Redefining Cities: How Much of Our Cities are Suburban?

By Raquel Jones, GOPC Intern Cities are typically defined as centers of population, commerce, and culture. For this reason, they are often associated with dense urban development. However, there are many cities across the nation that do not conform to this description.

In a recent dataset compiled by Jed Kolko, the former chief economist of the real estate website Trulia, zip codes across the county were classified into three categories: urban, suburban, or rural. These classifications were developed using a series of metrics, including the density of households, business establishments, and jobs, as well as the share of auto communities and single-family homes in the specified area. Since the United States has no official definition of a suburb (even the U.S. Census Bureau lumps together urban and suburban neighborhoods in how it defines urban areas), these measures help to quantify the notion of a suburb as a mostly residential, car-dependent society consisting of single-family homes, as opposed to a more compact urban center.

According to this data, three of America’s largest cities - Phoenix, San Antonio, and San Diego - are predominantly suburban. Columbus, Ohio’s largest and most populous city and the fifteenth largest city in the U.S., similarly displayed a majority of suburban areas within the city limits. Moreover, the new census population data shows that the fastest-growing large cities tend to be more suburban.

Analysis of two of Ohio’s other major cities, Cleveland and Cincinnati, unveil different trends. By calculating the share of suburban and urban households in the city, Cincinnati was found to be nearly divided with 51% of households in urban settings and 49% in the suburbs. Cleveland was determined to be entirely urban, as is also true of Chicago and New York.

The notable differences in the density of Ohio’s three largest cities are representative of the diverse make-up of cities across the state. As the physical structure of cities continues to evolve and expand, it's imperative that we continue supporting sustainable growth in our cities and regions so that the state can remain economically competitive in the 21st century.

Trulia Resources: www.trulia.com/AZ/Phoenix/, www.trulia.com/CA/San_Diego/, www.trulia.com/TX/San_Antonio/, (www.trulia.com/OH/Columbus/)

This blog post was inspired by research conducted by Community Research Partners for their July 2015 DataByte on Columbus' density, which was featured in the Columbus Dispatch. To read more about density in America’s cities, take a look at the original blog post by Trulia’s former chief economist, Jed Kolko, here. 

---

CITY ZIP CODES:

• Cincinnati: 45202, 45203, 45204, 45205, 45206, 45207, 45208, 45209, 45211, 45212, 45213, 45214, 45216, 45217, 45219, 45220, 45223, 45224, 45225, 45226, 45227, 45229, 45230, 45232, 45237
• Cleveland: 44102, 44103, 44104, 44105, 44106, 44108, 44109, 44110, 44111, 44113, 44114, 44115, 44119, 44120, 44127, 44128, 44135
• Columbus: 43085, 43201, 43202, 43203, 43204, 43205, 43206, 43207, 43209, 43210, 43211, 43212, 43213, 43214, 43215, 43219, 43220, 43221, 43222, 43223, 43224, 43227, 43228, 43229, 43231, 43232, 43235, 43240

Addressing the Legacy of Property Neglect

Throughout November, the Columbus Dispatch has been publishing a series of articles on the “Legacy of Neglect” of vacant and abandoned properties throughout Columbus. This article series has revealed some of the serious challenges related to dealing with slumlords that are perpetuating the vacant and abandoned property problem in Ohio. Greater Ohio is mentioned in the article “Landlords cloaked from citations, prosecution” for our work with a group of financial institutions and other organizations to investigate possible practical and policy fixes around the state. Together, we need to stem the vacant property crisis to restore prosperity to Ohio.

Weinland Park Study Featured in Dispatch

A recent Columbus Dispatch editorial, "Weinland Park effort will pay off," featured Greater Ohio's study of investments in the Weinland Park neighborhood:

"The community may have a clearer picture soon of what’s working. [...] The nonprofit Greater Ohio Policy Center has been evaluating the Weinland Park efforts undertaken since 2007.

Hard data on which programs and improvements really are improving quality of life will help guide all the efforts and spending yet to come.

It’s a smart way to avoid wasting time, effort and money.

And it’s another indication that the Columbus community is determined to win the battle for Weinland Park."

GOPC is currently undertaking analyses of investments in Columbus' Weinland Park and near South Side neighborhoods, and plans to release the findings by the end of the year. This research is being supported by The Columbus Foundation.

Urban Attraction in Ohio

The recent upsurge in demand for rental properties in Columbus’ downtown neighborhoods has gained increasing exposure in news sources. The Columbus Dispatch article “Urban Renewal” notes that, “The urban-living renaissance is real” and that

“more and more people, especially young singles, have come to demand the benefits that only city life can bestow: restaurants, entertainment, parks and workplaces within walking distance; a lively atmosphere; and plenty of other young professionals as neighbors.”

These trends are also apparent in U.S. Census data: between 2000 and 2010, the City of Columbus grew in population by 10.6%.

National trends, cited by the likes of LOCUS President Chris Leinberger and the Urban Land Institute, have suggested that both Baby Boomers and Generation Y are moving back to inner cities to take advantage of the many available amenities and walkable communities. At Greater Ohio Policy Center, we were interested in finding whether these trends held true for Ohio’s eight largest cities.

An upcoming GOPC report will explain the trends for Baby Boomers and Generation Y living in and around Ohio’s major cities. The graphs below present a preview of some of our findings:

Figure 1. The above chart compares the percentage of Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1965 for this study) and Generation Y (born between 1981 and 2000 for this study) in the City of Columbus and the surrounding metropolitan area between 1970 and 2010. There was a 6.04% growth of Generation Y in City of Columbus from 2000 to 2010. Source: U.S. Census.

Figure 2. The above graph shows the general decline in the percentage of Baby Boomers in Ohio’s eight largest cities from 1970 to 2010. Source: U.S. Census.

Figure 3. The above graph shows the change in percentage of Generation Y in Ohio’s eight largest cities between 2000 and 2010. Source: U.S. Census.

What do these trends mean for Ohio’s major metropolises?

Columbus Dispatch article “Rush to rent, and build apartments,” Columbus Underground post “Neighborhood Launch to Break Ground on New Apartments and Condos in 2012,” and NPR piece “Rust Belt Reboot Has Downtown Cleveland Rocking” call attention to the developers who are struggling to keep up with the demand for rental residences in walkable urban communities in Columbus and Cleveland, respectively. This demand for walkable neighborhoods with nearby amenities may increase as Baby Boomers age and desire more convenient lifestyles as well as proximity to their children and grandchildren.  As for retaining these populations, especially Generation Y, in urban areas—thereby helping to decrease our collective fossil fuel consumption, urban vacancy and blight, health issues related to inactivity, and greenfield consumption—our cities will have to compete to provide employment, quality schools, and world-class amenities.

GOPC’s upcoming report will further explain what these and other trends mean for Ohio’s major cities, and what policy drivers and incentives can be offered to attract and retain our country’s two largest demographic groups: the Baby Boomers and their children.