Metropolitan America in the New Century

6 September 2005 - 1:00pm

A new analysis of Census data using new geographic definitions finds that the bulk of large central cities added population so far this decade.

The first half of the 2000s mark a slowdown and reshuffling of population growth in metro areas from that found in the 1990s, reflecting the reactions of workers and households to the cooling of the job market in some places and the heating of housing prices in others. Overall, however, the estimates for this new decade show that large and small metro areas will continue to surge as they did in the 1990s.

Among the findings:

The fast-growing metropolitan areas of the 1990s became some of the slowest-growing in the first half of the 2000s, reflecting shifts in regional employment and housing dynamics since the late 1990s. San Jose, San Francisco, and Boston moved onto the list of slowest-growing metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2004, likely propelled by the post-2000 decline of technology industries and still-rising housing costs. Meanwhile, non-coastal, more affordable areas like Riverside, Stockton, and Sacramento climbed to rank among the fastest-growing metros, while increased growth in Albany, Hartford, and Providence perhaps reflects their "release valve" function in the New York and Boston housing markets.

Source: The Brookings Institution, September 6, 2005
Bookmark and Share
All of that only scratches the surface of what's wrong with this study. The idea that complex urban development patterns and human behavior can be meaningfully studied according to one primary criteria — density — is wrong from the start.