New Geography

Author: Richard Morrill

  • The Urban US: Growth and Decline

    The urban population of the United States is now 249 million, according to the 2010 Census, 81 percent of the total. This is impressive, and not all surprising for a large developed economy. Yet the urban population — meaning cities, suburbs and exurbs — is not everything. And in many ways for everything from food, resources and recreation, the urban areas still depend on the nearly sixty million who live in rural America

    It is fascinating to review how American demography has changed over the last decade. So I will briefly look at some obvious points, such as the largest, most important, places, those that grew the most absolutely and relatively, and those that, on the contrary, declined.

    Our Giant Metropolises 

    The Census is very generous, probably way too generous, in their defining the outer limits of our urbanized areas (agglomerations with over 50,000 people). They tend to respect the independence of historically separate places, which from a satellite view would appear to be part of a united larger agglomeration. For example, New York, as defined, is huge enough but dense settlement goes far beyond its census limits. (I’ll take a look at conurbations, like Megalopolis, in a separate discussion). The 30 giants are shown in Table 1. The top three, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have kept their positions for decades, but  story of more recent times has been the upsurge of Southern giants of Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and of course, Washington, DC. Detroit is still in the top 15, but its position has fallen to 11th, while other historic places like Cleveland, St. Louis and Pittsburgh have dropped into the second set of 15.

    Table 1: Largest US Urbanized Areas
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT 18,351,295 17,799,861 551,434 3.10
    2 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 12,150,996 11,789,487 361,509 3.07
    3 Chicago, IL–IN 8,608,208 8,307,904 300,304 3.61
    4 Miami, FL 5,502,379 4,919,036 583,343 11.86
    5 Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD 5,441,567 5,149,079 292,488 5.68
    6 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 5,121,892 4,145,659 976,233 23.55
    7 Houston, TX 4,944,332 3,822,509 1,121,823 29.35
    8 Washington, DC–VA–MD 4,586,770 3,933,920 652,850 16.60
    9 Atlanta, GA 4,515,419 3,499,840 1,015,579 29.02
    10 Boston, MA–NH–RI 4,181,019 4,032,484 148,535 3.68
    11 Detroit, MI 3,734,090 3,903,377 -169,287 -4.34
    12 Phoenix–Mesa, AZ 3,629,114 2,907,049 722,065 24.84
    13 San Francisco–Oakland, CA 3,281,212 3,228,605 52,607 1.63
    14 Seattle, WA 3,059,393 2,712,205 347,188 12.80
    15 San Diego, CA 2,956,746 2,674,436 282,310 10.56
    90,064,432 82,825,451
    16 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI 2,650,890 2,388,593 262,297 10.98
    17 Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL 2,441,770 2,062,339 379,431 18.40
    18 Denver–Aurora, CO 2,374,203 1,984,889 389,314 19.61
    19 Baltimore, MD 2,203,663 2,076,354 127,309 6.13
    20 St. Louis, MO–IL 2,150,706 2,077,662 73,044 3.52
    21 San Juan, PR 2,148,346 2,216,616 -68,270 -3.08
    22 Riverside–San Bernardino, CA 1,932,666 1,506,816 425,850 28.26
    23 Las Vegas–Henderson, NV 1,886,011 1,314,357 571,654 43.49
    24 Portland, OR–WA 1,849,898 1,583,138 266,760 16.85
    25 Cleveland, OH 1,780,673 1,786,647 -5,974 -0.33
    26 San Antonio, TX 1,758,210 1,327,554 430,656 32.44
    27 Pittsburgh, PA 1,733,853 1,753,136 -19,283 -1.10
    28 Sacramento, CA 1,723,634 1,393,498 330,136 23.69
    29 San Jose, CA 1,664,496 1,538,312 126,184 8.20
    30 Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN 1,624,827 1,503,262 121,565 8.09
    29,923,846 26,513,173

    Cities with the Largest Gains  

    Urbanized areas which gained the most population over the last decade are listed in Table 2. These numbers are truly large; these are clear leaders in “population power”. I’ll first draw our attention to the five cities which are in the top 35 in both absolute growth and in percent growth. These include Temecula-Murrieta, CA (most folks will never have even heard of it: think inland sunshine of Riverside county); Charlotte and Raleigh, NC; Cape Coral, FL (again, huh?); and Austin, TX (you were thinking Dallas or Houston? See below).

    Temecula-Murietta : 25th absolute growth, 6th % growth               
    Charlotte : 9th and 19th
    Raleigh : 18th and 21st               
    Cape Coral : 30th and 27th  
    Austin : 10th and 34th

    North Carolina wins the race for the fastest growing areas.  But in sheer growth in people, the winners are (Table 2) Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Washington, Miami, Las Vegas (despite the recession), New York, Charlotte and Austin. Giant New York is the only non-sunbelt place in the elite, and it had a quite slow rate of growth (3%). The next places outside the southern tier are Denver (13th) and Seattle (18th).  The total absolute growth in these top 15 cities was a phenomenal 7.24 million, a rate of growth of 8.7 %. For the top 30 urbanized areas, the growth was 10.3 million, with a percent growth of 9.7 – the same as the rate of growth of the nation. This includes slow growing but still very big places like Los Angeles (growth displaced to its satellites), Philadelphia, Chicago, Indianapolis, Portland and Minneapolis.

    Table 2: Largest Absolute Change in US Urbanized Areas
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 Houston, TX 4,944,332 3,822,509 1,121,823 29.35
    2 Atlanta, GA 4,515,419 3,499,840 1,015,579 29.02
    3 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 5,121,892 4,145,659 976,233 23.55
    4 Phoenix–Mesa, AZ 3,629,114 2,907,049 722,065 24.84
    5 Washington, DC–VA–MD 4,586,770 3,933,920 652,850 16.60
    6 Miami, FL 5,502,379 4,919,036 583,343 11.86
    7 Las Vegas–Henderson, NV 1,886,011 1,314,357 571,654 43.49
    8 New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT 18,351,295 17,799,861 551,434 3.10
    9 Charlotte, NC–SC 1,249,442 758,927 490,515 64.63
    10 Austin, TX 1,362,416 901,920 460,496 51.06
    11 San Antonio, TX 1,758,210 1,327,554 430,656 32.44
    12 Riverside–San Bernardino, CA 1,932,666 1,506,816 425,850 28.26
    13 Denver–Aurora, CO 2,374,203 1,984,889 389,314 19.61
    14 Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL 2,441,770 2,062,339 379,431 18.40
    15 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 12,150,996 11,789,487 361,509 3.07
    16 Orlando, FL 1,510,516 1,157,431 353,085 30.51
    17 Seattle, WA 3,059,393 2,712,205 347,188 12.80
    18 Raleigh, NC 884,891 541,527 343,364 63.41
    19 Sacramento, CA 1,723,634 1,393,498 330,136 23.69
    20 Chicago, IL–IN 8,608,208 8,307,904 300,304 3.61
    21 Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD 5,441,567 5,149,079 292,488 5.68
    22 San Diego, CA 2,956,746 2,674,436 282,310 10.56
    23 Indianapolis, IN 1,487,483 1,218,919 268,564 22.03
    24 Portland, OR–WA 1,849,898 1,583,138 266,760 16.85
    25 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI 2,650,890 2,388,593 262,297 10.98
    26 Columbus, OH 1,368,035 1,133,193 234,842 20.72
    27 Nashville-Davidson, TN 969,587 749,935 219,652 29.29
    28 Murrieta–Temecula–Menifee, CA 441,546 229,810 211,736 92.14
    29 McAllen, TX 728,825 523,144 205,681 39.32
    30 Cape Coral, FL 530,290 329,757 200,533 60.81

    Rate of Population Growth

    Thirty six cities had a growth rate of more than 50 percent between 2000 and 2010, a decade not that fabulous in economic growth!  Only three of these are independent metropolises of over a half-million: Charlotte and Raleigh, NC, and Austin, TX. With growth numbers and rates of 491000 (65%), 343000 (63%), and 460000 (51%)—clearly places on the move up. The others fall more or less into these categories: (please see table 3 for a list of all 35).

    Satellite places to larger urban areas: 21 places
    Smaller regional capitals or centers: 10 place

    The superstars in rate of growth were McKinney, TX (Dallas satellite), 212% growth; Avondale, AZ (Phoenix suburb), 190%; The Woodlands, TX (Houston satellite), 168%; Lady Lake, FL (Orlando satellite), 123%; West Bend, WI (Milwaukee satellite, 106%); El Centro , CA (Imperial Valley center), 103%; and  Hilton Head, SC (retirement, etc.), 101%.

    Table 3: Greatest Percent Gains
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 McKinney, TX 170,030 54,525 115,505 211.84
    2 Avondale, AZ 197,041 67,875 129,166 190.30
    3 The Woodlands, TX 239,938 89,445 150,493 168.25
    4 Lady Lake, FL 112,991 50,721 62,270 122.77
    5 West Bend, WI 68,444 33,288 35,156 105.61
    6 El Centro, CA 107,672 52,954 54,718 103.33
    7 Hilton Head Island, SC 68,998 34,400 34,598 100.58
    8 Temecula–Murrieta, CA 441,546 229,810 211,736 92.14
    9 Concord, NC 214,881 115,057 99,824 86.76
    10 Visalia, CA 219,454 120,044 99,410 82.81
    11 Los Lunas, NM 63,758 36,101 27,657 76.61
    12 Myrtle Beach, SC 215,304 122,984 92,320 75.07
    13 Portsmouth, NH–ME 88,200 50,912 37,288 73.24
    14 Casa Grande, AZ 51,331 29,815 21,516 72.17
    15 Fayetteville–Springdale, AR 295,083 172,585 122,498 70.98
    16 Dover, DE 110,769 65,044 45,725 70.30
    17 Kissimmee, FL 314,071 186,667 127,404 68.25
    18 Salisbury, MD–DE 98,081 59,426 38,655 65.05
    19 Charlotte, NC–SC 1,249,442 758,927 490,515 64.63
    20 Victorville–Hesperia–Apple Valley, CA 328,454 200,436 128,018 63.87
    21 Raleigh, NC 884,891 541,527 343,364 63.41
    22 Manteca, CA 83,578 51,176 32,402 63.31
    23 Cape Coral, FL 530,290 329,757 200,533 60.81
    24 Provo–Orem, UT 482,819 303,680 179,139 58.99
    25 Nampa, ID 151,499 95,909 55,590 57.96
    26 St. George, UT 98,370 62,630 35,740 57.07
    27 Cartersville, GA 52,477 33,685 18,792 55.79
    28 Hammond, LA 67,629 43,458 24,171 55.62
    29 Mauldin–Simpsonville, SC 120,577 77,831 42,746 54.92
    30 Blacksburg, VA 88,542 57,236 31,306 54.70
    31 Lee’s Summit, MO 85,081 55,285 29,796 53.90
    32 Hagerstown, MD–WV–PA 182,696 120,326 62,370 51.83
    33 Santa Clarita, CA 258,653 170,481 88,172 51.72
    34 Austin, TX 1,362,416 901,920 460,496 51.06
    35 Daphne–Fairhope, AL 57,383 38,110 19,273 50.57

    Losers

    Urban growth is the expected norm, but not all areas of the country prospered 2000-2010. What kinds of place lost population and why? See Table 4 for a list of larger absolute and percent losses. Despite the comeback of the automobile industry, Detroit experienced the greatest loss, arguably because much of the industry has moved to the non-union and lower wage South. New Orleans had the second biggest loss, with almost an 11 percent loss, recovering only gradually from hurricane Katrina. Partly race or perhaps more a legacy of poverty and inept governance?  Other large numerical losses were in rust belt industrial and mining cities, such as Buffalo, Youngstown and Pittsburgh and Charleston, WV.  At least one was quite different: Seaside-Monterey CA, with losses due to reduced military operations as well as a generally weak California economy.

    High rates of losses were mostly in the same places, but included several smaller industrial towns in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

    Table 4: Greatest Percent Losses  and Greatest Absolute Losses
    Relative posses
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 Mansfield, OH 75,250 79,698 -4,448 -5.58
    2 Lorain–Elyria, OH 180,956 193,586 -12,630 -6.52
    3 Pascagoula, MS 50,428 54,190 -3,762 -6.94
    4 Youngstown, OH–PA 387,550 417,437 -29,887 -7.16
    5 Wheeling, WV–OH 81,249 87,613 -6,364 -7.26
    6 Lompoc, CA 51,509 55,667 -4,158 -7.47
    7 Mayagüez, PR 109,572 119,350 -9,778 -8.19
    8 Hightstown, NJ 64,037 69,977 -5,940 -8.49
    9 Pine Bluff, AR 53,495 58,584 -5,089 -8.69
    10 Seaside–Monterey–Marina, CA 114,237 125,503 -11,266 -8.98
    11 Anderson, IN 88,133 97,038 -8,905 -9.18
    12 Johnstown, PA 69,014 76,113 -7,099 -9.33
    13 Saginaw, MI 126,265 140,985 -14,720 -10.44
    14 New Orleans, LA 899,703 1,009,283 -109,580 -10.86
    15 Uniontown–Connellsville, PA 51,370 58,442 -7,072 -12.10
    16 Yauco, PR 90,899 108,024 -17,125 -15.85
    17 Charleston, WV 153,199 182,991 -29,792 -16.28
    18 Lodi, CA 68,738 83,735 -14,997 -17.91
    19 Parkersburg, WV–OH 67,229 85,605 -18,376 -21.47
    20 Ponce, PR 149,539 195,037 -45,498 -23.33
    Absolute Losses
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 Seaside–Monterey–Marina, CA 114,237 125,503 -11,266 -8.98
    2 Lorain–Elyria, OH 180,956 193,586 -12,630 -6.52
    3 Saginaw, MI 126,265 140,985 -14,720 -10.44
    4 Lodi, CA 68,738 83,735 -14,997 -17.91
    5 Yauco, PR 90,899 108,024 -17,125 -15.85
    6 Parkersburg, WV–OH 67,229 85,605 -18,376 -21.47
    7 Pittsburgh, PA 1,733,853 1,753,136 -19,283 -1.10
    8 Charleston, WV 153,199 182,991 -29,792 -16.28
    9 Youngstown, OH–PA 387,550 417,437 -29,887 -7.16
    10 Buffalo, NY 935,906 976,703 -40,797 -4.18
    11 Ponce, PR 149,539 195,037 -45,498 -23.33
    12 San Juan, PR 2,148,346 2,216,616 -68,270 -3.08
    13 New Orleans, LA 899,703 1,009,283 -109,580 -10.86
    14 Detroit, MI 3,734,090 3,903,377 -169,287 -4.34

    These statistics are also summarized in 5 maps – one showing the size and rate of growth of all urbanized areas, followed by maps of the largest 30 places, the 35 places with the highest absolute and highest relative growth, then a map of the largest absolute and percent losses.

    Density, Size and Location

    People are often surprised by the fact that the highest urban densities are not in the historic eastern cities but in newer western cities. Los Angeles, often called the epitome of sprawl, is in fact the densest urbanized area in the US, for the third straight census! Table 5 lists the densest urbanized areas and the densities of the largest areas.

    Table 5: Highest and lowest urban densisties
    Highest urbanzed area densities
    Place State Population (Thousands) Density
    Los Angeles CA 12,151 6,999
    San Francisco CA 3,281 6,266
    San Jose CA 1,664 5,820
    Delano CA 54 5,483
    New York NY 18,351 5,319
    Davis CA 73 5,157
    Lompoc CA 52 4,816
    Honolulu HI 802 4,716
    Woodland CA 56 4,551
    L:as Vegas NV 1,886 4,525
    Densities of largest places (not on above list)
    Chicago IL 8,608 3,524
    Miami FL 5,502 4,442
    Philladelphia PA 5,442 2,746
    Dallas TX 5,122 2,879
    Houston TX 4,944 2,979
    Washington DC DC 4,586 3,470
    Atlanta GA 4,515 1,707
    Boston MA 4,182 2,232
    Detroit MI 3,734 2,793
    Phoenix AZ 3,629 3,165
    Seattle WA 3,059 3,028
    Lowest density places
    Hickory NC 212 811
    Hammond LA 68 883
    Barnstable MA 247 890
    Gadsden AL 64 892
    Homosassa Spgs FL 81 895
    Anniston AL 80 920
    Los Lunas NM 64 921
    Spartanburg SC 181 952
    Hilton Head SC 69 1,020
    Anderson SC 76 1,022

    The remarkable story is that of the 10 densest areas, 9 are in the west, and 7 in the Golden State. Four of these are fairly small, another surprise. The only eastern city in the top 10 is New York, which is fairly sharply limited by the census. Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose are the three most densely settled areas. The main underlying reason is not just planning regulations, although these probably play a role, but the issue of providing water to developable land. Both are restricted. This is one reason why growth in the southwest tends to be relatively dense. These drier areas lack the local water supplies that enable the kind of low density sprawl typical of the historic eastern cities like, yes, Boston with a density of only 2231, less than one-third that of Los Angeles!!  Other large urban areas with lower densities include Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, a mere 1707!

    The winners for low density are an interesting mix of satellite places, such as Hammond, Barnstable, Los Lunas, and independent places like Hickory, Gadsden and Anniston, AL, and Spartanburg and Anderson, SC, many in hilly Appalachian environments, with settlement limited to valley floors. This is why the density could be below 1000 per square mile, the usual demarcation point of urban densities. Several are rather resort-like, e.g., Barnstable, Hilton Head and Homosassa Springs.

    Even if our urban definition is a little generous, 80 percent of the population or 250 million persons is an impressive total. Most of us cannot escape the city, where most jobs and opportunities are. We need to live in cities and perhaps most of us love the city. So the settlement issue in our lives becomes what city to live in and where to live within that place.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

    Next: Megalopolis and its rivals.

    Los Angeles skyline photo by Bigstockphoto.com.

  • Population Change 2010-2011: Interesting Differences

    The recently released estimates of population change and the natural increase and migration components of that change for 2010-2011 contain a few surprises, as well as much what has come to be expected.  What we population freaks have been awaiting are estimates of the components of change for the whole 2000-2010 decade, but these are still being adjusted, in part because of the tremendous complexity of migration and immigration and, yes, estimating  just who is in the country!

    I provide four simple maps, one of population change, 2010-2011,  one for the portion f that change due to natural increase (births less deaths), one for immigration and one for domestic or internal migration between the states.  Overall the big news is a slowdown of growth, to only .92 %, the lowest since the 1940s. This was due to a fewer  births, and thus of natural increase, because of folks not marrying or marrying later, and or postponing births because of the recession. It also has to do with  a reduction in immigration, again because of the recession, and possibly because of anti-immigrant sentiment and policies.

    The second big news is the somewhat surprising shift of some rapid growth to areas beyond the sunbelt and towards the northern tier.  Still impressive absolutely, the pace of growth has slowed in states such as Florida and Georgia, more so in Arizona and even more in Nevada, from the housing collapse and lower immigration. The South Atlantic region remained strong, but the new locus of faster growth is the “northern tier” from Minnesota through the Dakotas to Oregon and Washington. The Dakotas’ growth, also affecting Montana and Wyoming, is energy related, while that of Washington, now the 6th fastest growing state, is a reflection of a young population, continuing immigration, both high tech and agricultural growth, and a relatively robust economy.

    Natural increase. Natural increase is low in the states with the highest shares of the elderly, most obviously Florida, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and northern New England, in general regions and states from which young people have moved, e.g., MI, OH, KY, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL and IA, across the eastern heartland. But natural increase may have picked up a little in economically stronger states like NY, NJ, IL, IN and WI. Natural increase rates are higher, as might be expected, across the southwest and in Mormon states like Utah and Idaho. The bigger surprise once again is in the the upper Plains, including MN, ND, SD, and NE. Again Washington surprises, behaving like a sunbelt state, due more to an influx of a young population, than high fertility. 

    Immigration. Immigration overall has slowed, but was a relatively significant part of growth for much of the northeast, especially NY, NJ, MA, CT, RI, MD and DE, and remained important in FL, CA, NV, AZ, and WA (and yes Texas, but at a lower rate). The pace of immigration fell most in Nevada and Arizona.

    Domestic migration. This map is the one that most closely reflects the perceived and/or actual attractiveness of the states in the recent past. The states with the highest rates of net out-migration are mainly in the old urban-industrial core, including IL, MI, OH, NY, NJ and even CT, KS in the Plains and now Nevada. Even Alaska, Hawaii and especially California lost through domestic migration. The biggest change is the shift from net out-migration to net gains for the District of Columbia, Louisiana (after years of loss), and especially North Dakota, which made strong gains for the first time in decades. Missouri, New Hampshire, Utah and especially Nevada shifted from net gain to net loss.

    The gains of Texas and Florida, and at a lower rate, North and South Carolina and Tennessee, continue a pattern seen throughout the 2000-2010 decade. But Arizona, Georgia and Virginia have slowed down, and Nevada went from big gains to a loss. The biggest winners are South and especially North Dakota and Montana, in a dramatic turnaround, Colorado, now with the 4th highest rate, and Washington, with the 5th highest. Colorado appears especially popular with retiree migrants, particularly from California. DC and ND, losers for 2000-2009 had the two highest rates of gain for 2010-2011!

    Warning: These trends are fascinating, but we should remember that economic conditions – and even perceived attractiveness of states for cultural or environmental reasons – are volatile and can change again and again.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

  • A Century of Change in the US Black Population, 1910 to 2010

    2010 was the 100th anniversary of the start of the “Great Migration” of the “Negro” population to northern cities from the mainly rural South. The midway point occurred in 1960 when black urban population was beginning to peak.   

    Since then redistribution had taken several forms. First, we see some return migration to the South, but to metropolitan, but not to the rural small town “Black Belt” of the past but to the sprawling metropolitan regions. Second, there is a decline of black population in metropolitan core cities and counties because of suburbanization. Third, we see a more dispersed growth of the Black population to a wider set of large metropolitan areas across the country.

    In this essay I map and discuss first state level change in the Black population for 1910, 1960 and 2010, then concentrate on US counties which were majority Black in 1910, 1960 or 2010 or housed over 100,000 Black population in 2010, whatever the share. Special note is made of counties which were majority in combinations of the three times, 1910, 1960 and 2010.

    For states I map and discuss change for two critical 50 year periods, 1910 through 1960 and 1960 through 2010. The first encloses both the Great Migration from World War One and the equally large migration from south to north and west in World War II still firmly within the unreconstructed Jim Crow segregation era.  The past 50 years coincides with the rise of the South economically and demographically. Changes wrought by the Civil Rights Revolution brought the at least formal achievement of greater equality—culminated symbolically by the election of a Black President.

    In 1910 the South had 8.75 million of nation’s 9.83 million “Negroes”, an 89 percent share. By 1960 the southern share had fallen to under 60%  with 11.31 of 18.97 million Black population. By 2010 the South had 22 of 39 million Blacks, for 56 percent, still a sizeable majority.

    For 1910 to 1960 absolute and relative changes are depicted in Figure 1. In absolute numbers New York gained the most, 1.3 million, but California and especially Michigan  had the highest rates of growth, with 40 times their 1910 population in 1960. The largest   absolute gains, after New York, were in Illinois (Chicago), California, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Note that the highest growth was in industrial belt states.  In the South, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina and Virginia – growing and industrializing – experience growth but at modest rates as Black people moved to the growing cities. The Deep South states, with the highest Black shares in 1910, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia and even Kentucky experienced absolute losses of Black people over the 50 years.

    For 1960 to 2010, changes are depicted in Figure 2, The highest rates of growth were in states historically very low in Black shares, as Minnesota, Utah, Arizona, New Hampshire and Vermont, with fairly large numbers for Minnesota, Arizona, the Dakotas and Nevada. Remarkably high rates and amounts of growth ocurred in Florida and Maryland (suburbanization from Washington, DC) and substantial growth occurred in the metropolitan dynamos of the South, Georgia (Atlanta) and Texas (especially Houston).

    Growth slowed in mostof the northern industrial belt. Only West Virginia experienced a decline in the Black population (Washington DC lost via gentrification and Black suburbanization). The percent Black fell in AL, AR, DC, MS, NC, SC, VA and WV, most of the South, and even in FL and TX, despite large absolute gains. The highest increase in the Black population (number of times higher) were in mainly white NV, MN, VT and ND.

    Over the full century, among the 27 states with the largest total Black population, the highest rates of change were for Wisconsin, California, Michigan, Connecticut and New York, and the highest absolute growth were in New York, Florida, Texas and California. The lowest   rate was for Arkansas, barely above the 1910 level, followed by Kentucky and Mississippi.

    I do offer two maps at the county level for Black population change 1960 to 2010, but only for a select set of 359 counties, those with a majority Black in 1910, 1960 or 2010, or with at least 100,000 Black persons in 2010.

    As can be seen from the map, all counties (288) with a majority Black at one or more of the three times (1910, 1960 or 2010) are located in the South, including 18 which also had over 100,000 Black persons in 2010  Of the 71 counties that were never a majority Black but had over 100,000 Black population in 2010, 30 more are in the South. Those outside the South (42) are basically the rest of the country’s largest metropolitan counties.

    The majority Black counties define the traditional “Black Belt” of slavery and plantation agriculture across the US South from east Texas to Maryland. The micro-geography of Black majority counties is amazingly unchanged. The dominant areas: the Mississippi Delta and the states Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia show cores of 177 counties that have had a Black majority in all three censuses, surrounded by a set of 66 with a Black majority in two of the three census counts, and at the fringe the 128 counties which had a Black majority only in 1910.

    The only area with over 100,000 Black persons and with a Black majority in 1960 and 2010 was Washington, DC, the only one in 1910 and 2010 was Hinds county (Jackson, Mississippi), and the only in all three censuses was Montgomery, Alabama, all government-centered  cities in the South,

    But although the South is still dominant, most of the largest absolute totals are outside the South. New York City alone has over 2 million Black persons, Cook county (Chicago) 1.3 million, Los Angeles, 857,000. Southern metropolises are increasingly important. Harris County Texas (Houston), for example, has more African-Americans (775,000) than Detroit or Philadelphia. Suburban Prince George, MD, 557,000, Dallas, 528,000 and Miami-Dade, 473,000 and Fulton (Atlanta, 466,000, plus 376,000 in De Kalb) all contain large black populations. Only in the South are there high Black populations in rural, small town to small city counties typically in the traditional areas. In the North, Black persons are highly concentrated in the largest core metropolitan counties. Metropolitan Black populations have grown greatly in the South as well, including more suburbanization than in the North.

    Conclusion
    The overall story of the American Black population is one of great change and of continuity—a dramatic spread from the rural South to the large metropolitan North, followed more recently by a partial return to the South’s expanding metropolitan areas. It also reflects growing suburbanization in both the North and the South, and a moderate spread to metropolitan areas in less traditionally Black parts of the country.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

  • Will the Last Family Leaving Seattle Please Turn out the Lights?

    New Census data for the Seattle area’s population changes, 2000-2010, permit a preliminary look at age and at types of households in the region. Let’s look at patterns of geographic variation in selected age groups and household types for places in greater Seattle. It provides more evidence for how rapidly Seattle in particular is changing in fundamental ways.

    The data show show a fairly similar geographic pattern — a dramatic gradient from Seattle (and to a degree also the older core cities of Tacoma and Everett) through the older suburbs and out to the urban and exurban fringe. These gradients trace the shares of singles (high in Seattle, low in the far suburbs), those under 18 (low in Seattle, high farther out), husband and wife families with children (low in Seattle, high in the far suburbs), and home ownership (lower in Seattle).

    This pattern is not new. But because of growth management and the concentration of higher-density redevelopment in the core cities, the gradient is perhaps more marked than earlier. Seattle really is exceptional — amazingly high in singles, but low in husband-wife couples with children, proportions under 18, and in home ownership. Conversely, some of the far suburbs are exceptionally low in singles, and high in traditional families, persons under 18, and home ownership.

    Two related variables are young adults, those 20-35, and the share of unmarried partners, but there are some differences from each other and from the preceding variables. The share of persons 20-35 is again exceptionally high in Seattle and Everett but also on military bases, and along the 520 corridor (Kirkland and Redmond). It is unusually low in retirement communities and on islands (e.g., Vashon, Bainbridge). The share of unmarried partner households is also very high in Seattle, but also in less affluent areas, places with high minority shares, and in a few rural communities.

    The shares of population over 65 and of single-parent households also have distinct patterns. The highest shares of the elderly are naturally in retirement communities, followed by island places (Vashon and Bainbridge and Mercer Island) and some older suburbs. Low shares of older folks characterize military bases, areas with many ethnic minorities, and some younger suburbs such as Sammamish and Mill Creek, and (in contrast to many large cities) in Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett.

    High shares of single-parent families occur on Indian reservations, on military bases, and in minority ethnic areas, most notably in south King Ccounty and parts of Pierce County. Low shares of single-parent households occur, as expected, in affluent suburbs, but are surprisingly low in Seattle. These variables, in particular, attest to the continuing gentrification of Seattle, and its changing patterns of ethnicity related to gentrification and high housing costs.

    Higher shares of persons under 5 reveal areas of young families. The highest shares are in military bases and Latino towns in eastern Washington, but are quite high, over 12 percent, in the farthest suburban and exurban places around Seattle such as Duvall and Snoqualmie. They are lowest in retirement towns, on islands such as Vashon and Bainbridge, and in some college towns such as Pullman.

    Shares of persons under 18 show a similar but not identical pattern. Again they are highest in military and Latino places, and in suburban and exurban places in the metropolitan area, and lowest in university towns and in Seattle itself. This implies that while still low Seattle is not as deficient in the very youngest as it is in older children.

    The story is very different for young adults. Not surprisingly, shares 20-25 are very high in university towns, on military bases, and Seattle, and quite low in suburban, mainly residential communities, especially more affluent areas, and on islands. Middle-aged adults, aged 45-64 (the baby boomers and thus the largest age group) are high in some older residential suburbs where younger adults are less common, and low in college towns, Latino areas, and in some areas of very recent growth, as in Snoqualmie and Monroe.

    Home ownership is related to both age and household types. Rates of home ownership are extremely high, in the 90s in newer and more affluent suburbs, with mainly single family homes; the rates are lowest on military bases, college towns, and in a few less affluent suburbs, such as Tukwila. As for the city of Seattle — which has indeed changed its character in a fundamental way — home ownership has dropped to a low of 48 percent. This shift helps us understand the cleavages in Seattle’s body politic, as a formerly very middle class city adjusts to an influx of singles, renters, and young people.

    Finally, as to types of households. Married couple families with children are the historic norm. They remain traditionally high on military bases, and in the farther newer suburbs, such as Snoqualmie, Sammamish, and Maple Valley; they are low as expected in college towns, in retirement communities, and (no surprise) in Seattle—13 percent, which is really low.

    Conversely, singles are highest in two island towns, Friday Harbor and Langley, but Seattle is an extremely high 41 percent. Shares are lowest in the same new suburbs rich in families, as in Sammamish, at 11 percent. Shares of unmarried partners are a high 10 percent of households in Seattle, but are higher on Indian reservations and the cities of Hoquiam and Aberdeen. The share of single-parent households is also high on Indian reservations, in less affluent and more ethnic suburbs like Parkland and Bryn Mawr and Tukwila. It is lowest in the newer, family-filled far suburbs.

    This piece originally ran at Crosscut.com and was edited by David Brewster.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

  • Fifty Years of Population Change in the US: 1960-2010

    A new census leads us to ask how population has changed, but usually discussion is focused on changes since the last census. But even more interesting is to appreciate the vaster changes over a greater sweep of time, for example: the fifty years since 1960, when the United States had 179 million people, toward the end of the post-war Baby Boom.

    Over this fifty year period, the country experienced a tremendous economic expansion and metropolitan growth. The attatched maps and charts display these changes, both in the greatest absolute and relative (percentage) losses and gains. We can then assess areas and regions that changed the most – or the least – and how this pattern differs from the most recent decade.

    Looking at both the maps and the tables, high absolute losses are in large northeastern metropolitan counties, plus, because of Katrina, Orleans (New Orleans).  Next most prominent in terms of losses are mining and small industrial counties in Appalachia as well as the largely rural Black majority counties in the Mississippi delta (Arkansas and Mississippi). Far more widespread in terms of space are small absolutely but often high percentage losses across the Great Plains, the rural small town heartland of the country. Losses do extend to the west, in a few mining and farming counties, as in MT, ID, OR and WA, as well as a few Native American reservation areas. 

    From Table 1 (below), 12 counties lost more than 100,000 people since 1960, most in the northeastern historic urban industrial core, including two New York City boroughs. The bigger loser by far, however, was Wayne (Detroit) . Next were Philadelphia, which lost 477,000 and St. Louis, falling 57 percent from 750,000 to 319,000.   Among non-metropolitan counties, the largest absolute losses were in West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania (mining), and Arkansas and Mississippi (high Black population).

    High relative losses (table 2) of over 50 percent beset 69 counties, all non-metropolitan   except one: St Louis. States with the greatest number of declining counties included North Dakota, 19; Texas, 16; South Dakota, 6, Kansas, Montana and Nebraska, 4; Arkansas, 3; and Missouri, 2. Most were in the Plains states. It is also clear that a high proportion of counties – both metropolitan and non metropolitan – with high Black populations have experienced losses, a sad commentary on disinvestment in areas with high African-American shares.

    In contrast, the pattern of gains is more complex.  Overwhelmingly, the highest absolute amounts (table 3) – and often percentage gains (table 4) – are in mostly larger metropolitan complexes. For the largest areas, the core counties often had lesser rates of growth, even if the absolute amounts were very large (e.g., Los Angeles, Cook, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston). In contrast the highest rates of growth, often over 400 percent, took place in their satellite or suburban counties. Most obvious are greater Los Angeles and San Francisco, Denver, the large Texas metropolitan areas, Minneapolis, Chicago-Milwaukee, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Seattle, Portland and Washington, DC.  More recent, less suburban (at least in terms of jurisdiction) dominated areas, often in the Sunbelt, include especially Maricopa (Phoenix), Las Vegas, Salt Lake, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, and Richmond.

    This leaves perhaps the two most spectacular (along with California, obviously: the northeastern Megalopolis and Florida. Florida clearly has the highest overall rate of change over this period. The northeastern Megalopolis is highly varied, but overall now spreading from Richmond, Virginia to Portland, Maine. It has developed into an astounding agglomeration of growth, with the locus of fastest absolute as well as percentage growth in its suburban and exurban portions.

    Growth was also often substantial in non-metropolitan or now small metropolitan areas in many parts of the country. An especially remarkable belt of growth – including small towns – extends from Memphis across Tennessee and North Carolina. Another span of significant growth – despite decline or slower growth in the recent past – lies in the Midwest (Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota). Belts of growth follow the I-5 corridor from California to Canada, the corridor from Tulsa through Fayetteville and Springfield to St Louis, and the I95 coastal south Atlantic strip.

    Sixteen counties gained a million or more: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino, a southwestern megalopolis; Santa Clara (San Jose); Harris (Houston); Dallas and Fort Worth (Tarrant) and Bexar (San Antonio) in Texas; Miami, Ft. Lauderdale (Broward) and Palm Beach, Florida; Clark (Las Vegas); King (Seattle); and Maricopa (Phoenix).

    Finally the counties which grew at the fastest rate over the 50 years include some 118 that grew by 400 percent or more, and 27 that expanded more than ten-fold. States with the most such counties (400 to 1000 % ) include Florida, 15; Georgia, 11; Colorado, 8; Texas, 6; Virginia 6; California, 4; AZ,MN, MO, NC, and NV, 3 each; MD, NM, OR, TN, WY, 2 each; with 1 each in AL, AR, AK, IL, IN, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, PA,  SC, UT and WA. Among the over 1000 percent growth, AK and AZ, 1; CO, 3; FL, 8; GA, 4; NV, 2; TX, 6; UT, 1; and VA, 1. 

    Types of counties with over 400 percent growth include 3 core metropolitan, 69 suburban, 44 environmental, and 2 others, often resource development. The fastest growth county was Douglas in suburban Denver, followed by environmentally attractive Mohave, AZ, and Flagler and Collier, FL, followed by Dallas suburb, Collin, and Atlanta suburb Gwinnett.

    Conclusion
    People continue to come to the US in large numbers, and people move from place to place in remarkable numbers.  Don’t count on the current pattern of population to remain very stable, just as the last fifty years have not been.  For example, while the northeastern “Rustbelt” seems in trouble, it is a region of vast plant capacity, superior universities, and a high quality labor force. A reaction to the high cost of excessive outsourcing, and even  some shifts from the “new South” could bring about a surprising restoration.

    Table 1: Largest Absolute Losses, 1960-2010
    Name
    1900
    1960
    2000
    2010
    Change 1960-2010
    Percent Change, 1960-2010
    MI Wayne County 348,793 2,666,297 2,061,162 1,820,584 -845,713 -31.7%
    PA Philadelphia County 1,293,697 2,002,512 1,517,550 1,526,006 -476,506 -23.8%
    MO St. Louis city 575,238 750,026 348,189 319,294 -430,732 -57.4%
    PA Allegheny County 775,058 1,628,587 1,281,666 1,223,348 -405,239 -24.9%
    OH Cuyahoga County 439,120 1,647,895 1,393,978 1,280,122 -367,773 -22.3%
    MD Baltimore city 508,957 939,024 651,154 620,961 -318,063 -33.9%
    LA Orleans Parish 287,104 627,525 484,674 343,829 -283,696 -45.2%
    DC District of Columbia 278,718 763,956 572,059 601,723 -162,233 -21.2%
    NY Erie County 433,686 1,064,688 950,265 919,040 -145,648 -13.7%
    NJ Essex County 359,053 923,545 793,633 783,969 -139,576 -15.1%
    NY Kings County 1,166,582 2,627,319 2,465,326 2,504,700 -122,619 -4.7%
    NY New York County 2,050,600 1,698,281 1,537,195 1,585,873 -112,408 -6.6%
    WI Milwaukee County 330,017 1,036,041 940,164 947,735 -88,306 -8.5%
    MA Suffolk County 611,417 791,329 689,807 722,023 -69,306 -8.8%
    VA Norfolk city 46,624 305,872 234,403 242,803 -63,069 -20.6%
    OH Hamilton County 409,479 864,121 845,303 802,374 -61,747 -7.1%
    OH Mahoning County 70,134 300,480 257,555 238,823 -61,657 -20.5%
    WV Kanawha County 54,696 252,925 200,073 193,063 -59,862 -23.7%
    PA Cambria County 104,837 203,283 152,598 143,679 -59,604 -29.3%
    Table 2: Greatest Relative Losses 1960-2010
    Name
    1900
    1960
    2000
    2010
    Change 1960-2010
    Percent Change, 1960-2010
    ND Sheridan County – 4,350 1,710 1,321 -3,029 -69.6%
    WV McDowell County 18,747 71,359 27,329 22,113 -49,246 -69.0%
    HI Kalawao County 1,177 279 147 90 -189 -67.7%
    ND Burke County – 5,886 2,242 1,968 -3,918 -66.6%
    TX Cottle County 1,002 4,207 1,904 1,505 -2,702 -64.2%
    TX Loving County 33 226 67 82 -144 -63.7%
    ND Logan County 1,625 5,369 2,308 1,990 -3,379 -62.9%
    NM Harding County – 1,874 810 695 -1,179 -62.9%
    ND Divide County – 5,566 2,283 2,071 -3,495 -62.8%
    TX Terrell County – 2,600 1,081 984 -1,616 -62.2%
    CO La Plata County 7,016 19,225 43,941 7,310 -11,915 -62.0%
    ND Grant County – 6,248 2,841 2,394 -3,854 -61.7%
    ND Slope County – 1,893 767 727 -1,166 -61.6%
    MS Quitman County 5,435 21,019 10,117 8,223 -12,796 -60.9%
    ND Hettinger County – 6,317 2,715 2,477 -3,840 -60.8%
    MS Issaquena County 10,400 3,576 2,274 1,406 -2,170 -60.7%
    ND Cavalier County 12,580 10,064 4,831 3,993 -6,071 -60.3%
    ND Towner County 6,491 5,624 2,876 2,246 -3,378 -60.1%
    SD Campbell County 4,527 3,531 1,782 1,466 -2,065 -58.5%
    ND Steele County 5,888 4,719 2,258 1,975 -2,744 -58.1%
    ND McIntosh County 4,818 6,702 3,390 2,809 -3,893 -58.1%
    ND Emmons County 4,349 8,462 4,331 3,550 -4,912 -58.0%
    TX Motley County 1,257 2,870 1,426 1,210 -1,660 -57.8%
    SD McPherson County 6,327 5,821 2,904 2,459 -3,362 -57.8%
    MO St. Louis city 575,238 750,026 348,189 319,294 -430,732 -57.4%
    Table 3: Largest Absolute Gains, 1960-2010
    Name
    1900
    1960
    2000
    2010
    Change 1960-2010
    Percent Change, 1960-2010
    CA Los Angeles County 170,298 6,038,771 9,519,338 9,818,605 3,779,834 63%
    AZ Maricopa County 20,457 663,510 3,072,149 3,817,117 3,153,607 475%
    TX Harris County 63,786 1,243,158 3,400,578 4,092,459 2,849,301 229%
    CA Orange County 19,696 703,925 2,846,289 3,010,232 2,306,307 328%
    CA San Diego County 35,090 1,033,011 2,813,833 3,095,313 2,062,302 200%
    CA Riverside County 17,897 306,191 1,545,387 2,189,641 1,883,450 615%
    NV Clark County – 127,016 1,375,765 1,951,269 1,824,253 1436%
    FL Dade County 4,955 935,047 2,253,362 2,496,435 1,561,388 167%
    CA San Bernardino County 27,929 503,591 1,709,434 2,035,210 1,531,619 304%
    TX Dallas County 82,726 951,527 2,218,899 2,368,139 1,416,612 149%
    FL Broward County – 333,946 1,623,018 1,748,066 1,414,120 423%
    TX Tarrant County 52,376 538,495 1,446,219 1,809,034 1,270,539 236%
    CA Santa Clara County 60,216 642,315 1,682,585 1,781,642 1,139,327 177%
    FL Palm Beach County – 228,106 1,131,184 1,320,134 1,092,028 479%
    TX Bexar County 69,422 687,151 1,392,931 1,714,773 1,027,622 150%
    WA King County 110,053 935,014 1,737,034 1,931,249 996,235 107%
    CA Sacramento County 45,915 502,778 1,223,499 1,418,788 916,010 182%
    FL Orange County 11,374 263,540 896,344 1,145,956 882,416 335%
    FL Hillsborough County 36,013 397,788 998,948 1,229,226 831,438 209%
    NY Suffolk County 77,582 666,784 1,419,369 1,493,350 826,566 124%
    TX Travis County 47,386 212,136 812,280 1,024,266 812,130 383%
    VA Fairfax County 18,580 275,002 969,749 1,081,726 806,724 293%
    GA Gwinnett County 25,585 43,541 588,448 805,321 761,780 1750%
    TX Collin County 50,087 41,247 491,675 782,341 741,094 1797%
    NC Wake County 54,626 169,082 627,846 900,993 731,911 433%
    AZ Pima County 14,689 265,660 843,746 980,263 714,603 269%
    NC Mecklenburg County 55,268 272,111 695,454 919,628 647,517 238%
    UT Salt Lake County 77,725 383,035 898,387 1,029,655 646,620 169%
    Table 4: Largest Relative Gains, 1960-2010
    Name
    1900
    1960
    2000
    2010
    Change 1960-2010
    Percent Change, 1960-2010
    CO Douglas County 3,120 4,816 175,766 285,465 280,649 5827%
    AZ Mohave County 3,426 7,736 155,032 200,186 192,450 2488%
    FL Flagler County – 4,566 49,832 95,696 91,130 1996%
    FL Collier County – 15,753 251,377 321,520 305,767 1941%
    TX Collin County 50,087 41,247 491,675 782,341 741,094 1797%
    GA Gwinnett County 25,585 43,541 588,448 805,321 761,780 1750%
    AK Matanuska-Susitna Borough – 5,188 59,322 88,995 83,807 1615%
    TX Montgomery County 17,067 26,839 293,768 455,746 428,907 1598%
    FL Hernando County 3,638 11,205 130,802 172,778 161,573 1442%
    NV Clark County – 127,016 1,375,765 1,951,269 1,824,253 1436%
    FL Citrus County 5,391 9,268 118,085 141,236 131,968 1424%
    TX Fort Bend County 16,538 40,527 354,452 585,375 544,848 1344%
    GA Forsyth County 11,550 12,170 98,407 175,511 163,341 1342%
    FL Osceola County 3,444 19,029 172,493 268,685 249,656 1312%
    TX Denton County 28,318 47,432 432,976 662,614 615,182 1297%
    CO Summit County 2,744 2,073 23,548 27,994 25,921 1250%
    NV Douglas County 1,534 3,481 41,259 46,997 43,516 1250%
    UT Washington County 4,612 10,271 90,354 138,115 127,844 1245%
    TX Rockwall County 8,531 5,878 43,080 78,337 72,459 1233%
    GA Fayette County 10,114 8,199 91,263 106,567 98,368 1200%
    VA Loudoun County 21,948 24,549 169,599 312,311 287,762 1172%
    FL Charlotte County – 12,594 141,627 159,978 147,384 1170%
    FL Pasco County 6,054 36,785 344,765 464,697 427,912 1163%
    TX Williamson County 38,072 35,044 249,967 422,679 387,635 1106%
    GA Henry County 18,602 17,619 119,341 203,922 186,303 1057%
    FL Lee County 3,071 54,539 440,888 618,754 564,215 1035%

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

  • The New Geography of Population Loss and Gain

    Dramatic shifts in population growth across the United States in the last decade should surprise no one. Some patterns are continuing trends of earlier decades, but other patterns show substantial change.  I show these changes in three ways, first a conventional choropleth map coloring counties by broad classes from high losses to moderate and high percent gain, second a map in which absolute gains and losses are depicted by proportional symbols, with colors showing the rate of change, and third, a look a counties that experienced either extreme loss and gain. 

    There are four major regions that experienced population loss. The largest covers the rural high plains from Texas to Canada, and most marked in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North and South Dakota, and eastern Montana in a continuation of at least 60 years, and no surprise, as farms get larger and more mechanized, small towns decline. Yet these losses are less pervasive than earlier, especially due to energy development in Wyoming, North and South Dakota and Montana, and energy and agricultural change in Oklahoma and Texas. 


    The second area of decline, also continuing a long historic trend, can be seen in the heavily African-American dominated areas in the Mississippi Delta, in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and across the Black belt, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, where significant development investment simply did not occur—race matters.

    Third, we see continued population reductions  across Appalachia from eastern Kentucky, through West Virginia, but this loss has now taken gotten more severe in western Pennsylvania and New York, largely due reductions in  mining and manufacturing as well as a dearth  of new investment.

    Fourth is decline across many urban as well as rural counties in the upper Midwest, in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, due to a complex mix of deindustrialization and related forces.

    Looking at losses from the map emphasizing absolute number of population change reduces the significance of the losses in the Plains, as most were small, reveals somewhat larger absolute losses in the Mississippi delta, and the specific Katrina-led losses in greater New Orleans. It highlights the concentration of larger losses in core metropolitan counties, not only in northern Appalachia and the upper Midwest, particularly in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, but also in other large cities, as St. Louis and Chicago.


    At least eight regions of significant growth can be described. Territorially, the most obvious can be seen in the Mountain stares, from Arizona, through Utah and much of Colorado, Wyoming into parts of Idaho and Montana. The reasons vary, from energy in Wyoming, to more amenity based growth in western Colorado and Montana, to broader, across the board expansions in Arizona, Utah and Idaho. The high fertility in the Mormon realm also played a role. Nevada is, well, Nevada.

    A second area of continuing growth is across the Pacific coast, but especially the entire I-5 corridor, the spillover counties surrounding Los Angeles, California’s Central valley, largely due to high Latino growth (which was a major factor way to the north in Washington state).

    Third is the continuing and large scale boom in and around the largest Texas cities, Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. All have enjoyed a combination of population and economic growth.

    Fourth is a pickup in growth from Oklahoma across the Ozarks, through northwestern Arkansas and across southern Missouri, from a mixture of industrial development and amenity migration.

    Fifth is a less expected belt of growth from the Chicago suburbs, across western Wisconsin, and Minnesota (especially northern), to Fargo, ND.

    Sixth is the never ending growth of Florida. Seventh is the continuing significant urban and industrial based growth in the middle South, from Tennessee and Kentucky, northern Georgia, through South and North Carolina, into Virginia. Then, eighth, is the high level of growth over what we might call the outer, exurban edges of Megalopolis, from Richmond, Virginia, to southern Maine.

    Looking at absolute gains from the second map shows a quite widespread geography of growth, many micropolitan and small metropolitan counties across the west registered  the highest rates of gain. Similarly across the Plains, while the greatest growth is in suburban counties around the Texas giants, growth was robust in many smaller metropolitan areas and cities, from the Mexican border up to Canada.  Likewise, in the upper Midwest, despite problem in the declining big city cores, growth was stronger in exurban and small metropolitan areas. Across the southeast, despite the stupendous growth around Atlanta, Nashville, Raleigh and Washington DC, the significant pattern is how widespread growth was across much of the region. Florida, too, perhaps grew less fast in its long time biggest cities, but is now filling up the remaining space!

    Finally Megalapolis is far from dormant. The old cores of Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston may be slow growing or even declining a little,but  the satellite and exurban belt show remarkable gains, especially in Maryland, Delaware and eastern Pennsylvania, in a kind of spillover of investment and residence to its outer limits.

    The Biggest Losers and Gainers

    Absolute losses: The largest loss numbers are in core counties of de-industrializing metropolitan areas in the north. Among just the 21 counties losing more than 10,000, Michigan has 3 for a loss of 260,000, Ohio, 6, for a loss of 228,000, and Pennsylvania 3, for a loss of 81,000. Others include Cook county (Chicago), St Louis city and county, Erie (Buffalo), and Baltimore. Greater New Orleans includes three counties, with a loss of 195,000. The one non-metropolitan county is highly African-American Washington County, MS (Greenville). Indeed, high Black concentration is a common denominator among all these areas.  Race continues to rule demography in much of the south.

    Relative losses:  Most of the counties with the highest loss rate (48 counties with over a 17 percent loss) are rural or small town. The only exceptions are Orleans and St. Bernard (New Orleans). States with high rate loss counties include Texas (7), Mississippi and North Dakota (6), Louisiana (5) Arkansas and Kansas (4), South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana and Alaska (2), and one each in Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and West Virginia.  The AR, LA and MS counties are heavily African American.

    Absolute Gains

    51 counties gained more than 100,000 residents. The top 11 are
    Wake, NC :: 273,000
    San Diego :: 281,000
    Collin, TX (Dallas suburb) :: 291,000
    Los Angeles :: 299,000
    Bexar (San Antonio :: 322,000
    San Bernardino :: 326,000
    Tarrant (Ft. Worth) :: 363,000
    Clark, NV (Las Vegas) :: 576,000
    Riverside :: 644,000
    Harris (Houston) :: 692,000
    Maricopa (Phoenix) :: 745,000

    Of the 51 big gainers, ALL are metropolitan, as the 12 in Texas gained 3,171,000, the 12 in California 2,640,000, 7 in Florida 1,335,000, two in North Carolina 497,000, three in Virginia 384,000, and two in Georgia 332000. Many of these counties are Sunbelt core counties, or satellite or spillover counties. Many are suburbs of large metropolitan centers. Of the 51, only 8 are in the “north” of the country (Illinois, Utah, Washington and northern California).

    Relative Gains

    The eight counties gaining more than 75% are
    Sumter, FL :: 75%
    Forsyth GA  ::  78
    Rockwall, TX :: 82
    Loudon, VA :: 84
    Lincoln, WY  :: 86
    Flagler, FL :: 92
    Pinal, AZ :: 109
    Kendall, IL :: 110

    Of the top 35 counties, gaining over 50 percent, Texas had seven, Georgia, six, Florida four, Utah 2, with one each in AK, AZ, CO,ID, IL, IN, IA, MS, NV,NC, OH, PA, SD, VA, WA and WY. Twenty-eight are metropolitan suburbs, three are new small metropolitan areas (FL UT), two are energy development areas (SD, WY) and two more environmental (PA, ID). Finally of the 35, 11 are in the North, 24 in the South.  Eight counties are in both the highest absolute and highest relative lists—Pinal, AZ, Douglas, CO, Loudon, VA, and five in Texas, Collin, Denton, Montgomery, Ft. Bend, and Williamson. Overall, in terms of growth, Texas wins.

    Conclusion

    I know a lot about population in the US, but still I’m glad I didn’t venture predictions ten years ago, as population change is more than a little unpredictable. Yes, Sunbelt growth was expected, but the details were sometimes as expected but there were unusual gains and losses. The data reviewed here are just the totals for redistricting, so no attempt was made to relate population change to economic change. Still, while some of the redistribution to the Sunbelt, or to the Mountain states was amenity or retirement driven, much more seems to be a consequence of massive shifts of industry and services from the higher cost north to the lower cost south. But there is a vast amount of talent and physical plant in these areas so I would not dare to predict that 2020 would be a simple continuation of the last decade.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

  • Stories from the 2010 Census: Race and Ethnic Change in Washington State

    The city of Seattle is an exceptional place. The 2010 census figures on race, ethnicity and age confirm this reputation. The main story from the census findings is the continued gentrification of Seattle, with displacement of minorities and the less affluent out of the center of the city, especially to south King county and Pierce county. The city core is becoming whiter, while the edges and suburbs, north and east as well as south are becoming far more diverse.

    A second part of the story is the overall increase in the minority population, both statewide and in central Puget Sound. I present six maps, the first four showing the census tracts with the highest shares of Black, Asian, Native American, Latino, and those with two or more races. The last two show change in the share of all minorities (or of whites, looking at it from that point of view) for the state and for the greater Seattle area, a remarkable summary of the new face of the metropolis.

    The Black share of the population, which did grow substantially in the decade, grew mainly in the very south end  of Seattle, south to Tukwila, a smaller area in south Tacoma, with belts over 10 percent Black covering much of central and south Seattle, south King county and much of Tacoma and Lakewood. Unlike the 1960s through 1980s, there is NO tract over half Black (the highest is 41 percent). Shares in most of the region remain well below 5 percent, rural small town areas below one percent.  Blacks and Asians are not well represented outside greater Seattle.

    The Asian population is much larger than the Black total, and higher shares are far more widespread. Unlike the concentration that has long existed on south Seattle’s Beacon Hill , the 2010 map shows equally high shares in many parts of the eastside, especially Bellevue and Redmond and Sammamish, and smaller areas in south King county and south Everett. The newer areas are also areas of high foreign born and immigration of professionals from Asia.

    Unlike the Black and Asian populations, the Native American and Latino populations are more prevalent outside the metropolitan Seattle core.  The Native American population resides mainly on official reservations, often dominating their census tracts. The largest area and population is associated with the Yakama nation in central Washington. The Latino population of the state increased 71 percent to 756,000 in 2010.  From the map, it’s clear that the Latino population follows the irrigated agriculture of the Columbia basin, including the small metropolitan areas of the Tri Cities (Kennewick-Richland-Pasco) and Yakima.

    The highest Latino shares in the metropolis are in south King county and Pierce county, rather similar to the pattern for African-Americans, but with a more westerly orientation in south Seattle  and Renton.  Native American populations remain quite concentrated in the recognized reservations, quite urban in Tacoma (Puyallup), suburban in Snohomish and King counties, and exurban in Kitsap county. About five percent of Washingtonians identify as of two or more races, a remarkable 47 percent increase. The main areas are most associated with the major military reservation , Ft. Lewis-Mc Chord in Pierce county, with lesser shares in highly diverse south Seattle and south King county.


    A map of all minorities would attest to the diversification of two parts of the state, the Columbia basin in eastern Washington, and the greater Seattle area, with up to half the urban footprint showing shares over 35 percent non-white, and with much of south King county and south Tacoma, and parts of Bellevue-Redmond now over 50 percent. This is a remarkable shift from an overwhelmingly white suburbia of 20 years earlier.

    Perhaps even more revealing has been the low share of minorities in professional, affluent, highly educated parts of Seattle— what analyst Aaron Renn has dubbed “the white city”.  Homogeneity also prevailed in far suburban, exurban and rural areas but these areas rarely lay much claim to be “multicultural.”

    The change in greater Seattle’s Black population reveals its continuing exodus/displacement from Seattle, and its continuing suburbanization.  Asians too experienced tremendous growth in the suburbs, especially in eastern King county and suburban Snohomish county. Change in the Latino population, like that of the Black population, is greatest in south King county, into south Tacoma, but also in the SR99 corridor in Snohomish county. Growth in both the Black and Latino populations follows that of less affluent housing markets than is evident in the areas with expanding Asian populations.

    The map of minority population change for the Seattle region highlights the exceptionalism of the city of Seattle.  Most observers would probably be drawn to the dramatic and obvious diversification of suburbia, in all directions, north, east and south of Seattle. But as a 55 year resident of Seattle, the most dramatic feature is that much of Seattle has become whiter or only slightly more diverse. In contrast  the bulk of the region has become more ethnically and racially complex . 

    The reasons for this redistribution are complex, but we know that the popularity of living in Seattle on the part of younger, less familial and more professional households, together with shifts in the housing stock away from family housing, was critical in making the central city less diverse and the rest of the region, and much of the state, more so.

    Diversity

    How can we measure diversity?. Usually it is  measured as the degree to which the shares of major racial and ethnic groups are equal. So maximum diversity for six groups (Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, Latinos, Whites, and those of two or more races, would be .167, if each group were one sixth. An area 100 percent of one race would have zero diversity or an index of 1.


    Viewed this way, the  2010 census may surprise the reader. Seattle has long been the most or among the few most diverse places in the state and many people probably believe it still is. But according to the 2010 census Seattle has been displaced by dozens of places in its own region! It has become slightly more diverse, as suburban cities, mainly but not only to the south have become markedly more diverse.  Many might also think eastern Washington, with its increasing Latino population, must be highly diverse. But no, the hotbed of diversity is from the southern part of Seattle, through south King County, to and beyond Tacoma.  Table 1 lists the most diverse places. The top six most diverse places are  just beyond the city of Seattle, and their diversity is amazingly high.  In Pierce County a belt of high diversity extends from Fife and the Puyallup reservation across south Tacoma to Lakewood, Parkland, Spanaway and Ft.Lewis-McChord.  This is truly a remarkable transformation.

    Most Diverse Urban Places in Washington
    Rank Place Diversity
    1 Tukwila 0.241
    2 Sea Tac 0.247
    3 BrynMawr-Skyway 0.249
    4 Boulevard Park 0.259
    5 White Center 0.264
    6 Riverton 0.273
    7 Fife 0.295
    8 Kent 0.312
    9 Renton 0.319
    10 Federal Way 0.324
    22 Tacoma 0.401
    40 Seattle 0.471

    Washington state and even greater Seattle are still much “whiter” than most other larger states. The exception has been a relatively high share of Asian people, due to our port of entry position from Asia.  But the last decade has been one of increasing diversity, especially in metropolitan suburbs and in eastern Washington.


    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

  • Washington State’s Evolving Demography

    Population change in the state of Washington has relevance to the nation and to other states because it tells us something about market preferences of households versus the orientation of planners (e.g., “smart growth”). It tells us much about gentrification and America’s changing racial and ethnic diversity.

    The summary will be in two parts. This piece will look at population growth and redistribution. A second article will review the growth of the minority population and its (surprising to some) redistribution and its relation to the gentrification of the city of Seattle, plus a look at the implications of ethnic change to Washington’s new 10th congressional district.

    Washington state and the greater Seattle region grew fairly vigorously 14% (838,000 new residents) in the decade, as they have most decades for over a century. This growth is unusually high for a “non Sunbelt” state. This growth is due not just the engine of Seattle, as eastern and western Washington also experienced substantial growth.

    Most smaller metropolitan areas across the state grew faster than the Seattle metropolitan core. Fast-growing counties are found in the east (Franklin 50%, the easy winner, Benton 23; Kittitas, 22; and Grant 20); all associated with Latino in-migration, as well as in the west (Clark, 23 %; suburban Portland, Mason, 23 percent; suburban Olympia, Thurston (Olympia) 22; Whatcom (Bellingham), 20; and Snohomish, finally, suburban Seattle, 18.

    There are two Washingtons: greater Seattle and the rest of the state, marked by a love and hate relationship. But the balance of power – and demography – is clearly changing in both. There were a few areas of slow growth or decline, as in the heart of the wheat country, but significant growth took place in other metropolitan areas, most notably the Tri-Cities, Vancouver (suburban Portland), Bellingham, Olympia (the state capitol) as well as Spokane, Yakima, and Wenatchee.

    There has been considerable population growth associated with the Columbia Basin project, fueled by heavy Latino in-migration and high birth rates. At the same time there has been population expansion in selected environmental amenity areas – often with retiree in-migration – in many counties across the state. Amenity fueled growth was dramatic in all directions beyond the metropolitan central Puget Sound core, but was also impressive in several areas in eastern Washington, as in Okanogan, Pend Oreille, and Stevens, the far north and northeast, and in Kittitas. Some of this growth comes from migration east from Seattle. Fourth, despite a growth management plan, metropolitan exurbs continue to expand, especially around Vancouver, Spokane, Bellingham and the Tri-Cities (black on the map, over 100% growth).

    Turning to central Puget Sound, the most dramatic growth (often over 100 percent), occurred at the far edge of the urban growth areas, and just beyond as exurban growth. This is true in absolute numbers as well as rates. Growth management and upzoning have been unable to stem this tide, for two main reasons rarely acknowledged by planners: the preference of families with children for single family houses and greater housing affordability, at least in some areas (for example, King county south and east of Seattle, and south into Pierce county). Growth was also impressive in most rural and exurban areas, especially in Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties, but far less in King county, which has by far the strictest growth controls

    At the same time, there was concentrated growth in already urban areas, city and suburban, as higher density apartment sprang up across much of Seattle, Tacoma, south King county, in some Eastside cities, and in the SR 99 corridor of Snohomish county north from Seattle.

    In Pierce, Snohomish and south King, some single family and small apartment growth occurred in less affluent areas, attracting many people, including young families who cannot afford to live closer to Seattle. Areas of slower growth tended to be military areas, some urban non-residential tracts, and some more affluent, older settled single family home areas, with an aging population. Growth in downtown Seattle and Bellevue, even Tacoma, was substantial, if not quite as great as planners envisioned. The current shift from home ownership to renting is leading some to project a projected apartment boom in or near downtown Seattle.

    It’s also interesting to look at density as a measure of “urban-ness”. The third map for density is at a finer block group level. Moderate urban densities from 1000 to 5000 per square mile are dominated by single family homes, areas between 5000 and 7000, by a mix of single family homes and apartments, and over 7000 by apartments, essentially the density goal of urbanist smart growth planning. Seattle really has achieved a substantial degree of such urbanness, dominating central Seattle, but spreading to all corners of the city. Other areas of higher density include the SR99 corridor in Snohomish county, especially south Everett, high tech suburbs to the east, and in south King county the SR 99 corridor again, in some less affluent suburbs, and in Pierce county, downtown Tacoma, and some of South Tacoma toward Ft. Lewis.

    But still more than half the urban footprint resists the officially preferred urban densities. Even with densification, redevelopment and the opening of the first light rail line, these higher density areas housed only 34 percent of the population of King county (up from 32 % in 2000), and only 10 % of the population of the people of the three suburban counties. The city of Seattle is exceptional, containing 52 percent of the high density tracts on the metropolitan area, although it has only one-sixth of the population.

    As the late great UW economist Charlie Tiebout told a seminar 50 years ago, “People vote with their feet” This is certainly true about residential choices. While perhaps twenty percent at most of Americans may prefer higher density living, for reasons of age, family status or ideology, the large majority does not and likely will not.

    To a leftist like me, the tragedy is how smart growth transfers wealth and the vaunted “quality of life” to the rich and the professionals, at the expense of the poor and of minorities. Sadly the Democratic party seems totally blind to the fact that the fixation on new urbanism contributes to the rightward backlash. Folks do not want to be told how to live, especially, dare I assert, when those hectoring them have already cornered the nicest parts of the region for themselves. Middle and working class families are not likely to embrace policies – beloved by affluent professionals – that would deny them a chance to own their preferred kind of residence at a reasonable price.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

  • Scenario Two: An Optimistic view of the United States future

    This is the second in a two part series exploring a pessimistic and an optimistic future for the United States. Part One appeared yesterday.

    A positive assessment of US prospects rests on at least seven propositions. First, the current crisis is not inherently more threatening than many others, most notably the Civil War, the Great Depression, and two World Wars. Quality leadership, building on the resilient political and economic institutions of the country, will prove sufficient to bring about needed sacrifices and transformations. We have seen this many times in the past from the Progressive Era to the New Deal, the Second World War and the winning of the Cold War, which was a uniquely bipartisan triumph.

    Second, despite the ongoing problems of racial inequality and tensions about immigration, the United States has been uniquely successful in having peacefully achieved a truly multi-racial and multi-ethnic state. It has welcomed waves of diverse immigrants, and integrated them into a broader, ever changing society. This process has culminated symbolically and literally in the election of a multi-racial president, Barack Obama.

    Third, economic corruption and financial crises have been recurring phenomena, and the nation has emerged out of these because of the sheer magnitude of talent and natural resources. This has been aided by a deep entrepreneurial capacity and willingness to take risks, and, overall, a willingness of most to work hard to improve life for themselves and their families.

    Fourth is the existence of a large and literate population, willing to work, certainly the world’s finest university system and research establishment, over and over again engendering innovations that create future economies: e.g., the computer revolution. American secondary education is still in need of great improvement, but the US University remains a beacon to talent from around the world.

    Fifth, despite the noise and uproar, despite the continuing clash between the traditional and the modern or secular, the nation, through its independent courts and helped by governmental decentralization, e.g. the Federal system, the country remains the freest society in human history. Despite the appearance of power of the religious right under the Republicans since the 1970s, serious erosion in freedom of thought has been kept to a minimum. Similarly, the cult of political correctness, although annoying, has become, if anything, less potent and increasingly the butt of jokes.

    Sixth, and perhaps most important, we have to consider demography. Despite current unemployment and despite the imminent retirement of the baby boomer generation, the United States, alone among the richest economies, will continue to have a relatively favorable ratio of wage earners to the elderly. This will enable us to afford social security and Medicare. The new generation – known as millennials – will constitute a large source of new labor, innovation and entrepreneurs needed to propel our economy.

    Finally, there are a few positive trends, including modest recovery in housing and in auto sales, hints of some pulling back from the out-sourcing of services, and continuing innovation and marketing of new products and services. On the political side, although the current anti-incumbent mood will likely reduce Democratic margins in Congress and in several states in 2010, the sheer lunacy of the “tea party“ activists, many of them unreconstructed “know nothings” may actually hurt the Republican party more than the Democrats. People are constantly being reminded why, for all the failings of the Democrats, they tossed the Republicans from power in the first place.

    An optimistic scenario rests on the historical precedent of muddling through crises and then creating new waves of innovation in products and services, and on the presence of a large labor force willing and able to work. A vital question is whether the President and Congress will have the courage to ask voters to make short-term sacrifices: higher income taxes on the rich and reduced subsidies to entrenched interests across the board that will be needed to restore fiscal health. And finally there is the big question, are the American people ready to do with less today to build a better future for the next generation?

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

    Photo: elycefeliz

  • Scenario One: A Pessimistic Forecast for the United States

    This is the first in a two part series exploring a pessimistic and an optimistic future for the United States. Part Two will appear tomorrow.

    I’m an old (76) 1950s type liberal, and have lived to see the election on the nation’s first mixed-race president, as well as some remarkable social change in the general status of women and ethnic minorities. The United States has a remarkable heritage of entrepreneurship and resilience in its democratic institutions. Yet there are cogent reasons to be fearful and pessimistic about our capacity to maintain our preeminence, at least in the medium run (10-15 years). I obviously hope I’m wrong, and look forward to attempts to undermine my thesis – including, tomorrow, my own.

    Consider the numbers 17, 49 and 60. Seventeen is the real unemployment rate, not the “official” ten, when we take into account those dropping out of the labor force, or giving up. Forty-nine is the real percentage of home ownership, in our “ownership” society, not the 68 percent from the census. For mighty Los Angeles, the real number is 44 percent. The difference is the stupendous number of households whose equity in the house is less than they owe on the mortgage. This house of cards has increasingly been the engine of national growth. Sixty is the number of votes in the US Senate needed to stop a filibuster, and together with inept leadership, is responsible for the absurd failure of Congress and the effective collapse of collegial democracy.

    Economists say we are in a recovery. What recovery? The small increase in house sales is due to temporary incentives, but including speculators buying up homes, many foreclosed, for yet greater inequality. The main gains in jobs, not fully offsetting wider losses, are in temporary construction tied to government-funded projects. The growth in jobs and the economy in the last 20 years has been in services, stuff we do for each other, and the main fuel has been the pyramiding of house values. That is over. How can we restore growth through more consumption if the majority of the population no longer has the resources to invest or spend?

    By far the most destructive accomplishment of almost 30 years of restructuring has been the reestablishment of extreme inequality, the emergence and power of the ultra-rich, both “progressive” and conservative in orientation, to levels last seen before the Great Depression.

    But perhaps the greater root of our malaise, and perhaps the downfall of the American Empire, lies in excessive globalization and the loss of our capacity to make stuff, the outsourcing of, first, manufacturing and now even of services. It is instructive that this is the same story of imperial Rome, although long dependent on its empire, by the time of its collapse it imported virtually everything from its tributary states. Its finances could no longer pay the Army which was largely made up of people from outside Italy.

    I’d agree that the main hope in the economic arena is via the small entrepreneur, but they face the immense monopolistic power of ever-larger global capital. I’m proud to live in Seattle, which at least dared to fight back, as in the one and only US general strike, in 1919, and in the WTO protests in 1999. Perhaps this is not so surprising since Seattle still makes things: planes (Boeing), ships (Todd) and trucks (PACCAR).

    The saddest irony is that even as maybe half of us celebrate a Black president, we have utterly failed to follow up on the political civil rights gains on the 1960s to incorporate Black Americans into the mainstream economy. The status of the Black male is, relatively, worse in 2009 than it was in 1969. I would not be surprised to see a reprise of the 1960s race riots. But it is also relevant to reflect on the declining state of the white male, suffering increased drop-out rates from high school, declining enrollments in college, all in the face of reduced job opportunities for the less skilled and educated, plus competition from immigrants, legal and illegal. Is it any wonder that both nativism and populism is rising anew?

    One might dare to believe that large Democratic majorities in Congress would give us hope for effective responses to this national malaise. But I’d say the current Congress rivals the infamous 80th congress that Harry Truman excoriated, for its “do nothingness”. On the surface we can correctly observe that the Republican party, increasingly conservative, is more than willing to wreck the country in order to regain power.

    But part of the problem is that we no longer have a conservative and a liberal party, in an economic sense. We have two bourgeois parties, with the “new” Democratic Party increasingly dependent on the wealthy educated elite as well as well-paid public workers, it long ago abandoned the working class and did nothing to constrain globalization and the rise of the toxic financial practices. Thus we should not be surprised that the populist know-nothing uprising could bring to power large numbers of proudly uneducated folks.

    In the final analysis for this pessimistic scenario, the underlying culprit is the inexcusable failure of the US educational establishment, the astounding incapacity of our public and private schools to teach people to think and reason. And part of the reason for this incapacity is the excessive power of religion, which values belief over reason, in our culture. And this is why decadent Europe – aging and tax-burdened – could come out of this recession and malaise better than the United States. Perhaps we’ll see a reverse migration of surplus underemployed young Americans returning to their aging historic motherlands!

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

    Photo: hz536n