Are Americans Really Heading Back to the City?

by Conroy

Washington, one of America's fastest growing cities in recent years

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data on population growth in American cities between the last official census in 2010 and estimates from mid-2011. The data showed that most of the central cities in America’s largest urban areas had gained population over the year, and that in many places the central cities actually grew faster than their suburbs. For instance, Washington, Atlanta, and Miami all grew by more than two percent, well ahead of the growth of their metro areas. In aggregate, the core cities of the nation’s 51 largest metropolitan areas grew faster (slightly faster) than their suburbs¹.

This data led to a slew of stories in the media reporting on this apparent demographic shift as evidence of a notion that has been bandied about for the last decade or so: Americans are beginning to eschew the spread out suburbs in favor of the dense historic urban center. That Americans are heading back to the city. Here are a couple of articles along those lines from the Wall Street Journal and the Brookings Institute. Many urban planners would argue that such a trend is an indication of shifting values with Americans putting less of a premium on the car-centered suburbs with their larger houses and yards for a more compact eco-friendly life closer to work, services, and other entertainments.² So the argument goes, but is it true?

Let’s look at the census data for population growth (2010-11) of the central cities in the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the country (rounded to the nearest 1,000).

Central City	2011 Pop.	2010 Pop.	Difference	%
1. New York	8,245,000	8,186,000	59,000	0.72%
2. Los Angeles	3,820,000	3,796,000	24,000	0.63%
3. Chicago	2,707,000	2,698,000	9,000	0.33%
4. Dallas	1,223,000	1,202,000	21,000	1.75%
5. Houston	2,145,000	2,108,000	37,000	1.76%
6. Philadelphia	1,536,000	1,528,000	8,000	0.52%
7. Washington	618,000	605,000	13,000	2.15%
8. Miami	409,000	401,000	8,000	2.00%
9. Atlanta	432,000	422,000	10,000	2.37%
10. Boston	625,000	618,000	7,000	1.13%
11. San Francisco	813,000	805,000	8,000	0.99%
12. Riverside	311,000	306,000	5,000	1.63%
13. Detroit	707,000	714,000	-7,000	-1.00%
14. Phoenix	1,469,000	1,449,000	20,000	1.38%
15. Seattle	621,000	610,000	11,000	1.80%
16. Minneapolis	388,000	383,000	5,000	1.31%
17. San Diego	1,326,000	1,312,000	14,000	1.07%
18. Tampa	346,000	337,000	9,000	2.67%
19. St. Louis	318,000	319,000	-1,000	-0.31%
20. Baltimore	619,000	621,000	-2,000	-0.32%
Total	28,678,000	28,420,000	258,000	0.90%

America’s largest urban areas did see population growth in the central cities, with only three of the 20 cities showing (relatively modest) population declines. Overall these 20 cities grew by a total of 258,000 people, a little less than one percent and nearly twice the national rate of population growth. New York City gained the most new residents, but because of its size the actual rate of growth was lower than the average for this 20-city group. That’s a crucial fact (size compared to rate) to keep in mind when considering population growth of cities and regions, and it leads directly to the overall growth of American suburbs.

Compare the central city growth from the table above to the non-central city (suburban) growth of the 20 largest metropolitan areas (rounded to the nearest 1,000).

Metro (w/o Central City)	2011 Pop.	2010 Pop.	Difference	%
1. New York	10,771,000	10,734,000	37,000	0.34%
2. Los Angeles	9,125,000	9,048,000	77,000	0.85%
3. Chicago	6,798,000	6,775,000	23,000	0.34%
4. Dallas	5,304,000	5,199,000	105,000	2.02%
5. Houston	3,942,000	3,868,000	74,000	1.91%
6. Philadelphia	4,456,000	4,444,000	12,000	0.27%
7. Washington	5,086,000	5,004,000	82,000	1.64%
8. Miami	5,261,000	5,177,000	84,000	1.62%
9. Atlanta	4,927,000	4,864,000	63,000	1.30%
10. Boston	3,966,000	3,941,000	25,000	0.63%
11. San Francisco	3,578,000	3,538,000	40,000	1.13%
12. Riverside	3,994,000	3,939,000	55,000	1.40%
13. Detroit	3,579,000	3,579,000	0	0.00%
14. Phoenix	2,794,000	2,760,000	34,000	1.23%
15. Seattle	2,879,000	2,838,000	41,000	1.44%
16. Minneapolis	2,930,000	2,903,000	27,000	0.93%
17. San Diego	1,814,000	1,793,000	21,000	1.17%
18. Tampa	2,479,000	2,451,000	28,000	1.14%
19. St. Louis	2,499,000	2,496,000	3,000	0.12%
20. Baltimore	2,110,000	2,094,000	16,000	0.76%
Total	88,292,000	87,445,000	847,000	0.97%

Here’s where the reality of America’s population growth slams head-on with the narrative of people heading back to the cities. The suburbs of the 20 largest cities grew at a similar – but slightly higher – rate than the central cities, about one percent. But the real difference is in number of people. Between 2010 and 2011 the suburbs of the largest cities added almost 850,000 people, or over three times as many people as the central cities. Comparing the two lists you can see that only New York City added more people that its suburbs.  Washington, Atlanta, and Miami may have grown at a faster rate than their suburbs, but the three cities added a total of 31,000 people while their suburbs added 229,000 – seven times more. Unfortunately, media reports have focused on the percent of growth instead of real population changes, an innumeracy that misses what’s actually happening.

The story of people flocking back to the central cities fits well with the narrative of the rebirth of America’s older urban centers, but clearly the data indicate that the population growth of America’s cities is still heavily focused on the suburbs, as it’s been for more than half a century.

Some of America’s Historic Cities Are Finally Growing Again
It’s worth dwelling on the population changes of America’s older big cities. One of the most obvious demographic shifts in the latter half of the 20^th century was the large and sustained population declines in America’s older population centers. The reasons for this were many and complex, including economic and racial factors, but also involving the common perception and hard reality of civic mismanagement. New roads opened access to new cities and wider metro areas, and seeing the opportunity for better living, people voted with their feet and left the older cities.   “White flight” became a widespread fact across urban America. My hometown of Baltimore was one of these cities. In my parent’s youth the city was the sixth largest in the nation and boasted nearly one million residents. But they witnessed the population decline by hundreds of thousands – one third of the 1950 population – by the end of the century. And I witnessed it too, but from the outside. By the time of my birth they had abandoned the city.

Here’s a table of just the large American cities³ that saw population declines of at least 10% in the latter half of the 20^th century (listed in order of their peak population).

City	Peak Population (Year)	Low Population (Year)	Difference	%
New York	7,895,000 (1970)	7,072,000 (1980)	-823,000	-10.4%
Chicago	3,621,000 (1950)	2,696,000 (2010)	-925,000	-25.5%
Philadelphia	2,072,000 (1950)	1,518,000 (2000)	-554,000	-26.7%
Detroit	1,850,000 (1950)	714,000 (2010)	-1,136,000	-61.4%
Baltimore	950,000 (1950)	621,000 (2010)	-329,000	-34.6%
Cleveland	915,000 (1950)	397,000 (2010)	-518,000	-56.6%
St. Louis	857,000 (1950)	319,000 (2010)	-538,000	-62.8%
Washington	802,000 (1950)	572,000 (2000)	-230,000	-28.7%
Boston	801,000 (1950)	563,000 (1980)	-238,000	-33.1%
San Francisco	775,000 (1950)	679,000 (1980)	-96,000	-12.4%
Milwaukee	741,000 (1960)	595,000 (2010)	-146,000	-19.7%
Pittsburgh	677,000 (1970)	306,000 (2010)	-371,000	-54.8%
Buffalo	580,000 (1950)	261,000 (2010)	-319,000	-55.0%
Kansas City	507,000 (1970)	435,000 (1990)	-72,000	-14.2%
Cincinnati	504,000 (1950)	297,000 (2010)	-207,000	-41.1%
Atlanta	497,000 (1970)	394,000 (1990)	-103,000	-20.7%

Increasingly empty and decaying Detroit

In general, America’s first big cities hit their peak population just after World War II before many decades of decline. New York suffered through high crime and near bankruptcy in the 1970s, which saw over 800,000 people flee the Big Apple.⁴ But the city proved far too dynamic and has grown ever since. However, many of America’s once booming cities have not proved so resilient. Chicago, Philadelphia, and Washington have lost more than 25% of their populations; Baltimore and Boston lost a third of their 1950 population; and Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Detroit have lost well more than half of their peak population. Detroit is the poster child for American urban disaster. Once America’s fifth largest city and home to the nation’s iconic auto industry, Detroit has withered to a decaying shell of its former glory. How did these cities fare between 2010 and 2011 as Americans were moving back to the city?

(The cities listed in green reached their all-time population peak in 2011.)

City	Low Population (Year)	2011 Pop.	Difference	%
New York	7,072,000 (1980)	8,245,000	1,173,000	16.6%
Chicago	2,696,000 (2010)	2,707,000	11,000	0.4%
Philadelphia	1,518,000 (2000)	1,536,000	18,000	1.2%
Detroit	714,000 (2010)	707,000	-7,000	-1.0%
Baltimore	621,000 (2010)	619,000	-2,000	-0.3%
Cleveland	397,000 (2010)	394,000	-3,000	-0.8%
St. Louis	319,000 (2010)	318,000	-1,000	-0.3%
Washington	572,000 (2000)	618,000	46,000	8.0%
Boston	563,000 (1980)	625,000	62,000	11.0%
San Francisco	679,000 (1980)	813,000	134,000	19.7%
Milwaukee	595,000 (2010)	598,000	3,000	0.5%
Pittsburgh	306,000 (2010)	307,000	1,000	0.3%
Buffalo	261,000 (2010)	261,000	0	0.0%
Kansas City	435,000 (1990)	463,000	28,000	6.4%
Cincinnati	297,000 (2010)	296,000	-1,000	-0.3%
Atlanta	394,000 (1990)	432,000	38,000	9.6%

This is clearly a mixed bag. New York and San Francisco reached their all-time peak populations in 2011. Boston, Atlanta, Washington, and Kansas City also boasted strong growth, continuing an on-going population rebound (though all remain well below their 20^th century peaks). The rest of the cities either saw marginal gains or modest losses, with the notable exception of Detroit which continues to hemorrhage people. All together, it’s hard to argue that all major American cities are experiencing a renaissance. For every Washington there is a Cleveland.

Yet the same isn’t true of metropolitan areas. Of the 51 metropolitan areas of at least one million people, only Detroit, Cleveland, Providence, and Buffalo lost people between 2010 and 2011. Americans may see cities as more attractive places than they did a decade or two ago, but the suburbs clearly remain the location of choice for most people.

---

NOTES:

1. I’m using the term “central city” to refer to the entire municipality that makes up the core city of a metropolitan area and “suburb” to refer to all parts of the metropolitan area that fall outside of the core city. For instance, New York City’s population growth would consist of the five boroughs and New York’s suburban growth would consist of the portions of New Jersey, Long Island, mainland New York State, etc., that fall outside of the city limits.

2. This is embodied in the idea of “smart growth” and increased “livability.” These concepts push for higher densities in urban cores, more transit use, and an emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, among other ideas. Many of these concepts have been formally adopted by metropolitan planning organizations and transportation agencies. And many of them are at odds with the actual pattern of American demographic shifts since the middle of the 20^th century. Consider that one of the most perennially successful and growing cities is Houston, which doesn’t even have formal zoning and is lambasted by many urban planners as an example of unregulated urban sprawl.

3. Cities that reached a peak population of 500,000 (or in the case of Atlanta, nearly 500,000).

4. In Woody Allen’s classic film Annie Hall (1977) there are numerous references to a “dying” New York and comparisons to bright and growing Los Angeles. Allen clearly lamented the decline of his beloved New York and rise of a rival city that he found literally sickening.