by Chris Jones, Vice President for Research, and Alexis Perrotta, Senior Policy Analyst, RPA
With increasing frequency, the media is taking note of changes in cities and suburbs that planners and demographers have been tracking for years. Cities are safer while the suburbs are busier and more crowded. Racial and ethnic diversity is increasing everywhere, giving out-of-the-way places more of a multicultural feel. The life cycle settlement patterns once considered normal - starting out single in the city, getting married and raising a family in the suburbs by age 30 - is no longer the norm; strollers have returned to the city while young adults are living in the suburbs. And as described in a recent article comparing upscale suburbs like Montclair NJ and affluent city neighborhoods like the Upper West Side and Park Slope, urban and suburban professionals are "no longer totally different breeds with clashing sensibilities, cliff dwellers versus bridge-and-tunnel people." ("The Not-So-Great Divide," New York Times, May 15, 2005).
This seeming convergence of urban and suburban characteristics calls for a re-examination of several assumptions that have long been a staple of academic literature, electoral politics and popular culture. Clearly, the characterization of metropolitan America as being composed of impoverished central cities, surrounded by affluent, largely white suburbs - a stereotype that was always an oversimplified version of reality - is no longer accurate in the Tri-State Region and many other major metropolitan areas. It is still probably valid in a number of urban areas ranging from Des Moines to Detroit, cities with depressed downtowns surrounded by more affluent sprawl. But this region can no longer rely on old generalizations, even if it's unclear what should replace them. The reality of today's communities is far more complex than a growing similarity between city and suburb. For starters, inner cities are still much poorer and more racially diverse than suburbs, and sprawl continues to eat up the remaining countryside. Also, both cities and suburbs contain a great diversity of places that resist broad generalizations. The day-to-day realities of new metropolitan patterns can vary radically for individuals with different class, racial and ethnic backgrounds.
While the makeup and roles of cities and suburbs are changing across the country, they are changing more here, and in different ways. The Tri-State Region is unique in a number of respects, particularly its size, density and transit network, the last of which helps link its suburbs and cities in ways less seen in places like Atlanta or Los Angeles. As a result of these and other factors, Manhattan, the commercial core of the region, never experienced the decline of other older cities, and has had a stronger revival by many measures, such as reduced crime. Its suburbs are also among the most mature in the United States, and may again lead the way toward new community forms.
For the next several issues, Spotlight on the Region will feature articles that try to shed some light on the changing relationship of city and suburb in the Tri-State Region. How much are the region's cities and suburbs really converging, and in what ways? What do the changes portend for different constituencies? Which trends appear to have deep roots and staying power, and which are more fragile and dependent on economic cycles or shifts in consumer preferences? Finally, what does all this mean for regional planning and policies, such as housing, transportation and land use?
We begin with an overview of some measurable changes between urban and suburban parts of the metropolitan area. Much of the following data is described in more detail in Out of Balance, a report published by RPA and the Citizens Housing and Planning Council in April 2004. The indicators differentiate between Manhattan, an "urban core" of New York City's other boroughs and the urban New Jersey counties of Hudson, Essex and Union, a ring of older "Inner Suburbs" and a ring of rapidly growing "Outer Suburbs." The Inner Suburbs include places such as Nassau, Westchester, and Bergen counties, and the Outer Suburbs include Litchfield, Dutchess and Monmouth, to name a few. While no classification is perfect, this begins to describe a more complex reality than a simple comparison between New York City and its neighboring suburbs.
On the basic measures of population and job growth, some new patterns have clearly emerged. Following decades in which population grew much faster in the suburbs than in the cities, the Urban Core, Inner Suburbs and Outer Suburbs all grew at about the same rate in the 1990s. For job growth, the big story is how much the Inner Suburbs have outpaced the Urban Core and kept pace with the Outer Suburbs over the last three decades. The data below summarize a few other indicators that have defined urban-suburban differences over the years, and which are now being cited as ways in which cities and suburbs are becoming more alike. The results show a mixed pattern in which some benchmarks have indeed converged dramatically while others have barely budged or remain far apart.
Education and Income
Measures of education and income - often components of measures of social class - do not show the suburbs and the city becoming more alike. The share of the population with a college degree increased everywhere in the region, but the relative differences between the Urban Core and suburban rings remain the same. Poverty concentrations also remain largely as they have been, with only a slight dispersion to the suburbs. In 1990 and 2000, Manhattan and the Urban Core accounted for 71% of the region's poor (and only 46% of the region's population). Likewise during the 1990s the share of the population that is low, middle and high income didn't shift among the urban and suburban rings. Each place lost middle income earners at about the same rate, although the Urban Core lost the most while it gained lower income households at a faster rate.
Ethnic and Racial Mix
There is a clear convergence between the Inner Suburbs and the Urban Core in terms of race and ethnicity. While the entire region is becoming more diverse, the Inner Suburbs had the greatest increases in Hispanics and non-Hispanic non-whites relative to population during the 1990s. The Inner Suburbs also had a 50% increase in the number of foreign born residents, compared with 42% and 43% growth in the Urban Core and Outer Suburbs. However, the Urban Core remains considerably more diverse with 66% of the population either black, Hispanic, Asian or other non-white, compared to 31% in the Inner Suburbs and 19% in the Outer Suburbs.
Crime
This may be the fastest changing urban/suburban stereotype. Between 1995 and 2003, crime dropped everywhere; in the US it dropped 23%, and in this region, 43%. During that time, however, crime rates in Manhattan and the Urban Core dropped by 50% and approached the same low levels as in the suburbs.
Home Ownership
One of the biggest differences between the suburbs and city is tenure - who owns, who rents. Only 36% of Urban Core residents are homeowners, while 69% of Inner Suburbs residents and 74% of Outer Suburbs residents own their homes. This breakdown changed little during the 1990s. However, rapid construction of new condominiums in the Urban Core since 2000 may improve home ownership rates there.
This quick snapshot verifies that the region's cities and suburbs are becoming more alike in several ways, but that most of the differences that have defined the urban-suburban divide remain. The suburbs are becoming denser and more diverse, and New York and other cities are attracting more affluent residents. But there has been little dispersion of low-income families and individuals from urban areas to the suburbs, and cities remain places of wider extremes. The most unambiguous change is the dramatic decline in crime rates, with virtually no difference remaining between urban and suburban areas.
This snapshot also suggests that much of the observed convergence between city and suburb is really a muting of the differences between places like Willimsburg, Hoboken, White Plains and Garden City in the Urban Core and Inner Suburbs. With strong employment growth, the Inner Suburbs have become less bedroom community and more of a hybrid job center and residential community with workers commuting to places throughout the region. And while stabilizing older suburbs in Nassau, Westchester, Fairfield or Bergen are juxtaposed with reviving urban neighborhoods, whether in Brooklyn or Jersey City, the rapidly growing exurbs are in their own unique orbit. In many respects, they closely resemble what the Inner Suburbs were a generation ago. However, they have a dynamic all their own that deserves closer examination. This and other topics will be the subject of future articles.
With increasing frequency, the media is taking note of changes in cities and suburbs that planners and demographers have been tracking for years. Cities are safer while the suburbs are busier and more crowded. Racial and ethnic diversity is increasing everywhere, giving out-of-the-way places more of a multicultural feel. The life cycle settlement patterns once considered normal - starting out single in the city, getting married and raising a family in the suburbs by age 30 - is no longer the norm; strollers have returned to the city while young adults are living in the suburbs. And as described in a recent article comparing upscale suburbs like Montclair NJ and affluent city neighborhoods like the Upper West Side and Park Slope, urban and suburban professionals are "no longer totally different breeds with clashing sensibilities, cliff dwellers versus bridge-and-tunnel people." ("The Not-So-Great Divide," New York Times, May 15, 2005).
This seeming convergence of urban and suburban characteristics calls for a re-examination of several assumptions that have long been a staple of academic literature, electoral politics and popular culture. Clearly, the characterization of metropolitan America as being composed of impoverished central cities, surrounded by affluent, largely white suburbs - a stereotype that was always an oversimplified version of reality - is no longer accurate in the Tri-State Region and many other major metropolitan areas. It is still probably valid in a number of urban areas ranging from Des Moines to Detroit, cities with depressed downtowns surrounded by more affluent sprawl. But this region can no longer rely on old generalizations, even if it's unclear what should replace them. The reality of today's communities is far more complex than a growing similarity between city and suburb. For starters, inner cities are still much poorer and more racially diverse than suburbs, and sprawl continues to eat up the remaining countryside. Also, both cities and suburbs contain a great diversity of places that resist broad generalizations. The day-to-day realities of new metropolitan patterns can vary radically for individuals with different class, racial and ethnic backgrounds.
While the makeup and roles of cities and suburbs are changing across the country, they are changing more here, and in different ways. The Tri-State Region is unique in a number of respects, particularly its size, density and transit network, the last of which helps link its suburbs and cities in ways less seen in places like Atlanta or Los Angeles. As a result of these and other factors, Manhattan, the commercial core of the region, never experienced the decline of other older cities, and has had a stronger revival by many measures, such as reduced crime. Its suburbs are also among the most mature in the United States, and may again lead the way toward new community forms.
For the next several issues, Spotlight on the Region will feature articles that try to shed some light on the changing relationship of city and suburb in the Tri-State Region. How much are the region's cities and suburbs really converging, and in what ways? What do the changes portend for different constituencies? Which trends appear to have deep roots and staying power, and which are more fragile and dependent on economic cycles or shifts in consumer preferences? Finally, what does all this mean for regional planning and policies, such as housing, transportation and land use?
We begin with an overview of some measurable changes between urban and suburban parts of the metropolitan area. Much of the following data is described in more detail in Out of Balance, a report published by RPA and the Citizens Housing and Planning Council in April 2004. The indicators differentiate between Manhattan, an "urban core" of New York City's other boroughs and the urban New Jersey counties of Hudson, Essex and Union, a ring of older "Inner Suburbs" and a ring of rapidly growing "Outer Suburbs." The Inner Suburbs include places such as Nassau, Westchester, and Bergen counties, and the Outer Suburbs include Litchfield, Dutchess and Monmouth, to name a few. While no classification is perfect, this begins to describe a more complex reality than a simple comparison between New York City and its neighboring suburbs.
On the basic measures of population and job growth, some new patterns have clearly emerged. Following decades in which population grew much faster in the suburbs than in the cities, the Urban Core, Inner Suburbs and Outer Suburbs all grew at about the same rate in the 1990s. For job growth, the big story is how much the Inner Suburbs have outpaced the Urban Core and kept pace with the Outer Suburbs over the last three decades. The data below summarize a few other indicators that have defined urban-suburban differences over the years, and which are now being cited as ways in which cities and suburbs are becoming more alike. The results show a mixed pattern in which some benchmarks have indeed converged dramatically while others have barely budged or remain far apart.
Education and Income
Measures of education and income - often components of measures of social class - do not show the suburbs and the city becoming more alike. The share of the population with a college degree increased everywhere in the region, but the relative differences between the Urban Core and suburban rings remain the same. Poverty concentrations also remain largely as they have been, with only a slight dispersion to the suburbs. In 1990 and 2000, Manhattan and the Urban Core accounted for 71% of the region's poor (and only 46% of the region's population). Likewise during the 1990s the share of the population that is low, middle and high income didn't shift among the urban and suburban rings. Each place lost middle income earners at about the same rate, although the Urban Core lost the most while it gained lower income households at a faster rate.
| Share of the Region's Poor | Share of Population over 25 years has a College or Post-Graduate Degree | ||||
| 1990 | 2000 | 1990 | 2000 | 2003 | |
| Manhattan | 14% | 11% | 42% | 49% | 52% |
| Urban Core | 60% | 60% | 19% | 23% | 26% |
| Inner Suburbs | 14% | 15% | 31% | 37% | 40% |
| Outer Suburbs | 13% | 14% | 24% | 28% | n/a |
Ethnic and Racial Mix
There is a clear convergence between the Inner Suburbs and the Urban Core in terms of race and ethnicity. While the entire region is becoming more diverse, the Inner Suburbs had the greatest increases in Hispanics and non-Hispanic non-whites relative to population during the 1990s. The Inner Suburbs also had a 50% increase in the number of foreign born residents, compared with 42% and 43% growth in the Urban Core and Outer Suburbs. However, the Urban Core remains considerably more diverse with 66% of the population either black, Hispanic, Asian or other non-white, compared to 31% in the Inner Suburbs and 19% in the Outer Suburbs.
Crime
This may be the fastest changing urban/suburban stereotype. Between 1995 and 2003, crime dropped everywhere; in the US it dropped 23%, and in this region, 43%. During that time, however, crime rates in Manhattan and the Urban Core dropped by 50% and approached the same low levels as in the suburbs.
Home Ownership
One of the biggest differences between the suburbs and city is tenure - who owns, who rents. Only 36% of Urban Core residents are homeowners, while 69% of Inner Suburbs residents and 74% of Outer Suburbs residents own their homes. This breakdown changed little during the 1990s. However, rapid construction of new condominiums in the Urban Core since 2000 may improve home ownership rates there.
This quick snapshot verifies that the region's cities and suburbs are becoming more alike in several ways, but that most of the differences that have defined the urban-suburban divide remain. The suburbs are becoming denser and more diverse, and New York and other cities are attracting more affluent residents. But there has been little dispersion of low-income families and individuals from urban areas to the suburbs, and cities remain places of wider extremes. The most unambiguous change is the dramatic decline in crime rates, with virtually no difference remaining between urban and suburban areas.
This snapshot also suggests that much of the observed convergence between city and suburb is really a muting of the differences between places like Willimsburg, Hoboken, White Plains and Garden City in the Urban Core and Inner Suburbs. With strong employment growth, the Inner Suburbs have become less bedroom community and more of a hybrid job center and residential community with workers commuting to places throughout the region. And while stabilizing older suburbs in Nassau, Westchester, Fairfield or Bergen are juxtaposed with reviving urban neighborhoods, whether in Brooklyn or Jersey City, the rapidly growing exurbs are in their own unique orbit. In many respects, they closely resemble what the Inner Suburbs were a generation ago. However, they have a dynamic all their own that deserves closer examination. This and other topics will be the subject of future articles.
@RegionalPlan