New Geography

Author: Wendell Cox

  • Virginia Metropolitan Areas Dispersing

    Population data from the 2010 Census has been made available for Richmond and Virginia Beach- Norfolk. In both cases, the bulk of the population growth is in the suburbs.

    Virginia Beach-Norfolk: The Virginia Beach-Norfolk metropolitan area grew from 1,576,000 in 2000 to 1,672,000 in 2010, a gain of 6.0 percent, which is a decline from 8.8 percent in the 1990s. The municipal core municipality of Norfolk gained from 234,000 to 243,000, an increase of 3.6 percent.

    Suburban growth was 6.5 percent and the suburbs accounted for 91 percent of the population growth. The suburbs include Virginia Beach, which is largely a post-World War II suburban municipality. The metropolitan area is principally named for Virginia Beach because it is the largest municipality.

    Richmond: The Richmond metropolitan area grew from 1,097,000 in 2000 to 1,258,000 in 2010, a gain of 14.7 percent. The historical core municipality of Richmond grew from 198,000 to 204,000, for an increase of 3.2 percent. Richmond remains below its population peak of 249,000, reached in 1970. In both the 2010 and 1970 censuses, Richmond’s land area was 60 square miles. In 1950, the population (237,000) was higher than in 2010, despite a land area of only 37 square miles.

    The suburbs added 17.2 percent to their population and accounted for 96 percent of the metropolitan area growth.

  • Dispersion in Delaware

    The 2010 census data, just released, shows a strong trend toward dispersal in Delaware. The state’s largest county, New Castle, added eight percent to its population, rising from 500,000 to 538,000. All of that gain in the county was outside the city of Wilmington, which lost three percent of its population (from 73,000 to 71,000). Wilmington and New Castle County is a former metropolitan area that has been engulfed by the growth of the larger Philadelphia metropolitan area. Philadelphia has spread from its Pennsylvania base, with a large share of the metropolitan area now in New Jersey, along with New Castle County in Delaware and Cecil County in Maryland.

    Delaware’s other two counties, both to the south of New Castle County, are growing rapidly as the population moves outside metropolitan areas. Kent County, with the state capital in Dover, gained 28 percent from 127,000 to 162,000. Southern most Sussex County added 26 percent to its population, rising from 157,000 to 197,000. Thus, much smaller Sussex County added more people than New Castle County, which began the decade of the 2000s with three times the population.

  • Raleigh: Suburbanizing the City and Suburbs

    New 2010 Census results indicate that the Raleigh metropolitan area (Raleigh-Cary) grew 42 percent from 2000 to 2010. This growth rate is projected to be the highest of any metropolitan area in the nation for the 2000 to 2010 period.

    The historical core municipality of Raleigh grew strongly, from 288,000 to 404,000, a gain of 40 percent. This gain was aided by annexations that added nearly 30 percent to the area of the municipality (from 113 to 143 square miles). The annexations of recent decades have left the city of Raleigh with an overwhelmingly suburban urban form. In 1950, at the beginning of the post-World War II suburban boom, the city of Raleigh had a population of 66,000, living in a land area of only 11 square miles.

    The suburbs (area outside the city of Raleigh) gained nearly two-thirds of the metropolitan area growth (65 percent) and now have 64 percent of the population. Over the last ten years, the suburbs have grown 43 percent.

    The core urban area of Raleigh was one of the least densely populated in a major metropolitan areas in 2000, with under 1,700 persons per square mile, at slightly less than Charlotte, Nashville and Atlanta.

  • The Evolving Urban Form: The Valley of Mexico

    The last 60 years of urban growth in the Mexico City area should dispel any belief that suburban dispersion is principally an American phenomenon or even limited to the high income world. Over the last 60 years, all of the population growth in what is now called the Valley of Mexico metropolitan area and urban area has occurred outside the urban core (See Map). In this regard, the declining population in Mexico City urban core mirrors that of other urban cores, such as the city of Chicago, the city of Copenhagen, the city of Paris and nearly all other urban cores in the high income world.


    Map: Valley of Mexico Urban Area: Northernmost Urbanization Excluded

    A New Name: the Mexico City metropolitan area is one of only two out of the world’s more than 25 megacities (10 million or more population) that has adopted a name more reflective of geographical reality, shedding reference to the urban core, which is declining in influence virtually everywhere. The other name-changing metropolitan area is Jakarta where the name Jabotabek is an acronym composed of the beginning of four large municipality names.  Mexico’s national statistics bureau, the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) has designated the Mexico City metropolitan area as the "Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México," which translates to the Valley of Mexico metropolitan area.

    According to the broadest definition, the Valley of Mexico metropolitan area had a population of 21.4 million according to the 2010 census. The Valley of Mexico joins a lengthening list of metropolitan areas with more than 20 million people. No reliable world ranking of metropolitan areas is feasible, because of varying definitions by nations and other population estimating sources (Note: Metropolitan Ranking). It can be said with assurance that the world’s largest metropolitan area is Tokyo – Yokohama, with approximately 40 million people and perhaps even that Jabotabek ranks second at nearly 30 million people. Other metropolitan areas making legitimate claims to having more than 20 million people include Seoul, Sao Paulo, Mumbai, Delhi, Manila and New York (Note: New York).

    The Valley of Mexico Urban Area

    In the early 1980s, the Valley of Mexico was expected to become the world’s largest urban area. A number of factors worked to keep that from happening, such as a falling birthrate and the devastating earthquake of 1985, which slowed growth and the simple problems created by the unmanageable scale of the region. This led to greater decentralization both to peripheral parts of the Valley of Mexico as well to other Mexican states.   

    In 2010, the Valley of Mexico urban area had a population of 19.4 million people. The urban area is estimated to cover 780 square miles (2,020 square kilometers), for a population density of 25,000 per square mile (9,700 per square kilometer). This makes the Valley of Mexico urban area approximately one-fourth the density of Dhaka (Bangladesh), the densest urban area in the world and similar in density to the Cairo urban area. The Valley of Mexico is less than three times as dense as the Paris urban area and less than four times the density of North America’s most dense urban areas, Los Angeles and Toronto. The next edition of Demographia World Urban Areas: Population & Projections (current edition) will show the Valley of Mexico to be the world’s ninth largest urban area.  

    The key issue here is a population growth rate that has plummeted since 1950. In the 1950s and the 1960s, the Valley’s population growth exceeded 5.5% annually. The rate fell to 4.0% during the 1970s, and dropped to 1.6% in the 1980s and 1990s. By the 2000s, the annual population growth rate had fallen to 0.8% (Figure 1).

    Urban Core: Former Mexico City:  In 1950, the core “delegations” constituted Mexico City – Cuahtemoc, Miguel Higalgo, Venustiano Carranza and Benito Juarez had 2.23 million people out of the urban area’s 2.88 million. Mexico City covered a land area of 54 square miles (139 square kilometers). In 1970 the population rose to a peak of 2.85 million with a peak population density of 53,000 persons per square mile (20,500 per square kilometer). At this point a severe population decline began, with a drop of more than 1.1 million people to 1.68 million by 2005. This represented a 41 percent drop in population density, two 31,000 persons per square mile (12,000 persons per square kilometer). A modest increase to 1.73 million people occurred between 2005 and 2000 in the urban core.

    In 1950, the urban core accounted for 78 percent of the urban area population. By 2010 this figure had fallen to under nine percent (Figure 2).


    The Suburbs: As of the 2010 census, more than 90 percent of the urban area population lives in what has historically been the suburbs.  Since 1950, the urban core has lost 500,000 residents; while suburban areas have added more than 17 million. Thus, the suburbs have accounted for more than 100 percent of the growth in the urban area over the past 60 years (Figure 1). During the 1950s, the suburbs accounted for more than 80 percent of the growth and in each decade since that time the suburbs have been 95 percent or more of the growth.

    In the earlier decades, the suburbs inside the Distrito Federal (but still outside the urban core) accounted for most of the growth, 93 percent during the 1950s and 53 percent during the 1960s. However from the 1970s to the present the growth has shifted to the more distant suburbs outside the Distrito Federal. These suburbs have captured at least 70 percent of the growth, including between 80 percent to 90 percent over the past two decades.

    Valley of Mexico Metropolitan Area

    The trend of continuing dispersion is evident in the metropolitan area trends. As defined in 2005, the Valley of Mexico metropolitan area included the 16 "delegations" (boroughs) of Mexico City (the Distrito Federal), and 60 municipalities (municipios), 59 of which are in the adjacent state of Mexico and the last of which is in the more northerly state of Hidalgo. In the late 2000s, another 28 municipalities in the state of Hidalgo were proposed for addition to the metropolitan area (and are included in this analysis).

    The metropolitan area is divided into five parts, the urban core (pre-1994 Mexico City), the urban balance of the Distrito Federal, inner ring municipalities, which are adjacent to the Distrito Federal, the outer municipalities before the proposed expansion and the 28 municipalities in the state of Hidalgo.

    Between 2000 and 2010, the urban core of the former Mexico City added 38,000 people or two percent to its population but accounted for only two percent of total metropolitan area population growth. Thus, during the 2000s, suburbs (areas in the urban area outside the urban core) gained 98 percent of the population growth (Figure 3).

    The vast majority of the growth took place either in the outer delegations – some 12 percent of growth –while the inner suburbs of the state of Mexico captured 9 percent of the growth. The "lion’s share" of the growth was in the outer suburbs of the states of Mexico and Hidalgo, at more than 75 percent.

    Clearly, the Valley of Mexico metropolitan area is prime example of the suburbanization and reduced urban densities that have occurred virtually around the world.

    Valley del Mexico Population: 2000 to 2010
    Geographical Sector 2000 2010 Increase Rate Share
    Urban Core (Former Mexico City) 1.692 1.730 0.038 2% 2%
    Balance of Distrito Federal 6.913 7.143 0.230 3% 13%
    Distrito Federal 8.605 8.873 0.268 3% 15%
    Inner Muncipalities 6.061 6.232 0.171 3% 10%
    Outer Municipalities 3.730 5.032 1.302 35% 75%
    Hidalgo Expansion 0.993 1.240 0.248 25% 14%
    Total 19.390 21.378 1.740 9% 100%
    In millions

    ——

    Note: New York: according to US Census Bureau estimates from 2009, the New York metropolitan area had slightly less than 20 million people. However the Combined Statistical area (which includes the Connecticut suburbs) had a population of 22 million people. Because metropolitan areas are labor market areas, the extent of their transport systems is an important factor in delineation. In the case of New York, the extent of the highway and transit systems is sufficient to suggest the combined statistical area as more appropriate for international comparisons.

    Note: Metropolitan Area Ranking: There is only one known research effort to consistently define and rank the world’s metropolitan areas. Richard L. Forstall (who ran the Rand McNally "Ranally" international metropolitan area program), Richard P. Green and James B. Pick, produced that list, which was limited to the top 15 in the world. This small number, in relation to more than 750 metropolitan areas in the world with more than 500,000 people illustrates both the difficulty of obtaining sufficient data and the complexity of the research.

    Note: Pachuca de Sota: the entire urban area is within the Valley of Mexico metropolitan area.

    Photo:  Cathedral, Mexico City (by author)

    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”

  • Chicago, Portland: Employment Dispersion from Downtown Continues

    New data shows that the downtown areas of both Chicago and Portland (Oregon) are modestly dispersing and losing market share in relation to metropolitan area employment.

    Chicago: The Chicago Loop Alliance reports that private sector employment in the Loop, the core of the Chicago downtown area, fell from 338,000 to 275,000 between 2000 and 2010. An additional 30,000 government workers are employed in the Loop, however 2000 data was not provided for the government sector. As a result of the loss, the Loop private sector share of total Chicago metropolitan area employment fell 13 percent, from 7.7 percent in 2000 to 6.7 percent in 2010.

    The larger downtown area, including areas to the north (North Michigan Avenue area) and to the south had total private sector employment of 480,000. Chicago had the second largest downtown (central business district) in the nation in 2000, with an employment density of more than 160,000 per square mile and a transit work trip market share of 55 percent, trailing only the Manhattan business district (south of 59 Street) and the Brooklyn central business district).

    Portland: The Portland Business Alliance reported that downtown Portland employment had fallen from 86,800 in 2001 to 83,400 in 2009. This represents a four percent market share loss in comparison to the metropolitan area over the period. All of Portland’s growth over the period has been in suburban Clark and Skamania counties in Washington, which added 12,700 jobs, while the Oregon portion of the metropolitan area was losing 4,500 jobs.

    In 2000, Portland had the nation’s 22nd largest central business district, and the 12th highest transit work trip market share, at 30 percent (Brooklyn included).

  • Las Vegas, Birmingham & Salt Lake City Show Continuing Dispersion to Suburbs

    Census data released in the last week indicates confirms the continuing dispersion of population away from the historical core municipalities (central cities) to the suburbs in the 2000 to 2010 decade. The new figures, for Las Vegas, Birmingham and Salt Lake City indicate that a majority of growth occurred in the suburbs in each metropolitan area and that the dispersion of population to the suburbs was greater in the 2000s in each case than in the 1990s.

    Las Vegas: The Las Vegas metropolitan area continued to grow strongly, adding 41 percent to its population between 2000 and 2010. This, however, represents a more than halving of the growth rate from the 1990s (86 percent). The metropolitan area population in 2010 was 1,951,000, up from 1,376,000 in 2000.

    The core municipality of Las Vegas of grew 22 percent between 2000 and 2010 (from 478,000 to 584,000). The core city of Las Vegas has an overwhelming suburban urban form, having experienced virtually all of its growth in the modern, car oriented era of suburbanization. During the 2000s, the land area of Las Vegas was expanded from 113 square miles to 131.

    The suburbs grew 52 percent between 2000 and 2010. The suburbs attracted 82 percent of the metropolitan population growth, up from 65 percent in the 1990s. The suburbs now account for 70 percent of the Las Vegas metropolitan area population.

    Birmingham: The Birmingham metropolitan area experienced a decline in growth rate from 10 percent in the 1990s to seven percent in the 2000s. The population increased from 1,052,000 to 1,128,000.

    The historical core municipality of Birmingham declined eight percent, from 243,000 to 212,000. This loss of 13 percent is the largest yet recorded for a historical core municipality in a major metropolitan area. Birmingham’s population peaked at 341,000 in 1960. This loss of more than one-third in population between 1960 and 2010 is despite annexations that doubled the size of the city (from 75 to 150 square miles).

    The suburbs gained 13 percent between 2000 and 2010 and captured 140 percent of the metropolitan area’s growth (up from 124 percent in the 1990s). The suburbs now account for 81 percent of the metropolitan population.

    Salt Lake City: In the Salt Lake City metropolitan area growth declined to 16 percent in the 2000s from 26 percent in the 1990s. The population rose from 969,000 to 1,124,000.

    The historical core municipality of Salt Lake City grew three percent (from 182,000 to 186,000). Salt Lake City reached its population peak at 189,000 in 1960. This modest loss occurred while the land area of the city nearly doubled (from 56 square miles to 109).

    The suburbs gained 19 percent between 2000 and 2010. The suburbs attracted 97 percent of the metropolitan population growth, which is up from 89 percent in the 1990s.

  • City of St. Louis Suffers Huge Population Loss

    According to just-released 2010 Census results, the city of St. Louis experienced an unexpected loss in population from 348,000 in 2000 to 319,000 in 2010. This was surprising since the latest population estimate was 357,000 (2009). The new population figure however provided exoneration for the Census Bureau, which had been challenged six separate times during the decade on its city of St. Louis population estimates. The higher 2009 population estimate was the cumulative effect of those six successful challenges. In fact however, without the challenges the city of St. Louis population would have been 311,000, much closer to the final count of 319,000 people.

    Among the world’s municipalities that have ever achieved 500,000 population non-have lost so much as the city of St. Louis. The new figure of 319,000 people is 63 percent below the 1950 Census peak of 857,000 people. Indeed, the 2010 population is nearly as low as the population in the 1870 census.

    Even so, the population loss of the last decade belies the progress that has been made in converting warehouse buildings, office buildings and other disused structures into urban residential areas, especially along Washington Avenue. These developments, among the largest in the United States, however, fell far short of preventing the population loss.

    The St. Louis Metropolitan area did much better. In 2010, the metropolitan area had a population of 2,813,000, up from 2,699,000 in 2000, a gain of four percent. The loss in the city was eight percent, while the suburbs gained six percent.

  • Hong Kong Response to High Housing Prices: Expand Land Supply

    Hong Kong financial chief John Tsang has promised to expand the city’s land supply for residential housing, "in response to rising public anger over soaring property prices and repeated warnings of a looming real estate bubble." Channel News Asia’s Hong Kong bureau indicated that the move was precipitated by the "sky-high" housing cost that have been drive by insufficient land for development and speculation (which routinely is intensified where demand for housing is permitted to outstrip supply.

    Buggle Lau, chief analyst at property firm Midland Holdings told Channel News Asia that he supported the expansion of the land supply "as a way to bring down house prices," adding "It’s simple economics – lower demand and higher supply will bring prices down." Channel News Asia noted that Hong Kong had been shown to be the most unaffordable metropolitan market in the recent (7th Annual) Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.

  • Seattle, Denver & Portland: Slowing Growth Rates & Convergence

    Just released 2010 Census data indicates that the growth rates of the Seattle, Denver and Portland metropolitan areas fell significantly in the 2000s compared to the 1990s.

    Seattle: Seattle metropolitan area population growth fell to 13 percent in the 2000s compared to 19 percent in the 1990s. The metropolitan area population in 2010 was 3,439,000, up from 3,041,000 in 2000. The historical core municipality of Seattle grew eight percent between 2000 and 2010 (from 563,000 to 608,000), while the suburbs grew 14 percent. The suburbs attracted 89 percent of the metropolitan population growth.

    Denver: The Denver metropolitan area experienced a decline in growth rate from 32 percent to 17 percent, while the population increased from 2,179,000 to 2,543,000. The historical core municipality of Denver grew eight percent, from 554,000 to 600,000. The suburbs grew 20 percent and accounted for 83 percent of the metropolitan area population growth.

    Portland: In the Portland Metropolitan area growth declined to 15 percent from 27 percent, with a population rising from 1,928,000 to 2,226,000. The historical core municipality of Portland grew 10 percent (from 529,002 583,000), while the suburbs gained 17 percent. The suburbs attracted 82 percent of the metropolitan population growth.

    Convergence: These slower population growth rates indicate a convergence with the growth rates achieved by middle American metropolitan areas for which data is available. Indianapolis grew 15 percent and Oklahoma City grew 14 percent, more than Seattle and slightly less than Denver and Portland.

  • The Still Elusive “Return to the City”

    Metropolitan area results are beginning to trickle in from the 2010 census. They reveal that, at least for the major metropolitan areas so far, there is little evidence to support the often repeated claim by think tanks and the media that people are moving from suburbs to the historical core municipalities. This was effectively brought to light in a detailed analysis of Chicago metropolitan area results by New Geography’s Aaron Renn. This article analyzes data available for the eight metropolitan areas with more than 1 million population for which data had been released by February 20.

    Summary: Summarized, the results are as follows. A detailed analysis of the individual metropolitan areas follows (Table 1).

    • In each of the eight metropolitan areas, the preponderance of growth between 2000 and 2010 was in the suburbs, as has been the case for decades. This has occurred even though two events – the energy price spike in mid-decade and the mortgage meltdown – were widely held to have changed this trajectory. On average, 4 percent of the growth was in the historical core municipalities, and 96 percent of the growth was in the suburbs (Figure 1).
    • In each of the eight metropolitan areas, the suburbs grew at a rate substantially greater than that of the core municipality. The core municipalities had an average growth from 2000 to 2010 of 3.2 percent. Suburban growth was 21.7 percent, nearly 7 times as great.  Overall, the number of people added to the suburbs was 14 times that added to the core municipalities.
    Table 1:
    Metropolitan Area Population: 2000-2010
    2000 Population
    Historical Core Municipality Suburbs Metropolitan Area
    Austin              656,562            593,201         1,249,763
    Baltimore              651,154         1,901,840         2,552,994
    Chicago           2,895,671         6,053,068         8,948,739
    Dallas-Fort Worth           1,188,580         3,972,964         5,161,544
    Houston           1,953,631         2,761,776         4,715,407
    Indianapolis              860,454            664,650         1,525,104
    San Antonio           1,144,646            567,057         1,711,703
    Washington              572,059         4,181,934         4,753,993
    Total           9,922,757       20,696,490       30,619,247
    2010 Population
    Austin              790,390            925,899         1,716,289
    Baltimore              620,961         2,089,528         2,710,489
    Chicago           2,695,598         6,599,081         9,294,679
    Dallas-Fort Worth           1,197,816         5,173,957         6,371,773
    Houston           2,099,451         3,846,449         5,945,900
    Indianapolis              903,393            852,848         1,756,241
    San Antonio           1,327,407            815,101         2,142,508
    Washington              601,723         4,883,034         5,484,757
    Total         10,236,739       25,185,897       35,422,636
    Change: 2000-2010
    Austin              133,828            332,698           466,526
    Baltimore              (30,193)            187,688           157,495
    Chicago             (200,073)            546,013           345,940
    Dallas-Fort Worth                 9,236         1,200,993         1,210,229
    Houston              145,820         1,084,673         1,230,493
    Indianapolis               42,939            188,198           231,137
    San Antonio              182,761            248,044           430,805
    Washington               29,664            701,100           730,764
    Total              313,982         4,489,407         4,803,389
    Percentage Change: 2000-2010
    Austin 20.4% 56.1% 37.3%
    Baltimore -4.6% 9.9% 6.2%
    Chicago -6.9% 9.0% 3.9%
    Dallas-Fort Worth 0.8% 30.2% 23.4%
    Houston 7.5% 39.3% 26.1%
    Indianapolis 5.0% 28.3% 15.2%
    San Antonio 16.0% 43.7% 25.2%
    Washington 5.2% 16.8% 15.4%
    Total 3.2% 21.7% 15.7%
    Chicago excludes Kenosha County, WI
    Washington excludes Jefferson County, WV
    Indianapolis core municipality: Indianapolis & Marion County

    Analysis of Individual Metropolitan Areas: The major metropolitan areas for which data is available are described below in order of their population size (Figure 2 and Table 1).

    Chicago:The core municipality of Chicago lost 200,000 residents between 2000 and 2010. Suburban growth was 546,000, adding up to total metropolitan area growth of 346,000 people. The suburbs accounted for 158 percent of the metropolitan area growth. The core municipality decline was stunning in the face of the much ballyhooed urban renaissance in that great city. Yet this renaissance was limited enough as to not lead to an expanding population.

    The decline in the core municipality population represents a major departure from the 2009 Bureau of the Census estimates, which would have implied a 2010 population at least 170,000 higher (assumes the growth rate of 2008 two 2009).

    Instead all of the growth was in the outer suburbs, beyond the inner suburbs of Cook County.

    Dallas-Fort Worth: The historical core municipality of Dallas had a modest population increase of 9000, or less than 1 percent between 2000 and 2010. In contrast, the suburbs experienced an increase of 1.2 million, or 30 percent. Thus, approximately 1 percent of the metropolitan area growth was in the core municipality, while 99 percent was in the suburbs, most of it in the outer suburbs. The inner suburbs added 14 percent to their 2000 population, while the outer suburbs added 36 percent.

    The population figure for the core municipality of Dallas – consistently among the strong core areas –  was surprisingly low, at 9 percent below (117,000) the expected level. The suburban population was 1 percent (71,000) below expectations.

    Houston: The historical core municipality of Houston had comparatively strong population growth, adding 146,000 and 8 percent to its 2000 population. However this figure was 8 percent, or 174,000 below the expected figure. By contrast, the suburban growth was 39 percent, more than five times that of the central jurisdiction. The suburban population growth was 1,085,000, more than six times that of the core jurisdiction. The suburban population was 4 percent or 144,000 higher than expected.

    The core jurisdiction of Houston accounted for 12 percent of the metropolitan area growth while the suburbs s accounted for 88 percent. This was evenly distributed between the inner suburbs of Harris County and the outer suburbs. The inner suburbs added 38 percent to their population while the outer suburbs added 41 percent.

    Washington:Reversing a decade’s long trend, the historical core jurisdiction of Washington (DC) had a small population gain between 2000 and 2010. But the Washington, DC gain of 30,000 pales by comparison to the suburban gain, which was more than 20 times greater, at 700,000. The core jurisdiction accounted for 4 percent of the population gain, while the suburbs accounted for 96 percent.

    More than 60 percent of the growth in the metropolitan area was outside the inner suburban jurisdictions that border Washington, DC (Arlington County and Alexandria in Virginia, together with Montgomery County and Prince George’s County in Maryland), while the inner suburbs accounted for 36 percent of the growth. The population increase in the inner suburbs was 9 percent, compared to 37 percent in the outer suburbs.

    Jefferson County in West Virginia was not included in the analysis because data is not yet available.

    Baltimore: The historical core municipality of Baltimore, the site of another ballyhooed urban comeback, lost 30,000 people, or 5 percent of its 2000 population. Baltimore’s 2010 population was 4 percent or 16,000 below the expected level. The suburbs experienced a 10 percent or 188,000 person increase.  The region’s population increase was roughly equal in numbers between the inner suburbs and the outer suburbs, although the exurban percentage increase was nearly twice as large.

    San Antonio:The historical core municipality of San Antonio experienced the largest population increase among the eight metropolitan areas, at 183,000, a roughly 16 percent population jump. The city of San Antonio accounted 43 percent of the growth while suburbs in Bexar County and further out accounted for a larger 57 percent. However, the suburban population increase was 248,000 or 44 percent. This is something of a turnaround in trends that favored the city of San Antonio in the past because of its vast sprawl and predominant share of the metropolitan population.

    The city of San Antonio population was 5 percent or 65,000 people short of the expected 2010 level. The suburban population was 15 percent more or 104,000 more than the expected level.

    Indianapolis:The historical core area of Indianapolis and Marion County (including enclaves within Indianapolis) grew 5 percent and accounted for 19 percent of the metropolitan area growth. In contrast, the surrounding suburbs grew 28 percent, representing r 81 percent of the metropolitan area growth. Overall, the core municipality added 44,000 people, while the suburbs added more than four times as many, at 188,000.

    Austin:The historical core municipality of Austin experienced the greatest growth of any core jurisdiction in the eight metropolitan areas, at 20 percent. Even so, growth in the suburban areas was nearly 3 times as high at 56 percent. The city of Austin accounted for 29 percent of the metropolitan area population growth, while the suburbs accounted for 71 percent. Overall, the central municipality grew 134,000, while the suburbs grew 2.5 times as much, at 333,000.

    Generally it is fair to say that, so far, suburban areas are growing far faster than urban cores. In addition, most of the fastest growing core municipalities are those areas that are themselves largely suburban, particularly in relatively young cities like San Antonio, Houston and Austin.
     
    Among the eight metropolitan areas analyzed, the older core jurisdictions (with median house construction dates preceding 1960) tended to either lose population or grow modestly. This is illustrated by the city of Chicago, with a median house construction date of 1945, Baltimore with a median house construction date of 1946 and Washington with a median house construction date of 1949 (Table 2). Generally, the central jurisdictions with greater suburbanization (with median house construction dates of 1960 or later) grew more quickly. For example, highly suburban central jurisdictions like Austin with a median house construction date of 1983 and San Antonio, with a median house construction date of 1970, grew fastest. So much for the long forecast, and apparently still elusive, “return to the city”.

    Table 2:
    Historical Core Municipalities: Growth & Median House Age
    Historical Core Municipality
    Growth: 2000-2010 Share of Metropolitan Growth Median House Construction Year
    Austin 20.4% 28.7% 1983
    Baltimore -4.6% -19.2% 1946
    Chicago -6.9% -57.8% 1945
    Dallas-Fort Worth 0.8% 0.8% 1974
    Houston 7.5% 11.9% 1975
    Indianapolis 5.0% 18.6% 1967
    San Antonio 16.0% 42.4% 1979
    Washington 5.2% 4.1% 1949
    Average 3.2% 3.7%

    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”