Central Cities and Suburbs as Distinct Place Types: Myth or Fact?

Gober, Patricia; Behr, Michelle

doi:10.2307/143461

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, setting change among central city, suburb and non-metropolitan areas may be negatively perceived. The insigni®cance of the variable representing geographical surrounding changes may be because the censusderived distinction between place types such as central cities, suburbs and non-metropolitan areas fails to re¯ect the considerable variation within each place type and the overlapping nature of many of their characteristics (Gober and Behr, 1982).…”

Section: Interregional Migrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Are pastures greener?’ Residential consequences of migration

2002

International Journal of Population Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residential consequences of migration are important factors influencing households' future moving decisions. Intra‐urban mobility may result in better housing and neighbourhoods for households because such moves are usually motivated by housing adjustment. The same may be true of interregional migration because relocation provides an opportunity for housing improvements. The empirical analysis based on data from the American Housing Survey (AHS) shows that over half of intra‐urban movers and close to half of interregional migrants ended up in more desirable housing following a move, and a smaller but still substantial proportion of the movers in each group also resided in a better neighbourhood. Most of the movers were successful in improving both their housing and neighbourhood. But ‘greener pastures’ are far from being a given. Large proportions of both intra‐urban and interregional migrants failed to improve their residential conditions and many fared worse. Changes in housing and household statuses, particularly tenure shift, appear to be the most salient variable affecting households' judgement on their new residential conditions relative to their previous residence. Changes in geographical surroundings had significant effects on residential outcomes of intra‐urban mobility whereby the general preference for a suburban environment is borne out, but they did not seem to matter to interregional migrants. Most socioeconomic variables did not affect residential outcomes either, over and above their influence on tenure shift. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Interregional Migrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Are pastures greener?’ Residential consequences of migration

2002

International Journal of Population Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Gober and Behr (1982) and others have shown, the suburbs of the United States are urbanizing with respect to a variety of economic activities which are the target of property crime. They are not, however, urbanizing as dramatically with respect to the location of low-income and minority populations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Changing Morphology of Suburban Crime

Brown

Oldakowski

1986

Urban Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the spatial dynamics of suburban crime. Four hypotheses are developed postulating a decreasing central city-su burb disparity in crime rates, persistence in the relative crime rates of individual suburbs, a growing heterogeneity in the levels of crime faced by individual suburbs, and an increasing regionalization of suburban crime. The hypotheses are tested through a case study of the Chicago metropolitan area. Property and violent crime rates are studied separately, and the time frame is 1972 to 1981. Central city and suburban crime rates are found to be converging in Chicago and the United States as a whole. Persistence in the relative crime rates of individual Chicago suburbs is significant but weak. Socioeconomic status dominates the process of change in the relative safety of suburbs-not suburban age, as anticipated. Low status suburbs tend to have high-crime rates, and their relative security is worsening over time; the opposite is true of high-status jurisdictions. This process of consolidated advantage is also occurring in a spatial sense; over time, suburban regions with initially safe environments appear able to reinforce their early advantage.Social scientists have accumulated considerable evidence with which to explain the spatial distribution of crime within metropolitan areas of the United States. However, most previous research has examined crime a t only one point in time (Harries, 1976; Mladenka and Hill, 1976). As a result, little is known about the spatial dynamics of urban crime. This paper develops a set of interrelated hypotheses concerning the changing morphology of suburban crime. It does this by drawing upon two literatures: one on the urban geography of crime and the other on the evolution of suburban residential populations and economic activities. The former identifies those land uses and demographic subgroups which coincide with high-crime rates, and the latter suggests how these landuse and demographic traits change through time. Together they lead to four hypotheses which postulate (1) a decreasing city-suburb disparity in crime rates, (2) persistence in the relative crime rates of individual municipalities within a suburban ring, (3) a growing heterogeneity in the levels of crime faced by individual suburbs, and (4) an increasing regionalization of crime within suburbia.The hypotheses are tested through a case study of the Chicago metropolitan area. Property crime and violent crime are studied separately, and the time frame is 1972 to 1981.The paper begins by reviewing the literature on the spatial distribution o f urban crime. It proceeds to intertwine this literature with knowledge of how residential and economic activities are redistributed through time, thereby generating four hypotheses. The research design is then described and the results presented. The paper concludes with a discussion.

show abstract

“…Si entendemos la centralización como resultado de una elección entre residir en la cabecera o en la corona, hemos de responder a dos preguntas: ¿qué diferencia a las cabeceras de la opción suburbana?, ¿qué lleva a los individuos a optar por cada una de ellas? Respecto a la primera pregunta, la literatura sobre la elección residencial de espacios tiende a entender que cabeceras y coronas, más allá de las particularidades locales que puedan existir, son espacios residenciales diferenciados (Gober y Behr, 1982;Pisman et al, 2011).…”

Section: Factores Individuales De La Elección Residencial De Las Cabeunclassified