City Families and Suburban Singles - William H. Frey€¦ · City Families and Suburban Singles: An...

City Families andSuburban Singles:An Emerging Household Story from Census 2000William H. Frey, University of Michigan Population Studies Center and Milken Institute andAlan Berube, Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy

Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy

■ In the 1990s, central city popula-tion growth was at a three-decadehigh, but household growth was at athree-decade low. Growing citiesadded population faster than house-holds in the past decade, whiledeclining cities lost population fasterthan households.

■ Fast-growing cities in the Southand West experienced significantincreases in married couples withchildren, while slow-growing citiesin the Northeast and Midwest expe-rienced declines in these families.In 12 of the 15 central cities with thelargest population declines in the1990s, single parents with childrennow represent a larger share of allhouseholds than “married with chil-dren” households.

■ Suburbs now contain morenonfamily households—largelyyoung singles and elderly peopleliving alone—than married coupleswith children. In 2000, 29 percent ofall suburban households werenonfamilies, while 27 percent weremarried couples with children.Overall, suburbs experienced fastergrowth in every household type thantheir cities in the 1990s.

■ Cities in high-immigration metrosare becoming more “suburban” intheir household composition, whilesuburbs in slow-growing Northernmetros are becoming more “urban”in theirs. “Melting Pot” cities regis-tered strong growth in marriedcouples with children, while suburbsof the Northeast and Midwest regionsexperienced the bulk of their growthin nonfamily and single-parent households.

FindingsAn analysis of population, household, and household type changes in the 102 most popu-lous metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2000 indicates that:

February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 1

“…the types of

households that

fueled city and

suburban

population

growth in the

1990s differed

widely across

U.S. regions.”

I. Introduction

Changes in population duringthe 1990s have been thefocus of much of the debatethus far around the meaning

of the 2000 Census with regard tocities and metropolitan areas. It was adecade of population gains for mostlarge cities, including some that stag-nated or declined in previous decades,like New York and Chicago. Yetsuburban population growthcontinued to outpace that of the cities.Regional distinctions were also impor-tant: both cities and suburbs grewfastest in the South and West, whileseveral cities in the Northeast andMidwest continued to experiencepopulation declines.1

Still, focusing exclusively on popula-tion change offers only a partialpicture of metropolitan growthdynamics in the 1990s. Change in thenumber and composition of house-holds may be a better indicator ofchanges in metropolitan housingdemand, tax base, and services needsthan population change. For instance,in the 1990s the city of Washington,D.C., lost 6 percent of its population,but the number of householdsremained relatively stable (1 percentloss). This implies that, on net, thecity lost larger families with childrenbut gained and retained smaller, child-less households. Looking at householdchange and not just population changehelps to explain the continued highdemand for housing in that city. Wash-ington’s experience, though, isdifferent from that of other cities suchas New York, Detroit, Phoenix and LosAngeles. Recent household changedynamics differ sharply across metro-politan areas, reflecting shiftinghousehold types and location prefer-ences that are shaping cities andsuburbs in new ways.

The present survey interprets theresults of the 2000 Census to revealimportant differences between house-hold growth and population growth inU.S. metropolitan areas and their

component central cities and suburbsduring the 1990s. Additionally, thesurvey shows that the types of house-holds that fueled city and suburbanpopulation growth (or that served tostem city population loss) differedwidely across U.S. regions.

II. Methodology

Metropolitan Area Definitions This study evaluates population andhousehold changes during the 1990sfor the country’s 102 largest metropol-itan areas—namely, those metros with500,000 or more inhabitants asreported in Census 2000. The metro-politan areas analyzed are thosedefined by the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) as MetropolitanStatistical Areas (MSAs) and PrimaryMetropolitan Statistical Areas(PMSAs), and in the New Englandstates, as New England County Metro-politan Areas (NECMAs).

Definition of Central City and Suburbs The present analysis defines centralcities and their suburbs (the portion ofthe metropolitan area located outsideof the central city) largely in accor-dance with OMB definitions in effectfor the 2000 Census. These defini-tions are applied consistently to both1990 and 2000 census data. OMBstandards sometimes combinemultiple cities to form the official“central city” for a given metropolitanarea.2 These standards were modifiedslightly for purposes of this analysis, inthat the largest or best-knowncity/cities in most large metropolitanareas have been designated as the“central city.” We generally treat ascentral cities the place or places listedin the official OMB metropolitan areaname. In the “Detroit, MI PMSA,” forexample, OMB recognizes the cities ofDetroit, Dearborn, Pontiac, and PortHuron as the combined “central city.”Our analysis includes only Detroit asthe “central city” and the remainder ofthe Detroit PMSA is treated as

suburbs. We have in this mannermodified the official definition of“central city” for 56 of the 102 metro-politan areas in this study.3 Centralcities are designated for only 97 of the102 metropolitan areas in our study, sothe populations of the remainingmetro areas are classified as suburban.

Metropolitan Area Typology Portions of this analysis employ ametropolitan area typology introducedin a previous Brookings Census 2000Series survey.4 The typology distin-guishes among metropolitan areas onthe basis of their regional locationsand dominant racial-ethnic structures.This typology is useful in the presentstudy because the nature of householdgrowth in the 1990s is reflective ofboth of these factors. The 102 metro-politan areas are classified as follows:

■ Melting Pot metros (35 metro areas)

■ North—largely white-blackmetros (6 metro areas)

■ North—largely white metros (29 metro areas)

■ South—largely white-blackmetros (19 metro areas)

■ South and West—largely whitemetros (13 metro areas)

“Melting Pot Metros” such as NewYork, Los Angeles, El Paso, andBakersfield have large proportions ofHispanic, Asian, AmericanIndian/Native Alaskan, other races,and multi-racial populations, and arelocated primarily in high-immigrationzones of the U.S.

The two metro categories in theNorth include primarily slow-growingmetropolitan areas in the censusNortheast and Midwest regions.“North—largely white-black” areassuch as Philadelphia and Detroit havesignificant African-American popula-tions; and “North—largely white”areas such as Boston and Minneapolishave smaller minority populations.

Metropolitan areas in the South andWest categories are located in those


faster growing census regions.“South—largely white-black” metrosinclude areas like Atlanta, Baltimore,and Little Rock that have significantAfrican-American populations; and“South and West—largely white” areasinclude those with a smaller minoritypresence, such as Seattle, ColoradoSprings, and Tampa.5 Appendix Bcontains a complete listing of the 102metro areas arranged by their classifi-cations.

Household Type Definitions Our study distinguishes among fivedifferent household types in accor-dance with definitions established bythe decennial census. Table 1 presentsthese categories and the shares of allU.S. households that each one repre-sented in 1990 and 2000.

Families are defined by the presenceof two or more people in the house-hold related by birth, marriage oradoption, and children refer to aparent’s own children under the age of18. A great deal of demographic diver-sity exists not only among but alsowithin these household types. Each ofthe five major household typescomprises a spectrum of householdswith a wide range of service needs andwith varying abilities to contribute tothe local tax base—differencesdictated in large part by householdsize and by the age of householdmembers. The five households typesare as follows:

■ Married with children: As thechildren of Baby Boomers ageand leave home, the traditional“nuclear family” household typeaccounts for a shrinking portionof all U.S. households. In 2000,less than one-fourth of all house-holds nationwide were of thistype, compared to 40.3 percent ofall households in 1970.

■ Married without children: The 28percent of households that aremarried couples without children

includes young, often two-earnercouples who have not yet hadchildren, older “empty nester”couples whose children mayrecently have left home, andelderly couples who may havegrandchildren of their own.

■ Other families with children:These households are usuallysingle-parent family households,and four out of five of them areheaded by females. While disad-vantaged single mothers whogave birth at a young age makeup a significant portion of thesehouseholds, the category alsoincludes most divorced and sepa-rated parents with children,never-married mothers whochose to have children at a laterage, and unmarried partnerswith children.

■ Other families without children: These householdsinclude single adults withparents living in their home,single parents with children over18 living in their home, andadult relatives (such as brothersand sisters) living in the samehousehold.

■ Nonfamilies: More than 80percent of nonfamily householdsare single persons living alone; ofthese, more than one-third are65 years and older. Othernonfamily households consist ofnon-relatives living together,including unmarried partnerswith no children.

The reader should keep in mindthat household growth and declinecan occur in a more dynamic, variedfashion than population change. Asidefrom in-migration or out-migration,changes in the number of householdsresult from household formation anddissolution. New households formlargely when “coming of age” lateteens and young adults leave theirparents’ homes to form their own.Changes in other existing householdscan also affect household growth: forinstance, two nonfamily single house-holds may combine to form a marriedcouple household; likewise, a divorcemay create two households from one.Life transitions can also lead tochanges in household type, as when amarried couple without childrenhousehold experiences the birth of achild (thus creating a married couplewith children household), or thedeath of a spouse (thus creating anonfamily household).


Table 1: Share of all U.S. Households by Household Type,1990 and 2000

1990 2000Family Households 70.2 68.1

Married Couple 55.1 51.7With own children under 18 26.7 23.5No own children under 18 28.4 28.1

Other Family 15.0 16.4With own children under 18 9.3 9.2No own children under 18 5.7 7.1

Nonfamily Households 29.8 31.9Persons Living Alone 24.6 25.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

III. Findings

A. In the 1990s, central city popula-tion growth was at a three-decadehigh, but household growth was at athree-decade low. Metropolitan household and popula-tion changes in the last decadeoccurred within the context of largerU.S. demographic forces, with the1990s representing a dramatic shift inhousehold and population dynamicsfrom just two decades prior. In the1970s, U.S. population growth wasslower than in the 1950s and 1960s,as the Baby Boomers entering adult-hood during that decade had childrenat lower rates than did their earliercounterparts. At the same time,however, households grew at recordpace in the U.S. during the 1970s. Asthey entered traditional householdformation ages, Boomers were notonly more numerous than previousgenerations at those ages, but alsothey waited longer than their parentsto “double up” and form couples tostart families, thus creating morehouseholds per capita.

With the Boomers dominating theAmerican demographic landscape, thenumber of U.S. households in the1970s in fact grew at more than twicethe rate of U.S. population (27percent versus 11.4 percent) (seeFigure 1). This growth differentialnarrowed somewhat during the 1980s,but the household gains generated bythe late Boomers during that decadestill exceeded population gains bymore than half. In the 1990s, however,the gap between U.S. population andhousehold growth narrowed consider-ably. Household growth was at athree-decade low, and populationgrowth at a three-decade high.

Following the national trend,central cities in all metropolitan areasexperienced faster population growthand slower household growth in the1990s than in the 1970s or 1980s. AsFigure 2 shows, central city popula-tion growth during the 1970s wasbarely positive (0.1 percent), became

much stronger in the 1980s (7.0percent), and continued on thisupward trend during the 1990s (9.8percent). Over the same period, citiesexperienced declines in the householdgrowth rate similar to, though lesssteep than, the nation as a whole—

from 14.6 percent in the 1970s to 9.9percent in the 1990s.

This shift in the direction of house-hold-versus-population growth isbased on separate demographic forces.The recent declines in householdgrowth are attributable to the smaller


Figure 1: U.S. Household and Population Growth by Decade, 1970–2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1970–80 1980–90 1990–2000

Household GrowthPopulation Growth

27

11.4

16

9.8

14.713.2

Per

cen

tage

Ch

ange

Figure 2: Central City Household and Population Growth by Decade, 1970–2000*

*Central cities of all U.S. metropolitan areas

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1970–80 1980–90 1990–2000

Household GrowthPopulation Growth

14.5

0.1

10.8

7.0

9.9 9.8

Per

cen

tage

Ch

ange

post-Boomer generation entering itshousehold formation years in the1990s. The recent increases in popula-tion growth can be attributed in largepart to immigrant population waveswhose first, second and third genera-tions are living in cities, and haveyounger age structures and oftenhigher birth rates. In addition, the

households these newcomers form aredifferent from those formed in the1970s by “coming of age” BabyBoomers. Immigrants and children ofimmigrants are more likely to marryearlier and form larger, married couplewith children households. As weexplore later in greater detail, thecharacter of city households, espe-

cially in fast-growing cities, is quitedifferent today from what it was 20 to30 years ago.

One implication of these trends isthat the household growth “cushion”that central cities enjoyed duringearlier decades no longer exists. In the1970s, cities that declined or grewonly modestly in population could


Table 2: Population and Household Growth Rates 1990-2000Central Cities with Greatest Population Growth and Decline in Metro Areas

with Population Over 500,000

Central City Growth RatesPOPULATION HOUSEHOLD Difference

METRO AREAS WITH GREATEST CENTRAL CITY POPULATION GROWTH1. Las Vegas, NV-AZ MSA 85 77 -82. Bakersfield, CA MSA 41 34 -83. Austin, TX MSA 41 38 -34. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 40 47 65. Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA 39 35 -46. Charlotte, NC-SC MSA 37 36 -17. Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 35 28 -78. Raleigh-Durham, NC MSA 34 32 -29. Colorado Springs, CO MSA 28 28 -1

10. Greensboro—Winston-Salem—High Point, NC MSA 25 25 011 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 22 19 -312 San Antonio, TX MSA 22 24 213 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA 21 21 -114 Fresno, CA MSA 21 15 -615 Orange County, CA PMSA 21 11 -10

METRO AREAS WITH GREATEST CENTRAL CITY POPULATION DECLINE1. Hartford, CT NECMA -13 -13 02. St. Louis, MO-IL MSA -12 -11 13. Youngstown-Warren, OH MSA -12 -10 24. Gary, IN PMSA -12 -7 55. Baltimore, MD PMSA -12 -7 56. Buffalo, NY MSA -11 -10 17. Syracuse, NY MSA -10 -8 28. Pittsburgh, PA MSA -10 -6 39. Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA -9 -4 5

10. Birmingham, AL MSA -9 -6 211 Dayton-Springfield, OH MSA -8 -6 212 Detroit, MI PMSA -7 -10 -313 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA -6 -4 214 Scranton-Hazleton, PA MSA -6 -4 315 Toledo, OH MSA -6 -1 4

Note: Pertains to MSAs, PMSAs, and (in New England) NECMAs, as defined in June, 2000 by OMB with modifications for central cities. See text.

Source: William H. Frey analysis of decennial census data

nevertheless count on continueddemand for housing among newBoomer households. With populationgrowth and household growth virtuallyat parity during the 1990s, however,cities in general seemed able to enjoysustained housing demand andgrowing tax bases only if their popula-tions were increasing.

These dominant city trends ofreduced household formation andincreased population growth, espe-cially the growth of families withchildren among immigrant groups, didnot hold across all central cities.Among the cities in this study, popula-tion growth in the 1990s ranged froma decline of 13 percent (Hartford, CT)to a gain of 85 percent (Las Vegas,NV). Overall, three-fourths of centralcities showed population gains. Table2 displays the 15 central cities in thisstudy with the highest populationgrowth during the 1990s and the 15cities with the largest populationdeclines. Notably, the cities showingthe greatest population growth wereall located in the South and Westcensus regions; those with the greatestpopulation declines were overwhelm-ingly in the North and Midwest.6 (SeeAppendix A for a complete listing ofpopulation and household growthrates in the 102 metropolitan areas.)

Almost uniformly, the rapidlygrowing cities experienced fasterpopulation growth than householdgrowth. The most notable example wasLas Vegas. Its population growth rateover the decade was 85 percent, butits household growth rate was only 77percent. This implies that averagehousehold size in Las Vegas was onthe rise in the 1990s. A number oflikely reasons underlie this trend,including the city attracting largerhouseholds, births occurring amongfamilies already living in the city in1990, and families “doubling up” inone housing unit. Some other cities inwhich the population growth rate wasmuch higher than the householdgrowth rate during the 1990s areBakersfield, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Fresno,

CA; and the central cities of OrangeCounty, CA (Santa Ana, Anaheim, andIrvine). The housing pressures accom-panying the large population increasesin these cities were eased in part bytheir slower increases in numbers ofhouseholds.

Conversely, cities with falling popu-lations lost households also, but atslower rates than they lost population.Gary, IN; Baltimore, MD; and Cincin-nati, OH, all experienced much morerapid declines in population than inhouseholds. In effect, the household“cushion” still existed for these cities,although it was much smaller than inprevious decades. The problemsaccompanying their population losseswere perhaps muted to some extent bytheir slower declines in households.This pattern of faster populationdecline than household decline indi-cates that these cities lost, on net,larger families at higher rates thanthey did smaller families and single-person households. The relatively largenumber of elderly residents in thesecities also suggests that their fasterpopulation decreases may haveoccurred in part as a result of deathsin existing family households.7

B. Fast-growing cities in the Southand West experienced significantincreases in married couples withchildren, while slow-growing citiesin the Northeast and Midwest expe-rienced declines in these families.Looking more closely at changes in thetypes of households that lived in citiesin the 1990s, we see important differ-ences between fast-growing andslow-growing/declining cities. Overall,“married with children” families forma significantly smaller percentage ofall U.S. households than in previousdecades.8 Yet fast-growing cities in theU.S. South and West experiencedlarge increases in numbers of familyhouseholds—especially marriedcouples—with children.9 Meanwhile,in slow-growing cities of the Northeastand Midwest in the 1990s, married-couple family households, particularly

those with children, declined at muchfaster rates than did nonfamilies andother families. (See Appendix B for acomplete listing of central city house-hold type shares and household typegrowth rates for the 102 metropolitanareas.)

Fast-growing cities in the 1990s arecharacterized by the considerable pres-ence of married couples, includingthose with children, among their resi-dent and new-arrival populations(upper panel of Table 3). In 13 of the15 fastest-growing central cities,married-couple households (with andwithout children) account for morethan 40 percent of all city households,and they account for half or more ofcentral city households in metro areassuch as Las Vegas, NV; Bakersfield,CA; McAllen, TX; and Orange County,CA. (For purposes of comparison,married couples account for 39percent of combined central cityhouseholds for all metro areas in thisstudy.) In eight of these 15 metros, thecentral city’s “married with children”household share equals or exceeds thenational average of 23.5 percent. Inpart, the large percentages of married-couple households in thesefast-growing central cities in the Southand West reflect the fairly expansiveborders of these cities, which are notas “hemmed in” as most Northeast andMidwest cities. These cities are thusable to incorporate a more “suburban”population within their boundaries.

Married-couple households werenot the only types driving populationgrowth in the fast-growing cities of the1990s. Most of these cities experi-enced significant growth in all types ofhouseholds (upper right panel of Table3). Nearly all of the central cities inthese metros saw their nonfamilyhouseholds increase by more thanone-third, and their growth rates forfamilies not headed by a marriedcouple often exceeded those formarried-couple households. However,the growth of married-couple house-holds reinforced their already sizeablebase population in these fast-growing



Tabl

e 3:

200

0 H

ouse

hold

Typ

e S

hare

s an

d 19

90-2

000

Rat

es o

f H

ouse

hold

Typ

e G

row

thC

entr

al C

itie

s w

ith

Gre

ates

t P

opul

atio

n G

row

th a

nd D

ecli

ne i

n M

etro

Are

as w

ith

Pop

ulat

ion

Ove

r 50

0,00

0

CENT

RAL

CITY

HOU

SEHO

LD T

YPE

SHAR

ES19

90-2

000

RATE

S OF

HOU

SEHO

LD G

ROW

TH

MAR

RIED

COU

PLES

OTHE

R FA

MIL

IES

MAR

RIED

COU

PLES

OTHE

R FA

MIL

IES

NO

With

NOW

ITH

NON

NOW

ITH

NOW

ITH

NON

Cent

ral C

ities

of M

etro

Are

asCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DFA

M.

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

FAM

.

ME

TR

O A

RE

AS

WIT

H G

RE

AT

ES

T C

EN

TR

AL

CIT

Y P

OP

UL

AT

ION

IN

CR

EA

SE

1.L

as V

egas

, NV-

AZ

MS

A27

228

1034

7679

8570

972.

Bak

ersf

ield

, CA

MS

A24

297

1427

2735

5025

573.

Aus

tin,

TX

MS

A20

197

847

3131

5542

394.

McA

llen-

Edi

nbur

g-M

issi

on, T

X M

SA

2733

911

2050

3665

5543

5.Po

rtla

nd-V

anco

uver

, OR

-WA

PM

SA

2317

69

4528

3833

3745

6.C

harl

otte

, NC

-SC

MS

A23

218

1039

2030

2948

497.

Pho

enix

-Mes

a, A

Z M

SA

2424

711

3415

2548

3055

8.R

alei

gh-D

urha

m, N

C M

SA

2118

710

4422

3031

3649

9.C

olor

ado

Spr

ings

, CO

MS

A27

255

934

2418

5033

3710

.Gre

ensb

oro-

-Win

ston

-Sal

em--

Hig

h Po

int,

NC

MS

A24

178

1139

1420

2130

4411

Fort

Wor

th-A

rlin

gton

, TX

PM

SA

2325

811

347

1730

1949

12S

an A

nton

io, T

X M

SA

2424

912

3119

1436

3036

13W

est

Palm

Bea

ch-B

oca

Rat

on, F

L M

SA

2816

78

439

1913

2943

14F

resn

o, C

A M

SA

2125

915

304

1733

1130

15O

rang

e C

ount

y, C

A P

MS

A22

359

1024

025

9-1

32

ME

TR

O A

RE

AS

WIT

H G

RE

AT

ES

T C

EN

TR

AL

CIT

Y P

OP

UL

AT

ION

DE

CL

INE

1.H

artf

ord,

CT

NE

CM

A14

1212

2340

-23

-15

-7-6

-13

2.S

t. L

ouis

, MO

-IL

MS

A15

1112

1548

-27

-19

-9-1

-53.

Youn

gsto

wn-

War

ren,

OH

MS

A22

1311

1538

-24

-31

-44

44.

Gar

y, I

N P

MS

A19

1117

2033

-14

-36

12-8

75.

Bal

tim

ore,

MD

PM

SA

1710

1516

43-2

3-2

7-5

-27

6.B

uffa

lo, N

Y M

SA

1612

1017

45-2

6-2

4-8

7-4

7.S

yrac

use,

NY

MS

A16

128

1649

-24

-23

-10

14-3

8.P

itts

burg

h, P

A M

SA

2011

1010

48-1

9-2

0-1

82

59.

Cin

cinn

ati,

OH

-KY-

IN P

MS

A16

118

1451

-17

-25

-75

610

.Bir

min

gham

, AL

MS

A19

1314

1540

-23

-25

311

311

Day

ton-

Spr

ingf

ield

, OH

MS

A20

1410

1443

-18

-23

-42

412

Det

roit

, MI

PM

SA

1413

1721

35-2

3-1

32

-9-9

13A

lban

y-S

chen

ecta

dy-T

roy,

NY

MS

A17

128

1350

-19

-22

-14

273

14S

cran

ton-

Haz

leto

n, P

A M

SA

2416

99

42-1

5-1

8-1

223

915

Tole

do, O

H M

SA

2216

813

40-1

3-2

1-1

2011

Sou

rce:

Wil

liam

H. F

rey

anal

ysis

of d

ecen

nial

cen

sus

data

cities. As Table 4 indicates, eight ofthe 15 fastest-growing metro areacentral cities were also among the 15central cities with the highest share of“married with children” families in2000. In most of the nation’s fastest-growing central cites in majormetropolitan areas, large immigrantand migrant populations, and theattraction of young married couplesand married couples with children,create distinctive residential growthdynamics.

Cities that experienced populationdeclines in the 1990s offered a starkcontrast to the “married with children”phenomenon in growing cities. Indeclining cities in the 1990s, popula-tion tended to drop at a faster rate thandid households, and the number oflarger married-couple households—especially those with children—decreased faster than did other house-hold types. As the bottom right panelof Table 3 indicates, central cities infive of these 15 metro areas lost atleast a quarter of their total “marriedwith children” households: Youngstown-Warren, OH; Gary, IN; Baltimore, MD;Cincinnati, OH; and Birmingham, AL.Married couples with children madeup at least 20 percent of households inmost of the fastest-growing centralcities in 2000, but far less than 20percent of households in each of the15 declining central cities (bottom leftpanel of Table 3).

Yet only the top two decliningcities—Hartford, CT and St. Louis,MO—experienced net losses in all fivehousehold types. Many of thedeclining cities in fact continued toexperience growth in nonfamily house-holds in the 1990s. In most of thesecities, this household type—largelyrepresenting younger singles andelderly persons living alone—consti-tuted at least 40 percent of allhouseholds in 2000. The bottom rightpanel of Table 3 shows that ten ofthese 15 central cities experiencedmodest growth in their nonfamilyhousehold population. A rise innonfamily households in the declining

cities does not necessarily imply thatsuch cities continued to attractcoming-of-age singles in the 1990s. Asindicated earlier, this nonfamilygrowth could be attributable in part tothe death of spouses in elderlymarried-couple families; this may alsohelp to account for some of thedecreases in “married without chil-dren” households that these citieswitnessed over the decade.

Families with children not headedby a married couple were also on therise in most of the declining cities inthe 1990s. Ten of the 15 fastest-declining central cities saw growth inthis household type, which most oftenrepresents single parents with chil-dren, and in some cases cohabitingpartners with children. Three of theseten cities—Albany-Schenectady-Troy,NY; Scranton-Hazleton, PA; andToledo, OH—experienced greater than20 percent growth in this householdtype, and a nearly equivalent decline

in the number of married families withchildren. In 12 of the 15 fastest-declining cities, “other families withchildren” now account for a greatershare of households than “marriedwith children” households (bottom leftpanel of Table 3). In theory, the “otherfamilies with children” household typecould have grown as the result ofincreased divorce, spousal deaths, orfamilies of this type moving to thedeclining cities. In all likelihood,however, this growth reflects a numberof other trends in these cities,including continued births to youngerunwed mothers and increasing rates ofcohabitation among unwed parents.

The selective out-migration oflarger, married-couple family house-holds is characteristic of older,declining central cities. Most suchcities are located in regions of thecountry where neither central citiesnor suburbs are gaining residents from other parts of the U.S. Addition-


Table 4: “Married with Children” Central Cities, 2000(Major Metro Central Cities with Greatest Shares

of Married Couples with Children)

PercentMarried Couples

Metro Area Central Cities: with Children*1 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA 34.72 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 33.23 San Jose, CA 29.94 El Paso, TX 29.75 Bakersfield, CA 28.66 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 27.17 Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA 26.28 Stockton-Lodi, CA 25.99 Fresno, CA 25.410 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 25.211 Colorado Springs, CO 24.712 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 24.213 San Antonio, TX 24.114 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA 23.6National Average 23.515 Ventura, CA 22.7

*Married Couples with Children as percent of total Central City households


ally, none of these central cities isbenefiting appreciably from the recentimmigration waves that have fueledgrowth in many of the fast-growingcities. In earlier decades, these citiescould count on Baby Boomer “comingof age” households—includingmarried-couple households—to locatethere prior to moving to the suburbs.Their prospects for growth from thissource are no longer so strong.

In between the fast-growing anddeclining cities lies a small group ofcities that staged a population “come-back” in the 1990s after losingpopulation in the 1980s.10 Householdstatistics indicate that different typesof households accounted for the turn-around in each of thesecities—Atlanta, GA; Chicago, IL;Denver, CO; and Memphis, TN. WhileDenver experienced increases inmarried couples with and without chil-dren, Atlanta and Memphis sawdeclines in this household type.Single-parent families with childrenwere on the decline in Atlanta andChicago, but increased by 28 percentin Memphis, where they now repre-sent 17 percent of all households. The“comeback” cities were similar,though, in that “coming of age” singlesrepresented a renewed source ofhousehold growth. Across all fourcities, nonfamily households increasedin number by 16 percent; thoseheaded by 25 to 34 year-olds increasedby 21 percent.

C. Suburbs now contain morenonfamily households—largelyyoung singles and elderly peopleliving alone—than married coupleswith children.Despite a three-decade high in centralcity population growth in the 1990s,suburban growth continued to domi-nate the metropolitan landscape. Thehousehold source of that suburbanpopulation growth, however, was quitedifferent than that traditionally asso-ciated with the suburban lifestyle.

Overall, while the population incentral cities of the top 102 metropol-

itan areas grew by 9 percent over thedecade, the number of suburban resi-dents in these metros grew by nearly17 percent. The suburbs maintainedan even more significant advantageover cities in household growth, withan increase of 18 percent in the1990s, versus 8.6 percent in cities.11

Faster suburban household growthwas not limited to certain types ofhouseholds. Across four of the fivemajor household types, suburbangrowth rates were roughly doublecentral city growth rates (Figure 3).And while central cities experienced anet loss of 2 percent of their “marriedwithout children” households, thesehouseholds actually grew by 10percent in the suburbs.

Notably, Figure 3 also shows thatthe suburbs of major metropolitanareas are home to growing numbers ofhousehold types traditionally associ-ated with cities. Overall, nonfamiliesand single-parent families were thefastest growing household types inmajor metropolitan suburbs in the1990s. The profile of these householdtypes in suburbs may differ somewhatfrom their profile in cities; forinstance, a greater share of “other

families with children” households inthe suburbs than in the cities may bethe product of divorce, separation orcohabitation.

Nonetheless, as a result of the riseof smaller nonfamily and single-parentfamily household types in the suburbs,household growth maintained an edgeover population growth in the suburbsin the 1990s. This implies that averagesuburban household size decreasedover the decade. In contrast, in thecentral cities, household and popula-tion growth were nearly equivalent,and average household size was stable.One implication of the decrease inaverage household size in suburbs inthe 1990s may be higher per capitahousing demand. The type of housingthat these smaller households seek,however, may be somewhat differentthan that demanded by the largerhousehold types that have traditionallypredominated in the suburbs.

This trend has changed the house-hold makeup of suburbs rathersignificantly. Figure 4 shows the shareof all households that each majorhousehold type represented in suburbsin 2000. It indicates that nonfamiliesnow represent a larger share of


Figure 3: Suburb and Central City Household Change by Household Type, 1990-2000, Metro Areas

with Population Over 500,000

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Central CitySuburbs

9

18

-2

10

6

1210

20 19

41

13

27

All Households Married-no children

Mariried-with children

Other Family-no children

Other Family-with children

Nonfamily

Household Type

Per

cent

age

Cha

nge

total suburban households than dotraditional “married with children”households. (See Appendix B for acomplete list of suburban householdtype shares and household type growthrates for the 102 metropolitan areas.)As they did in 1990, households withchildren under 18 still make up aboutone-third (35 percent) of all suburbanhouseholds. Now, however, nearly onein four (24 percent) suburban house-holds with children is not headed by amarried couple, as compared with lessthan one in five a decade ago.

D. Cities in high-immigrationmetros are becoming more“suburban” in their householdcomposition, while suburbs in slow-growing Northern metros arebecoming more “urban” in theirs.For much of the post-World War IIera, a suburban residence was gener-ally associated with child-raising. Cityhouseholds relocated to suburbancommunities chosen on the basis oftheir mix of available housing,community services, and quality ofschool systems. As a consequence, theshare of “married with children”central city households began to

shrink over time.12 Conversely, citieswere associated with “coming-of-age”singles and childless married couples,as well as with traditionally moredisadvantaged groups like single-parent families and elderlyhomeowners. To a large extent, theseresidential patterns still hold in muchof metropolitan America. But impor-tant regional trends emerged in the1990s that blur some of the long-established demographic distinctionsbetween cities and suburbs. Ingeneral, cities in high-immigrationmetros and in fast-growing metros inthe South and West experiencedincreases in “married with children”families, while in the suburbs ofslower-growing Northern metros thenumbers of single-parent family andsmall nonfamily households were onthe rise.

City Patterns by Metro TypeThe image of “suburbs only” asfavored locales for two-parent familiesis changing as new waves of immi-grants make their homes in centralcities, especially in selected “MeltingPot” metropolitan areas. Among newimmigrant minorities—Hispanics in

particular—birth rates are higher andmarried-couple families with childrenare more prevalent than among thegeneral population. The 2000 Censusshows that among Hispanics, 45percent of all families are marriedcouples with children, and 35 percentof females are in their prime childbearing ages (15-34), in comparisonwith 35 percent and 27 percentrespectively, for the total U.S. popula-tion. Comparable numbers for Asiansin 2000 are 46 percent marriedcouples with children, and 33 percentof women in their younger childbearing ages.

The right-hand panel of Table 5reveals that the highest rates of centralcity household growth were in MeltingPot metro areas, and in “New Sunbelt”metro areas located in the South andWest.13 Melting Pot central cities andcities in the South and West—largelywhite metros experienced significantincreases in “married with children”households. Cities in other metrotypes experienced net losses of suchhouseholds, as well as of married-couple households without children(see Appendix B for a list of 1990-2000 household type growth rates and2000 shares for all central cities).

In part because of the increases inthese families during the 1990s,Melting Pot metros led other metrocategories in the share of their cityhouseholds (20 percent) that aremarried couples with children (left-hand panel of Table 5). In fact, 13 ofthe top 15 metro areas for central city“married with children” householdshares are Melting Pot metros withsignificant Hispanic and/or Asianpopulations (Table 4). For instance,more than one-third of OrangeCounty’s central city households aremarried couple families with children.The combined population of SantaAna, Anaheim and Irvine—OrangeCounty’s central cities—is 52 percentHispanic, 14 percent Asian, and 30percent non-Hispanic white. Incontrast, Orange County’s suburbs are60 percent non-Hispanic white, and


Figure 4: Household Type Shares in Suburbs, 2000, Metro Areas with Population Over 500,000

Nonfamily29%

Other family-with children

8%

Other family-no children

7%

Married-no children

29%

Married-with children

27%

the married couple share of OrangeCounty’s suburban households (27percent) is lower than that of itscentral cities.

Central cities located in the Southand West—largely white metro areasalso exhibit relatively high shares ofmarried couple families both with (17percent) and without (23 percent)children in their central cities, as wellas significant growth (9 percent) in“married with children” households.Previous analyses found that most ofthese areas experienced significantdomestic in-migration over the 1990s,including an influx of married couplepopulations.14

The other “New Sunbelt” categoryof metros, the South—largely white-black areas, included a few cities withgrowing married-couple populations,such as Charlotte, Greensboro, andRaleigh, NC. But the majority of citiesin this category actually lost married-couple households, both with andwithout children. These include a fewcities with declining populations(Baltimore, MD; Birmingham, AL;Greenville, SC; New Orleans, LA; andRichmond, VA), as well as modestlygrowing central cities, such as Atlanta,GA. The cities in this group experi-enced substantial losses of whitefamilies in previous decades and now

house slightly above-average shares ofnonfamily households and single-parent households.

Northern metro areas, in general,were the most likely to experience slowgrowth or decrease in their central citypopulations and households duringthe 1990s. All six of the North—largely white-black metro central citiesdeclined in both population andhouseholds. These areas with signifi-cant inner-city black populationscontinued to lose white familiesduring the 1990s as they had inprevious decades. Consequently, thesecities have smaller “married with chil-dren” shares, and experienced larger

February 2002 • The Brookings Institution • Census 2000 Series 1 1

Table 5: 2000 Shares and 1990–2000 Rates of Growth for Household Types: Central Cities and Suburbs of Metro Areas with Population Over 500,000 by Metro Area Type

HOUSEHOLD TYPE SHARES, 2000 1990-2000 RATES OF HOUSEHOLD GROWTHMARRIED COUPLES OTHER FAMILIES NON MARRIED COUPLES OTHER FAMILIES NON TOTAL

Number NO CHILD W/CHILD NO CHILD W/CHILD FAM. NO CHILD W/CHILD NO CHILD W/CHILD FAM. HHsCENTRAL CITIESMELTING POTS 33 21 20 10 11 38 2 13 14 21 12 11NORTH—Largely White-Black 6 17 13 13 17 40 -20 -17 -1 5 1 -5NORTH—Largely White 26 20 16 8 12 44 -9 -8 1 17 11 3SOUTH—Largely White-Black 19 21 16 10 13 40 -1 -3 12 22 21 11SOUTH & WEST—Largely White 13 23 17 7 9 44 2 9 16 24 20 13

Central City Total 97 21 18 10 12 40 -2 6 10 19 13 9

SUBURBSMELTING POTS 35 28 28 7 9 28 11 18 26 43 22 19NORTH—Largely White-Black 6 30 25 7 8 31 4 2 10 31 27 12NORTH—Largely White 29 30 26 6 7 30 5 4 6 34 25 12SOUTH—Largely White-Black 19 30 27 7 9 28 21 15 32 55 40 27SOUTH & WEST—Largely White 13 31 25 6 8 30 18 15 36 45 36 25

Suburbs Total 102 29 27 7 8 29 10 12 20 41 27 18


1990-2000 declines in these shares,than cities in other metro types. Some-what similar household andpopulation dynamics characterize theNorth—largely white metros. Centralcities in 14 of these 26 metro areaslost population in the 1990s, and anumber are included in the decliningcentral cities listed in Table 2 andTable 3. Because of selective subur-banization over many decades, mostcities in this category now housesomewhat smaller shares of marriedcouples than do cities in other types ofmetros. Table 5 also shows thatoverall, central cities in North—largelywhite metros lost married-couple fami-lies during the 1990s.

The importance of married-couplefamily households to city growth in the1990s is most apparent in a compar-ison of household growth rates inMelting Pot cities versus North—largely white cities. Differencesbetween the growth of nonfamily andsingle-parent family households,which combined represent roughlyhalf of all households in these cities,are rather small. But the loss ofmarried-couple families in theNorthern cities stands in starkcontrast to the Melting Pot cities’significant gains in “married with chil-dren” households and modestincreases in childless married couplehouseholds. As a result, overall house-hold growth in Melting Pot citiessignificantly outpaced that in North—largely white cities.

Suburban Patterns by Metro TypeAcross the suburbs of all types ofmetro areas, the number of single-parent and nonfamily householdsincreased by double-digit rates. InMelting Pot metros and New Sunbeltmetros, these single-parent andnonfamily household increases wereaccompanied by considerable growthin married couple families (Table 5).However, in Northern suburbs (forboth largely white-black and largelywhite metros), growth in nonfamily

and single-parent family householdsvirtually dwarfed married-couplefamily growth. While married-couplefamilies grew between 2 and 5 percentoverall in these Northern suburbs,single-parent and nonfamily house-holds grew at rates exceeding 25percent. By 2000, nonfamily suburbanhousehold share exceeded “marriedwith children” suburban householdshare by significant amounts in eachof the Northern metro types.

In Northern metros, the differenceswere stark not only between differentsuburban household types, but alsobetween the suburbs and the centralcities. Because of past migrationpatterns, married-couple families stillconstitute more than 50 percent oftotal households in the suburbs ofeach of these metropolitan areas—much higher than their 30 percentshare in the cities. In a number ofthese metros, however, that gapnarrowed in the 1990s. The suburbs ofthe North—largely white-black metrossaw their nonfamily households growby 27 percent in the 1990s; in theircities, however, nonfamilies grew byonly 1 percent. The city of Detroit, forinstance, lost 9 percent of itsnonfamily households in the 1990s,while its suburbs saw this householdtype grow by nearly a third (seeAppendix B). Similarly, single-parentfamilies also grew much faster in thesuburbs of North—largely white-blackmetros (31 percent) than in the cities(5 percent). Three of those six metroareas actually showed absolutedeclines in their suburban “marriedwith children” households during thedecade. Thus, several household typestraditionally associated with the city—”coming of age” singles, single parents,and elderly people living alone—arebecoming increasingly common inslow-growing Northern suburbs.

While the majority of householdgrowth in Northern suburbs came inthe form of single-parent families andsmaller nonfamilies, other metro typesuburbs experienced significant

growth in all types of households. Thelargest increases occurred in the NewSunbelt suburbs of the South andWest, where the total number ofhouseholds jumped by more than 25percent during the decade. In general,the New Sunbelt suburbs experiencedgrowth in all types of households atfaster rates than did the Northernsuburbs; the differential was greatestin the case of larger “married withchildren” households, which increasedat roughly five times the rate in NewSunbelt suburbs (15 percent) as theydid in Northern suburbs (3 percent).The large married-couple householdincreases in some suburbs of theSouth—largely white-black metroswere coincident with declines in thecentral city in this household type. Inthe Nashville metro area, for instance,the number of married-couple house-holds in the city declined, while thenumber in the suburbs grew by morethan 30 percent.

Melting Pot suburbs experiencedpatterns of household change mostsimilar to those occurring in theircities. As was the case in the cities, thegrowth of nonfamily households inMelting Pot suburbs during thedecade (22 percent) was comparableto the growth of “married with chil-dren” households (18 percent).Single-parent families were thefastest-growing household type in bothsuburbs (43 percent) and cities (21percent) alike. In part because ofthese similar growth patterns, citiesand suburbs in Melting Pot metroslooked more like one another in 2000than did cities and suburbs in othermetro area types, echoing earlier find-ings on the similarities in racial/ethnicmakeup between cities and suburbs inMelting Pot metros.15


IV. Conclusion

The 1990–2000 decadeushered in a new context forpopulation and householddynamics in the nation’s

metropolitan areas. Large demo-graphic trends—including the aging ofBaby Boomers, increased immigrationand fertility among immigrant fami-lies, and migration to New Sunbeltareas in the U.S. South and West—challenged conventional residentialpatterns in the nation’s cities andsuburbs.

The growth of child-centered citypopulations in America’s Melting Potand New Sunbelt metropolitan areaspresents several challenges. It maycreate new needs for public serviceslike child care and infant health care;it may further test the adequacy ofurban school systems; and it may putnew stresses on the fiscal positions ofthese cities. At the same time, though,household patterns in the fastest-growing cities suggest that burgeoningfamily populations create opportuni-ties for viable neighborhoods andcontinued growth that may not exist inother central cities.

The challenges and opportunitiespresented by the growth of smallerhouseholds in Northern suburbs arealso noteworthy. With increasingnumbers of nonfamily and single-parent family households calling thesesuburbs home, the need for affordablemultifamily housing in these jurisdic-tions also increases. The demand forservices like transportation and homehealth care for elderly homeownerswho are “aging in place” in thesuburbs may also be on the rise.

Further analysis will illuminatewhether the inner suburban communi-ties in these Northern metros arebeing transformed into functionalextensions of their central cities withrespect to household structures,housing and socioeconomic attributes.

The changing household makeup ofcities and suburbs, and the continueddecline of many Northern cities, areoccurring within a nationwide contextof decentralizing households andpopulation. The trend of fastersuburban than city growth is notconfined to certain types of metroareas nor to certain types of house-holds. It pervades fast-growing andslow-growing metros alike and is trueof married couple households, single-parent households, and singles. Whilethe actual degree of growth disparitybetween cities and suburbs differsacross different regions of the U.S.,the uniform suburban “edge” raisessignificant questions about how citiesare poised to compete in their metro-politan economies for jobs andresidents during the next ten years. Itremains to be seen whether increasingdemographic similarity between citiesand suburbs across the U.S. willbolster efforts to enhance regionalcooperation.



APPENDIX A: Population and Household Growth Rates 1990–2000 for Central Cities and Suburbs

Metro Areas with Population Over 500,000 by Metro Area Type

CENTRAL CITY GROWTH SUBURB GROWTHPop’n HHs Diff* Pop’n HHs Diff*

MELTING POT Metros

Albuquerque, NM MSA 17 19 3 29 35 6Austin, TX MSA 41 38 -3 56 54 -2Bakersfield, CA MSA 41 34 -8 12 5 -7Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA ** ** ** 7 7 -1Chicago, IL PMSA 4 4 0 16 16 0Dallas, TX PMSA 18 12 -6 40 38 -1El Paso, TX MSA 9 13 4 52 57 5Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA 2 3 1 33 27 -6Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 22 19 -3 28 29 0Fresno, CA MSA 21 15 -6 23 17 -6Honolulu, HI MSA 2 4 3 7 12 5Houston, TX PMSA 20 16 -3 31 29 -2Jersey City, NJ PMSA 5 8 3 14 12 -1Las Vegas, NV-AZ MSA 85 77 -8 82 78 -4Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA 6 5 -2 8 5 -3McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 40 47 6 53 55 2Miami, FL PMSA 1 3 2 20 14 -5Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ PMSA ** ** ** 15 15 0New York, NY PMSA 9 7 -2 7 7 0Newark, NJ PMSA -1 0 0 7 7 0Oakland, CA PMSA 7 4 -3 17 13 -4Orange County, CA PMSA 21 11 -10 17 14 -3Orlando, FL MSA 13 23 10 38 36 -1Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 35 28 -7 59 58 -1Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA 13 6 -6 28 22 -6Sacramento, CA PMSA 10 7 -3 26 25 -1San Antonio, TX MSA 22 24 2 15 17 2San Diego, CA MSA 10 11 1 15 13 -2San Francisco, CA PMSA 7 8 1 8 5 -3San Jose, CA PMSA 14 11 -4 10 7 -3Stockton-Lodi, CA MSA 14 13 -1 21 17 -4Tucson, AZ MSA 20 19 -1 37 41 4Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA PMSA 15 12 -3 15 15 0Ventura, CA PMSA 9 9 0 13 13 -1Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA -6 -1 5 20 22 1

continued on next page



NORTH—Largely White-Black Metros

Cleveland, OH PMSA -5 -5 1 4 9 4Detroit, MI PMSA -7 -10 -3 8 13 5Gary, IN PMSA -12 -7 5 8 13 5Milwaukee, WI PMSA -5 -3 1 12 20 7Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA -4 -2 2 7 11 3St. Louis, MO-IL MSA -12 -11 1 8 11 4

NORTH—Largely White Metros

Akron, OH PMSA -3 0 3 10 16 6Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA -6 -4 2 4 10 5Allentown-Bethlehem, PA MSA 1 0 -1 10 14 4Ann Arbor, MI PMSA 4 10 6 22 28 6Boston, MA-NH NECMA 3 5 2 7 10 3Buffalo, NY MSA -11 -10 1 2 6 4Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA -9 -4 5 13 18 5Columbus, OH MSA 12 17 5 16 21 4Dayton-Springfield, OH MSA -8 -6 2 3 8 5Fort Wayne, IN MSA 19 20 1 5 10 5Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI MSA 5 6 1 20 24 3Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA MSA -4 -3 2 9 13 3Hartford, CT NECMA -13 -13 0 4 8 3Indianapolis, IN MSA 7 10 3 27 30 3Kansas City, MO-KS MSA 1 2 1 19 22 3Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 5 1 -3 21 25 4Monmouth-Ocean, NJ PMSA ** ** ** 14 16 2Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA ** ** ** 6 7 2Bridgeport, CT NECMA -2 -4 -2 5 6 1Omaha, NE-IA MSA 16 17 1 8 12 4Pittsburgh, PA MSA -10 -6 3 0 4 4Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECMA 4 5 1 6 10 4Rochester, NY MSA -5 -5 0 6 9 4Scranton-Hazleton, PA MSA -6 -4 3 -1 4 5Springfield, MA NECMA ** ** ** 1 5 4Syracuse, NY MSA -10 -8 2 1 7 6Toledo, OH MSA -6 -1 4 8 15 6Wichita, KS MSA 13 13 0 11 13 2Youngstown-Warren, OH MSA -12 -10 2 3 7 5

continued on next page


SOUTH—Largely White-Black Metros

Atlanta, GA MSA 6 8 2 44 41 -3Baltimore, MD PMSA -12 -7 5 16 19 3Baton Rouge, LA MSA 4 7 3 21 28 6Birmingham, AL MSA -9 -6 2 18 22 4Charleston-North Charleston, SC MSA 17 30 13 5 11 7Charlotte, NC-SC MSA 37 36 -1 25 28 3Columbia, SC MSA 19 25 6 18 25 6Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC MSA 25 25 0 16 17 2Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA -5 -1 5 20 24 4Jacksonville, FL MSA 16 18 2 34 38 4Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR MSA 3 5 3 23 31 7Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA 7 9 3 22 28 6Mobile, AL MSA 1 4 3 22 29 7Nashville, TN MSA 12 15 3 38 42 4New Orleans, LA MSA -2 0 2 8 13 4Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA 2 7 6 18 20 2Raleigh-Durham, NC MSA 34 32 -2 42 42 0Richmond, VA MSA -3 -1 2 21 23 2Wilmington, DE-MD PMSA 2 0 -1 16 19 3

SOUTH & WEST—Largely White Metros

Colorado Springs, CO MSA 28 28 -1 35 41 6Denver, CO PMSA 19 13 -5 35 34 -1Knoxville, TN MSA 5 10 4 22 27 5Louisville, KY-IN MSA -5 -1 3 13 19 6Oklahoma City, OK MSA 14 14 1 12 17 4Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA 39 35 -4 21 21 0Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT MSA 16 9 -7 27 30 3Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 8 7 0 24 24 1Seattle, WA PMSA 9 9 0 22 23 1Tacoma, WA PMSA 10 9 -1 24 28 4Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 7 7 0 20 20 0Tulsa, OK MSA 7 7 0 20 23 3West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA 21 21 -1 33 31 -1

*Household growth rate minus population growth rate

**Metro area with no central city

Note: Pertains to MSAs, PMSAs, and (in New England) PMSAs, as defined in June, 2000 by OMB with modifications for central cities as discussed in text

and footnote 3.



AP

PE

ND

IX B

: Cen

tral

Cit

y an

d S

ubur

b H

ouse

hold

Typ

e S

hare

s 20

00, a

nd H

ouse

hold

Typ

e C

hang

es 1

990-

2000

, for

Met

roA

reas

wit

h P

opul

atio

n O

ver

500,

000

by M

etro

Are

a T

ype

CENT

RAL

CITY

HOU

SEHO

LD T

YPES

CENT

RAL

CITY

HOU

SEHO

LD

SUBU

RB H

OUSE

HOLD

TYP

ES

SUBU

RB H

OUSE

HOLD

(sha

res

sum

to 10

0)GR

OWTH

RAT

ES(s

hare

s su

m to

100)

GROW

TH R

ATES

MAR

RIED

OT

HER

NON

MAR

RIED

OTHE

RNO

NM

ARRI

EDOT

HER

NON

MAR

RIED

OTHE

RNO

N

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

NO

WIT

HNO

WIT

HNO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

NO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

NO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

ME

LT

ING

PO

T M

etro

s

Alb

uque

rque

, NM

MS

A24

197

1139

104

2536

3030

278

1124

3710

5752

60A

usti

n, T

X M

SA

2019

78

4731

3155

3942

2932

58

2555

5068

7250

Bak

ersf

ield

, CA

MS

A24

297

1427

2735

5057

2527

297

1324

-40

2528

8B

erge

n-Pa

ssai

c, N

J P

MS

A**

****

****

****

****

**29

269

728

-612

529

13C

hica

go, I

L P

MS

A18

1712

1240

-64

5-1

929

307

728

614

1841

24D

alla

s, T

X P

MS

A19

199

1141

-217

2431

1128

316

926

3431

5661

43E

l Pas

o, T

X M

SA

2530

1013

2310

138

2421

2149

712

1061

3912

311

064

Fort

Lau

derd

ale,

FL

PM

SA

2111

79

52-1

0-1

012

1027

218

935

341

4085

29Fo

rt W

orth

-Arl

ingt

on, T

X P

MS

A23

258

1134

717

3049

1931

306

825

2517

4653

39F

resn

o, C

A M

SA

2125

915

304

1733

3011

2931

811

219

1635

3017

Hon

olul

u, H

I M

SA

2818

116

38-4

-413

1811

3231

108

1913

-950

3236

Hou

ston

, TX

PM

SA

2122

1011

3610

2025

2414

2835

69

2233

2152

4926

Jers

ey C

ity,

NJ

PM

SA

1918

1313

37-1

45

1015

2319

119

38-4

910

3023

Las

Veg

as, N

V-A

Z M

SA

2722

810

3476

7985

9770

2921

710

3366

7499

113

81L

os A

ngel

es-L

ong

Bea

ch, C

A P

MS

A19

2310

1138

-712

221

324

2910

1127

-48

1326

1M

cAlle

n-E

dinb

urg-

Mis

sion

, TX

MS

A27

339

1120

5036

6543

5526

428

1112

5848

8063

53M

iam

i, F

L P

MS

A22

1514

1238

-64

5-2

1026

2411

1128

417

3439

8M

iddl

esex

-Som

erse

t-H

unte

rdon

, NJ

PM

SA

****

****

****

****

****

3029

76

281

2010

4322

New

Yor

k, N

Y P

MS

A20

1812

1239

-511

1019

829

288

728

-612

133

13N

ewar

k, N

J P

MS

A16

1517

2032

-7-7

82

228

279

828

-511

532

13O

akla

nd, C

A P

MS

A18

1611

1243

-310

9-2

627

277

831

418

2222

12O

rang

e C

ount

y, C

A P

MS

A22

359

1024

025

932

-128

277

730

421

1733

13O

rlan

do, F

L M

SA

1913

812

482

830

4334

3024

79

3024

2854

7744

Pho

enix

-Mes

a, A

Z M

SA

2424

711

3415

2548

5530

3323

68

3154

5268

7361

Riv

ersi

de-S

an B

erna

rdin

o, C

A P

MS

A21

279

1528

-75

2232

427

307

1124

1118

4754

21S

acra

men

to, C

A P

MS

A20

189

1241

-63

2018

1128

256

1030

1720

4341

31S

an A

nton

io, T

X M

SA

2424

912

3119

1436

3630

3330

69

2319

039

4131

San

Die

go, C

A M

SA

2322

78

402

1312

1615

2827

710

283

1327

3016

San

Fra

ncis

co, C

A P

MS

A19

128

456

52

3-9

1328

247

635

-111

713

5S

an J

ose,

CA

PM

SA

2630

98

269

1215

710

2826

76

341

224

83

Sto

ckto

n-L

odi,

CA

MS

A23

268

1429

511

2136

1129

327

1022

719

2541

18co

ntin

ued

on n

ext

page


Tucs

on, A

Z M

SA

2218

811

428

836

3822

3722

57

2941

2356

5751

Valle

jo-F

airf

ield

-Nap

a, C

A P

MS

A26

268

1128

72

3831

1630

286

1026

104

4437

24Ve

ntur

a, C

A P

MS

A26

237

934

-17

1528

1329

337

923

611

2032

15W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C-M

D-V

A-W

V P

MS

A14

812

1154

-12

-7-9

55

2727

78

3114

1720

4927

NO

RT

H—

Lar

gely

Whi

te-B

lack

Met

ros

Cle

vela

nd, O

H P

MS

A16

1213

1841

-21

-20

-313

231

237

732

2-3

828

24D

etro

it, M

I P

MS

A14

1317

2135

-23

-13

2-9

-929

257

732

43

824

31G

ary,

IN

PM

SA

1911

1720

33-1

4-3

612

-87

3025

79

298

-323

3030

Milw

auke

e, W

I P

MS

A18

1410

1642

-20

-18

57

732

275

631

136

1043

42P

hila

delp

hia,

PA

-NJ

PM

SA

1914

1414

40-1

8-1

4-3

216

3026

77

292

57

3222

St.

Lou

is, M

O-I

L M

SA

1511

1215

48-2

7-1

9-9

-1-5

2925

79

305

-216

3825

NO

RT

H—

Lar

gely

Whi

te M

etro

s

Akr

on, O

H P

MS

A22

159

1340

-11

-14

217

933

256

729

104

1236

32A

lban

y-S

chen

ecta

dy-T

roy,

NY

MS

A17

128

1350

-19

-22

-14

273

3024

68

324

-41

4125

Alle

ntow

n-B

ethl

ehem

, PA

MS

A25

168

1140

-14

-11

035

934

256

628

72

949

31A

nn A

rbor

, MI

PM

SA

2018

45

521

25

617

3128

57

2926

1827

3741

Bos

ton,

MA

-NH

NE

CM

A16

1210

1152

-60

-612

1128

257

833

26

026

20B

uffa

lo, N

Y M

SA

1612

1017

45-2

6-2

4-8

7-4

3123

77

32-3

-42

3024

Cin

cinn

ati,

OH

-KY-

IN P

MS

A16

118

1451

-17

-25

-75

630

276

828

135

1440

37C

olum

bus,

OH

MS

A20

177

1245

33

1434

2832

285

827

169

1642

36D

ayto

n-S

prin

gfie

ld, O

H M

SA

2014

1014

43-1

8-2

3-4

24

3323

68

303

-10

1037

27Fo

rt W

ayne

, IN

MS

A23

197

1239

99

2139

2734

304

725

10-6

1138

28G

rand

Rap

ids-

Mus

kego

n-H

olla

nd, M

I M

SA

2119

813

39-8

-717

1020

3130

58

2718

1226

4940

Har

risb

urg-

Leb

anon

-Car

lisle

, PA

MS

A18

129

1545

-12

-17

-412

334

245

731

10-2

1046

25H

artf

ord,

CT

NE

CM

A14

1212

2340

-23

-15

-7-6

-13

3024

67

33-3

1-2

4420

Indi

anap

olis

, IN

MS

A23

188

1240

-3-7

1530

2232

295

826

2422

2655

42K

ansa

s C

ity,

MO

-KS

MS

A22

179

1240

-9-1

08

1610

3128

58

2917

1033

4433

Min

neap

olis

-St.

Pau

l, M

N-W

I M

SA

1715

710

51-1

4-3

212

729

295

829

2114

2641

40M

onm

outh

-Oce

an, N

J P

MS

A**

****

****

****

****

**31

267

630

712

1338

28N

assa

u-S

uffo

lk, N

Y P

MS

A**

****

****

****

****

**32

309

623

-47

730

22B

ridg

epor

t, C

T N

EC

MA

1817

1317

35-2

1-9

719

-329

257

831

-58

-130

15O

mah

a, N

E-I

A M

SA

2420

710

397

1218

2525

3131

58

2514

-423

2926

cont

inue

d on

nex

t pa

ge


CENT

RAL

CITY

HOU

SEHO

LD T

YPES

CENT

RAL

CITY

HOU

SEHO

LD

SUBU

RB H

OUSE

HOLD

TYP

ES

SUBU

RB H

OUSE

HOLD

(sha

res

sum

to 10

0)GR

OWTH

RAT

ES(s

hare

s su

m to

100)

GROW

TH R

ATES

MAR

RIED

OT

HER

NON

MAR

RIED

OTHE

RNO

NM

ARRI

EDOT

HER

NON

MAR

RIED

OTHE

RNO

N

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

NO

WIT

HNO

WIT

HNO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

NO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

NO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

Pit

tsbu

rgh,

PA

MS

A20

1110

1048

-19

-20

-18

25

3222

77

32-3

-7-2

2418

Pro

vide

nce-

Fall

Riv

er-W

arw

ick,

R

I-M

A N

EC

MA

2117

813

40-1

1-6

139

1330

237

832

1-1

544

24R

oche

ster

, NY

MS

A14

119

1947

-23

-23

-215

031

265

830

3-3

438

25S

cran

ton-

Haz

leto

n, P

A M

SA

2416

99

42-1

5-1

8-1

223

931

218

734

-1-1

0-7

2919

Spr

ingf

ield

, MA

NE

CM

A**

****

****

****

****

**26

207

1135

-4-7

021

19S

yrac

use,

NY

MS

A16

128

1649

-24

-23

-10

14-3

3025

69

312

-83

3724

Tole

do, O

H M

SA

2216

813

40-1

3-2

1-1

2011

3227

57

3014

-214

3830

Wic

hita

, KS

MS

A25

226

1037

48

2427

1833

324

823

93

2737

26Yo

ungs

tow

n-W

arre

n, O

H M

SA

2213

1115

38-2

4-3

1-4

44

3423

77

294

-11

1326

26

SO

UT

H—

Lar

gely

Whi

te-B

lack

Met

ros

Atl

anta

, GA

MS

A15

912

1351

-4-1

02

-523

2728

710

2831

3258

7648

Bal

tim

ore,

MD

PM

SA

1710

1516

43-2

3-2

7-5

-27

3026

78

298

916

5534

Bat

on R

ouge

, LA

MS

A21

1510

1341

-7-1

016

1818

2930

711

2432

546

5049

Bir

min

gham

, AL

MS

A19

1314

1540

-23

-25

311

332

267

727

179

2547

40C

harl

esto

n-N

orth

Cha

rles

ton,

SC

MS

A21

159

1342

18-4

4047

4930

268

1027

14-1

317

3632

Cha

rlot

te, N

C-S

C M

SA

2321

810

3920

3029

4948

3227

78

2621

1925

5341

Col

umbi

a, S

C M

SA

1813

912

487

919

4535

2925

710

2922

822

4541

Gre

ensb

oro-

-Win

ston

-Sal

em--

Hig

h Po

int,

NC

MS

A24

178

1139

1420

2144

3034

256

826

128

1646

30G

reen

ville

-Spa

rtan

burg

-And

erso

n, S

C M

SA

2113

1012

44-1

3-1

9-3

813

3224

79

2818

825

5541

Jack

sonv

ille,

FL

MS

A25

228

1233

103

2551

2433

256

828

4023

4058

46L

ittl

e R

ock-

Nor

th L

ittl

e R

ock,

AR

MS

A24

178

1239

-4-1

114

2614

3327

69

2631

747

5754

Mem

phis

, TN

-AR

-MS

MS

A19

1513

1737

-11

-716

2821

3231

69

2234

1338

4635

Mob

ile, A

L M

SA

2418

1013

35-4

-12

920

1333

267

924

319

3437

50N

ashv

ille,

TN

MS

A23

168

1042

1-4

1922

3032

306

824

3826

4970

65N

ew O

rlea

ns, L

A M

SA

1813

1316

40-1

0-1

28

07

2825

910

2812

-627

3024

Nor

folk

-Vir

gini

a B

each

-New

port

New

s,

VA-N

C M

SA

2424

712

33-1

-11

1641

2130

258

1127

188

2141

30R

alei

gh-D

urha

m, N

C M

SA

2118

710

4422

3031

4936

3029

57

2934

4127

6050

Ric

hmon

d, V

A M

SA

1710

1113

48-1

7-1

3-1

116

2926

710

2817

1224

5234

Wilm

ingt

on, D

E-M

D P

MS

A16

1113

1645

-14

-13

-424

429

257

930

108

2455

33co

ntin

ued

on n

ext

page


CENT

RAL

CITY

HOU

SEHO

LD T

YPES

CENT

RAL

CITY

HOU

SEHO

LD

SUBU

RB H

OUSE

HOLD

TYP

ES

SUBU

RB H

OUSE

HOLD

(sha

res

sum

to 10

0)GR

OWTH

RAT

ES(s

hare

s su

m to

100)

GROW

TH R

ATES

MAR

RIED

OT

HER

NON

MAR

RIED

OTHE

RNO

NM

ARRI

EDOT

HER

NON

MAR

RIED

OTHE

RNO

N

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

NO

WIT

HNO

WIT

HNO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

NO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

NO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

SO

UT

H &

WE

ST

—L

arge

ly W

hite

Met

ros

Col

orad

o S

prin

gs, C

O M

SA

2725

59

3424

1850

3733

3236

49

2041

2964

5555

Den

ver,

CO

PM

SA

2015

78

502

1422

1218

2828

59

3030

2649

4040

Kno

xvill

e, T

N M

SA

2213

810

48-6

-61

2124

3525

67

2725

1122

4747

Lou

isvi

lle, K

Y-IN

MS

A19

1210

1345

-18

-18

-215

1031

256

929

151

2231

40O

klah

oma

Cit

y, O

K M

SA

2620

711

379

320

3120

3025

69

3016

-336

3330

Port

land

-Van

couv

er, O

R-W

A P

MS

A23

176

945

2838

3345

3730

285

829

1514

3235

30S

alt

Lak

e C

ity-

Ogd

en, U

T M

SA

2221

79

41-1

1139

138

2837

68

2138

1679

3038

Sar

asot

a-B

rade

nton

, FL

MS

A27

127

945

-91

533

1841

145

634

1418

2567

37S

eatt

le-B

elle

vue-

Eve

rett

, WA

PM

SA

2013

65

56-4

63

217

2827

58

3115

1634

4132

Taco

ma,

WA

PM

SA

2319

712

401

221

2012

3028

510

2721

1547

5240

Tam

pa-S

t. P

eter

sbur

g-C

lear

wat

er, F

L M

SA

2315

810

43-1

04

830

1434

186

834

613

3063

33Tu

lsa,

OK

MS

A25

187

1040

-3-5

2125

1334

305

922

256

4151

35W

est

Palm

Bea

ch-B

oca

Rat

on, F

L M

SA

2816

78

439

1913

4329

3418

67

3517

3336

6540

**M

etro

are

a w

ith

no c

entr

al c

ity

Sou

rce:

Wil

liam

H. F

rey

anal

ysis

of d

ecen

nial

cen

sus

data


CENT

RAL

CITY

HOU

SEHO

LD T

YPES

CENT

RAL

CITY

HOU

SEHO

LD

SUBU

RB H

OUSE

HOLD

TYP

ES

SUBU

RB H

OUSE

HOLD

(sha

res

sum

to 10

0)GR

OWTH

RAT

ES(s

hare

s su

m to

100)

GROW

TH R

ATES

MAR

RIED

OT

HER

NON

MAR

RIED

OTHE

RNO

NM

ARRI

EDOT

HER

NON

MAR

RIED

OTHE

RNO

N

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

COUP

LES

FAM

ILIE

SFA

M.

NO

WIT

HNO

WIT

HNO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

NO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

NO

WIT

HNO

W

ITH

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

CHIL

DCH

ILD

Endnotes

1 Berube 2002.

2 OMB designates the city with the largest

population in each metropolitan area as a

central city. Additional cities qualify for

this designation if specified requirements

are met concerning population size,

commuting patterns, and employment/

residence ratios. These standards,

implemented after the 1990 Census,

can be viewed at www.census.gov/

population/www/estimates/mastand.html

3 For the present study, we have excluded

some officially designated central cities (in

metros with multiple central cities) to: (1)

include only central cities that are named

in the metropolitan area name (thus omit-

ting officially designated smaller cities

which were not named): (2) include only

one central city in the following multiple

central city metropolitan areas: Austin,

TX; Buffalo, NY; Charlotte, NC: Cleve-

land, OH; Milwaukee, WI; Richmond, VA;

Wilmington, DE; and Seattle, WA; and (3)

designate only two central cities in the

following metropolitan areas: Raleigh-

Durham, NC; Allentown-Bethlehem, PA;

and Scranton-Hazleton, PA. In other cases

the officially defined single or multiple

central cities were utilized.

4 Frey 2001.

5 Melting Pot Metros denote those in which

non-Hispanic whites comprise no more

than 69 percent of the 2000 population

and in which the combined populations of

Hispanics, non-Hispanic Asians, Hawai-

ians and other Pacific Islanders, Native

Americans and Native Alaskans, and those

of other race or of two or more races

exceed 18 percent of the population.

Largely white-black metros denote

remaining areas, in their respective

regions, in which blacks comprise at least

16 percent of the population; largely white

metros denote the residual areas in each

region. “South and West” pertains to

metros located in the South and West

census regions; “North” pertains to metros

located in the Northeast and Midwest

census regions.

6 Glaeser and Shapiro 2001.

7 The median age in 2000 in the 15 cities

with the largest population gains in the

1990s was 31.5; among the 15 cities with

the largest population declines, the

median age was 33.7.

8 Census 2000 indicates that less than one-

fourth (23.5 percent) of all households are

“married couples with children” (U.S.

Census Bureau 2001). Such households

constituted 40.3 percent of all households

in 1970, 30.4 percent in 1980 and 26.3

percent in 1990.

9 Frey 2002.

10 Berube 2002.

11 These figures, which are for central cities

in the 102 metropolitan areas discussed in

this study, differ slightly from those in

Figure 2, which are for central cities in all

OMB-defined metropolitan areas.

12 Frey and Kobrin 1982.

13 Frey 2002.

14 Frey 2002.

15 Frey 2001.

ReferencesBerube, Alan. 2002 (forthcoming). “Large City

and Metropolitan Population Change in the

1990s: Evidence from the 2000 Census.” Wash-

ington, D.C.: Center on Urban and

Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution.

Frey, William H. 2001. “Melting Pot Suburbs: A

Census 2000 Study of Suburban Diversity.”

Census 2000 Series. Washington D.C.: Center

on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brook-

ings Institution.

Frey, William H. 2002. “Metro Magnets for

Minorities and Whites: Melting Pots, the New

Sunblet, and the Heartland.” Research Report.

Ann Arbor, MI. Population Studies Center,

University of Michigan.

Frey, William H. and Elaine L. Fielding. 1995.

“Changing Urban Populations: Regional

Restructuring, Racial Polarization and Poverty

Concentration.” Cityscape. Washington D.C.:

Office of Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-

opment. Vol. 1 No. 2 Pp. 166.

Frey, William H. and Douglas Geverdt. 1998.

“Changing Suburban Demographics: Beyond

the ‘Black-White, City-Suburb’ Typology.”

Research Report No. 98–422. Ann Arbor, MI

Population Studies Center, University of

Michigan.

Frey, William H. and Frances E. Kobrin. 1982.

“Changing Families and Changing Mobility:

Their Impact on the Central City.” Demography.

Vol. 19 Pp. 261–277.

Frey, William H. and Alden Speare Jr. 1988.

Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline

in The United States. New York: The Russell

Sage Foundation.

Glaeser, Edward L. and Jesse M. Shapiro. 2000.

“City Growth and the 2000 Census: Which

Places Grew, and Why.” Census 2000 Series.

Washington D.C.: Center on Urban and Metro-

politan Policy, The Brookings Institution.


Lucy, William H. and David L. Phillips. 2001.

“Suburbs and the Census: Patterns of Growth

and Decline.” Census 2000 Series. Washington

D.C.: Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy,

The Brookings Institution.

Orfield, Myron W. 1997. “Metropolitics:

A Regional Agenda for Community and

Stability.” Washington D.C.: The Brookings

Institution--Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Singer, Audrey, Samantha Friedman, Ivan

Cheung, and Marie Price. 2001. “The World in

a Zip Code: Greater Washington D.C. as a New

Region of Immigration.” Survey Series. Wash-

ington, D.C.: Center on Urban & Metropolitan

Policy, Brookings Greater Washington Research

Program, The Brookings Institution.

Speare, Alden Jr. 1993. “Changes in Urban

Growth Patterns, 1980–90.” Working Paper.

Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land

Policy.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. “Households and

Families: 2000.” Census 2000 Brief. Wash-

ington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.


For More Information

William H. FreyUniversity of Michigan Population Studies Center andMilken InstitutePhone: 888-257-7244E-mail: [email protected]

Brookings Institution Center onUrban and Metropolitan PolicyPhone: (202) 797-6139Website:www.brookings.edu/urban

AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful tosenior project programmer CathySun and other support staff atthe University of MichiganPopulation Studies Center, tothe Milken Institute for assis-tance in preparing census data,and to Amy Liu and AudreySinger at the Brookings Centeron Urban and MetropolitanPolicy for advice and editorialexpertise.

The Brookings Center on Urbanand Metropolitan Policy wouldlike to thank the Annie E. CaseyFoundation, the Fannie MaeFoundation, the Joyce Founda-tion, the John T. and CatherineD. MacArthur Foundation, andthe Charles Stewart Mott Foun-dation for their support of ourwork on metropolitan growthand poverty issues.

City Families and Suburban Singles - William H. Frey€¦ · City Families and Suburban Singles: An...

Documents

Transcript of City Families and Suburban Singles - William H. Frey€¦ · City Families and Suburban Singles: An...