depth ofthis research.24

23 2002 Census of Governments; Volume 1- Government Organization, Table 8.24 The largest cities were omitted from this analysis to avoid outlier effects. The traditionally smaller,rural cities are not included in the analysis because of the lack of U.S. census data for these places.See the methodology section for more information about the cities in the analysis.


20/26

10

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

Municipal policy making environments are changing and cities have out grownurban, suburban, or rural labels -- their citizenry is more diverse, service demands areshifting, and economic interactions are widening. The complexity of cities and cityissues requires a typology that better reflects diverse conditions in cities and providesa more useful framework for policy-makers and researchers to use in understandinglocal challenges, discovering innovative strategies, and identifying policy options.

This research will be used even more directly to help frame the work of NLCsCommunity and Regional Development panel and NLCs research on affordablehousing and land use. In 2006, NLC will develop a housing survey and the analysisof the results will distinguish across the city types outlined in this report. The surveyand ensuing research will explore how a citys local context impacts its housingchallenges and the strategies they employ. The results will be used to help informfuture technical assistance, educational outreach, and research efforts on

housing issues.


21/26

11

APPENDIX A: Methodology

The cities in this study were examined across a set of social, economic, anddemographic variables. Multivariate techniques, including factor and clusteranalyses, determined which variables from a broader set of variables were the mostimportant to the analysis and how cities group around these variables.

The sample contains 997 cities in metropolitan and micropolitan areas ranging inpopulation from 25,000 to 500,000. The U.S. Census Summary File 3 files and the2000 City and County Data Book are the primary data sources for this analysis.Cities below 25,000 were not included in the sample due to lack of availability ofCensus data for those places. In addition, we sought to avoid outlier affects by notincluding places greater than 500,000 in population, which represent only a verysmall percentage of U.S. cities. Additionally, insufficient Census data for someplaces between 25,000 and 500,000 in population prevented us from examining theuniverse of cities in this population range.

The variables included in the analysis are:

Metropolitan/Micropolitan distinctions

Population, 2000

Population Density, 2000

Percent Population Change from1990-2000

Percent Population Change from1980-1990

Median Age of Population, 2000

Percent of Households, one or morepersons under 18 years, 2000

Percent of Homeowners, 2000

Median Age of Housing Stock, 2000

Percent of Population Foreign-Born, 2000

Median Household Income, 2000

Percent of Population Non-Hispanic White, 2000

Percent of Population 25 and over with bachelors degree, 2000

Percent of Population Living in Urban Area, 2000

CITY TYPES Number Percent

Spread Cities 372 41%

Gold Coast Cities 185 20%

Metro Centers 80 9%

Meltingpot Cities 125 14%

Boomtowns 76 8%

Centervilles 68 8%


22/26

12

APPENDIX B: Data

Population

The percentage of cities from the sample in various population categories closely

reflects that of the universe of cities in the range of 25,000 to 500,000.

The median popula-tion of cities in thesample is 54,088 andthe median popula-tion density is 2,880people per squaremile.

Percent of Cities by Population-Size Group25

Region26

Fourteen percent of the cities in our sample are from the Northeast (7% NewEngland and 7% Middle Atlantic), 28 percent are from the Midwest (19% East NorthCentral and 9% West North Central), 26 percent are from the South (13% SouthAtlantic, 4% East South Central, and 9% West South Central), and 32 percent arefrom the West (7% Mountain and 25% Pacific). In terms of a national comparison,13 percent of municipalities with populations between 25,000 and 500,000 arelocated in the Northeast, 28 percent are located in the Midwest, 28 percent in theSouth, and 31 percent in the West. The sample closely reflects the regional

distribution of all cities between 25,000 and 50,000.

Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas

Metropolitan areas are contiguous counties with an urban core and are defined bypopulation size and commuting patterns. The cores of metropolitan areas have atleast 50,000 people. Micropolitan areas are similarly defined, except their core areasrange in population between 10,000 and 50,000. There are 573 micropolitan areas

25

U.S. figures are based on the population-size groups of municipal governments from the 2002Census of Governments; Volume 1- Government Organization, Table 7. The sample figures are

based on Census designated places between 25,000 and 500,000 in population.26 U.S. Census Regions include: the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont); the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana,

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, andWisconsin); the South (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia); and the West (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming).

SAMPLE U.S.CATEGORYNumber Percent Number Percent

25,000-49,999 454 47% 643 51%50,000-74,999 231 23%75,000-99,999 114 11%

364 29%

100,000-200,000 144 14% 153 13%>200,000 54 5% 88 7%TOTAL 997 100% 1,248 100%


23/26

13

and 362 metropolitan areas, as designated by the OMB. Those cities not inmetropolitan or micropolitan areas (non-core based, non-metropolitan areas) areoutside the scope of this research. Additionally, only the core cities in micropolitanareas are included in order to capture the extent to which small communities locatedoutside of metropolitan areas reflect self-contained settlements similar to those in

metropolitan areas.

27

Given our population threshold, only 6 percent of the cities inthe sample are located in micropolitan areas and 94 percent in metropolitan areas.

Principal and Non-Principal Cities

Principal cities, formerly central cities, include the largest places as well as othercities in metropolitan and micropolitan areas that meet population and employmentthresholds. Principal cities comprise 40 percent of the metropolitan population andonly 33 percent of the micropolitan population. Principal cities smaller share of themicropolitan population reflects the more dispersed settlements common in thesesmaller places.28 Forty-five percent of the cities in the sample are non-principal cities

and 55 percent are principal cities.

27 Frey, William, Jill H. Wilson, Alan Berube, and Audrey Singer. (2004). Tracking Metropolitan

America into the 21st Century: A Field Guide to the New Metropolitan and Micropolitan Definitions. The

Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.28 Ibid.


24/26

14

APPENDIX C: Census Regions and Subregions29

29 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau


25/26

15

APPENDIX D: Location of City types


26/26

National League of CitiesCenter for Research &Municipal Programs

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

www.nlc.org

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dan-theveny
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

From Melting Pot Cities Boomtowns Rpt 2005

Documents