New Geography

Author: Wendell Cox

  • Toward More Competitive Canadian Metropolitan Areas

    The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCN) and the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) have expressed serious concern about generally longer commute trip times making Canadian metropolitan areas less competitive. Each has called for additional funding for transit at the federal level to help reduce commute times and improve metropolitan competitiveness.

    The Right Concern

    The concern over commute times is well placed. Economic research generally concludes that greater economic and employment growth is likely where people can quickly reach their jobs in the metropolitan area. Five of the nation’s six major metropolitan areas (Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa-Gatineau and Calgary) have average one-way work trip travel times that are among the highest in their size classes among 109 metropolitan areas in the more developed world for which data is available. Only Edmonton has an average commute time that is among the shortest (Table 1).

    Table 1
    Average One-way Commute Times: Major Metropolitan Areas
    Compared with International Major Metropolitan Areas
    Major Metropolitan Area One-way Commute Time (Minutes) Overall One-way Commute: Rank out of 109 One-way Commute: Rank in Population Class
    Population Size Class
    Toronto 33 97th  Over 5,000,000 11th out of 19
    Montréal 31 90th  2,500,000 – 5,000,000 19th out of 23
    Vancouver 30 86th  1,000,000 – 2,500,000 60th out of 67
    Ottawa-Gatineau 27 60th  1,000,000 – 2,500,000 55th out of 67
    Calgary 26 58th  1,000,000 – 2,500,000 50th out of 67
    Edmonton 23 15th  1,000,000 – 2,500,000 15th out of 67

     

    The Wrong Answer

    Yet the solution – more transit and funding for transit – misses the mark. Transit does many things well, but it does not reduce commute times (Figure 1). According to Statistics Canada, average commute times by transit in the Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver metropolitan areas are from 30 per cent longer to nearly double those of average automobile commuters (Note 2). Some 58 percent of car users (drivers and passengers) reach their work locations in under 30 minutes, something accomplished by merely y 25 percent of transit commuters. Overall Toronto commute times are longer than either Los Angeles – famed for its traffic – as well as much less dense, and far less transit dependent, Dallas-Fort Worth. In Toronto, 21 percent of commuters take transit, compared to two percent in Dallas-Fort Worth. Among Montréal commuters, 20 percent use transit and spend more time commuting than their counterparts in more decentralized Phoenix, where less than two percent take transit. Commute times in transit-focused Vancouver are worse than much larger Los Angeles and indeed longer than nearly American metropolitan area, including Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and Philadelphia (Table 2).

    Given this pattern, transferring car travel to transit likely would increase commute times and make metropolitan areas even less competitive.

    Table 2
    30- and 40-minute Commute Shares:
    Representative Metropolitan Areas
    Population Classification Work Trip Under 30 Minutes Work Trip 30 to 44 Minutes Work Trip Under 45 Minutes
    5,000,000 and Over      
    Dallas-Fort Worth 59% 24% 83%
    Los Angeles 55% 24% 79%
    Toronto 48% 25% 73%
    Paris 45% 22% 67%
    2,500,000 – 5,000,000      
    Phoenix 57% 26% 83%
    Montréal 47% 27% 74%
    1,000,000 – 2,500,000       
    Edmonton 68% 20% 88%
    Indianapolis 66% 22% 88%
    Ottawa-Gatineau 65% 21% 86%
    Tampa-St. Petersburg 62% 22% 84%
    Calgary 54% 29% 83%
    Vancouver 55% 21% 76%
    Source: Statistics Canada, U.S. American Community Survey, National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (France)

     

    The Geography of Transit

    Rational Transit and Downtown:Transit’s greatest strength is in providing access to the largest downtown areas. These areas have the greatest job densities (jobs per square kilometre) in their metropolitan areas and are typically well served by frequent, rapid and convenient transit service from throughout the metropolitan area. This combination of high employment density and superior transit service attracts one-half or more of all downtown commuters in Canada’s major metropolitan areas to transit (Figure 2). Transit is meets the needs of people who commute to downtown and is the rational choice for many, if not most. However, downtowns contain only a relatively small share (14 per cent) of metropolitan area jobs (Figure 3).

    Rational Personal Mobility Elsewhere: Areas outside downtown lack any such intense concentration of jobs. The area outside downtown, accounting for 6 out of every 7 jobs (Figure 4), maintain much lower employment densities and generally lacks transit service. This is illustrated by the nation’s largest employment center, which surrounds Pearson International Airport in Toronto. Its more than 350,000 employees are spread around an area the size of city of Vancouver (or the city of San Francisco) at a density so low that quick and efficient transit is simply impossible.

    For the overwhelming share of work trips to outside the downtown area, the car does the job and transit accounts for less than 10 percent of commuters. Thus, the automobile is the rational choice for most people who commute to locations outside downtown. And things are not getting better for transit. According to Statistics Canada, employment has been growing much faster outside of downtown than in the high density core areas suited for transit. The 2011 census indicated a continuing dispersion of population as well.

     

    Transit’s Robust Funding Growth and Declining Productivity

    Strongly Rising Transit Subsidies: Transit subsidies have been growing strongly. According to Transport Canada data, from 1999 to 2008 subsidies grew 83 percent (adjusted for inflation), which is more than three times the 26 percent ridership growth rate and 3.5 times the rate of general inflation. Transit’s declining productivity could indicate a substantial potential for improved cost effectiveness and service expansion within the generous present funding levels.

    Declining Transit Productivity: At the same time, there are concerns about transit productivity. The Conference Board of Canada has documented a 1.2 percent annual decline in productivity for two decades. The same analysis found productivity in other transport sectors to be generally improving. Transit costs have risen well in excess of inflation, service levels and ridership. Rising costs seriously limit transit’s ability to increase its share of travel in metropolitan areas and limits the important role that it is called upon to play in providing door-to-door mobility for the transportation-impaired, such as disabled citizens, the elderly, and students.

    Land Use Strategies that Retard Metropolitan Competitiveness

    Policies that Could Make Metropolitan Areas Less Competitive: While the prospects for improving transit commute times are discouraging, some current land use strategies further increase traffic congestion and lengthen commute times and make metropolitan areas and make metropolitan areas less competitive . Compact cities (also called smart growth) policies have been adopted across Canada in an effort to reduce automobile use and increase urban densities. The planning expectation is that housing should be placed near rail stations. Yet job locations throughout metropolitan areas remain highly dispersed, and with the rise of working at home, are becoming more so. The potential for transit systems (or walking or cycling) to materially impact commuting is very limited in the least.

    International data indicate that higher densities are associated with greater traffic congestion. Further, higher traffic densities are strongly associated with higher levels of air pollution. Improvements in vehicle technology will make reductions in automobile use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unnecessary, according to U.S. research by McKinsey & Company. Finally, smart growth type policies have been found to retard metropolitan economic growth in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States (Note 2).

    Improving Metropolitan Competitiveness

    Strategies that reduce commute times can improve metropolitan competitiveness. Expanded telecommuting reduces average commute times by its very nature (though the reported commute times routinely exclude the working at home sector, both in Canada and the US). There are also lessons to be learned from Edmonton and the international metropolitan areas that have been more successful in maintaining shorter commutes: more dispersed employment, lower population densities and a larger share of travel by car (Table 3).

    Table 3
    Comparison of Canadian and U.S. Major Metropolitan Areas
    Average One-way Commute Times and Urban Area Densities
     
    CANADA Canada Metropolitan Areas United States: Metropolitan Area Size Classes
    Commute Time Principal Population Centre Density (per KM2) Average Commute Time Average Principal Population Centre Density (per KM2)
    5,000,000 and Over        
    Toronto 33 2,900 28 1,400
    2,500,000 – 5,000,000        
    Montréal 31 2,200 26 1,200
    1,000,000 – 2,500,00        
    Vancouver 30 1,900 23 1,100
    Ottawa-Gatineau 27 1,900
    Calgary 26 1,600
    Edmonton 23 1,100
    Principal Population Centre: Largest population centre (Statistics Canada term for urban area) in the metropolitan area.

     

    Focusing on Objectives: To become more competitive, Canada’s metropolitan areas need to improve their average commute times. This requires focusing on strategies that have the highest potential to reduce traffic congestion.

    Residents and businesses in metropolitan areas would be best served by goal-oriented and objective policies squarely directed toward getting people to work faster. The focus should be on what makes commutes shorter, regardless of transport mode, rather than on idealistic notions of how a city should look or how people should travel.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”.

    –––

    Note: This article is based upon the recently released Frontier Centre for Public Policy report Improving the Competitiveness of Metropolitan Areas by Wendell Cox, who also serves as a senior fellow at the Centre.

    Note 1: Data not provided for other metropolitan areas.

    Note 2: On a related note, the Bank of Canada (the central bank) and others have indicated a concern about rising house costs relative to incomes. This is to be expected in metropolitan areas adopting green belts, urban growth boundaries and other land rationing policies. Huge housing price increases have occurred in Vancouver, Toronto, Montréal and Calgary (for example), in response to such policies (This is evident from the annual editions of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, sponsored in Canada by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy). The Bank of Canada may be virtually powerless to slow this loss of housing affordability, since its cause (constraining metropolitan land supply) is beyond the reach of the Bank’s monetary policies.

    Photo: Suburban Montreal (by author)

  • Manila Shantytown Fire: 800 Homes Destroyed, 10,000 Homeless

    London’s Daily Mail reports upon a May 11 fire in a shantytown (informal, illegal settlement) destroyed 800 dwellings and left 10,000 people homeless. The Mail article included 17 photographs of the fire, the ruins  people looking for belongings in ash suffused waters and man who has rescued a cat in debris filled waters. The fire occured in the Tondo district, which is two miles from downtown Manila on Manila Bay and two miles from the Doroteo Jose station on the Manila urban rail system as well as the principal commuter rail station.

    More than 4,000,000 – more than one-third – of Manila’s (National Capital Region) residents live in slums, shantytowns and informal settlements. Government projections indicate that the slum population will rise to 9,000,000 by 2050. More than one-half of Manila’s population will be in slums.

  • Observations on Exurban Trends

    Getting the Migration Story Straight: Analysts continue to misunderstand the recent metropolitan area census estimates. Much of the misunderstanding arises from a misinterpretation of a chart produced by the Brookings Institution, which indicates that the rate of population growth has fallen in exurban counties and was, last year, less than the rate of growth in what Brookings calls emerging suburbs and "city/high density suburbs." However, the Brookings chart characterizes  only total population growth, which is the combination of the natural growth rate, net international migration and net domestic migration. In other words, the Brookings Institution chart includes both people who move between areas of the United States and the net of those who move from outside the United States, are born or died.

    Perhaps the most befuddled was the Arch Daily, which says that "people are leaving the suburbs and once again flocking to the cities…"  In fact exurban and suburban areas continue to grow, though their growth rates have fallen. The highly touted decline in exurban growth rates is for one year only (2010-2011) and represents only the first year in the last 20 that the exurban has trailed that of the "city/high density suburbs." It is also the first year out of the last 20 that the "city/high density suburbs" did not trail both the suburbs and exurbs.

    However, aggregate growth rates say nothing about moving to or from cities. Only one of the components of population change, domestic migration, can possibility indicate movement from the suburbs and exurbs to the cities. People who migrate from outside the nation, for example, are not moving from suburbs to the city (the suburbs of Paris don’t count). People who are born or die are not migrating from the suburbs to the cities (where they might come from or are going has been the source of endless debate through history). The only people who can possibly be moving from suburbs and exurbs to the city are domestic migrants —people who move within the United states.

    Figure 1 indicates the components of population change in the core counties of the nation’s 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population (there are no city level migration data).

    • There was a net gain in natural growth of 556,000 (births minus deaths)
    • There was a net gain in international migration of 295,000 (people who moved from outside the nation to the core counties.
    • There was a net loss in domestic migrants of 67,000. These US residents moved  away from the core counties.

    As we indicated in Still Moving to the Suburbs and Exurbs: The 2011 Census Estimates, there was net domestic migration to the suburbs and exurbs between 2010 and 2011. There was net domestic migration out of the central counties (there is no "city" migration data). This is illustrated in Figure 2, which has been annotated to make the actual moving of people clear.

    If it should ever occur, it will be very clear when people are moving to the cores from the suburbs and exurbs. There will be PLUS domestic migration numbers to the core counties and MINUS domestic migration numbers from the suburbs and exurbs. Until that time any flocking (though that is too strong a word for current trends) will be away from the cores and to the suburbs and exurbs.

    Of course, in the greatest economic downturn in more than 75 years, domestic migration has slowed considerably. It is not surprising, therefore that population growth rates in the exurbs and suburbs have fallen, since far fewer people are moving.

    All Domestic Migration was to the Suburbs: Finally, all of the net domestic migration in the nation was to the suburbs and exurbs of the nation’s major metropolitan areas (Also see Figure 2).

    On the Health of Exurban Housing Markets

    On a related subject, University of South Florida Professor Steven Polzin offered an interesting comment on the Planetizen site:

    While I have not explicitly researched the distribution of home foreclosures as a function of the transportation costs of residents, I would caution analysts to more fully explore the nature of the housing foreclosure trend before jumping to the assumption that transportation costs were a significant contributor to geographically differential rates of foreclosure. Foreclosures were more prominent in homes purchased more recently relative to the housing crash. These new home purchasers were more often highly leveraged, had little equity in their home, and in many cases younger workers with less job seniority and more susceptible to layoffs. In addition, in fringe areas that had been growing there was a high concentration of homes all purchased recently. Thus, new growth areas were more susceptible to both foreclosures and the cascading effect of home depreciation spreading based on nearby foreclosed properties.

    In a new suburb a young financially extended family may lose their job, have no equity in the house and quickly lose their house. Its depreciated value is soon reflected in adjacent appraisals cascading the stress throughout relatively fragile neighborhoods. On the other hand in established neighborhoods only a relatively small share of the homes changed hands near the peak of the building bubble. Thus, many of those homeowners had far more equity in their home and perhaps more job seniority and security enabling them to whether a housing downturn. In addition, the diversity of home ages and types and the less frequent occurrence of foreclosed properties will control the pace at which home value depreciation will cascade through the neighborhood.

    If commuting cost was as big a contributor to suburban fringe foreclosure rates then one would have expected downtown condominiums to weather the housing bubble. In many locations like Florida large clusters of new downtown residential properties suffered the same rapid depreciation as did suburban fringe areas. The concentration of new units seemed to be more critical than the location.

    Similar sentiments have been posted on these pages from time to time, such as here and here.

  • The Export Business in California (People and Jobs)

    California Senate President Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg countered my Wall Street Journal commentary California Declares War on Suburbia in a letter to the editor (A Bold Plan for Sustainable California Communities) that could be interpreted as suggesting that all is well in the Golden State. The letter suggests that business are not being driven away to other states and that the state is "good at producing high-wage jobs," while pointing to the state’s 10 percent growth over the last decade. Senate President Steinberg further notes that the urban planning law he authored (Senate Bill 375) is leading greater housing choices and greater access to transit.

    This may be a description of the California past, but not present.

    Exporting People

    Yes, California continues to grow. California is growing only because there are more births than deaths and the state had a net large influx of international immigration over the past decade. At the same time, the state has been hemorrhaging residents (Figure 1).

    Californians are leaving. Between 2000 and 2009 (Note), a net 1.5 million Californians left for other states. Only New York lost more of its residents (1.6 million). California’s loss was greater than the population of its second largest municipality, San Diego. More Californians moved away than lived in 12 states at the beginning of the decade. Among the net 6.3 million interstate domestic migrants in the nation, nearly one-quarter fled California for somewhere else.

    The bulk of the exodus was from the premier coastal metropolitan areas. Since World War II, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose have been among the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States and the high-income world. Over the last decade, this growth has slowed substantially, as residents have moved to places that, all things being considered, have become their preferences.

    More than a net 1.35 million residents left the Los Angeles metropolitan area, or approximately 11 percent of the 2000 population. The San Jose metropolitan area lost 240,000 residents, nearly 14 percent of its 2000 population. These two metropolitan areas ranked among the bottom two of the 51largest metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 population) in the percentage of lost domestic migrants during the period. The San Francisco metropolitan area lost 340,000 residents, more than 8 percent of its 2000 population and ranked 47th worst in domestic migration (New York placed worse than San Francisco but better than Los Angeles). Each of these three metropolitan areas lost domestic migrants at a rate faster than that of Rust Belt basket cases Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo.

    San Diego lost the fewest of the large coastal metropolitan areas (125,000). Even this was double the rate of Rust Belt Pittsburgh.

    Exporting Jobs

    California is no longer an incubator of high-wage jobs. The state lost 370,000 jobs paying 25 percent or more of the average wage between 2000 and 2008. This compares to a 770,000 increase in the previous 8 years. California is trailing Texas badly and the nation overall in creating criticial STEM jobs and middle skills jobs (Figures 2 & 3) Only two states have higher unemployment rates than California (Nevada and Rhode Island) . California has the second highest underemployment rate (20.8 percent), which includes the number of unemployed, plus those who have given up looking for work ("discouraged" workers) and those who are working only part time because they cannot find full time work. Only Nevada, with its economy that is overly-dependent on California, has a higher underemployment rate.


    Business relocation coach Joseph Vranich conducts an annual census of companies moving jobs out of California and found a quickening pace in 2012. Often these are the very kinds of companies capable of creating the high-wage jobs that used to be California’s forte. Vranich says that the actual number may be five times as high, which is not surprising, not least because there is no reliable compilation of off-shoring of jobs to places like Bangalore, Manila or Cordoba (Argentina).

    To make matters worse, California is becoming less educated. California’s share of younger people with college degrees is now about in the middle of the states, while older, now retiring Californians are among the most educated in the nation (Figure 4).

    Denying Housing Choice

    It is fantasy to believe, as Steinberg claims, that there are enough single family (detached) houses in the state to meet the demand for years to come. More than 80 percent of the new households in the state chose detached housing over the last decade. People’s actual choices define the market, not the theories or preferences of planners often contemptuous of the dominant suburban lifestyle.

    In contrast, however, the regional plans adopted or under consideration in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego would require nearly all new housing be multi-family, at five to 10 times normal California densities (20 or more units to the acre are being called for). New detached housing on the urban fringe would be virtually outlawed by these plans. And, when Sacramento does not find the regional plans dense enough, state officials (such as the last two state Attorneys General) are quick to sue. If the "enough detached housing" fantasy held any water, state officials and planners would not be seeking its legal prohibition. To call outlawing the revealed choice of the 80 percent (detached housing) would justify the equivalent of a Nobel Prize in Doublespeak.

    At the same time by limiting the amount of land on which the state preferred high density housing must be built, land and house prices can be expected to rise even further from their already elevated levels (already largely the result of California’s pre-SB 375 regulatory restrictions).

    Transit Rhetoric and Reality

    Transit is important in some markets. About one-half of commuters to downtown San Francisco use transit. The assumptions of SB 375 might make sense if all of California looked like downtown San Francisco. It doesn’t, nor does even most of the San Francisco metropolitan area. Only about 15 percent of employment is downtown, while the 85 percent (and nearly all jobs in the rest of the state) simply cannot be reached by transit in a time that competes with the car. Even in the wealthy San Jose area (Silicon Valley), with its light rail lines and commuter rail line, having a transit stop nearby provides 45 minute transit access to less than 10 percent of jobs in the metropolitan area.

    A recent Brookings Institution report showed that the average commuter in the four large coastal metropolitan areas can reach only 6.5 percent of the jobs in a 45 minute transit commute. This is despite the fact that more than 90 percent of residents can walk to transit stops. Even when transit is close, you can’t get there from here in most cases in any practical sense (Figure 5).

    SB 375 did little to change this. For example, San Diego plans to spend more than 50 percent of its transportation money on transit over the next 40 years. This is 25 times transit’s share of travel (which is less than 2 percent). Yet, planners forecast that all of this spending will still leave 7 out of 8 work and higher education trips inaccessible by transit in 30 minutes in 2050. Already 60 to 80 percent of work trips in California are completed by car in 45 minutes and the average travel time is about 25 minutes.

    For years, planners have embraced the ideal of balancing jobs and housing, so that people would live near where they work, while minimizing travel distances. This philosophy strongly drives the new SB 375 regional plans. What these plans miss is that people choose where to work from the great array of opportunities available throughout the metropolitan area. These varied employment opportunities that are the very reason that large metropolitan areas exist, according to former World Bank principal planner Alain Bertaud.

    People change jobs far more frequently than before and multiple earners in households are likely to work far apart. Similar intentions led to the development up to four decades ago of centers like Tensta in Stockholm, which ended up as concentrated low income areas (Photo). It California, such a concentration would do little to improve transit ridership, even low-income citizens are four to 10 times as likely use cars to get to work than to use transit.


    Tensta Transit Oriented Development: Stockholm

    All of this means more traffic congestion and more intense local air pollution, because higher population densities are associated with greater traffic congestion. Residents of the new denser housing would face negative health effects because there is more intense air pollution, especially along congested traffic corridors.

    Self-Inflicted Wounds

    Worst of all, California’s radical housing and transportation strategies are unnecessary. The unbalanced and one-dimensional pursuit of an idealized sustainability damages both quality of life and the economy. This is exacerbated by other issues, especially the state’s dysfunctional economic and tax policies. It is no wonder California is exporting so many people and jobs. California’s urban planning regime under SB 375 is poised to make it worse.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”.

    Net Domestic Migration: 2000-2009
    Rank Metropolitan Area Net Domestic Migration Compared to 2000 Population
    1 Raleigh, NC         194,361 24.2%
    2 Las Vegas, NV         311,463 22.4%
    3 Charlotte, NC-SC         248,379 18.5%
    4 Austin, TX         234,239 18.5%
    5 Phoenix, AZ         543,409 16.6%
    6 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA         469,093 14.3%
    7 Orlando, FL         225,259 13.6%
    8 Jacksonville, FL         126,766 11.3%
    9 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL         260,333 10.8%
    10 San Antonio, TX         177,447 10.3%
    11 Atlanta, GA         428,620 10.0%
    12 Nashville, TN         123,199 9.4%
    13 Sacramento, CA         141,117 7.8%
    14 Richmond, VA           75,886 6.9%
    15 Portland, OR-WA         121,957 6.3%
    16 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX         317,062 6.1%
    17 Houston, TX         243,567 5.1%
    18 Indianapolis. IN           72,517 4.7%
    19 Oklahoma City, OK           41,082 3.7%
    20 Denver, CO           66,269 3.0%
    21 Louisville, KY-IN           34,381 3.0%
    22 Birmingham, AL           26,934 2.6%
    23 Columbus, OH           34,204 2.1%
    24 Kansas City, MO-KS           31,747 1.7%
    25 Seattle, WA           40,741 1.3%
    26 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI          (19,731) -0.7%
    27 Memphis, TN-MS-AR            (8,583) -0.7%
    28 Hartford, CT            (9,349) -0.8%
    29 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN          (17,648) -0.9%
    30 Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC          (20,005) -1.3%
    31 Baltimore, MD          (36,407) -1.4%
    32 St. Louis, MO-IL          (43,750) -1.6%
    33 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD        (115,890) -2.0%
    34 Pittsburgh, PA          (52,028) -2.1%
    35 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV        (107,305) -2.2%
    36 Providence, RI-MA          (49,168) -3.1%
    37 Salt Lake City, UT          (34,428) -3.5%
    38 Rochester, NY          (40,219) -3.9%
    39 San Diego, CA        (126,860) -4.5%
    40 Buffalo, NY          (55,162) -4.7%
    41 Milwaukee,WI          (74,453) -5.0%
    42 Boston, MA-NH        (235,915) -5.4%
    43 Miami, FL        (287,135) -5.7%
    44 Chicago, IL-IN-WI        (561,670) -6.2%
    45 Cleveland, OH        (136,943) -6.4%
    46 Detroit,  MI        (366,790) -8.2%
    47 San Francisco-Oakland, CA        (347,375) -8.4%
    48 New York, NY-NJ-PA     (1,962,055) -10.7%
    49 Los Angeles, CA     (1,365,120) -11.0%
    50 San Jose, CA        (240,012) -13.8%
    51 New Orleans, LA        (301,731) -22.9%
    Data from US Census Bureau

     

    —–

    Note:  2000 to 2010 data not available

    Lead photo: Largely illegal to build housing under California Senate Bill 375 planning

  • World Urban Areas Population and Density: A 2012 Update

    The latest edition of Demographia World Urban Areas has just been released. The publication includes population estimates, urban land area estimates and urban densities for all nearly 850 identified urban areas in the world with a population of 500,000 or more. These urban areas account for approximately 48% of the world’s urban population. Overall, data is provided for approximately 1500 urban areas, comprising approximately 1.9 billion people, or 52% of the world’s urban population.

    Urban areas (or urban agglomerations) are areas of continuous urban development within a metropolitan area (labor market area), and are the physical form of that constitutes the essence a city. Generally, urban areas can be identified by the lights one would see from an airplane at night or in a satellite photograph. Urban areas are not metropolitan areas, which represent the economic or functional form of a city. Urban areas are a component of metropolitan areas, the other component of which is non-urban or rural territory. A metropolitan area is the combination of the urban area(s) and rural areas, which together comprise the economic region or labor market (commute shed).

    Over the last year, new census reports have become available in such nations as India, Indonesia, China, Canada, Bangladesh, the United States and South Korea. The new data has resulted in a number of ranking changes from before.

    The Megacities: In 2012, 26 urban areas qualify as megacities (Rental Car Tours for 24 of the megacities are available), with populations of greater than 10 million people (Table). As has been the case for nearly six decades, Tokyo remains the largest urban area in the world, with approximately 37 million. New York, which Tokyo displaced in 1955, has fallen to seventh largest and has the lowest population density of any megacity, at 4600 per square mile or 1800 per square kilometer (Note 2). London, which New York displaced in the 1920s never became a megacity due to the imposition of its greenbelt. Instead urbanization leapfrogged into the exurbs of southeast England, where all of the London area’s net population growth has occurred since World War II (London ranked third as late as 1960).  

    Table 1          
    LARGEST URBAN AREAS IN THE WORLD (MEGACITIES): Estimated 2012
    (Over 10,000,000 Population)          
             
    Rank Geography Urban Area Population Estimate Land Area: Square Miles Density Land Area: Km2 Density
    1 Japan Tokyo-Yokohama 37,126,000 3,300 11,300 8,547 4,300
    2 Indonesia Jakarta 26,063,000 1,075 24,200 2,784 9,400
    3 South Korea Seoul-Incheon 22,547,000 835 27,000 2,163 10,400
    4 India Delhi, DL-HR-UP 22,242,000 750 29,700 1,943 11,500
    5 Philippines Manila 21,951,000 550 39,900 1,425 15,400
    6 China Shanghai, SHG 20,860,000 1,350 15,500 3,497 6,000
    7 United States New York, NY-NJ-CT 20,464,000 4,495 4,600 11,642 1,800
    8 Brazil Sao Paulo 20,186,000 1,225 16,500 3,173 6,400
    9 Mexico Mexico City 19,463,000 790 24,600 2,046 9,500
    10 Egypt Cairo 17,816,000 660 27,000 1,709 10,400
    11 China Beijing, BJ 17,311,000 1,350 12,800 3,497 5,000
    12 Japan Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto 17,011,000 1,240 13,700 3,212 5,300
    13 India Mumbai, MAH 16,910,000 211 80,100 546 30,900
    14 China Guangzhou-Foshan, GD 16,827,000 1,225 13,700 3,173 5,300
    15 Russia Moscow 15,512,000 1,700 9,100 4,403 3,500
    16 Bangladesh Dhaka 15,414,000 134 115,000 347 44,400
    17 United States Los Angeles, CA 14,900,000 2,432 6,100 6,299 2,400
    18 India Kolkota, WB 14,374,000 465 30,900 1,204 11,900
    19 Pakistan Karachi 14,198,000 300 47,300 777 18,300
    20 Argentina Buenos Aires 13,639,000 1,020 13,400 2,642 5,200
    21 Turkey Istanbul 13,576,000 540 25,100 1,399 9,700
    22 Brazil Rio de Janeiro 12,043,000 780 15,400 2,020 6,000
    23 China Shenzhen, GD 11,885,000 675 17,600 1,748 6,800
    24 Nigeria Lagos 11,547,000 350 33,000 907 12,700
    25 France Paris 10,755,000 1,098 9,800 2,844 3,800
    26 Japan Nagoya 10,027,000 1,475 6,800 3,820 2,600

     

    Jakarta (Jabotabek) has emerged as the world’s second largest urban area, with a population of 26 million. This is a larger population than reported by the United Nations, since its estimates include little more than DKI Jakarta, the national capital district and beyond which urbanization stretches for a considerable distance. Continuing suburban growth in Seoul-Incheon secured that urban area a ranking of third, with approximately 22.5 million people. As was reported last year, new estimates indicate that Delhi has emerged as India’s largest urban area, with a population of 22.2 million and a growth rate that should result in its passing Seoul-Inchon in a matter of a few years. Mumbai, which like Mexico City in the 1980s has often been promoted as being destined to become the largest urban area in the world, was passed by Delhi over the past decade and has become the second largest urban area in India.

    Manila is ranked as the fifth largest urban area in the world, with 22.0 million people. In Manila, as in Jakarta, the population reported to the United Nations is far below that of the genuine urban area. The reported population is for the National Capital Region (popularly and misleadingly called "Metro Manila), which represents approximately one-half of the population of the urban area, which stretches into four additional provinces (Cavite, Laguna, Rizal and Batangas). If the population of the Washington urban area were reported in the same manner, it would be 600,000 – the population of the District of Columbia – rather than the 4.6 million indicated in the 2010 census for the entire urban area.

    Los Angeles, until recent years one of the fastest growing urban areas in the world, has dropped to 17th largest in the world and seems destined to drop out of the top 20 in the next decade or two. Fast growing Karachi, Istanbul, Lagos and others could become larger than Los Angeles. Los Angeles reached its peak ranking of 6th largest in the world from 1965 through 1980 and entered the top ten by 1950.

    Over the past decade, Paris became a megacity, reaching a population of 10.7 million. Paris has been Western Europe’s fastest growing large urban area since World War II. All of its growth since 1921 has been in the suburbs, which stretch over more than 1,000 miles (2,600 square kilometers).  This is more land area than Houston’s suburbs, but more densely populated. Since 1921, the historical core municipality (the ville de Paris) has dropped in population from 2.9 million to 2.2 million.

    By world standards, the Paris urban area has grown slowly, having fallen from being the world’s third largest in 1965 to its current ranking of 23rd. However, over the past census period, Paris added 600,000 residents, compared to less than 200,000 in the previous period, indicating a decline in out-migration and a higher natural population rate increase.

    Urban Area Densities: Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh grew strongly between 2001 and 2011 and is by far the most densely populated urban area in the world. Dhaka’s density is estimated at 115,000 per square mile or 44,000 per square kilometer, with slum (informal dwelling) densities reported report up 4,210 per acre, or 2.7 million per square mile (1 million per square kilometer). At this density, all of the world’s 3.7 billion urban residents could be accommodated in an area approximately equal to that of the Washington (DC-MD-VA) urban area. All of Dhaka’s urban population of 15.4 million fits into a land area equal to that of the city (municipality) of Portland (population less than 600,000). Nonetheless, analysts have referred to this example of the ultimate of urban density to be "sprawling."

    Among the urban areas with more than 2.5 million population, the second-most dense is Mumbai, at 80,100 per square mile or 30,900 per square kilometer. The most dense high income world urban area is Hong Kong, at 67,000 persons per square mile or 25,900 per square kilometer. Of course, Hong Kong’s density is the result of an accident of history, which resulted in huge migration to the former British colony following World War II. Hong Kong is more than twice as dense as the second most dense high income world urban area, Busan, Korea. The smaller nearby, yet historically similar enclave of Macau (560,000) has an even higher density than Hong Kong, at 70,000 per square mile (27,000 per square kilometer).

    Seven of the densest urban areas with more than 2.5 million population are on the Asian subcontinent. These include Dhaka and Chittagong in Bangladesh, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Surat and Jaipur in India and Karachi, in Pakistan. Colombia has two of the densest, Bogota and Medellin. Hong Kong is the only high income nation urban area among the 10 densest (Figures 1 & 2).


    The least dense urban areas with more than 2.5 million population are all in the United States. The least dense is Atlanta, with 1800 people per square mile or 700 per square kilometer. The second least dense is, perhaps surprisingly, Boston, despite its reputation for high density. Boston’s population density is 2200 per square mile or 800 per square kilometer. Also, perhaps surprisingly, Philadelphia is the least dense urban area in the world with more than 5 million population, while Chicago is the least dense urban area of more than 7.5 million. The lower density of US urban areas is illustrated by the fact that Portland, with its reputation for higher density and densification planning, would have ranked 11th least dense, if it had reached the 2.5 million threshold used in this ranking.

    Most Extensive Urban Areas: New York covers the most land area of any urban area at nearly 4500 square miles or 11,000 square kilometers. Tokyo covers 3300 square miles or 8500 kilometers. Chicago is the third most expansive urban area, at 2,600 square miles (6,900 square kilometers). Los Angeles, which has long been perceived as the most sprawling of world urban areas, ranks fifth, covering 2400 square miles or 6,300 square kilometers. Atlanta and Boston, the world’s least dense major urban areas, rank 4th and 6th, covering 2,600 and 2,100 square miles respectively (6,900 square kilometers and 5,400 square kilometers).

    The Continuing Exodus from Rural Areas: Around the world, people continue to seek the promise of better economic outcomes in urban areas. United Nations forecasts indicate that another 2.5 billion people will be added to urban areas by 2050, while rural areas (which contain all population not urban) will be reduced in population by 300 million. The world’s urban population is expected to rise from today’s nearly 53 percent to 67 percent. More than 90 percent of the urban growth is expected to be in less developed nations.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”.

    ——

    Note 1: Demographia World Urban Areas uses national census authority urban area population and land area data in the few nations designating urban areas on a basis generally consistent with that of the United States Census Bureau. Elsewhere, land area estimates are determined using satellite photography (Google Earth). Population estimates are also obtained from a variety of sources, such as United Nations data, where it is reflective of the urban area population (some data reported to the United Nations is for jurisdictions that are only a part of the urban area and in other cases, metropolitan area data is reported), estimates relying on a "build-up" of local authority data from national census authorities and other sources. Demographia combines some adjacent urban areas when they are contained within the same metropolitan area or consolidated area, such as in New York and Los Angeles (for a complete list see Demographia World Urban Areas). Also see: Urban Terms Defined.

    Note 2: Exceptions: In some cases, continuous urbanization does not constitute a single urban area because they are not within a single labor market (metropolitan area). This can be the case within a nation, such as in the Pearl River Delta of China, where Shenzhen, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Jiangmen, Huizhou, Zhuhai, Guangzhou-Foshan and Hong Kong, which are separate labor markets. International borders (and the Hong Kong-Shenzhen border) also define separate urban areas if free movement of labor is not permitted. Thus Detroit and Windsor or San Diego and Tijuana are separate urban areas because free movement of labor is not permitted. On the other hand, treaties permit virtual free movement of labor between the French and Belgian sides of the Lille urban area and between the Swiss and French components of the Geneva urban area.

    —-

    Photo: Recent migrants to Dhaka slum in NGO school (photo by author)

  • Attack on the Suburbs: California Senate Republican Caucus Report

    Differing views on the future of California urban areas are the subject of a California Senate Republican Caucus report (Briefing Report: Attack On The Suburbs: SB 375 And Its Effects On The Housing Market).

    The report details differing views on the future of California urban areas as described by University of Utah Professor Arthur C. Nelson in a report for the Urban Land Institute with those of newgeography.com authors Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox in recent editions of The Wall Street Journal.

    Nelson’s view is largely that the market for detached housing in California is in decline. Senate Bill 375’s planning mandates are being interpreted to virtually ban further construction of detached housing in the state’s metropolitan areas.

    However, if Nelson’s analysis were right, there would be no need for legislative intervention since people would not buy detached housing. In fact, however, the demand for detached housing remains strong. Between 2000 and 2010, detached housing accounted for 80 percent of new housing additions in California’s major metropolitan areas.

    Critics of Senate Bill 375 market interventions that would seek to steer the market toward hyper density housing (20 to 40 and more housing units to the acre) would increase traffic congestion, increase the intensity of air pollution and make California and encumber an already laggard economy.

    The report concludes: "Clearly, before the California Legislature decides to take over the community planning duties of local governments and engage in social experimentation with the housing market, it should perhaps look at both sides of the argument to see if the experiment will be successful." 

  • Staying the Same: Urbanization in America

    The recent release of the 2010 US census data on urban areas (Note 1) shows that Americans continue to prefer their lower density lifestyles, with both suburbs and exurbs (Note 2) growing more rapidly than the historic core municipalities.  This may appear to be at odds with the recent Census Bureau 2011 metropolitan area population estimates, which were widely mischaracterized as indicating exurban (and suburban) losses and historical core municipality gains. In fact, core counties lost domestic migrants, while suburban and exurban counties gained domestic migrants. The better performance of the core counties was caused by higher rates of international migration, more births in relation to deaths and an economic malaise that has people staying in (counties are the lowest level at which migration data is reported). Nonetheless, the improving environment of core cities in recent decades has been heartening.

    The urban area data permits analysis of metropolitan area population growth by sector at nearly the smallest census geography (census blocks, which are smaller than census tracts). Overall, the new data indicates that an average urban population density stands at 2,343 per square mile (904 per square kilometer). This is little different from urban density in 1980 and nearly 10 percent above the lowest urban density of 2,141 per square mile (827) recorded in the 1990 census. Thus, in recent decades, formerly falling US urban densities have stabilized .

    Urban density in 2010, however, remains approximately 27 percent below that of 1950, as many core municipalities lost population while suburban and suburban populations expanded. This resulted in the substantial expansion of urban land area reflecting the preference for low-density lifestyles among Americans and most people in other high-income areas of the world.   Between the 1960s and 2000, nearly all of the growth in the major metropolitan regions of Western Europe and Canada has taken place in suburban areas, as these nations’ urban areas have dispersed in a manner similar to that of the United States. The trend continued through 2011 in Canada and domestic migration data in Western Europe shows a continuing movement of people from the historical cores to the suburbs and exurbs.

    This dispersion, pejoratively called "urban sprawl" has been routinely linked with everything from obesity and global warming to "bowling alone." In fact, while population densities have fallen, households densities have remained steady, barely droppping at all. Average household size has fallen dramatically, as fewer children have been born and divorce rates have soared. New households have been formed at more than 1.5 times the rate of population growth. The result is that a 27 percent decline in urban density since 1950 translated into a much more modest 4 percent decline in household density. A more genuine target for anti-suburban crusaders would be household sprawl rather than urban sprawl (Figure 1).

    Smaller Urban Areas Growing Faster

    Even as urban densities have reached a floor, Americans still continue to move to areas of lower density and smaller populations. For example, the urban areas of more than 1 million population in 1990 attracted 48 percent of the nation’s urban growth between 1990 and 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, these areas attracted a smaller 38 percent of urban growth (Figure 2).

    The Exurbs: A Two-Way Exodus

    For much of the last decade (and even before), the media has been heralding an epochal “return” to core cities. This idea is fundamentally misleading since most suburbanites actually came not from core cities but smaller towns and rural areas. The census results have made it clear that the urban focus of population growth was largely anecdotal, although  small inner city areas of some core cities (such as small sections of  St. Louis, Chicago, Dallas, Seattle, San Diego and Portland)  have experienced uncharacteristic growth. But overall, most growth continued to be in the suburbs and exurbs.  Measured at the census block level, exurbs are constantly at risk of being converted into suburbs as they become a part of the continuously developed area. Even so, as of 2010, exurban areas accounted for 16.1 percent of the population in the 51 major metropolitan areas. The historical core municipalities accounted for 26.3 percent of the population, while suburban areas housed 57.6 percent of the population (Figure 3).

    It should be considered, however, that in many urban areas — such as Houston, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle and Orlando — many historic city neighborhoods were developed as and remain suburban in their form, being dominated detached homes and automobiles. It is unlikely that exurban areas (measured at the census block level) will exceed the historical core cities in population, since they are at constant risk of being merged with suburbs (as the urban area expands).

    Smaller Urban Areas: Where the Sprawl Is

    The principal urban areas of the major metropolitan areas are nearly twice as dense as the rest of America’s urban areas. These urban areas have 53 percent of the urban population, but occupy only 39 percent of the urban land area. By contrast, the smaller urban areas have 47 percent of the urban population, while occupying 61 percent of the urban land area (Figure 4). It seems odd  that the fury of urban planners is directed at the larger, more dense urban areas rather than the smaller, much less dense urban areas, that sprawl to a far greater degree (Figure 5).

    Most and Least Dense Major Urban Areas

    Among the major metropolitan areas, the most dense urban area is Los Angeles, at a density of 6,999 per square mile (2,702 per square kilometer). This is a 32 percent denser than fourth ranked New York whose  hyper-dense core is offset by its low density suburbs. In fact, San Jose, which is virtually all suburban in its urban form and was a small urban area in 1950 (link to 1950-2010 data), ranks third and also is more dense than the New York urban area. Second ranked San Francisco is also more dense than New York (Figure 6). New Orleans ranked 10th most dense, however experienced a reduction in density of more approximately 30 percent due to the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina

    It may be surprising that Portland, with by far the most radical densification policies in the nation, does not even rank among the 10 most dense urban areas. Portland ranked 13th, behind urban areas like Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Sacramento, Denver and exclusively suburban Riverside-San Bernardino (and even the much smaller urban areas of Fresno, Bakersfield, Turlock and Los Banos in California’s San Joaquin Valley). However Portland did densify, reaching one-half the density of Los Angeles.  Portland will catch Los Angeles in density by 2120 at the current rate.   

    The least dense urban area is Birmingham, with a population density of 1,414 per square mile (546 per square kilometer). Atlanta, the least dense urban area of more than 3 million population in the world right is the third least dense at 1,707 per square mile (659 per square kilometer). The second least dense urban area, Charlotte, had a density of 1,685 per square mile (651 per square kilometer), while increasing its land area over the decade at twice the rate of Atlanta (Figure 7).

    Staying the Same

    Urbanization in the United States over the last decade can be characterized by the old French proverb that "the more things change the more they stay the same."

    As in Europe and elsewhere (see the Evolving Urban Form series), when they move, Americans go to less dense areas such as to suburban and exurban areas within the larger metropolitan areas as well as smaller, lower density urban regions. The extent to which they move, however, will depend more upon economic improvement than the lure of core areas that, in reality, continue to lose younger people in their thirties while continuing not attracting their boomer parents as they get older.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

    —-

    Note 1: Urban Areas and Metropolitan Areas: An urban area is the area of continuous development and as Sir Peter Hall put it, is thus the "physical" urban form. The urban area is a similar, but fundamentally different concept than a metropolitan area and analysts routinely confuse the terms. The United States Census Bureau calls urban areas over 50,000 population "urbanized areas." The metropolitan area is larger, and includes one or more urban areas as well as economically connected rural areas. . The metropolitan area is the "functional" urban form. There is no rural territory within urban areas, but there can be substantial rural territory in a metropolitan area (For example, the US defines metropolitan areas by counties. This can lead to artificially large metropolitan areas. For example, the Riverside San Bernardino metropolitan area, in the West where counties tend to be larger, covers 27,300 square miles (a land area larger than Ireland). The Cleveland metropolitan area, with a principal urban area similar in population to Riverside-San Bernardino, covers only 2,000 square miles, because it is located in Ohio, where counties are smaller. At the same, the far lower population density of the Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area is despite the fact that the urban area is approximately 50 percent more dense than the Cleveland urban area

    Note 2: Historical Core Municipalities, Suburbs and Exurbs: For the purposes of this article, an area outside a historical core municipality is considered a suburb if it is in the urban area and an exurb if it is in the corresponding metropolitan area, but outside the principal urban area. Urban areas are delineated at a small census geographical area (the census block), which makes more precise analysis possible than is available at the county level, the lowest level at which domestic migration data is available.

    Note 3: Principal Urban Areas: The principal urban area is the urban area within a metropolitan area that has the largest population. For example, in the Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area, the Riverside-San Bernardino urban area is the principal urban area. Other urban areas, such as Murrietta, Hemet and Indio (Palm Springs) would be secondary urban areas.

    —-

    Photograph: Exurban St. Louis (photo by author)

  • California Declares War on Suburbia II: The Cost of Radical Densification

    My April 9 Cross Country column commentary in The Wall Street Journal (California Declares War on Suburbia) outlined California’s determination to virtually outlaw new detached housing. The goal is clear:    force most new residents into multi-family buildings at 20 and 30 or more to the acre. California’s overly harsh land use regulations had already driven housing affordability from fairly typical levels to twice and even three times higher than that of much of the nation. California’s more recent tightening of the land use restrictions (under Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375) has been justified as necessary for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

    It is All Unnecessary: The reality, however, is that all of this is unnecessary and that sufficient GHG emission reductions can be achieved without interfering with how people live their lives. As a report by the McKinsey Company and The Conference Board put it, there would need to be "no downsizing of vehicles, homes or commercial space," while "traveling the same mileage." Nor, as McKinsey and the Conference Board found, would there be a need for a "shift to denser urban housing." All of this has been lost on California’s crusade against the lifestyle most Californians households prefer.

    Pro and Con: As is to be expected, there are opinions on both sides of the issue. PJTV used California Declares War on Suburbia as the basis for a satirical video, Another Pleasant Valley Sunday, Without Cars or Houses? Is California Banning Suburbia?

    California’s Increasing Demand for Detached Housing? A letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal suggested that there are more than enough single-family homes to accommodate future detached housing demand in California for the next 25 years. That’s irrelevant, because California has no intention of allowing any such demand to be met.

    The data indicates continuing robust demand. In California’s major metropolitan areas, detached houses accounted for 80 percent of the additions to the occupied housing stock between 2000 and 2010, which slightly exceeds the national trend favoring detached housing (Figure 1). If anything, the shift in demand was the opposite predicted by planners, since only 54 percent of growth in occupied housing in the same metropolitan areas was detached in 2000 (Figure 2).


    Watch What they Do, Not What they Say: It does no good to point to stated preference surveys indicating people preferring higher density living. Recently, Ed Braddy noted in newgeography.com (Smart Growth and the New Newspeak) that a widely cited National Association of Realtors had been "spun" to show that people preferred higher density living, from a question on an "unrealistic scenario," and ignoring an overwhelming preference for detached housing – roughly eighty percent – in other questions in the same survey. People’s preferences are not determined by what they say they will do, but rather by what they do.

    Off-Point Criticism: There was also "off-point" criticism, which can be more abundant than criticisms that are "on-point." Perhaps the most curious was by Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program Senior Researcher Jonathan Rothwell (writing in The New Republic) in a piece entitled "Low-Density Suburbs are Are Not Free-Market Capitalism." I was rather taken aback by this, since none of these three words ("free," "market" or "capitalism") appeared in California Declares War on Suburbia. I was even more surprised at the claim that I defend "anti-density zoning and other forms of large lot protectionism." Not so.

    Indeed, I agree with Rothwell on the problems with large lot zoning. However, it is a stretch to suggest, as he does, that the prevalence of detached housing results from large lot zoning. This is particularly true in places like Southern California where lots have historically been small and whose overall density is far higher than that of greater New York, Boston, Seattle and double that of the planning mecca of Portland.

    Rothwell’s own Brookings Institution has compiled perhaps the best inventory of metropolitan land use restrictions, which indicates that the major metropolitan areas of the West have little in large lot zoning. Yet detached housing is about as prevalent in the West as in the rest of the nation (60.4 percent in the West compared to 61.9 percent in the rest of the nation, according to the 2010 American Community Survey). Further, there has been little or no large lot zoning in Canada and Australia, where detached housing is detached, nor in Western Europe and Japan (yes, Japan, see the Note below).  

    On-Point: Urban Growth Boundaries Do Increase House Prices: However, to his credit, Rothwell points out the connection between urban growth boundaries and higher house prices. This is a view not shared by most in the urban planning community, who remain in denial of the economic evidence (or more accurately, the economic principle) that constraining supply leads to higher prices. This can lead to disastrous consequences, as California’s devastating role in triggering the Great Recession indicates.

    The Purpose of Urban Areas: From 1900 to 2010, the urban population increased from 40 percent to 80 percent of the US population. Approximately 95 percent of the population growth over 100 years was in urban areas. People did not move to urban areas the cities for "togetherness" or to become better citizens. Nor did people move out of an insatiable desire for better urban design or planning. The driving force was economic: the desire for higher incomes and better lives. A former World Bank principal urban planner, Alain Bertaud stated the economic justification directly: "large labor markets are the only raison d’être of large cities."

    And for the vast majority of Americans in metropolitan areas, including those in California, those better lives mean living in suburbs and detached houses. All the myth-making in the world won’t change that reality, even if it pushes people out of the Golden State to other, more accommodating pastures.

    The performance of urban areas is appropriately evaluated by results, such as economic outcomes, without regard to inputs, such as the extent to which an area conforms to the latest conventional wisdom in urban planning.

    • Land use policies should not lead to higher housing costs relative to incomes, as they already have in California, Australia, Vancouver, Toronto and elsewhere. If they do, residents are less well served.
    • Transport policies should not be allowed to intensify traffic congestion by disproportionately funding alternatives (such as transit and bicycles) that have little or no potential to improve mobility as seems the likely outcome of radical densification. If they do, residents will be less well served.

    This gets to the very heart of the debate. The “smart growth on steroids” policies now being implemented in California are likely to lead to urban areas with less efficient personal and job mobility, where economic and employment growth is likely to be less than would otherwise be expected. The issue is not urban sprawl. The issue is rather sustaining the middle-income quality of life, which is now endangered by public policy in California, and for no good reason.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

    —-

    Note: Despite its reputation for high density living, Japan’s suburbs have many millions of detached houses. In 2010, 47 percent of the occupied housing in Japan’s major metropolitan areas was detached (Tokyo, Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Nagoya, Sapporo, Sendai, Hiroshima, Kitakyushu-Fukuoka, Shizuoka and Hamamatsu).

    Photo: An endangered species: Detached houses in Ventura County (Photo by author)

  • Making Stuff Up at Atlantic Cities

    Editor Sommer Mathis over at The Atlantic Cities has taken to making stuff up. In a recent post she reported on a dispute in the city of Seattle over minimum parking requirements relating to multi-unit buildings. She said:

    Defenders of suburban-style development like Wendell Cox and Joel Kotkin would argue that these young people just don’t understand how their lives and desires are going to change once they start families. Single-family, detached homes with a quarter acre of land and two cars in the garage are suddenly going to look a lot better to all these idealistic, bicycle riding twenty-somethings once the reality of parenthood sets in.

    Kotkin and Cox also worry that developers and city planners rushing to meet the youth-driven demand for denser housing options that don’t necessarily include parking are shooting themselves in the foot.

    The only problem is that I have never commented on minimum parking requirements. I checked with Joel Kotkin and he advises that he has never covered the issue.

    Mathis continues (after an citing a quote by Joel Kotkin article in Forbes):

    What’s funny about these assumptions is their total lack of faith in the free market.

    Of course, since our alleged positions on minimum parking requirements are figments of Mathis’ imagination, her "free market" conclusion misses the mark. Indeed, the most destructive impact on urban land markets today is urban growth boundaries and "winner picking" land use restrictions that deny people their preferences (as my Wall Street Journal piece, California’s War on Suburbia, argued on Saturday). I am most concerned about these because of their potential for hampering the metropolitan economy, interfering with upward mobility and increasing poverty (I suspect Joel would agree). Moreover, young households soon figure out that they need more than the 4th floor (or 40th floor) balcony to raise a child.

  • Still Moving to the Suburbs and Exurbs: The 2011 Census Estimates

    The new 2011 Census Bureau county and metropolitan area population estimates indicate that Americans are staying put. Over the past year, 590,000 people moved between the nation’s counties. This domestic migration (people moving within the nation) compares to an annual rate of 1,080,000 between the 2000 and 2009. Inter-county domestic migration peaked in 2006 at nearly 1,620,000 and has been falling since that time (Figure 1). The continuing low rate of domestic migration has been reinforced by the economic malaise that has kept job and income growth well below levels that would be expected in a more genuine recovery.

    Yet the nation has continued to grow. With less domestic migration, natural growth (births minus deaths) and considerable, but slower international migration, growth over the past year has been more in proportion to total population. The movement between counties within major metropolitan areas has become less of a factor. Predictably, there the usual doom and gloom reports  about suburbs and exurbs and how poorly they are doing compared to before, and how people are returning to the cities (Note 1). As usual, the data shows no such thing, as people continue to move from core counties in greater numbers than others move in (See Note 2 on county classifications).

    Domestic Migration: Despite the higher gasoline prices and the illusions of a press that is often anti-suburban, both the suburbs and the exurbs continued to attract people from elsewhere in the nation. The core counties, which contain the core cities, continued to lose domestic migrants to other parts of the country, principally to the suburbs and the exurbs of the large metropolitan areas.

    Over the past year, the core counties of major metropolitan areas lost 67,000 domestic migrants (people move between a metropolitan area and somewhere else in the nation). Suburban counties gained approximately 72,000 domestic migrants, while exurban counties gained 49,000 domestic migrants (Figure 2). Because of their lower population base, exurban counties had the highest relative rate of net domestic migration, at 0.34% of their 2010 population. This is more than three times the rate of the suburban counties (0.11%) and far higher than the minus 0.09% of the core counties (Figure 3). Thus, the overall slower rate of growth among exurban counties was due to a lower natural growth rate and less international migration, not the result of any losses to the core. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the suburban counties.


    Overall, the major metropolitan areas gained 48,500 domestic migrants between 2010 and 2011. By contrast, between 2000 and 2009, the major metropolitan areas lost, on average, nearly 200,000 domestic migrants to the rest of the nation each year. The huge domestic out migration in the last decade has been associated with the housing bubble. Less affordable housing markets lost 3.2 million domestic migrants between 2000 and 2009. More affordable markets gained 1.7 million domestic migrants. This was not enough to negate the losses in the higher cost markets, and major metropolitan markets lost 1.5 million domestic migrants overall.

    Natural Growth: As the grim economic times induced people to stay put, core counties grew marginally faster than suburban and exurban counties principally because of higher natural growth rates, which is the net of births minus deaths. More than 70% of the higher population in core counties was from natural growth. Natural growth was less of a factor in the suburban counties, at 60%. In the exurban counties, natural growth accounted for only 47% of the population growth (Table 1). The higher core county natural growth rates are especially evident where there are large foreign born populations, due to their generally higher birth rates (such as Los Angeles, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and Riverside-San Bernardino, as well as Raleigh and Salt Lake City).

    International Migration: The other component of growth was international migration, which contributed 38% of the growth in core counties and 29% of the growth in suburban counties. International migration was much less important in the exurban counties, contributing only 15% of the growth (Table 1)

    Table 1
    Major Metropolitan Areas
    Components of Population Change: 2010-2011: Summary by Sector
     Net Domestic Migration   Net International Migration   Natural Increase (Births Minus Deaths) 
    Core Counties -8.5% 37.6% 70.8%
    Suburban Counties 11.2% 29.0% 59.8%
    Exurban Counties 37.9% 14.5% 47.4%
    Multi-County Major Metropolitan Areas 3.5% 32.1% 64.3%
    Single County Major Metropolitan Areas -10.9% 34.5% 76.7%
    Major Metropolitan Areas with More Than 1 County 3.0% 32.2% 64.7%
    Single County Major Metropolitan Areas: San Diego and Las Vegas

     

    The Gainers: The fastest growing major metropolitan areas were dominated by the four largest Texas metropolitan areas. Austin (3.2%), Dallas-Fort Worth (2.0%), Houston (1.9%) and San Antonio (1.9%) were all among the five fastest growing. Raleigh placed second, with a one-year growth rate of 2.3%. The top five numeric gainers in domestic migration were in all in Texas or Florida — Dallas-Fort Worth (39,000), Miami (36,000), Austin (31,000), Tampa-St. Petersburg (27,000) and Houston (21,000). The much improved housing affordability in Florida seems likely to be a factor in the recovery of Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg. Further, Houston became the second Texas metropolitan area to exceed Philadelphia in population, following Dallas-Fort Worth in the last decade. Texas thus becomes the first state to place two metropolitan areas in the five largest in the nation (Table 2).

    Table 2
    Major Metropolitan Areas: Population
    Population: 2010-2011
    Metropolitan Area 2010 2011 Change % Change
    New York, NY-NJ-PA        18,919,649        19,015,900                  96,251 0.51%
    Los Angeles, CA        12,844,371        12,944,801                100,430 0.78%
    Chicago, IL-IN-WI          9,472,584          9,504,753                  32,169 0.34%
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX          6,400,511          6,526,548                126,037 1.97%
    Houston. TX          5,976,470          6,086,538                110,068 1.84%
    Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD          5,971,589          5,992,414                  20,825 0.35%
    Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV          5,609,150          5,703,948                  94,798 1.69%
    Miami, FL          5,578,080          5,670,125                  92,045 1.65%
    Atlanta, GA          5,286,296          5,359,205                  72,909 1.38%
    Boston, MA-NH          4,559,372          4,591,112                  31,740 0.70%
    San Francisco-Oakland, CA          4,343,381          4,391,037                  47,656 1.10%
    Riverside-San Bernardino, CA          4,245,005          4,304,997                  59,992 1.41%
    Detroit. MI          4,290,722          4,285,832                   (4,890) -0.11%
    Phoenix, AZ          4,209,070          4,263,236                  54,166 1.29%
    Seattle, WA          3,447,886          3,500,026                  52,140 1.51%
    Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI          3,285,913          3,318,486                  32,573 0.99%
    San Diego, CA          3,105,115          3,140,069                  34,954 1.13%
    Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL          2,788,151          2,824,724                  36,573 1.31%
    St. Louis, MO-IL          2,814,722          2,817,355                     2,633 0.09%
    Baltimore, MD          2,714,546          2,729,110                  14,564 0.54%
    Denver, CO          2,554,569          2,599,504                  44,935 1.76%
    Pittsburgh, PA          2,357,951          2,359,746                     1,795 0.08%
    Portland, OR-WA          2,232,896          2,262,605                  29,709 1.33%
    San Antonio, TX          2,153,891          2,194,927                  41,036 1.91%
    Sacramento, CA          2,154,583          2,176,235                  21,652 1.00%
    Orlando, FL          2,139,615          2,171,360                  31,745 1.48%
    Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN          2,132,415          2,138,038                     5,623 0.26%
    Cleveland, OH          2,075,540          2,068,283                   (7,257) -0.35%
    Kansas City,  MO-KS          2,039,766          2,052,676                  12,910 0.63%
    Las Vegas, NV          1,953,927          1,969,975                  16,048 0.82%
    San Jose, CA          1,841,787          1,865,450                  23,663 1.28%
    Columbus, OH          1,840,584          1,858,464                  17,880 0.97%
    Charlotte, NC-SC          1,763,969          1,795,472                  31,503 1.79%
    Austin, TX          1,728,247          1,783,519                  55,272 3.20%
    Indianapolis, IN          1,760,826          1,778,568                  17,742 1.01%
    Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA-NC          1,674,502          1,679,894                     5,392 0.32%
    Nashville, TN          1,594,885          1,617,142                  22,257 1.40%
    Providence, RI-MA          1,601,065          1,600,224                      (841) -0.05%
    Milwaukee, WI          1,556,953          1,562,216                     5,263 0.34%
    Jacksonville, FL          1,348,702          1,360,251                  11,549 0.86%
    Memphis, TN-MS-AR          1,318,089          1,325,605                     7,516 0.57%
    Louisville, KY-IN          1,285,891          1,294,849                     8,958 0.70%
    Oklahoma City, OK          1,258,111          1,278,053                  19,942 1.59%
    Richmond, VA          1,260,396          1,269,380                     8,984 0.71%
    Hartford, CT          1,212,491          1,213,255                        764 0.06%
    New Orleans, LA          1,173,572          1,191,089                  17,517 1.49%
    Raleigh, NC          1,137,297          1,163,515                  26,218 2.31%
    Salt Lake City, UT          1,128,269          1,145,905                  17,636 1.56%
    Buffalo, NY          1,135,293          1,134,039                   (1,254) -0.11%
    Birmingham, AL          1,129,068          1,132,264                     3,196 0.28%
    Rochester, NY          1,054,723          1,055,278                        555 0.05%
    Total      167,462,456      169,067,997             1,605,541 0.96%
    Data derived from US Bureau of the Census
    Major Metropolitan Areas: Over 1,000,000 Population

     

    The Losers: Four metropolitan areas, Detroit, Cleveland, Providence and Buffalo suffered small population losses. Pittsburgh had a small gain, but was alone in having an excess of deaths over births. New York again led the nation in its net domestic migration loss, at 99,000. Chicago lost 54,000 and Los Angeles lost 51,000 residents to other areas of the country between 2010 and 2011, while Detroit lost 24,000. Domestic migration data is available for New York City because it is composed of five counties. New York City lost 57,000 domestic migrants (Table 3).

    Table 3
    Major Metropolitan Areas
    Components of Population Change: 2010-2011
     Net Domestic Migration   Net International Migration   Natural Increase (Births Minus Deaths)  Total Components of Change (Note)
    New York, NY-NJ-PA              (98,975)                83,322                112,336               96,683
    Los Angeles, CA              (50,549)                54,725                  96,150             100,326
    Chicago, IL-IN-WI              (53,908)                24,422                  61,483               31,997
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX                39,021                23,291                  63,504             125,816
    Houston. TX                21,580                24,105                  64,363             110,048
    Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD              (13,133)                11,413                  22,769               21,049
    Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV                21,517                24,872                  48,235               94,624
    Miami, FL                36,191                35,215                  20,440               91,846
    Atlanta, GA                12,419                17,370                  42,908               72,697
    Boston, MA-NH                 (1,627)                15,494                  18,143               32,010
    San Francisco-Oakland, CA                  5,880                17,996                  23,939               47,815
    Riverside-San Bernardino, CA                15,131                  9,065                  35,826               60,022
    Detroit. MI              (24,170)                  7,468                  11,734                (4,968)
    Phoenix, AZ                  5,585                15,866                  32,847               54,298
    Seattle, WA                17,598                12,228                  22,280               52,106
    Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI                      536                  7,832                  24,296               32,664
    San Diego, CA                      816                  9,591                  24,703               35,110
    Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL                27,157                  6,857                     2,318               36,332
    St. Louis, MO-IL              (10,260)                  2,671                  10,256                 2,667
    Baltimore, MD                 (1,341)                  5,004                  10,941               14,604
    Denver, CO                19,565                  5,204                  19,997               44,766
    Pittsburgh, PA                  3,740                  1,426                   (3,260)                 1,906
    Portland, OR-WA                11,388                  4,806                  13,511               29,705
    San Antonio, TX                19,515                  3,841                  17,486               40,842
    Sacramento, CA                  2,856                  6,173                  12,659               21,688
    Orlando, FL                10,394                  9,767                  11,557               31,718
    Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN                 (7,149)                  2,152                  10,624                 5,627
    Cleveland, OH              (12,521)                  1,896                     3,344                (7,281)
    Kansas City,  MO-KS                 (2,820)                  3,009                  12,705               12,894
    Las Vegas, NV                 (6,353)                  8,007                  14,395               16,049
    San Jose, CA                 (2,704)                11,072                  15,376               23,744
    Columbus, OH                  2,219                  3,329                  12,390               17,938
    Charlotte, NC-SC                13,778                  4,581                  13,038               31,397
    Austin, TX                30,669                  6,134                  18,085               54,888
    Indianapolis, IN                  1,940                  2,953                  12,827               17,720
    Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA-NC                 (7,086)                  2,382                  10,044                 5,340
    Nashville, TN                  9,323                  3,015                     9,867               22,205
    Providence, RI-MA                 (6,254)                  2,487                     2,940                   (827)
    Milwaukee, WI                 (4,862)                  1,796                     8,384                 5,318
    Jacksonville, FL                  2,911                  1,935                     6,691               11,537
    Memphis, TN-MS-AR                 (2,933)                  1,841                     8,615                 7,523
    Louisville, KY-IN                  1,886                  1,711                     5,400                 8,997
    Oklahoma City, OK                  8,746                  2,228                     8,904               19,878
    Richmond, VA                  1,546                  1,965                     5,519                 9,030
    Hartford, CT                 (4,749)                  3,066                     2,493                     810
    New Orleans, LA                10,153                  1,563                     5,630               17,346
    Raleigh, NC                13,262                  3,228                     9,608               26,098
    Salt Lake City, UT                      915                  3,090                  13,674               17,679
    Buffalo, NY                 (2,558)                  1,185                        176                (1,197)
    Birmingham, AL                 (2,452)                  1,245                     4,421                 3,214
    Rochester, NY                 (3,320)                  1,235                     2,650                     565
    Total                48,513              517,129             1,039,221         1,604,863
    3.0% 32.2% 64.8% 100.0%
    Data derived from US Bureau of the Census
    Major Metropolitan Areas: Over 1,000,000 Population
    Excludes San Diego and Las Vegas, which have only a single county

     

    Captive v. Discretionary Markets? One year’s data does not make a trend, especially in unusual times. Until the nation returns to normal economic growth, many young who would otherwise move are staying put, as well as young families that would be looking for larger houses. The driving factor in the more modest domestic migration trends observed today could well be necessity rather than desire.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

    —-

    Note 1: It is a misconception that suburbs and exurbs have grown principally because people have moved from cities. In fact, most suburban and exurban growth has been from smaller towns and rural areas. See Cities and Suburbs: The Unexpected Truth. Components of change data (domestic migration, international migration and natural growth) is available only at the county level. Thus, city or municipality data is only available where a municipality and a county are combined.

    Note 2: The core county contains all or most of the largest historical core municipality (see Suburbanized Core Cities) in the metropolitan area, except in New York, where all five counties that comprise the city of New York are classified as core counties. The suburban counties are those designated by the Bureau of the Census as central counties, but exclude the core counties. The exurban counties are as classified by the Bureau of the Census.

    Note 3: The largest historical core municipalities comprise slightly more than 55 percent of the core county population (both figures combined).

    Photo: Chicago (West Wacker Drive) By Author