Brandon Bartoszek/Creative Commons

New studies suggest that we can revitalize the Rust Belt by increasing core density

The problem with former industrial cities that have lost population isn’t just the changing economy. It’s also a failure to address suburban sprawl. 

A close look at population data reveals that, while the populations within central cities’ jurisdictional boundaries have declined substantially, their suburbs have actually grown. The result is that, if one defines "city" as the contiguous urbanized area within a metro region, regardless of political boundaries – the definition that matters to the economy and the environment – the shrinkage may vanish or be shown as far less than we think.

In short, "shrinking cities" have really been hollowing out more than shrinking. Any policy tools that fail to recognize this have little chance of improving the situation, in my opinion.

A new study from the Fe

persons per square mile (by: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland)deral Reserve Bank of Cleveland lends weight to the argument that a dense urban core is important to the overall strength of a metro region. The researchers examined population changes in census tracts within 180 metro areas, noting the location of tracts that gained or lost population – and by how much – in the 1980s, 1990s and from 2000-2010. 

They found that, where regions grew, tracts near the center held relatively steady compared to those in the suburbs. But, in those regions that shrank overall, a disproportionately greater share of the losses took place in the centers.

Indeed, in metro areas that grew in population (like the Sun Belt regions and stronger older regions such as Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia), the greatest growth from 2000 to 2010 took place not just near the center but in downtown census tracts.

The comeback of America’s downtowns and adjoining older neighborhoods is real. But in those metros that lost population (e.g., Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo), losses remained greatest near the cores. A sign of encouragement for the shrinking regions, however, may be that their downtowns lost significantly less population after 2000 than did census tracts between three and fifteen miles from the central business district.  

The authors summarize:

Overall, in growing cities, population density either remained the same or increased in most areas. In contrast, in shrinking cities, formerly high-density city centers saw the biggest drop in density, while the surrounding low-density areas saw an increase population density. In practice, this thinning out of high-density areas of shrinking cities is consistent with population movements out of urban areas and into the surrounding suburbs.

The study includes density maps showing how Atlanta and Chicago maintained their core densities between 1980 and 2010, while Detroit and Cleveland lost theirs.  All four regions show suburban and exurban growth, though to a lesser degree in the shrinking regions compared with the growing one

persons per square mile (by: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland)s. (Atlanta’s map shows sprawl that is, not to put too fine a point on it, just off-the-charts ridiculous.)

So: regardless of what’s happening in the suburbs, holding on to a city’s core population appears important to overall regional success.  Unfortunately, finding policy mechanisms to promote that outcome in the U.S., with our highly decentralized and fragmented patterns of municipal governance, remains a formidable challenge well beyond the scope of a brief blog post. (There’s reason for hope in a few places, such as California.)

But, even in America, we have some regional and state mechanisms (like metropolitan planning organizations that allocate transportation spending and commissions that regulate utilities) that could, if properly aligned, begin to make a difference.

Perhaps the strongest potential force for bringing sense to our settlement patterns and strengthening central cities may be the business community. This study cites evidence, for example, that density is important to productivity (see related academic papers here, here and here). Some employers are already reinvesting in core areas (even Detroit) in lieu of further sprawl. I have a feeling that, if business becomes further convinced that reversing the decline of our older cities and neighborhoods is in its interest, the political tools may begin to fall into place.

This post originally appeared on the NRDC's Switchboard blog.

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. a photo of a highway
    Transportation

    Americans Are Spending Billions on Bad Highway Expansions

    PIRG’s annual list of “highway boondoggles” includes nine transportation projects that will cost a total of $25 billion while driving up emissions.

  2. Transportation

    CityLab University: Induced Demand

    When traffic-clogged highways are expanded, new drivers quickly materialize to fill them. What gives? Here’s how “induced demand” works.

  3. Transportation

    America Would Happily Pay Uber An Extra $7 Billion

    Economists put a (big) number on the ride service’s consumer surplus in 2015.

  4. Rows of machinery with long blue tubes and pipes seen at a water desalination plant.
    Environment

    A Water-Stressed World Turns to Desalination

    Desalination is increasingly being used to provide drinking water around the globe. But it remains expensive and creates its own environmental problems.

  5. Maps

    The Squirrel Census Answers a Question You Weren’t Asking

    How many squirrels live in New York City's Central Park? Finding the answer was surprisingly complicated.

×