Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that, fundamentally, U.S. cities can be summarized by two, and only two characteristics, which then further allows one to break down U.S. cities into three groups. The two questions are as follows.
1. Is the city constrained in growth (surrounded by incorporated suburbs. with no undeveloped land remaining) or is the city able to continue to expand?
2. Has the city attracted substantial numbers of new immigrants (particularly from Asia and Latin America) over the last 30 years?
Answering these questions basically determines which of three piles cities are in.
Cities which can continue to grow geographically are often called sun belt cities. They are generally notable for broad city limits, a high percentage of suburban land area, and generally high levels of domestic migration. While these cities are most frequently in the South and West, they do not have to be. Many Midwestern Cities have fallen into this grouping as well, either through city-county mergers (like Indanapolis) or relatively unconstrained annexation of undeveloped land (Columbus, Kansas City, or Omaha)
Cities which are penned in by suburbs but receive decent immigration inflow are mature cities. They are notable for positive, but usually not stratospheric, population growth. Some of these cities have been experiencing strong gentrification in their cores, but this is usually not a major determinant of demography. For example, NYC actually has an annual loss via domestic migration every year - international immigration is the only thing which keeps the population of the city at large growing.
Cities which are both penned in by suburbs and also do not receive substantial inflows of immigrants are disproportionately rust belt cities. They have been categorized by nearly constantly declining populations since the 1970s. Cities can (and do) recover from rust belt status into mature cities from time to time. A rust belt city cannot become a sun belt city however, barring something like a city-county merger (which would be politically impossible in many U.S. states.
Aside from Dallas controlling Lake Ray Hubbard, the city is surrounded by incorporated suburbs with the exception of a small strip on the southeast. Though, I am unsure of how much empty land is within current Dallas limits to develop. It does a good job attracting new immigrants, though so I guess it's either a sun belt city or a mature city.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57792
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
I think that, fundamentally, U.S. cities can be summarized by two, and only two characteristics, which then further allows one to break down U.S. cities into three groups. The two questions are as follows.
1. Is the city constrained in growth (surrounded by incorporated suburbs. with no undeveloped land remaining) or is the city able to continue to expand?
2. Has the city attracted substantial numbers of new immigrants (particularly from Asia and Latin America) over the last 30 years?
Answering these questions basically determines which of three piles cities are in.
Cities which can continue to grow geographically are often called sun belt cities. They are generally notable for broad city limits, a high percentage of suburban land area, and generally high levels of domestic migration. While these cities are most frequently in the South and West, they do not have to be. Many Midwestern Cities have fallen into this grouping as well, either through city-county mergers (like Indanapolis) or relatively unconstrained annexation of undeveloped land (Columbus, Kansas City, or Omaha)
Cities which are penned in by suburbs but receive decent immigration inflow are mature cities. They are notable for positive, but usually not stratospheric, population growth. Some of these cities have been experiencing strong gentrification in their cores, but this is usually not a major determinant of demography. For example, NYC actually has an annual loss via domestic migration every year - international immigration is the only thing which keeps the population of the city at large growing.
Cities which are both penned in by suburbs and also do not receive substantial inflows of immigrants are disproportionately rust belt cities. They have been categorized by nearly constantly declining populations since the 1970s. Cities can (and do) recover from rust belt status into mature cities from time to time. A rust belt city cannot become a sun belt city however, barring something like a city-county merger (which would be politically impossible in many U.S. states.
Anyway, feel free to pick this apart if you wish.
Explain then, our relatively young city (incorporated in 1998) of about 55,000. We have unincorporated land around us, and plenty of wooded acreage available for development within the city limits, much of it being developed now (100s of homes) to the point where the city is considering a moratorium. We are getting a lot of domestic and foreign immigrants, and I would not describe us as sunbelt with 60" of rain and only seeing the sun even for an hour less than half the days of the year.
Our population has doubled in the last 20 years, Asian residents have gone from 7.8% to 22.4% , the median family income from $42,000 to $144,000 since the year 2000. Perhaps your hypothesis is limited to large cities, or we are an outlier?
Explain then, our relatively young city (incorporated in 1998) of about 55,000. We have unincorporated land around us, and plenty of wooded acreage available for development within the city limits, much of it being developed now (100s of homes) to the point where the city is considering a moratorium. We are getting a lot of domestic and foreign immigrants, and I would not describe us as sunbelt with 60" of rain and only seeing the sun even for an hour less than half the days of the year.
Our population has doubled in the last 20 years, Asian residents have gone from 7.8% to 22.4% , the median family income from $42,000 to $144,000 since the year 2000. Perhaps your hypothesis is limited to large cities, or we are an outlier?
In general yes, I'd consider Washington to be sun belt in terms of its development trajectory - even if it's not sunny there. As I said, a lot of Midwestern cities which aren't sun belt in any way climatically (like Omaha) have sun-belt like population growth because city limits have plenty of greenfield development.
Edit: I was mostly talking about core cities however. I don't think these models really hold for suburbs. Although even established suburbs in tightly incorporated and built out places (like the Northeast) are now going through slow population decline if they aren't attracting new immigrants.
I think the categorization would be better if it used metro areas rather than core cities — city limits have more to do with the political history rather than the development patterns.
A core city that has core decay but annexes its surroundings isn't really developing that differently from one not annexing. Kansas City may fall under this. By just looking at core cities, Los Angeles and NYC would fall under the same category. Maybe Los Angeles is a mature city now, but it seems odd to have them together.
Cities which are penned in by suburbs but receive decent immigration inflow are mature cities. They are notable for positive, but usually not stratospheric, population growth. Some of these cities have been experiencing strong gentrification in their cores, but this is usually not a major determinant of demography. For example, NYC actually has an annual loss via domestic migration every year - international immigration is the only thing which keeps the population of the city at large growing.
I'll add that high immigration cities tend to have high domestic out-migration. Partly because immigrants displace natives (not necessarily flight, but immigrants tend to be more interested in concentrating in a specific neighborhood or city). Also because if the city is favored by immigrants who have just arrived, some of the new immigrants after a decade or two will move out to elsewhere once they feel more settled. These new immigrants [and maybe their children] become domestic out-migrants.
Hypothetically, if a city had a constant influx of immigrants, 1/2 of them left after 10 years + some had children in the city, it would have a high domestic out-migration even if the non-immigrants stayed put.
In general yes, I'd consider Washington to be sun belt in terms of its development trajectory - even if it's not sunny there. As I said, a lot of Midwestern cities which aren't sun belt in any way climatically (like Omaha) have sun-belt like population growth because city limits have plenty of greenfield development.
Edit: I was mostly talking about core cities however. I don't think these models really hold for suburbs. Although even established suburbs in tightly incorporated and built out places (like the Northeast) are now going through slow population decline if they aren't attracting new immigrants.
Omaha may not be considered "sun-belt" but it's pretty sunny, equal to San Antonio, TX and Pensacola, FL. It hasn't annexed anything for about 10 years, and can't annex outside of Douglas County, which it has almost entirely annexed. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...pctposrank.txt
Except for a patch in Adams County, Denver is surrounded by incorporated suburbs, and also prohibited by the Colorado Constitution from annexing w/o the affirmative vote of both the City/County of Denver and the other county. Isn't LA similarly surrounded by incorporated suburbs?
Except for a patch in Adams County, Denver is surrounded by incorporated suburbs, and also prohibited by the Colorado Constitution from annexing w/o the affirmative vote of both the City/County of Denver and the other county. Isn't LA similarly surrounded by incorporated suburbs?
Mostly, Los Angeles has some unincorporated but developed suburbs adjacent. East Los Angeles is unincorporated, has 126,000 people in 7.4 square miles
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
