Intrametropolitan Spatial Differentiation and Decline of Inner-Ring Suburbs

Abstract

This article examines the impact of metropolitan growth patterns on intrametropolitan spatial differentiation and inner-ring suburban decline in the four metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and Portland, using longitudinal census data from 1970 to 2000. The findings of this study show that inner-ring suburbs were increasingly vulnerable to socioeconomic decline relative to other metropolitan subareas. In contrast, the outer-ring suburbs continued to thrive, drawing most of the new population and housing development in the context of intrametropolitan spatial differentiation. The downtowns and some parts of the inner city showed a gradual recovery from the pattern of deterioration. By recognizing the interdependence of all the subareas and applying sound, holistic policies, the public policy decision-making entities can ensure the future stability of the inner-ring suburbs as well as all the surrounding areas of a metropolitan region.

Who Buys Foreclosed Homes? How Neighborhood Characteristics Influence Real Estate-Owned Home Sales to Investors and Households

“…In other words, communities with older residents may be among the least desirable for those seeking either to invest in a home or to purchase it as an owner-occupier. Recent studies have noted that inner-ring suburbs that are characterized by an older, homogenous housing stock have struggled with an aging population, as well as population loss and disinvestment (Hanlon, 2009;lee & leigh, 2007;, Vicino, 2008). Vacant REO properties in these neighborhoods may prove particularly difficult to reoccupy.…”

Metropolitan Growth Patterns and Socio-Economic Disparity in Six US Metropolitan Areas 1970-2000

“…Using the concept of suburban tiers, urban scholars and policymakers have differentiated suburbs into separate communities. More recently, they have focused on inner‐ring suburbs, or first‐tier suburbs, because they exhibit symptoms of physical deterioration and socio‐economic distress similar to those experienced by inner cities (Orfield, 1997; Puentes and Orfield, 2002; Hudnut, 2003; Lucy and Phillips, 2006; Hanlon and Vicino, 2007; Lee and Leigh, 2007; Vicino, 2008). Although these studies addressed suburban diversity and provided consistent evidence of inner‐ring suburban decline, they did not assess how metropolitan growth trends and patterns may have contributed to the decline.…”

“…9 9 The most common indicators for socio‐economic conditions at the neighborhood and community levels in academic literature include income, poverty, unemployment, education, occupation and racial composition (Jargowsky, 1996; 2002; Orfield, 1997; Lucy and Phillips, 2000; Yang and Jargowsky, 2006; Lee and Leigh 2007; Hanlon, 2008). …”

Spatial Mismatch of the Poor: An Explanation of Recent Declines in Job Isolation

“…Nevertheless, new trends and evidence suggests that the story may be much more nuanced. Lee and Leigh (2007, p. 148) argue that “scholars examining decentralization or suburbanization trends in the past several decades have had a simplistic, binary focus on the decline of the downtown and the inner city.” The fact is that the dynamic shifts that have taken place within and between metropolitan regions over the last few decades have been driven by natural and migration changes in population, as well as by changes in employment, business, and development (Lee & Leigh, 2007, p. 147; Martin, 2001). Metropolitan areas have become much more dynamic depending on the age of the city and its outer suburbs.…”