FOR Peopleof Humanities and Social Sciences

BuildingRESEARCH IN Cities ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION WILKINSON COLLEGE FOR PEOPLEof Humanities and Social Sciences

RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

Traditional cities will continue to attract many of our brightest and most capable citizens, particularly among the young and childless. But our evidence indicates strongly that, for the most part, families with children seem to be settling Center for Demographics and Policy instead in small, relatively inexpensive metropolitan areas, such as Fayetteville in Arkansas and Missouri; Cape Coral and Melbourne in Florida; Columbia, South Center for Demographics and Policy Carolina; Colorado Springs; and Boise. ey are also moving to less celebrated RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION middlesized metropolitan areas, such as Austin, Raleigh, San Antonio and Atlanta.

WILKINSON COLLEGE Center for Demographics and Policy of Humanities and Social Sciences

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY CHAPMAN PRESS PRESS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY Center for Demographics and Policy Center for Demographics and Policy

CHAPMAN PRESS UNIVERSITY PRESS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY Center for Demographics and Policy

PRESS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY PRESS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY Center for Demographics and Policy

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY PRESS

Building Cities FOR PEOPLE

Joel Kotkin Lead Author Wendell Cox, Mark Schill, & Ali Modarres Coauthors Zina Klapper Editor Charlie Stephens, Nate Kaspi, Alicia Kurimska, & Haley Wragg

Researchers

Special thanks to Christina Marshall and Lenae Reiter

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY PRESS PRESS

CHAPMAN PRESS UNIVERSITY PRESS 2015

PRESS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITYBEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 1 PRESS

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY PRESS

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY PRESS RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

Center for Demographics and Policy Center for Demographics and Policy RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE Center for Demographics and Policy of Humanities and Social Sciences

CHAPMAN CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY Center for Demographics and Policy Center for Demographics and Policy

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY Center for Demographics and Policy

“Demography is destiny” has become somewhat an overused phrase, but that does not reduce the critical importance of population trends to virtually every aspect of economic, social andC politicalHAPMAN life. Concern overUNIVERSITY demographic trends has been heightened in recent years by several international trends — notablyCenter rapid aging, for Demographicsreduced fertility, and largeand scale Policy migration across borders. On the national level, shifts in attitude, generation and ethnicity have proven decisive in both the political realm and in the economic fortunes of regions and states.

The Center focuses research and analysis of global, national and regional demographic trends and also looks into policies that might produce favorable demographic results over time. In addition it involves Chapman students in demographic research under the supervision of the Center’s senior staff. Students work with the Center’s director and engage in research that will serve them well as they look to develop their careers in business, the social sciences and the arts. They will also have access to our advisory board, which includes distinguished Chapman faculty and major demographic scholars from across the country and the world.

2 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Wilkinson College of Humanities and Social Sciences is the largest college at Chapman University. The distinguished faculty are composed of active scholars who are renowned nationally and internationally for their academic excellence and contribution to knowledge. But just as important, they are also enthusiastic teachers who take seriously their responsibility of ensuring that our students, whether majors, minors, or graduate students, are prepared for the intellectual, ethical, and professional challenges that a rapidly changing world is going to present. Our college is focused on providing a well-rounded educational foundation that lead to a variety of career paths. Wilkinson College invites you to join our vibrant intellectual community, where collaborative student-faculty research, internships, community service, travel courses and study abroad, student organizations, and several lecture series extend learning beyond the classroom. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH CENTERS:

The Earl Babbie Research Center is dedicated to empowering students and faculty to apply a wide variety of qualitative and quantitative social research methods to conduct studies that address critical social, behavioral, economic and environmental problems. The Center’s mission is to provide research support and instruction to students, faculty and the broader community, and to produce research that addresses global concerns including human rights, social justice, peaceful solutions to social conflicts and environmental sustainability. The Babbie Center supports cutting edge interdisciplinary research and encourages faculty student collaboration. For more information about the Earl Babbie Research Center.

The Henley Social Science Research Lab supports undergraduate and faculty research through a variety of programs. Research assistants staff the lab five days a week and can help faculty with the collection and analysis of data. They are also available to support students by providing tutoring in SPSS, GIS and quantitative methods for courses that include this content. The lab also encourages and facilitates interdisciplinary research with the creation of faculty work groups and serves as a resource for the community and can provide consulting services. The Henley lab is pleased to provide consulting for local government and community groups.

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 3 AUTHOR

Joel Kotkin is an internationally-recognized authority on global, economic, political and social trends. Joel Kotkin is the author of the forthcoming The Human City: Urbanism For The Rest Of Us, to be published in April by Agate Press. His previous books include the The New Class Conflict, The Next Hundred Million: America In 2050 and The City: A Global History. Mr. Kotkin is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University in Orange, California and executive director of the Center for Opportunism Urbanism in Houston, Texas. He also serves as Executive Editor of the widely read website www.newgeography.com. He writes the weekly “New Geography” column for Forbes.com. He is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Civil Service College in Singapore. He serves on the editorial board of the Orange County Register writes a weekly column for that paper, and is a regular contributor to The Daily Beast and RealClearPolitics. EDITOR

Zina Klapper is a longtime journalist and editor with numerous national credits. Her most recent projects include writing widely published commentaries and directing international media outreach for Levy Economics Institue, and editing a major volume of essays on urbanization for MIT, scheduled for publication in 2017.

4 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY CO-AUTHORS

Wendell Cox is a member of the Board of Advisors at the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University. He also serves as the Chair of Housing Affordability and Municipal Policy for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (Winnipeg, Canada), and is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Opportunity Urbanism (Houston). He is principal of Demographia, an international public policy and demographics firm (St. Louis). He is co-author of the "Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey" and author of "Demographia World Urban Areas" and "Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Planning, Transport and the Dimensions of Sustainability." He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley, where he served with the leading city and county leadership as the only non-elected member. He was appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council by Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich. He also served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, a national university in Paris. He holds a BA in Government from California State University, Los Angeles and an MBA from Pepperdine University, Los Angeles.

Ali Modarres is the Director of Urban Studies at University of Washington Tacoma. He is a geographer and landscape architect, specializing in urban planning and policy. He has written extensively about social geography, transportation planning, and urban development issues in American cities.

Mark Schill is the Vice President at Praxis Strategy Group. He is a community strategy consultant with more than 15 years of experience working on economic strategy, public policy, community development initiatives, and corporate strategy across 13 states. His economic and population analysis work has appeared in Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, Politico, and many regional publications. Mark is the lead analyst and co-author for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation’s Enterprising States and Cities project, now in its sixth year. In 2014 Mark co-authored a report profiling the growth of female entrepreneurs across the nation for the Center for Women in Business and presented findings at their national summit. Mark was the lead researcher for a report identifying new areas of growth: America's Growth Corridors: The Key to National Revival. Mark was a major contributor to The Rise of the Great Plains: Regional Opportunity in the 21st Century, a report laying out the case for future prosperity in America's flyover country produced for Texas Tech University in 2012. Mark was named one of the inaugural top 40 Under 40 Business Leaders on the Northern Plains by Prairie Business Magazine and he is managing editor and co-founder of the population and economic analysis site NewGeography.com.

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 5 6 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Author...... 4

Introduction...... 7

The Emerging Housing Crisis...... 8

The Economics of Dispersion...... 18

Demographic and Familial Trends...... 27

Sidebar: Best Cities for Middle Class Families...... 50

City Rankings...... 52-53, 55, 58-64

Footnotes and Sources...... 66

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 7 8 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Introduction

Cities succeed by making life better New York, San Francisco, and for the vast majority of their citizens. Los Angeles long have been among the This requires less of a focus on grand cities that defined the American urban theories, architecture or being experience. But today, families with fashionable, and more on what occurs children seem to be settling instead in on the ground level. “Everyday life,” small, relatively inexpensive metropolitan observed the French historian Fernand areas, such as Fayetteville in Arkansas Braudel, “consists of the little things and Missouri; Cape Coral and Melbourne one hardly notices in time and space.”1 in Florida; Columbia, South Carolina; Braudel’s work focused on people who Colorado Springs; and Boise. They are lived normal lives; they worried about also moving to less celebrated middlesized feeding and housing their families, metropolitan areas, such as Austin, keeping warm, and making a livelihood.2 Raleigh, San Antonio and Atlanta.3 Adapting Braudel’s approach to the modern day, we concentrate on how families make the pragmatic decisions Traditional cities will continue to attract that determine where they choose to many of our brightest and most capable locate. To construct this new, family- centric model, we have employed various citizens, particularly among the young and tools: historical reasoning, Census childless. But our evidence indicates strongly Bureau data, market data and economic statistics, as well as surveys of potential that, for the most part, families today are and actual home-buyers. heading away from the most elite, celebrated This approach does not underestimate the critical role that the dense, traditional cities, and towards less expensive cities and city plays in intellectual, cultural and the suburban periphery. economic life. Traditional cities will continue to attract many of our brightest and most capable citizens, particularly among the young and childless. But our evidence indicates strongly that, for the most part, families today are heading away from the most elite, more congested cities, and towards less expensive cities and the suburban periphery. (see appendix “Best Cities for Families”)

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 9 THE EMERGING HOUSING CRISIS

A growing crisis in housing supply the most important cities. This shortfall is helping to drive out families and the and the consequent price inflation has Figure 4 Percent Share ofmiddle Average class from Annual expensive regions, and been exacerbated by planning policies Rent as a % of Income Expenditures Perparticularly Consumer from theUnit, cores of many of designed to force ever-greater urban Selected Markets 1984-2013 Figure 1 density, and squelch development along Figure 4 Percent Share of Average Annual the periphery. Overall, housing now 80% Rent as2014 a % of Income Expenditures40% Per Consumer Unit, takes the largest share of family costs, 70% Historic Average Selected Markets 1984-201335% Figure 1 while expenditures on food, apparel and 60% 80% transportation have dropped or stayed 50% 2014 30% 40% about the same. In 2015, rises in housing 70% Historic Average 40% 25% 35% costs essentially swallowed savings gains 60% 30% 20% made elsewhere, notably, savings on the 50% 30% cost of energy. 20% 15% 40% 25% William Fischel, an economist at 10% 10% 30% 20% Dartmouth College, has shown how Annual Expenditures 0% Los Angeles Miami United States New York Riverside-SB United States Percent Share of Average of Share Percent 5% the imposition of stringent land use 20% 15% From: Zillow regulations have driven house prices 10% 0% 10% up substantially in California, in

Annual Expenditures 0% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1985 5 Los Angeles Miami United States New York Riverside-SB United States Percent Share of Average of Share Percent 5% relation to prices elsewhere. In 1970, for example, housing affordability in From: Zillow 0% Housing Life Insurance, Health Care Entertainment Tansportation Pension Savings, Apparel, Other Charitable Contributions coastal California metropolitan areas Social Security Products & Services Figure 4 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Food1985 & Alcohol Education was similar to the rest of the country, Source: “The Evolving Expenditures of U.S. Households,” Townhall Finance, March 26, 2015, http://finance.townhall.com/- columnists/politicalcalculations/2015/03/26/the-evolving-expenditures-of-us-households-n1976354/page/full as measured by the median multiple Impact of Age 5-17 Population to Housing Life Insurance, Health Care Entertainment Tansportation Pension Savings, Apparel, Other Charitable Contributions (the median house price divided by the Housing Afforddability Social Security Products & Services Figure 4 Food & Alcohol Education median household income). Today, due 52 Major Metropolotan Area: 2010 Source: “The Evolving Expenditures of U.S. Households,” Townhall Finance, March 26, 2015, http://finance.townhall.com/- in part to a generation of strict growth columnists/politicalcalculations/2015/03/26/the-evolving-expenditures-of-us-households-n1976354/page/full Impact of Age 5-17 Population to controls, house prices in places like San Housing14% Afforddability Francisco and Los Angeles are now three Middle-Income Housing Affordability 52 Major12% Metropolotan Area: 2010 or more times higher than in some other MAJOR US METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1950-2014 Figure 2 10% metropolitan areas. 14% Given the extraordinary cost of 8% Middle-Income10 Housing Affordability 12% Less Restrictive Markets land in places like California, many 6% MAJOR9 US METROPOLITANMore Restrictive Markets: Outside AREAS: California 1950-2014 Figure 2 10% Median Multiple: California (All More Restricted Markets) developers there find it worthwhile Median House Price 8 4% divided by Median of Population of to build homes predominately for the 8% Household Income 107 Share Ages 5-17 2% Less Restrictive Markets affluent; the era of the Levittown-style 6% 69 More Restrictive Markets: Outside California 0% Median Multiple: California (All More Restricted Markets) “starter home”—which particularly Affordable ModeratelyMedian House PriceSeriously Severely 58 4% divided by Median of Population of benefited younger families—is all but (3.0 & Under) UnaffordableHousehold IncomeUnaffordable Unaffordable

4 Share Ages 5-17 7 defunct.6 The rest of the country has also 2% (3.1-4.0) (4.1-5.0) (5.1-& Over) 3 Median Multiple Median 6 seen a drop in middle income housing 0% Housing Affordability Category: Median Multiple 25 Affordable Moderately Seriously Severely affordability, with more production of Derived from Census (3.0Bureau & Under) and Demographia.Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable 14 luxury houses.7 (3.1-4.0) (4.1-5.0) (5.1-& Over) 03 Figure 6 Median Multiple Median 1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 The reduced housing supply has Housing Affordability Category: Median Multiple 2 driven an affordability decline among Construction Derived from Census Bureau Cost and Demographia. by House Type Source:1 Census Bureau, Harvard University and Demographia. San Francisco Bay Area 0 10 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Figure 6 The 1950Affordability 1960 1970 Crunch 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Construction8 Cost by House Type RentsSource: Census have Bureau, never Harvard taken University up this and Demographia.much of the American paycheck Figure 3 San7 Francisco Bay Area U.S. Rent as Share of Income 6 The Affordability Crunch 58 31%Rents have never taken up this much of the American paycheck Figure 3 7 4 30 6 29 U.S. Rent as Share of Income 3 5 31%28 2 27 4 30 1 2629 3 0 25 28 2 Detached Detached Townhome Townhome/ Midrise Midrise Midrise Midrise (5 per Acre) (15) (20) Condo (26) (50 Low) (50 High) (100) (100) 2427 (5) Detached to Compared 1 2326 Construction Cost/Square Foot 0 Compared to Detached (5 per Acre) 2225 Detached Detached Townhome Townhome/ Midrise Midrise Midrise Midrise 1979-03 1984-06 1989-09 1994-12 2000-12 2005-06 2010-09 2015-06 Derived from FBI(5 per Acre)Statistics:(15) 2013, (20)Major metropolitanCondo (26) (50 areas Low) (average)(50 High) (100) (100) 24 (5) Detached to Compared Comment JK8: Mike Krieger, “The Oligarch Recovery – Renting in America Is Most Expensive Ever,” Zero Hedge, August 14,23 2015, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-14/oligarch-recovery-renting-america-most-expensive-ever Construction Cost/Square Foot 22 Figure 7 Compared to Detached (5 per Acre) Figure 5 1979-03 1984-06 1989-09 1994-12 2000-12 2005-06 2010-09 2015-06 AgeDerived 5-14from FBI Statistics:Population 2013, Major %metropolitan by Urban areas (average) Sector UnderComment JK8: Mike Age Krieger, “The 35 Oligarch Home Recovery – Renting Ownership in America Is Most Expensive Ever,” Zero Hedge, August 14, 2015, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-14/oligarch-recovery-renting-america-most-expensive-ever 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 UNITED STATES: 2000-2014 Figure 7 16% 15.0% Figure 5 14.2% 50% 13.5% 14%Age 5-14 Population13% % by Urban Sector Under45% Age 35 Home Ownership 12%52 Major Metropolitan11.6% Areas: 2010 UNITED40% STATES: 2000-2014 10%16% 15.0% 35% 14.2% 50% 14% 13.5% 8% 13% 30%45% 12% 11.6% 40%25% 6% 5.3% 10% 20%35% 4% 8% 15%30% 2% 10%25% 0%6% 5.3% Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb OVERALL 20%5% 4% CBD Inner Ring 15%0% 2% Small Areas (Zip Code Analysis Zones) 2000 2005 2010 2014 10% 0% Source: Census Bureau Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb OVERALL 5% CBD Inner Ring 0% Small Areas (Zip Code Analysis Zones) 2000 2005 2010 2014 Source: Census Bureau Figure 4 Percent Share of Average Annual Expenditures Per Consumer Unit, Rent as a % of Income Selected Markets 1984-2013 Figure 1 80% 2014 40% 70% Historic Average 35% 60% 50% 30% 40% 25% 30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 10%

Annual Expenditures 0% Los Angeles Miami United States New York Riverside-SB United States Percent Share of Average of Share Percent 5% From: Zillow both renters0% and owners for in some In each of these markets there have 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 peripheral areas1985 as well such as the past been strong increases (income adjusted) decade.8 Overall, US housing production relative to historic averages. In New dropped notHousing only sinceLife theInsurance, 2007 Health Care York,Entertainment rents increased between 2010 and Tansportation Pension Savings, Apparel, Other Charitable Contributions Social Security recession, butFood &also Alcohol by almost a quarterProducts & Services 2015Education by 50 percent, while incomes for Figure 4

Source:between “The Evolving 2011 Expenditures and of 2015. U.S. Households,” Production Townhall Finance, has March 26, 2015, http://finance.townhall.com/-renters between ages 25 and 44 grew by columnists/politicalcalculations/2015/03/26/the-evolving-expenditures-of-us-households-n1976354/page/full Impact of Age 5-17 Population to fallen so far that one Texas metropolitan just eight percent.13 Housing Afforddability area, Houston, produced nearly as many These high costs particularly 52 Major Metropolotan Area: 2010 new single-family homes in 2014 as the impact young families, especially 9 entire state of California. those with school age children. Indeed, 14% Middle-IncomeThese high housing Housing prices particulaly Affordability metropolitan areas with the highest 12% boost rents, largely by forcing potential prices relative to incomes (the highest MAJOR US METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1950-2014 Figure 2 10% buyers into the apartment market. Rental median multiples)—New York, Los 8% costs10 now comprise the largest share of Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Less Restrictive Markets 6% income9 in modernMore Restrictive US Markets: history. Outside In California part, Miami, Seattle and Portland, for Median Multiple: California (All More Restricted Markets) Median House Price this8 is due to a still-weak economy that example—generally have a lower 4% divided by Median of Population of Household Income

is generating7 little in the way of income percentage of school age children. In Share Ages 5-17 2% 10 gains.6 Since 1990, renters' income has contrast, family formation is strongest 0% been5 stagnant, but inflation adjusted in areas with more favorable housing Affordable Moderately Seriously Severely 11 (3.0 & Under) Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable rents4 have soared 14.7 percent. affordability. This also includes areas (3.1-4.0) (4.1-5.0) (5.1-& Over) 3This situation is most severe in the within large metropolitan areas, for Median Multiple Median Housing Affordability Category: Median Multiple highest-priced2 markets. In New York, example, San Bernardino-Riverside Derived from Census Bureau and Demographia. Los1 Angeles, Miami and San Francisco, outside of Los Angeles, or Pierce County for 0example, renters spend 40 percent (Tacoma) south of Seattle. Figure 6 of their1950 income 1960 on rent, 1970 well above 1980 1985 the 1990 1995 2000 Young, 2005 2010 first-time buyers who, unlike Construction Cost by House Type 12 Source:national Census average Bureau, Harvardof under University 30 percent. and Demographia. older buyers, have not benefited from San Francisco Bay Area

The Affordability Crunch 8 Rents have never taken up this much of the American paycheck Figure 3 7 U.S. Rent as Share of Income 6 5 31% 30 4 29 3 28 2 27 1 26 0 25 Detached Detached Townhome Townhome/ Midrise Midrise Midrise Midrise (5 per Acre) (15) (20) Condo (26) (50 Low) (50 High) (100) (100) 24 (5) Detached to Compared 23 Construction Cost/Square Foot 22 Compared to Detached (5 per Acre) 1979-03 1984-06 1989-09 1994-12 2000-12 2005-06 2010-09 2015-06 Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average) Comment JK8: Mike Krieger, “The Oligarch Recovery – Renting in America Is Most Expensive Ever,” Zero Hedge, August 14, 2015, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-14/oligarch-recovery-renting-america-most-expensive-ever Figure 7 Figure 5 BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 11 Age 5-14 Population % by Urban Sector Under Age 35 Home Ownership 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 UNITED STATES: 2000-2014 16% 15.0% 14.2% 50% 13.5% 14% 13% 45% 12% 11.6% 40% 10% 35% 8% 30% 25% 6% 5.3% 20% 4% 15% 2% 10% 0% Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb OVERALL 5% CBD Inner Ring 0% Small Areas (Zip Code Analysis Zones) 2000 2005 2010 2014 Source: Census Bureau Figure 4 Percent Share of Average Annual Expenditures Per Consumer Unit, Rent as a % of Income Selected Markets 1984-2013 Figure 1 80% 2014 40% 70% Historic Average 35% 60% 50% 30% 40% 25% 30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 10%

Annual Expenditures 0% Los Angeles Miami United States New York Riverside-SB United States Percent Share of Average of Share Percent 5% From: Zillow 0% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1985

Housing Life Insurance, Health Care Entertainment Tansportation Pension Savings, Apparel, Other Charitable Contributions Social Security Food & Alcohol Products & Services Education Figure 4

Source: “The Evolving Expenditures of U.S. Households,” Townhall Finance, March 26, 2015, http://finance.townhall.com/- columnists/politicalcalculations/2015/03/26/the-evolving-expenditures-of-us-households-n1976354/page/fullFigure 4 Impact of Age 5-17 Population to Percent Share of Average Annual Housing Afforddability Expenditures Per Consumer Unit, Rent as a % of Income Selected Markets 52 Major Metropolotan Area: 2010 1984-2013 Figure 1 80% 2014 14% 40% 70% Middle-IncomeHistoric Average Housing Affordability 12% 60% 35% MAJOR US METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1950-2014 Figure 2 10% 50% 30% 8% 40%10 25% Less Restrictive Markets 6% 9 More Restrictive Markets: Outside California Median Multiple: 30% California (All More Restricted Markets) Median House Price 20% 8 4% divided by Median of Population of 20% Household Income

7 Share Ages 5-17 2% 15% 10% 6 housing inflation, are also negatively 2004 levels.14 In 2015, more than half of 0% 10% Affordable Moderately Seriously Severely

Annual Expenditures 0%5 Los Angeles MiamiimpactedUnited States by howNew York risingRiverside-SB prices United States millennials rented their homes, up from (3.0 & Under) Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable Percent Share of Average of Share Percent 5% 4 From: Zillow undermine homeownership. Due to 37 percent in 2010. And home ownership (3.1-4.0) (4.1-5.0) (5.1-& Over) 3 0% Multiple Median student debt and a weak economy, the among their age cohort has plummeted Housing Affordability Category: Median Multiple 2 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1985 net worth of people under age 35 has to 36 percent from the peak of 44 percent Derived from Census Bureau and Demographia. 1 plummeted almost 70 percent from in 2005.15 This rise in renting is seen Housing Life Insurance, Health Care Entertainment 0 in virtually all large urban cores, even Figure 6 Tansportation Pension Savings, Apparel, Other Charitable Contributions 1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Social Security 16 Food & Alcohol Products & Services Education Figure 4 those in the South and Texas. The Construction Cost by House Type Source: Census Bureau, Harvard University and Demographia. Source: “The Evolving Expenditures of U.S. Households,” Townhall Finance, March 26, 2015, http://finance.townhall.com/- consequences of choking off this descent San Francisco Bay Area columnists/politicalcalculations/2015/03/26/the-evolving-expenditures-of-us-households-n1976354/page/full Impact of Age 5-17 Population to Housing Afforddability could be profound, shaping the country’s The Affordability Crunch economy, and its social and demographic 8 52 Major Metropolotan Area: 2010 Rents have never taken up this much of the American paycheckevolution for decadesFigure to3 come. 7 6 U.S. 14%Rent as Share of Income Density Is Not The Answer 5 Middle-Income Housing Affordability 31% 12% MAJOR US METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1950-2014 Figure 2 30 10% The common solution to the housing 4 29 8% dilemma proposed by most planners 3 10 28 Less Restrictive Markets 6% and retro-urbanists, and by many 2 9 More Restrictive Markets: Outside California 27 Median Multiple: developers, has been to advocate higher California (All More Restricted Markets) Median House Price 1 8 4% divided by Median 26 Population of density housing in cities and suburbs. The Household Income 0 7 Share Ages 5-17 2% 25 problem facing big coastal cities, notes Detached Detached Townhome Townhome/ Midrise Midrise Midrise Midrise 6 (5 per Acre) (15) (20) Condo (26) (50 Low) (50 High) (100) (100) 24 0% one progressive blogger, is their lack of (5) Detached to Compared 5 Affordable Moderately Seriously Severely 17 23 (3.0 & Under) Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable “semi-density, mid-rise construction.” Yet Construction Cost/Square Foot 4 22 (3.1-4.0) (4.1-5.0) (5.1-& Over) it turns out that, by most measurements, Compared to Detached (5 per Acre) 3 Median Multiple Median 1979-03 1984-06 1989-09 1994-12 2000-12 2005-06 2010-09 2015-06 Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average) Housing Affordability Category: Median Multiple higher density housing is far more 2 Comment JK8: Mike Krieger, “The Oligarch Recovery – Renting in America Is Most Expensive Ever,” Zero Hedge, August Derived14, 2015, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-14/oligarch-recovery-renting-america-most-expensive-ever from Census Bureau and Demographia. expensive to build. Gerard Mildner, the 1 Academic Director of the Center for Real Figure 7 0 FigureFigure 65 Estate at Portland State University, notes 1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Age 5-14 Population % by Urban Sector ConstructionUnder Age 35 Cost Home by OwnershipHouse Type that a high rise over five stories costs 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 Source: Census Bureau, Harvard University and Demographia. SanUNITED Francisco STATES: Bay 2000-2014 Area nearly three times as much per square foot 18 16% 15.0% as a garden apartment. 14.2% 50% 14% 13.5% 8 13% The Affordability Crunch 45% Even higher construction costs are 12% 11.6% Rents have never taken up this much of the American paycheck Figure 3 40% 7 reported in the San Francisco Bay Area, where townhome developments can cost 10% U.S. Rent as Share of Income 35% 6 up to double that of detached houses 8% 30% 5 31% per square foot to build (excluding 25% 6% 5.3% 30 4 land costs), and units in high rise 4% 29 20% 3 condominium buildings can cost up 15% 19 2% 28 2 to 7.5 times as much. 27 10% What the strictest pro-density 0% 1 Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb OVERALL 26 5% policies—known as 'pack and stack' CBD Inner Ring 0 among opponents—do effectively, 25 0% Detached Detached Townhome Townhome/ Midrise Midrise Midrise Midrise Small Areas (Zip Code Analysis Zones) 2000(5 per Acre) (15) (20)2005Condo (26) (50 Low) (50 High)2010 (100) (100) 2014 24 (5) Detached to Compared however, is undermine the aspirations Source: Census Bureau 23 Construction Cost/Square Foot 22 Compared 12 toCHAPMAN Detached UNIVERSITY •(5 CENTER per FOR Acre) DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 1979-03 1984-06 1989-09 1994-12 2000-12 2005-06 2010-09 2015-06 Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average) Comment JK8: Mike Krieger, “The Oligarch Recovery – Renting in America Is Most Expensive Ever,” Zero Hedge, August 14, 2015, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-14/oligarch-recovery-renting-america-most-expensive-ever Figure 7 Figure 5 Age 5-14 Population % by Urban Sector Under Age 35 Home Ownership 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 UNITED STATES: 2000-2014 16% 15.0% 14.2% 50% 13.5% 14% 13% 45% 12% 11.6% 40% 10% 35% 8% 30% 25% 6% 5.3% 20% 4% 15% 2% 10% 0% Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb OVERALL 5% CBD Inner Ring 0% Small Areas (Zip Code Analysis Zones) 2000 2005 2010 2014 Source: Census Bureau Figure 4 Percent Share of Average Annual Expenditures Per Consumer Unit, Rent as a % of Income Selected Markets 1984-2013 Figure 1 80% 2014 40% 70% Historic Average 35% 60% 50% 30% 40% 25% 30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 10%

Annual Expenditures 0% Los Angeles Miami United States New York Riverside-SB United States Percent Share of Average of Share Percent 5% From: Zillow 0% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1985

Housing Life Insurance, Health Care Entertainment Tansportation Pension Savings, Apparel, Other Charitable Contributions Social Security Food & Alcohol Products & Services Education Figure 4

14% Middle-Income Housing Affordability 12% MAJOR US METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1950-2014 Figure 2 10% 8% 10 Less Restrictive Markets 6% 9 More Restrictive Markets: Outside California Median Multiple: California (All More Restricted Markets) Median House Price 8 4% divided by Median of Population of Household Income

7 Share Ages 5-17 2% 6 0% 5 Affordable Moderately Seriously Severely (3.0 & Under) Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable 4 (3.1-4.0) (4.1-5.0) (5.1-& Over) 3 Median Multiple Median Housing Affordability Category: Median Multiple 2 Derived from Census Bureau and Demographia. 1 0 Figure 6 1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Construction Cost by House Type Source: Census Bureau, Harvard University and Demographia. San Francisco Bay Area

The Affordability Crunch 8 of young, middle-income families with Rents have never taken up this much of the American paycheck 3 7 children. To measureFigure the impact of U.S. Rent as Share of Income density and urban form, we use the City 6 Sector model, originally developed by 5 31% groundbreaking research published by 4 30 David L. A. Gordon and Mark Janzen at 29 20 3 Queen's University in Kingston Ontario. 28 The City Sector Model classifies 2 27 all metropolitan zip code areas on a 1 26 continuum from the dense urban cores 0 25 that preceded World War II, through older Detached Detached Townhome Townhome/ Midrise Midrise Midrise Midrise (5 per Acre) (15) (20) Condo (26) (50 Low) (50 High) (100) (100) 24 and newer suburban areas and exurban (5) Detached to Compared 23 areas outside the continuous urbanization. Construction Cost/Square Foot 22 The City Sector Model gives a much more Compared to Detached (5 per Acre) 1979-03 1984-06 1989-09 1994-12 2000-12 2005-06accurate representation2010-09 2015-06 of urban core Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average) Comment JK8: Mike Krieger, “The Oligarch Recovery – Renting in America Is Most Expensive Ever,” Zero Hedge, August 14, 2015, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-14/oligarch-recovery-renting-america-most-expensive-ever versus suburban development because many core cities include substantial areas Figurebetween 7 ages 5 and 14 constituted about Figure 5 of suburban development. The criteria for 7Age percent 5-14 in urban Population core CBDs across% by the Urban Sector Under Age 35 Home Ownership classification can be seen in the footnote.21 country, less than half the level seen in 52 Major Metropolitan Areas:23 2010 UNITED STATES: 2000-2014 Overall, the highest density major newer suburbs and exurbs. 16% 15.0% metropolitan areas have far smaller Across the country, mandates to 14.2% 50% 13.5% percentages of school age children. In densify14% residential neighborhoods13% and 45% the dense, urban core Central Business suburbs12% often meet11.6% great opposition 40% Districts (CBDs), the percentage of five in10% areas dominated by families. In a 35% to fourteen year-olds is less than one-half reaction to regional draconian regulations 8% 30% that of less dense, more peripheral areas. mandating densification, one Bay Area 25% Generally speaking, families are most blogger6% observed5.3% that “… suburb-hating is 20% prevalent in newer suburbs and exurbs, anti-child,”4% because it seeks to undermine those built largely since the 1970s, than neighborhoods with children.24 15% 2% in older suburbs, while the inner core Nonetheless, there are those who, 10% 0% areas, some dating from the late 19th and like realUrban estate Core: magnateUrban Core: EarlySam Suburb Zell, Later suggest Suburb Exurb OVERALL 5% early 20th Century, have the lowest. that the CBDfuture belongsInner Ring to ever smaller 0% The highest percentage of US units, includingSmall 300Areas square (Zip footCode “micro- Analysis Zones) 2000 2005 2010 2014 women over age 40 without children units.”25 But these residences are aimed Source: Census Bureau can be found in expensive and dense at single professionals; it is inconceivable Washington, DC: a remarkable 70 for middle or even working-class families percent. In Manhattan, singles comprise to inhabit such spaces.26 Overall, people, half of all households.22 In some central particularly families, do not appear to be neighborhoods of major metropolitan craving higher density. areas such as New York and Seattle, less Indeed, the American household than 10 percent of the population is preference for low density housing could made up of children under 18. According not be more evident. According to the to Census figures, in 2011, children latest American Community Survey data,

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 13 detached units dominated the universe was the second most popular type—6.5 of owned housing in the United States. In percent—of owner occupied housing; 2013, the detached house accounted for mobile homes are, of course,Figure a form 10 of 82.3 percent of resident-owned housing. detached housing.Figure The third 10Core most Municipalitypopular Perhaps surprisingly, the mobile home home ownership type—5.8Core Municipality percent—was Figure 7 Share of Growth the attached house, including townhouses, Figure 7 Share MAJORof Growth METROPOLITAN Smallest Child %: 500K + Municipalities duplexes and other semi-detached Smallest Child %: 500K + Municipalities MAJOR METROPOLITANAREAS: 1950-2010 Municipalities Over 500,000 in 2013 units. These threeAREAS: categories 1950-2010 combined Municipalities Over 500,000 in 2013 12% represent 94.6 percent of allCore housing that 12% is owned, rather thanCore rented.Municipalities 10% The fourth mostMunicipalities popular9.9% type among 10% 9.9% 8% home buyers (out of five types) was the 8% apartment-style condominium in a 6% building with two or more units. Multi- 6% 4% unit housing represented 5.3 percent of 4% the resident-owned housing stock.

% of Population% of 5-14 2% The highest density housing surveyed

% of Population% of 5-14 2% 0% by the American Community Survey 0% Suburban

York was of apartment style condominiums in New Boston San Denver Seattle Suburban Areas Portland York New Francisco

Baltimore buildings with 50 or more units. Housing Richmond San Diego Boston San Denver Seattle

Washington Areas

Portland 90.1% Francisco Baltimore Richmond

San Diego of this density, favored by many urban Source: American CommunityWashington Survey 2013, 1 year 90.1% Source: American Community Survey 2013, 1 year planners, accounted for onlyFrom: 1.2 U.S. percent Census Bureau Data of resident-ownedFrom: housing, U.S. Census with Bureau nearly Data 60 percent of these units inFigure just four 11 Figure 8 Figure 11Housing Preferences: Figure 8 metropolitan areas: New York, Miami, Population Density by Urban Sector Chicago and Washington.Housing27Realtors Only Preferences: the Survey Population Density by Urban Sector 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 "other" category, whichRealtors includes2011 Survey types COMMUNITY such 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 as boats and recreational2011 COMMUNITY vehicles, had a 25,000 PREFERENCE SURVEY smaller percentagePREFERENCE of the owner occupied SURVEY 25,000 Other Multi-Unit 28 Other housing market, at 0.1 percent. Multi-Unit5.0% 8.0% 20,000 Attached 5.0% 8.0% 20,000 Attached Single family A Matter of Preference Single family 7.0% 15,000 7.0% 15,000 The massive post-World War II 10,000 shift to suburbia is now well over a 10,000 half century old. In 1950, only half the 5,000 residents of today’s major metropolitan Population per Square Mile per Population 5,000 29

Population per Square Mile per Population areas lived in suburbs. Since that time, 0 90 percent of metropolitan growth has Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb 0 30 Detached Urban Core: UrbanCBD Core: InnerEarly Ring Suburb Later Suburb Exurb been in the suburbs. Today, nearly 75 CBD Inner Ring percent of metropolitanDetached areaHouse residents Small Area (Zip Code Analysis Zones) House 80.0% Small Area (Zip Code Analysis Zones) live in suburban areas.80.0% Overall, 44 Figure 9 Figure 9 Figure 12 Home Ownership 14 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY by Type • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Figure 12 Home UNITEDOwnership STATES by 2013 Type Housing by Family Type UNITED STATES 2013 HousingU.S. by 2013 Family Type U.S. 2013 Multi-Unit Mobile Other Multi Family Single Family 100% Multi-Unit Mobile(Apartment, Home Other Multi Family Single Family Other 100% (Apartment, HomeCondo)Other 6.5% .1% Condo) 6.5%5.3% .1% Townhouse/5.3% Townhouse/ Semi-Detached 80% Semi-Detached 5.8% 80% 5.8%

Detached 60% Detached 82.3% 60% 82.3%

40% 40% From: American Community Survey, 2013 (1 year) From: American Community Survey, 2013 (1 year)

20% 20%

0% 0% Married Single Head Non Family Married CouplesSingle Head of HouseholdNon Family Household Couples of Household Household From: Derived from American Community Survey 2013 From: Derived(One from Year) American Community Survey 2013 (One Year) Figure 10 Core Municipality Figure 7 Share of Growth Smallest Child %: 500K + Municipalities MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1950-2010 Municipalities Over 500,000 in 2013

12% Core Municipalities 10% 9.9%

% of Population% of 5-14 2%

0% Suburban York New Boston San Denver Seattle Areas Portland Francisco Baltimore Richmond San Diego

Washington 90.1% Source: American Community Survey 2013, 1 year From: U.S. Census Bureau Data

Figure 11 Figure 8 Housing Preferences: Population Density by Urban Sector Realtors Survey 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 2011 COMMUNITY

25,000 PREFERENCE SURVEY Other Multi-Unit 5.0% 8.0% 20,000 Attached Single family 7.0% 15,000

10,000

5,000 Population per Square Mile per Population

0 Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb CBD Inner Ring Detached House Small Area (Zip Code Analysis Zones) 80.0%

Figure 9 Figure 10 12 Home Ownership by Type Core Municipality Figure Housing by Family Type Figure 7 UNITED STATES 2013 Share of Growth U.S. 2013 Smallest Child %: 500K + Municipalities MAJOR METROPOLITAN Multi-Unit Mobile AREAS: 1950-2010 Other Multi Family Single Family Municipalities Over 500,000 in 2013 100% (Apartment, Home Other 12% Condo) 6.5% .1% Core 5.3% Municipalities 10% Townhouse/ 9.9% Semi-Detached 80% 8% 5.8%

4% Detached 60%

% of Population% of 5-14 2% 82.3%

0% Suburban York New Boston San Denver Seattle Areas Portland Francisco Baltimore Richmond

San Diego 40%

Washington 90.1% Source: American Community Survey 2013, 1 year From: American Community Survey, 2013 (1 year) From: U.S. Census Bureau Data

million Americans live in the core cities ModernFigure 11 critics have blamed suburbs for Figure 8 of America’s 51 major metropolitan areas, everythingHousing from Preferences: climate change to the 20% Population Density by Urban Sectorwhile nearly 122 million Americans live collapseRealtors of culture Survey and mental health. in the suburbs. And this does not 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 The2011 CongressCOMMUNITY for the New Urbanism has include the more than half of the core claimed that the suburb “…spells the PREFERENCE SURVEY 25,000 city population that lives in districts end of authentic civic life.”34 Going even 0% Other Married Single Head Non Family that are functionally suburban or further, the hyperbolicMulti-Unit James Howard Couples of Household Household 5.0% 8.0% 20,000 exurban, with low density and high Kunstler opines, “The state of theAttached art From: Derived from American Community Survey 2013 automobile use.31 mega-suburbs of recent decadesSingle have family (One Year) 7.0% 15,000 This preference has elicited the produced horrendous levels of alienation, disdain of many of America’s leading anomie, anxiety and depression.” intellectuals, of the planning 10,000 Dependence on fossil fuels, he insists, community and of some urban land will seal the fate of suburbs as we face a interests. In reviewing the literature, chronic condition of “peak oil.”35 Even 5,000

Population per Square Mile per Population urban historian Becky Nicolaides has when gas prices are high, most suggested that, whatever their other Americans still overwhelmingly 0 Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburbdifferences,Exurb intellectuals generally choose suburban living. Regardless CBD Inner Ring agreed about suburbia: “… the ofDetached the hysteria about “peak oil,” high 32 House Small Area (Zip Code Analysis Zones)common denominator was hell.” gas80.0% prices are neither forcing people Much criticism has come from back into cities nor leading to a mass Figure 9 progressives or liberals, including exodus from suburbia. Home Ownership by Type President Obama, who proclaimed in FigureOne 12 reason may be the vast 2009 that “sprawl is over.” But some preference for single family housing, UNITED STATES 2013 Housing by Family Type conservatives also denounce suburban U.S.particularly 2013 among married couples. Over lifestyles, preferring an engineered 80 percent of married couples live in this Multi-Unit Mobile Other Multi Family Single Family return to an urban more hierarchical 100%kind of housing, compared to barely fifty (Apartment, Home 33 Other order of a previous age. percent for “non-family” households of Condo) 6.5% .1% 5.3% Townhouse/ BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 15 Semi-Detached 80% 5.8%

Detached 60% 82.3%

40%

From: American Community Survey, 2013 (1 year)

20%

0% Married Single Head Non Family Couples of Household Household

From: Derived from American Community Survey 2013 (One Year) 16 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 17 Figure 10 Core Municipality Figure 7 Share of Growth Smallest Child %: 500K + Municipalities MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1950-2010 Municipalities Over 500,000 in 2013

12% Core Municipalities 10% 9.9%

% of Population% of 5-14 2%

0% Suburban York New Boston San Denver Seattle Areas Portland Francisco Baltimore Richmond San Diego

Washington 90.1% Source: American Community Survey 2013, 1 year From: U.S. Census Bureau Data

Figure 11 Figure 8 Housing Preferences: Population Density by Urban Sector Realtors Survey 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 2011 COMMUNITY

25,000 PREFERENCE SURVEY Other single and unrelated individuals. Nor or the city. Single familyMulti-Unit housing, 5.0% 8.0% 20,000 is the quality of life in suburbia as associated primarily with suburbia,Attached is unsatisfying and alienating as is the preference of roughly four Singlein five family Figure 10 36 7.0% 15,000 often suggested. home buyers, according to a 2011 study CoreSuburbs Municipality are generally far more conducted by the National Association of Figure 7 sociallyShare cohesive of Growth than the critics suggest. Realtors and Smart Growth America; the 10,000 Smallest Child %: 500K + Municipalities Indeed,MAJOR in METROPOLITAN 2006 when University of idea is anathema to those seeking a much CaliforniaAREAS: 1950-2010 at Irvine’s Jan Brueckner and denser future.38; 39; 40 Municipalities Over 500,000 in 2013 5,000

Population per Square Mile per Population Jan Largey conducted 15,000 interviews Even in the Portland, Oregon 12% acrossCore the country, they found that for metropolitan area, where smart growth Municipalities 0 10% Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburbevery9.9% 10Exurb percent drop in a community's policy is perhaps the most entrenched CBD Inner Ring population density, the likelihood that Detachedin the United States, a public opinion House 8% residents talk to their neighbors once a research report co-sponsored by the Small Area (Zip Code Analysis Zones) 80.0% 6% week goes up 10 percent, regardless of race, metropolitan planning organization 37 Figure 9 income, education, marital status or age. 4% Home Ownership by Type These findings have been bolstered Figure 12

% of Population% of 5-14 2% by more recent surveys taken by UNITED STATES 2013 Housing by Family Type PewResearchCenter and by the new 0% U.S. 2013 urbanist-orientedSuburban Atlantic, which

York Other Multi Family Single Family New Multi-Unit Mobile Boston San Denver Seattle foundAreas suburbanites considerably more

Portland 100% Francisco Baltimore Richmond

San Diego(Apartment, Home Other Washington satisfied90.1% with their neighborhoods than Condo) 6.5% .1% Source: American Community Survey 2013, 1 year their counterparts in either the country 5.3% From: U.S. Census Bureau Data Townhouse/ Semi-Detached Figure 11 80% Figure 8 5.8% Housing Preferences: Population Density by Urban Sector Realtors Survey 52 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010 2011 COMMUNITY Detached 60% 25,000 82.3% PREFERENCE SURVEY Other Multi-Unit 5.0% 8.0% 20,000 Attached Single family 7.0% 40% 15,000 From: American Community Survey, 2013 (1 year)

10,000 20% 5,000 Population per Square Mile per Population

0 Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb Detached 0% CBD Inner Ring Married Single Head Non Family House Couples of Household Household Small Area (Zip Code Analysis Zones) 80.0% From: Derived from American Community Survey 2013 (One Year) Figure 9 Home Ownership by Type Figure18 CHAPMAN 12 UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY UNITED STATES 2013 Housing by Family Type U.S. 2013

Multi-Unit Mobile Other Multi Family Single Family 100% (Apartment, Home Other Condo) 6.5% .1% 5.3% Townhouse/ Semi-Detached 80% 5.8%

Detached 60% 82.3%

40%

From: American Community Survey, 2013 (1 year)

20%

0% Married Single Head Non Family Couples of Household Household

From: Derived from American Community Survey 2013 (One Year) Employment % Share: By Urban Sector Incidence of Property Crime Figure 17 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2000-2013 Core & Suburbs: Per 100,000 Residents Employment % Share: By Urban Sector Incidence of Property Crime Figure 17 Major50% Metropolitan Areas: 2000-2013 Core & 5000Suburbs: Per 100,000 Residents 50% 2000 2007 2013 5000 40% 4000 2000 2007 2013 found that 80 percent of respondents 4000 40% 3000 30% would prefer a detached house.42 3000 This finding reflects an aspirational 2000 30% Crime Rate preference, since only 65 percent of the 20% 2000 area's households live in single family Crime Rate 1000 20%

Job Location 10% houses. Despite four decades of social 1000 0

engineering intended to attract people Core Municipalities Suburban Areas 13 Job Location 10% Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). to higher density housing, 13 percent 0 Figure 13 0% Core Municipalities Suburban Areas Urban Core: CBD Urban Core: Earlier Suburb Later Suburb Exurb prefer apartments or condominiums, Inner Ring Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). Figure 0% well below the actual figure of 28 percent Urban Core: CBD Urban Core:Small Areas (ZipEarlier Code Suburb Tabulation Areas)Later Suburb Exurb Inner Ring living in such accommodations.43 Many times the choice to move to the Small Areas (Zip Code Tabulation Areas) suburbs reflects a wish to live in a safer Incidence of Violent Crime Figure 17 setting, among other benefits. Generally IncidenceCore & Suburbs: of ViolentPer 100,000 Crime Residents speaking, suburbs are safer from property FigureMedian 17 Hourly Wage for Middle Class Job Cohort, 2015 Core & 1000Suburbs: Per 100,000 Residents crime and violent crime. Federal Bureau MedianAdjusted Hourlyfor Cost ofWage Living for Middle Class Job Cohort, 2015 of Investigation data indicates that the 1000 Durham – Chapel Hill, NC $26.99 800 Adjusted for Cost of Living violent crime rate in the core cities of San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara, CA $25.93 800 Hartford–West DurhamHartford–East – Chapel Hartford, Hill, NC CT $26.99$25.46 major metropolitan areas has been about 600 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria,San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa DC–VA–MD–WV Clara, CA $25.93$25.42 3.4 times that of the suburbs.44 With Hartford–West Hartford–EastCleveland–Elyria, Hartford, CT OH $25.46$25.23 600 violent crime rising again in many major 400 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WVSt. Louis, MO–IL $25.42$25.22 Crime Rate San Francisco –Oakland–Hayward,Cleveland–Elyria, OH CA $25.23$25.04 cities, including New York, this gap can be 400 Settle–Tacoma–Bellevue,St. Louis, MO–IL WA $25.22$24.87 expected to grow.45 Crime Rate 200 SacramentoSan Francisco –Roseville–Arden–Arcade, –Oakland–Hayward, CA CA $25.04$24.80 Boston–Settle–Tacoma–Bellevue, Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH WA $24.87$24.79 Another key motivation in choosing 200 0 Sacramento –Roseville–Arden–Arcade,Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN CA $24.80$24.70 the suburbs, especially for families with Core Municipalities Suburban Areas Minneapolis–St.Boston– Cambridge–Newton, Paul–Bloomington, MA–NH MN–WI $24.79$24.42 Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). Cincinnati,Pittsburgh, OH–KY–IN PA $24.70$23.99 children, is frustration with the quality 0 Figure 14 Core Municipalities Suburban Areas 46 Minneapolis–St.Buffalo-Cheektowaga–Niagara Paul–Bloomington, MN–WI Falls, NY $24.42$23.78 of urban public education systems. Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro,Pittsburgh, OR–WA PA $23.99$23.73 Figure 14 Suburban schools, although not always NewBuffalo-Cheektowaga–Niagara York–Newark–Jersey City, Falls,NY–NJ–PA NY $23.78$23.33 great, consistently out-perform those Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, OR–WANation $23.73$23.18 that would not only dispel the “suburban New York–Newark–JerseyLos Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, City, NY–NJ–PA CA $23.33$22.14 of inner cities in terms of achievement, myth,” but eject homeownership itself Miami-Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach,Nation FL $23.18$19.94 47 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA $22.14 graduation and college entrance. from its "long-privileged place" at the Source: EMSI 2015.2, Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parities Miami-Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach, FL $19.94 Figure center 15 of the US economy.49 Source: EMSI 2015.2, Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parities Have Things Changed Since FigureExurbs 15 areTo be Growing sure, suburban Faster growth than slowed Urban in Core Again The Crash? the immediate aftermath of the recession. Figure 18 Exurbs2.5 are Growing Faster than Urban Core Again Yet by 2011-2012 the real estate-tracking Emerging Suburb Mature Suburb Exurb Urban Core FigureShare 18 of Total Employment in Manufacturing Industry 2015 After the collapse of the housing 2.5 website Trulia reported the between 2011 2.0 Emerging Suburb Mature Suburb bubble, New York Times economics and 2012, ZIP codes that were less dense Exurb Urban Core Share ofNation Total Employment in Manufacturing Industry 20158% commentator Paul Krugman suggested2.0 1.5 than average grew at double the rate of District of Colombia, DC 0.1% that Americans would shift from owning New York County,Nation NY 8%0.9% 1.51.0 those that were more-dense-than-average District of Colombia, DC 0.1% suburban homes to renting apartments, Richmond County, NY 1.2% in 50 largest metropolitian areas. By 2013, NewSuffold York County, County, NY MA 0.9%1.3% 1.00.5 probably in locations close to the city urban core growth, which had been about SanRichmond Francisco County, County, NY CA 1.2%1.5% 48 SuffoldOrleans County, County,LA MA 1.3%1.9% core. Urban pundit Richard Florida 0.50.0 as fast as suburban growth, once again foresaw the emergence of a new paradigm 50 San FranciscoBronx County, County, CA NY 1.5%2.4% slipped behind suburbs and exurbs. Orleans County,LA 1.9% 0.0-0.5 Philadelphia County, PA 3.1% ‘01–‘02 ‘04–‘05 ‘07–‘08 ‘10–‘11 ‘13–‘14 BronxKings County, County, NY PA 2.4%3.1% -0.5 BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 19 PhiladelphiaFulton County, County, PA GA 3.1%3.1% Source: The ‘01–‘02Brooklings Institution, U.S.‘04–‘05 Census Bureau ‘07–‘08 ‘10–‘11 ‘13–‘14 SacramentoKings County, County, PA CA 3.1%3.1% Source: The Brooklings Institution, U.S. Census Bureau BaltimoreFulton City County, County, GA MD 3.1%3.2% SacramentoMiami-Dade County, County, CA FL 3.1%3.2% Baltimore City County, MD 3.2% Figure 16 Norfolk City County, VA 3.2% RichmondMiami-Dade City County, County, FL VA 3.2%3.3% FigureSuburbs 16 Dominate Job Growth NorfolkQueens City County, County, VA NY 3.2%3.4% Share of employment growth: post trough Richmond City County, VA 3.3% Source:Queens EMSI County, 2015.2NY 3.4% Suburbs52 Major Metropolitan Dominate Areas 2010-2013 Job Growth Share of employment growth: post trough Exurb Source: EMSI 2015.2 52 Major Metropolitan Areas 2010-2013 11.9% Figure 19 Exurb FigureFinance 19 Industry Growth, 2001-2014 Later Suburb 11.9% 37.1% Urban Core: CBD Finance Industry Growth, 2001-2014 Later Suburb 11.8% Durham–Chapel Hill, NC 112% 37.1% Urban Core: CBD Charlotte–Concord–Gastonia, NC–SC 78% Durham–Chapel Hill, NC 112% 11.8% Des Moines–West Des Moines, IA 62% Inner Ring Charlotte–Concord–Gastonia, NC–SC 78% McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, TX 52% 7.3% Des Moines–West Des Moines, IA 62% Inner Ring Austin–Round Rock, TX 44% McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, TX 52% 7.3% San Antonio–New Braunfels, TX 43% Austin–Round Rock, TX 44% Boise City, ID 40% San Antonio–New Braunfels, TX 43% Knoxville, TN 33% Earlier Suburb Boise City, ID 40% Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 31% 31.9% Knoxville, TN 33% Earlier Suburb Raleigh, NC 31% City Sector model calculated from Census Bureau data. Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 31% 31.9% Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 10% Raleigh, NC 31% City Sector model calculated from Census Bureau data. Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, Il–IN–WI 12% Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 10% New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA 16% Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, Il–IN–WI 12% Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH 19% New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA 16% San Francisco–Oakland–Haywawrd, CA 29% Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH 19% Source:San Francisco–Oakland–Haywawrd, EMSI 2015.2 CA 29%

Source: EMSI 2015.2 Employment % Share: By Urban Sector Incidence of Property Crime Figure 17 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2000-2013 Core & Suburbs: Per 100,000 Residents 50% 5000 2000 2007 2013

4000 40%

3000 30%

2000 These trendsCrime Rate intensified by 2014, with CBDs, with an additional 10 percent in 20% 57 the biggest growth1000 in exurban areas, the balance of the urban cores. repeating the patterns that had existed America's metropolitan areas, Job Location 10% 51 before the crash.0 dominated by single, strong downtown Core Municipalities Suburban Areas At theDerived same from time, FBI Statistics: the fastest 2013, Majorcity metropolitan areascores (average). during the immediate post-World Figure 13 0% growth, noted economist Jed Kolko of War II period, have since become ever Urban Core: CBD Urban Core: Earlier Suburb Later Suburb Exurb Inner Ring Trulia, was taking place largely in the more polycentric. Job dispersion is now Small Areas (Zip Code Tabulation Areas) most “suburbanized” places like Phoenix, a reality in virtually every metropolitan San Antonio and San Diego.52 By 2014, area, with twice as many jobs located single familyIncidence homes accountedof Violent for someCrime 10 miles from city centers as in those 61 percent of the total growth, only slightly centers. This pattern has been well- Figure 17 Core & Suburbs: Per 100,000 Residents less than the annual average over the established, as noted in a Brookings Median Hourly Wage for Middle Class Job Cohort, 2015 past four decades.1000 53 Brookings Institution Institute report, through the last 58 Adjusted for Cost of Living data also shows this pattern. “Americans," decade. Although the adjacent inner Durham – Chapel Hill, NC $26.99 800 54 Kolko wrote, “still love the suburbs.” core has gained slightly since 2000, San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara, CA $25.93 losses in the inner ring have more than Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford, CT $25.46 600 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV $25.42 compensated for that gain. Overall, more SECTION TWO: THE Cleveland–Elyria, OH $25.23 400 than 80 percent of employment growth St. Louis, MO–IL $25.22 Crime Rate since 2000 was in the newer suburbs and San Francisco –Oakland–Hayward, CA $25.04 Settle–Tacoma–Bellevue, WA $24.87 ECONOMICS OF DISPERSION 59 200 exurban areas. Sacramento –Roseville–Arden–Arcade, CA $24.80 Boston– Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH $24.79 Much has been written about how 0 The New Urban Economy Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN $24.70 large, dense cities are Corethe Municipalities best places to Suburban Areas Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, MN–WI $24.42 Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan55 areas (average). Pittsburgh, PA $23.99 grow jobs and to find opportunities. Figure 14 Successful inner core economies Buffalo-Cheektowaga–Niagara Falls, NY $23.78 Yet in reality, the central core has become are, as the French geographer Jean Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, OR–WA $23.73 progressively less important economically New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA $23.33 56 Gottman noted three decades ago, Nation $23.18 in terms of employment. Today, only 9 60 fundamentally “transactional.” They Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA $22.14 percent of employment is located in the do best in industries most reliant on Miami-Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach, FL $19.94 Source: EMSI 2015.2, Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parities Figure 15 Exurbs are Growing Faster than Urban Core Again Figure 18 2.5 Emerging Suburb Mature Suburb Exurb Urban Core Share of Total Employment in Manufacturing Industry 2015 2.0 Nation 8% 1.5 District of Colombia, DC 0.1% New York County, NY 0.9% 1.0 Richmond County, NY 1.2% Suffold County, MA 1.3% 0.5 San Francisco County, CA 1.5% Orleans County,LA 1.9% 0.0 Bronx County, NY 2.4% -0.5 Philadelphia County, PA 3.1% ‘01–‘02 ‘04–‘05 ‘07–‘08 ‘10–‘11 ‘13–‘14 Kings County, PA 3.1% Source: The Brooklings Institution, U.S. Census Bureau Fulton County, GA 3.1% Sacramento County, CA 3.1% Baltimore City County, MD 3.2% 20 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Miami-Dade County, FL 3.2% Figure 16 Norfolk City County, VA 3.2% Richmond City County, VA 3.3% Suburbs Dominate Job Growth Queens County, NY 3.4% Share of employment growth: post trough Source: EMSI 2015.2 52 Major Metropolitan Areas 2010-2013 Exurb 11.9% Figure 19 Finance Industry Growth, 2001-2014 Later Suburb 37.1% Urban Core: CBD 11.8% Durham–Chapel Hill, NC 112% Charlotte–Concord–Gastonia, NC–SC 78% Des Moines–West Des Moines, IA 62% Inner Ring McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, TX 52% 7.3% Austin–Round Rock, TX 44% San Antonio–New Braunfels, TX 43% Boise City, ID 40% 33% Earlier Suburb Knoxville, TN 31.9% Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 31% Raleigh, NC 31% City Sector model calculated from Census Bureau data. Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 10% Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, Il–IN–WI 12% New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA 16% Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH 19% San Francisco–Oakland–Haywawrd, CA 29%

Source: EMSI 2015.2 Employment % Share: By Urban Sector Incidence of Property Crime Figure 17 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2000-2013 Core & Suburbs: Per 100,000 Residents 50% 5000 2000 2007 2013

4000 40%

3000 30%

2000 Crime Rate 20% 1000

Job Location 10% 0 Core Municipalities Suburban Areas Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). Figure 13 0% Urban Core: CBD Urban Core: Earlier Suburb Later Suburb Exurb Inner Ring Small Areas (Zip Code Tabulation Areas)

Incidence of Violent Crime Figure 17 Core & Suburbs: Per 100,000 Residents Median Hourly Wage for Middle Class Job Cohort, 2015 1000 Adjusted for Cost of Living 800 Durham – Chapel Hill, NC $26.99 San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara, CA $25.93 Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford, CT $25.46 600 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV $25.42 Cleveland–Elyria, OH $25.23 400 St. Louis, MO–IL $25.22

Source: EMSI 2015.2, Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parities Figure 15 Exurbs are Growing Faster than Urban Core Again Figure 18 2.5 Emerging Suburb Mature Suburb Exurb Urban Core Share of Total Employment in Manufacturing Industry 2015 2.0 Nation 8% 1.5 District of Colombia, DC 0.1% New York County, NY 0.9% 1.0 Richmond County, NY 1.2% Suffold County, MA 1.3% 0.5 San Francisco County, CA 1.5% Orleans County,LA 1.9% 0.0 Bronx County, NY 2.4% -0.5 Philadelphia County, PA 3.1% ‘01–‘02 ‘04–‘05 ‘07–‘08 ‘10–‘11 ‘13–‘14 Kings County, PA 3.1% Source: The Brooklings Institution, U.S. Census Bureau Fulton County, GA 3.1% Sacramento County, CA 3.1% Baltimore City County, MD 3.2% Miami-Dade County, FL 3.2% Figure 16 Norfolk City County, VA 3.2% Richmond City County, VA 3.3% Suburbs Dominate Job Growth Queens County, NY 3.4% Share of employment growth: post trough Source: EMSI 2015.2 52 Major Metropolitan Areas 2010-2013 Exurb regular “face to face” contact, such as 11.9% Figure 19 media, high-end finance, and business Finance Industry Growth, 2001-2014 services.61 These fields are far less reliant Later Suburb 37.1% Urban Core: CBD on the mass mobilization of labor, both 11.8% Durham–Chapel Hill, NC 112% skilled and unskilled, than activities in Charlotte–Concord–Gastonia, NC–SC 78% manufacturing, trade, logistics or even Des Moines–West Des Moines, IA 62% Inner Ring 62 McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, TX 52% more routine business services. 7.3% As a result, city cores often Austin–Round Rock, TX 44% demonstrate a markedly bifurcated job San Antonio–New Braunfels, TX 43% structure, with high wage and low wage Boise City, ID 40% 33% positions but little in between. Most of Earlier Suburb Knoxville, TN Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 31% our large urban cores have below average 31.9% Raleigh, NC 31% percentages of middle wage jobs and, City Sector model calculated from Census Bureau data. Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 10% given the high cost of living, those jobs in Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, Il–IN–WI 12% many 'hip' cities, such as New York, Los balance between the demand for housing New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA 16% Angeles and Portland, do not return the and the supply, while raising property Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH 19% same overall economic benefits as those prices dramatically. In many cases, San Francisco–Oakland–Haywawrd, CA 29%

in less expensive cities. expensive condos are owned by people Source: EMSI 2015.2 At the same time, mid-wage who neither live in the city nor spend industries such as manufacturing much time in it.65 have declined in city cores far more In contrast, this transformation has precipitously than they have in the rest of not generally been as kind to middle and country. New York City, for example, had working-class families who have seen roughly a million manufacturing jobs in jobs flee, just as rents have soared. Even 1950; it has barely 73,000 today. Chicago remaining urban-centered industries and Los Angeles urban cores have also such as finance and business services hemorrhaged such jobs.63 In contrast, have tended to shift much of their industrial jobs have stayed intact and management and support services to even grown in many suburban counties other, less expensive regions. and smaller cities. In New York, for example, overall Many of those who live in these cities, financial employment experienced notes historian Robert Bruegmann, have a 16 percent reduction in such jobs benefited from deindustrialization. The since 2001.66 Other traditional business closing of factories and warehouses has service locales like San Francisco, curbed congestion and pollution, even Boston and Chicago also did poorly in as it has chased working class families creating finance employment, while away from the core. The hip city of today growth was most rapid in second and rests largely on the wreckage of the old third tier cities such as Charlotte, Des industrial version.64 In certain cities with Moines, Austin, San Antonio, and Boise. strong land use regulations—such as New Big money and financial power may York, San Francisco and Miami—these remain concentrated in Gotham, but improvements have lured a huge surge of jobs, particularly for the middle income new foreign investment that has upset the worker, increasingly are not.67

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 21 EmploymentEmployment %% Share:Share: ByBy UrbanUrban SectorSector IncidenceIncidence ofof PropertyProperty CrimeCrime FigureFigure 1717 MajorMajor MetropolitanMetropolitan Areas:Areas: 2000-20132000-2013 CoreCore && Suburbs:Suburbs: PerPer 100,000100,000 ResidentsResidents 50%50% 50005000 20002000 20072007 20132013

40004000 40%40%

3000 3000 30%30%

20002000 Crime Rate Crime Rate 20%20% 10001000 Job Location Job Location 10%10% 00 CoreCore MunicipalitiesMunicipalities SuburbanSuburban AreasAreas Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). Figure 13 0% Figure 13 0% UrbanUrban Core:Core: CBDCBD UrbanUrban Core:Core: EarlierEarlier SuburbSuburb LaterLater SuburbSuburb ExurbExurb InnerInner RingRing SmallSmall AreasAreas (Zip(Zip CodeCode TabulationTabulation Areas)Areas)

IncidenceIncidence ofof ViolentViolent CrimeCrime FigureFigure 1717 CoreCore && Suburbs:Suburbs: PerPer 100,000100,000 ResidentsResidents MedianMedian HourlyHourly WageWage forfor MiddleMiddle ClassClass JobJob Cohort,Cohort, 20152015 10001000 AdjustedAdjusted forfor CostCost ofof LivingLiving Durham – Chapel Hill, NC $26.99 800800 Durham – Chapel Hill, NC $26.99 SanSan Jose–Sunnyvale–SantaJose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara,Clara, CACA $25.93$25.93 Hartford–WestHartford–West Hartford–EastHartford–East Hartford,Hartford, CTCT $25.46$25.46 600 600 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria,Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WVDC–VA–MD–WV $25.42$25.42 Cleveland–Elyria,Cleveland–Elyria, OHOH $25.23$25.23 St. Louis, MO–IL $25.22 400400 St. Louis, MO–IL $25.22 Crime Rate Crime Rate SanSan FranciscoFrancisco –Oakland–Hayward,–Oakland–Hayward, CACA $25.04$25.04 Settle–Tacoma–Bellevue,Settle–Tacoma–Bellevue, WAWA $24.87$24.87 200 200 SacramentoSacramento –Roseville–Arden–Arcade,–Roseville–Arden–Arcade, CACA $24.80$24.80 Boston–Boston– Cambridge–Newton,Cambridge–Newton, MA–NHMA–NH $24.79$24.79 00 Cincinnati,Cincinnati, OH–KY–INOH–KY–IN $24.70$24.70 CoreCore MunicipalitiesMunicipalities SuburbanSuburban AreasAreas Minneapolis–St.Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington,Paul–Bloomington, MN–WIMN–WI $24.42$24.42 Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). Pittsburgh, PA $23.99 Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). Figure 14 Pittsburgh, PA $23.99 Figure 14 Buffalo-Cheektowaga–NiagaraBuffalo-Cheektowaga–Niagara Falls,Falls, NYNY $23.78$23.78 Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro,Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, OR–WAOR–WA $23.73$23.73 NewNew York–Newark–JerseyYork–Newark–Jersey City,City, NY–NJ–PANY–NJ–PA $23.33$23.33 NationNation $23.18$23.18 LosLos Angeles–LongAngeles–Long Beach–Anaheim,Beach–Anaheim, CACA $22.14$22.14 Miami-FortMiami-Fort Lauderdale–WestLauderdale–West PalmPalm Beach,Beach, FLFL $19.94$19.94

Source:Source: EMSIEMSI 2015.2,2015.2, BureauBureau ofof EconomicEconomic AnalysisAnalysis RegionalRegional PricePrice ParitiesParities FigureFigure 1515 ExurbsExurbs areare GrowingGrowing FasterFaster thanthan UrbanUrban CoreCore AgainAgain FigureFigure 1818 2.52.5 EmergingEmerging SuburbSuburb MatureMature SuburbSuburb Share of Total Employment in Manufacturing Industry 2015 ExurbExurb UrbanUrban CoreCore Share of Total Employment in Manufacturing Industry 2015 2.02.0 NationNation 8%8% 1.5 1.5 DistrictDistrict ofof Colombia,Colombia, DCDC 0.1%0.1% NewNew YorkYork County,County, NYNY 0.9%0.9% 1.0 1.0 RichmondRichmond County,County, NYNY 1.2%1.2% SuffoldSuffold County,County, MAMA 1.3%1.3% 0.50.5 SanSan FranciscoFrancisco County,County, CACA 1.5%1.5% OrleansOrleans County,LACounty,LA 1.9%1.9% 0.00.0 BronxBronx County,County, NYNY 2.4%2.4% -0.5 PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia County,County, PAPA 3.1%3.1% -0.5 ‘01–‘02 ‘04–‘05 ‘07–‘08 ‘10–‘11 ‘13–‘14 ‘01–‘02 ‘04–‘05 ‘07–‘08 ‘10–‘11 ‘13–‘14 KingsKings County,County, PAPA 3.1%3.1% Fulton County, GA 3.1% Source:Source: TheThe BrooklingsBrooklings Institution,Institution, U.S.U.S. CensusCensus BureauBureau Fulton County, GA 3.1% SacramentoSacramento County,County, CACA 3.1%3.1% BaltimoreBaltimore CityCity County,County, MDMD 3.2%3.2% Miami-DadeMiami-Dade County,County, FLFL 3.2%3.2% Norfolk City County, VA 3.2% FigureFigure 1616 Norfolk City County, VA 3.2% RichmondRichmond CityCity County,County, VAVA 3.3%3.3% SuburbsSuburbs DominateDominate JobJob GrowthGrowth QueensQueens County,County, NYNY 3.4%3.4% ShareShare ofof employmentemployment growth:growth: postpost troughtrough Source:Source: EMSIEMSI 2015.22015.2 5252 MajorMajor MetropolitanMetropolitan AreasAreas 2010-20132010-2013 Exurb Exurb 19 11.9%11.9% FigureFigure 19 22 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY FinanceFinance IndustryIndustry Growth,Growth, 2001-20142001-2014 LaterLater SuburbSuburb 37.1% UrbanUrban Core:Core: CBDCBD 37.1% 112% 11.8%11.8% Durham–ChapelDurham–Chapel Hill,Hill, NCNC 112% 78% Charlotte–Concord–Gastonia,Charlotte–Concord–Gastonia, NC–SCNC–SC 78% Des Moines–West Des Moines, IA 62%62% Inner Ring Des Moines–West Des Moines, IA Inner Ring McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, TX 52% 7.3% McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, TX 52% 7.3% 44% Austin–RoundAustin–Round Rock,Rock, TXTX 44% 43% SanSan Antonio–NewAntonio–New Braunfels,Braunfels, TXTX 43% 40% BoiseBoise City,City, IDID 40% Knoxville, TN 33%33% EarlierEarlier SuburbSuburb Knoxville, TN Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 31% 31.9%31.9% Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 31% Raleigh, NC 31%31% City Sector model calculated from Census Bureau data. Raleigh, NC City Sector model calculated from Census Bureau data. 10% LosLos Angeles–LongAngeles–Long Beach–Anaheim,Beach–Anaheim, CACA 10% 12% Chicago–Naperville–Elgin,Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, Il–IN–WIIl–IN–WI 12% 16% NewNew York–Newark–JerseyYork–Newark–Jersey City,City, NY–NJ–PANY–NJ–PA 16% 19% Boston–Cambridge–Newton,Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA–NHMA–NH 19% 29% SanSan Francisco–Oakland–Haywawrd,Francisco–Oakland–Haywawrd, CACA 29%

Source:Source: EMSIEMSI 2015.22015.2 Employment % Share: By Urban Sector Incidence of Property Crime Figure 17 Major Metropolitan Areas: 2000-2013 Core & Suburbs: Per 100,000 Residents 50% 5000 2000 2007 2013

4000 40%

3000 30%

2000 Crime Rate 20% 1000

Crime Rate San Francisco –Oakland–Hayward, CA $25.04 Settle–Tacoma–Bellevue, WA $24.87 200 Sacramento –Roseville–Arden–Arcade, CA $24.80 Boston– Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH $24.79 0 Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN $24.70 Core Municipalities Suburban Areas Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, MN–WI $24.42 Derived from FBI Statistics: 2013, Major metropolitan areas (average). Pittsburgh, PA $23.99 Figure 14 Buffalo-Cheektowaga–Niagara Falls, NY $23.78 Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, OR–WA $23.73 New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA $23.33 Nation $23.18 At theLos Angeles–Longsame time, Beach–Anaheim, as analyst CA Aaron in shows such as “Downton Abbey” and $22.14 Renn Miami-Forthas suggested, Lauderdale–West Palm companies Beach, FL that “Upstairs Downstairs,” but is this the $19.94 69 are newcomersSource: to central EMSI 2015.2, cities Bureau often of Economic Analysissocial Regional form Pricewe wishParities most to promote? 15 Figure limit their presence to "executive Today, many people earn their livings Exurbs are Growing Faster than Urban Core Again headquarters": employment for a small by serving the wealthy as, for example, number of veryFigure senior 18 leaders and their nannies, restaurant workers, or dog- 2.5 Emerging Suburb Mature Suburb support staff. Sometimes less than a walkers, and in other service professions. Exurb Urban Core Share of Total Employment in Manufacturing Industry 2015 2.0 hundred employees are involved, as This can be seen in the city of New York, opposed to the thousandsNation that might where over one-third of workers labor 8% 1.5 have been locatedDistrict in of aColombia, downtown DC in low wage service jobs, a percentage 0.1% New York County, NY 0.9% 68 1.0 headquarters decadesRichmond County,ago. NY that has increased steadily throughout 1.2% Suffold County, MA the recovery, notes a recent study by the 1.3% 0.5 The Upstairs,San Francisco County, CA Center for an Urban Future.70 1.5% Orleans County,LA 1.9% 0.0 Inequality is consistently worse Downstairs EconomyBronx County, NY 2.4% in larger, denser cities, including New -0.5 Philadelphia County, PA 3.1% ‘01–‘02 ‘04–‘05 ‘07–‘08 ‘10–‘11 ‘13–‘14 In our core citiesKings in County, particular, PA we York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. 3.1% Source: The Brooklings Institution, U.S. Census Bureau are seeing somethingFulton reminiscentCounty, GA of the Manhattan, the densest and most 3.1% Victorian era, whenSacramento a hugeCounty, CA proportion influential urban environment in North 3.1% Baltimore City County, MD 3.2% of workers laboredMiami-Dade in the County, servile FL America, exhibits the most profound level 3.2% class. Social historianNorfolk City PamelaCounty, VA Cox has of inequality and the most bifurcated 3.2% Figure 16 explained that inRichmond 1901 City County, one VA in four people, class structure in the United States. 3.3% Suburbs Dominate Job Growth mostly women, wereQueens domestic County, NY servants. If it were a country, New York City overall 3.4% Share of employment growth: post trough This is the worldSource: so EMSIpopularly 2015.2 portrayed would have the 15th highest inequality 52 Major Metropolitan Areas 2010-2013 Exurb 11.9% Figure 19 Finance Industry Growth, 2001-2014 Later Suburb 37.1% Urban Core: CBD 11.8% Durham–Chapel Hill, NC 112% Charlotte–Concord–Gastonia, NC–SC 78% Des Moines–West Des Moines, IA 62% Inner Ring McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, TX 52% 7.3% Austin–Round Rock, TX 44% San Antonio–New Braunfels, TX 43% Boise City, ID 40% 33% Earlier Suburb Knoxville, TN 31.9% Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 31% Raleigh, NC 31% City Sector model calculated from Census Bureau data. Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 10% Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, Il–IN–WI 12% New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA 16% Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH 19% San Francisco–Oakland–Haywawrd, CA 29%

Source: EMSI 2015.2

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 23 Figure 22 Income Equality: Major Metropolitan Areas level out of 134 countries, according to sleeping in shelters rose even as the elite By City Sector: 2011 James Parrott of the Fiscal Policy Institute, economy “boomed.” 72 landing between Chile and Honduras.71 Similarly, in the past decade there 0.6 Higher Indicates Less Equal Even in nouveau hipster and increasingly has been considerable gentrification 0.5 expensive Brooklyn, nearly a quarter of around Chicago’s lakefront, but residents—mainly African-American and Chicago’s middle class has declined 0.4 Latino—live below the poverty line. The precipitously. At the same time, despite wealthy gentry shop at artisanal cheese all the talk about 'the great inversion' of 0.3 shops and frequent trendy restaurants, the poor being replaced by the rich, it but one in four Brooklynites receive food turns out that it is mostly the middle and 0.2 Gini Index Gini stamps. New York has experienced one of working-classes that have exited the city. the steepest increases in homeless families Urban analyst Pete Saunders has 0.1 in the past decade, growing 73 percent suggested that Chicago is really now two 0.0 since 2002; the number of children different cities: a generally prosperous Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Later Exurb Overall “super-global Chicago” and a “rust belt CBD Inner Ring Suburb Suburb Chicago,” with lagging education and Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013: City Sector Model Figure 20 income levels. “Chicago,” Saunders Figure 23 Share of Jobs in Personal Care suggests, “may be better understood in and Food Service Occupations, 2014 thirds—one-third San Francisco, two- Office Space by Location thirds Detroit.”73 Major Metropolitan Areas: 1950–2010 This is a common malady in big Orange County, FL 16.8% Central Business city America. During the first ten years Districts of the new millennium, the number of Orleans County, LA 16.6% (Downtown) neighborhoods with entrenched urban 23.3% poverty actually grew, increasing from Bronx County, NY 16.5% 1100 to 3100, and in population from two to four million. “This growing Kings County, NY 15% concentration of poverty,” notes urban researchers Joe Cortright and Dillon Milwwaukee County, WI 14.9% Mahmoudi, “is the biggest problem 74 Suburban Areas confronting American cities.” 76.7% Bexar County, TX 14.8% The Middle Class Economy Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013: Richmond County, NY 14.5% City Sector Model Research by the University of 24 San Francisco County, CA 13.5% Washington’s Richard Morrill shows that Figure suburban areas tend to have “generally Office Space by Location less inequality” than the denser cities Queens County, NY 13.4% Major Metropolitan Areas: 1950–2010 with activity centralized in the core; for CBDs Suburban (Outside CBDs) example, in California, Riverside-San Nation 12.1% 1.0 Bernardino is far less unequal than Los Angeles, and Sacramento less than San 0.8 75 Source: EMSI 2015.2 Francisco. Within the 51 metropolitan 0.6

24 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 0.4

0.2 21 Figure 0.0 Inventory (2013) Leasing Since 2012 Inequality Levels Across Nation’s Largest Cities Souce: Costar (highest)

City Population, Household Income, 2012 Ratio 2012 Highest Inequality 20th percentile 95th percentile 1 Atlanta, GA 443,768 $14,850 $279.827 18.8 2 San Francisco, CA 825,863 $21,313 $353,576 16.6 3 Miami, FL 413,864 $10,438 $164,013 15.7 4 Boston, MA 637,516 $14,604 $223,83 15.3 5 Washington, DC 632,323 $21,782 $290,637 13.3 6 New York, NY 8,336,697 $17,119 $226,675 13.2 7 Oakland, CA 400,740 $17,646 $223,965 12.7 8 Chicago, IL 2,714,844 $16,078 $201,460 12.5 9 Los Angeles, CA 3,857,786 $17,657 $217,770 12.3 10 Baltimore, MD 621,342 $13,522 $164,995 12.2

Souce: Brooking Institution analysis of 2012 American Community Survey Data Figure 22 Income Equality: Major Metropolitan Areas By City Sector: 2011

0.6 Higher Indicates Less Equal

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Gini Index Gini

0.1

0.0 Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Later Exurb Overall CBD Inner Ring Suburb Suburb Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013: City Sector Model Figure 20 Share of Jobs in Personal Care Figure 23 and Food Service Occupations, 2014 Office Space by Location Major Metropolitan Areas: 1950–2010

Orange County, FL 16.8% Central Business Districts Orleans County, LA 16.6% (Downtown) 23.3%

Bronx County, NY 16.5%

Kings County, NY 15%

Milwwaukee County, WI 14.9% Suburban Areas 76.7% Bexar County, TX 14.8%

Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013: Richmond County, NY 14.5% City Sector Model

24 San Francisco County, CA 13.5% Figure Office Space by Location Queens County, NY 13.4% Major Metropolitan Areas: 1950–2010 CBDs Suburban (Outside CBDs) Nation 12.1% 1.0

0.8 Source: EMSI 2015.2 0.6

0.4

0.2 21 Figure 0.0 Inventory (2013) Leasing Since 2012 Inequality Levels Across Nation’s Largest Cities Souce: Costar (highest)

City Population, Household Income, 2012 Ratio areas with more than 1 million in 2012 population, notes demographer Wendell Highest Inequality 20th percentile 95th percentile Cox, suburban areas were less unequal 1 Atlanta, GA 443,768 $14,850 $279.827 18.8 (measured by the Gini coefficient) than 2 San Francisco, CA 825,863 $21,313 $353,576 16.6 76 the core cities in 46 cases. 3 Miami, FL 413,864 $10,438 $164,013 15.7 This reflects the fact that most of the 4 Boston, MA 637,516 $14,604 $223,83 15.3 middle class economy is found outside 5 Washington, DC 632,323 $21,782 $290,637 13.3 the dense, core cities. The monocentric 6 New York, NY 8,336,697 $17,119 $226,675 13.2 city, where all activity revolves around 7 Oakland, CA 400,740 $17,646 $223,965 12.7 a vital urban core may represent “… the 8 Chicago, IL 2,714,844 $16,078 $201,460 12.5 rhetorical framework for urban policy 9 Los Angeles, CA 3,857,786 $17,657 $217,770 12.3 discussion everywhere” but increasingly 10 Baltimore, MD 621,342 $13,522 $164,995 12.2 does not reflect reality, notes author William Bogart.78 Today, large suburbs Souce: Brooking Institution analysis of 2012 American Community Survey Data are often the new job centers.79 Some— Irvine, and Santa Clara, California; Figure 22 Bellevue, outside Seattle; and Irving, Income Equality: Major Metropolitan Areas a Dallas suburb—have higher job to By City Sector: 2011 resident worker ratios than their closest 0.6 core municipality.80 Higher Indicates Less Equal

This dispersion of work applies even 0.5 in the oft-cited model for urban density, Portland, Oregon, where all the net new 0.4 job growth was clustered in the suburbs 81 and exurbs between 2000 and 2013. 0.3 Nationwide, as the economy has improved, 0.2 suburban locations—which account for Index Gini more than 75 percent of all office space— rebounded faster than their more urban 0.1 counterparts. Between 2012 and 2015, 0.0 occupied suburban office space rose from Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Later Exurb Overall CBD Inner Ring Suburb 75 percent of the market to 76.7 percent Suburb (with the balance located in CBDs).82 Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013: City Sector Model 20 Figure bolstered by millennial preferences for Employment growth continues to Figure 23 Share of Jobs in Personal Care be stronger in the newer suburbs and inner city living.84 San Francisco proper and Food Service Occupations, 2014 exurban areas than in the urban core. hasOffice seen aSpace significant by boomLocation in high More than 80 percent of employment techMajor business Metropolitan services Areas: in recent 1950–2010 years, yet the majority of the Bay Area’s total Orange County, FL 16.8% growth from 2007 to 2013 was in the 83 Central Business newer suburbs and exurbs. employment remains 10 milesDistricts from the Perhaps the most critical city. Neighboring San Mateo County still Orleans County, LA 16.6% (Downtown) employment developments are related holds more than five times as23.3% many jobs to technology. Some claim that tech is in software publishing as San Francisco.85 Bronx County, NY 16.5% now becoming an inner city industry, Even more, the majority of the Bay Area’s

Kings County, NY 15% BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 25

Milwwaukee County, WI 14.9% Suburban Areas 76.7% Bexar County, TX 14.8%

Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013: Richmond County, NY 14.5% City Sector Model

24 San Francisco County, CA 13.5% Figure Office Space by Location Queens County, NY 13.4% Major Metropolitan Areas: 1950–2010 CBDs Suburban (Outside CBDs) Nation 12.1% 1.0

0.8 Source: EMSI 2015.2 0.6

0.4

0.2 21 Figure 0.0 Inventory (2013) Leasing Since 2012 Inequality Levels Across Nation’s Largest Cities Souce: Costar (highest)

Souce: Brooking Institution analysis of 2012 American Community Survey Data Figure 22 Income Equality: Major Metropolitan Areas By City Sector: 2011

0.6 Higher Indicates Less Equal

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Gini Index Gini

0.1

0.0 Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Later Exurb Overall CBD Inner Ring Suburb Suburb Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013: City Sector Model Figure 20 22 Figure Figure 23 Share of Jobs in Personal Care Income Equality: Major Metropolitan Areas and Food Service Occupations, 2014 Office Space by Location By City Sector: 2011 Major Metropolitan Areas: 1950–2010

0.6 Higher Indicates Less Equal Orange County, FL 16.8% Central Business Districts 0.5 Orleans County, LA 16.6% (Downtown) 23.3% 0.4 Bronx County, NY 16.5% 0.3 Kings County, NY 15% 0.2 Gini Index Gini

Milwwaukee County, WI 14.9% 0.1 Suburban Areas 76.7% Bexar County, TX 14.8% 0.0 Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Later Exurb Overall CBD Inner Ring Suburb Suburb Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013: Richmond County, NY 14.5% Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013:City City Sector Sector Model Model Figure 20 Figure 23 Figure 24 Share of Jobs in Personal CareSan Francisco County, CA 13.5% and Food Service Occupations, 2014 Office Space by Location Office Space by Location Queens County, NY 13.4% Major Metropolitan Areas: 1950–2010 Major Metropolitan Areas: 1950–2010 CBDs Suburban (Outside CBDs) Orange County, FL 16.8% Central Business Nation 12.1% Districts 1.0 Orleans County, LA 16.6% (Downtown) 23.3% 0.8 Source: EMSI 2015.2 Bronx County, NY 16.5% 0.6

0.4 Kings County, NY 15% 0.2 Milwwaukee County, WI 21 14.9% Figure Suburban Areas 0.0 76.7% Inventory (2013) Leasing Since 2012 Bexar County, TX Inequality14.8% Levels Across Nation’s Largest Cities Souce: Costar (highest) Derived from American Community Survey 2009-2013: Regions as diverse as Raleigh and Richmond County, NY 14.5%Population, City Sector Model City Household Income, 2012 Ratio Durham, North Carolina; Madison, 2012 total employment remains 10 miles from Figure 24 Wisconsin; Denver; Detroit; Baltimore; San Francisco County, CA Highest Inequality13.5% 20th percentile 95th percentile the city; San Francisco's employment Colorado Springs; and Albany are 1 Atlanta, GA 443,768 $14,850 $279.827 18.8 dispersalOffice is even Spacegreater than by theLocation among the places with the highest Queens County, NY 2 San Francisco, CA13.4% 825,863 $21,313 $353,576 16.6 nationalMajor average. Metropolitan86 Areas: 1950–2010 shares of STEM jobs. Many of these 3 Miami, FL 413,864 $10,438 $164,013 15.7 Most STEMCBDs employment—jobsSuburban (Outside CBDs) same unassuming regions are creating Nation 4 Boston, MA 12.1% 637,516 $14,604 $223,83 15.3 in science,1.0 technology, engineering new STEM jobs faster than the 5 Washington, DC 632,323 $21,782 $290,637 13.3 or math—remains firmly in over- high-tech stalwart locations. 6 New York, NY 8,336,697 $17,119 $226,675 13.2 whelmingly0.8 suburbanized areas Source: EMSI 2015.2 Charleston, South Carolina; Provo, 7 Oakland, CA 400,740 $17,646 $223,965 12.7 with lower density development and 0.6 Utah; Fayetteville, Arkansas; Raleigh, 8 Chicago, IL 2,714,844 $16,078 $201,460 12.5 little in the way of transit usage.87 North Carolina; and Des Moines round 9 Los Angeles, CA 3,857,786 $17,657 $217,770 0.4 12.3 out the fastest growing STEM regions 10 Baltimore, MD 621,342 $13,522 $164,995 Figure12.2 25 0.2 since 2001, each with STEM employment Souce: Brooking Institution analysis of 2012 American Community Survey DataEmployment % Share: By Urban Sector up at least 29 percent.88 21 Figure MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS:0.0 2000-2013 Inventory (2013) Leasing Since 2012 Job Decentralization and Inequality Levels Across Nation’s Largest Cities Souce: Costar (highest) 60% 2000 Share Commuting Patterns

49.5% 2007 Share Population, 50% 45.9% City Household Income, 2012 Ratio 44.4% 2013 Share Suburbanites generally endure 2012 shorter commutes than some of their Highest Inequality 20th percentile 95th percentile 40% urban core counterparts particularly in 1 Atlanta, GA 443,768 $14,850 $279.827 18.8 metropolitan area where jobs have been 30% 25.6% 2 San Francisco, CA 825,863 $21,313 $353,576 16.6 24.7% decentralized and a polycentric economic 20.9% 3 Miami, FL 413,864 $10,438 $164,013 15.7 Location Job geography predominates. Shorter 4 Boston, MA 637,516 $14,604 $223,83 15.3 20% commutes are particularly critical to 5 Washington, DC 632,323 $21,782 $290,637 13.3 10.5% 10.4%11.2% 11.2% 9.0% 9.7% 9.9% young families, allowing them to spend 10% 8.7% 8.4% 6 New York, NY 8,336,697 $17,119 $226,675 13.2 more time with their offspring.89 People 7 Oakland, CA 400,740 $17,646 $223,965 12.7 with longer commutes have been found 0% 8 Chicago, IL 2,714,844 $16,078 $201,460 12.5 Urban Core: Urban Core: Earlier Suburb Later Suburb Exurb less likely to spend time with friends, CBD Inner Ring 9 Los Angeles, CA 3,857,786 $17,657 $217,770 12.3 more likely to miss children’s school 10 Baltimore, MD 621,342 $13,522 $164,995 12.2 Small Areas (Zip Code Tabulation Areas)

Souce: Brooking Institution analysis of 2012 American Community Survey Data Figure 26 26 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Stem Job Creators STEM JOB GROWTH, 2001-2014

Provo-Orem, UT 37.5% Raleigh, NC 32.6% Madison, WI 32.4% Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 29.4% Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 25.8% Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 23.8% San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 21.6% Salt Lake City, UT 20.9% Austin-Round Rock, TX 20.6% Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 18.0% Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 13.7% Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 13.6% San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 11.8% Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 9.0% Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 8.7% Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 6.9% Nation 4.0% Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 3.0% Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 0.3% Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH (1.6%) New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (3.6%) Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (4.0%) San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (4.5%) Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA (4.9%) Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI (7.4%)

Source: EMSI 2015.2 One-Way Work Trip Market Share UNITED STATES: 1980-2013 Figure 27

80%

70%

60% Drive Alone Car Pool 50% Transit 40% Walk & Other 30% Work at Home Market Share Market 20%

10%

0% 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013

Market Share for Indicated Years Only Derived Census Burea data Figure 25 Employment % Share: By Urban Sector MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2013

60% 2000 Share

49.5% 2007 Share 50% 45.9% 44.4% 2013 Share

40%

30% 24.7% 25.6% 20.9% Job Location Job 20%

10.5% 10.4%11.2% 11.2% 9.0% 9.7% 9.9% 10% 8.7% 8.4%

0% Urban Core: Urban Core: Earlier Suburb Later Suburb Exurb CBD Inner Ring Small Areas (Zip Code Tabulation Areas)

Figure 26 Stem Job Creators STEM JOB GROWTH, 2001-2014

Provo-Orem, UT 37.5% Raleigh, NC 32.6% activities, and less likely to eat dinner Madison, WI 32.4% 90 with friends and family. Research has Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 29.4% Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 25.8% shown that mothers of young children Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 23.8% San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 21.6% are especially sensitive to long commutes Salt Lake City, UT 20.9% Austin-Round Rock, TX 20.6% to and from work. A 2013 study found, Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 18.0% Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 13.7% for every half hour increase in commute Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 13.6% San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 11.8% time, a 15 percent drop in the workforce Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 9.0% 91 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 8.7% participation rate of mothers. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 6.9% Transportation expert Alan Nation 4.0% Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 3.0% Pisarski has noted that since the 1980s Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 0.3% Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH (1.6%) the majority of commutes have been New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (3.6%) Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (4.0%) between suburbs; for many suburbanites; San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (4.5%) Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA (4.9%) the move to the periphery has been Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI (7.4%) motivated by shorter commutes, as Source: EMSI 2015.2 businesses have located there.92 Contrary to notions that suburban inOne-Way market share Work over the Trip past Market three Share decades. 95;96 There have been modest families suffer from long commutes UNITED STATES: 1980-2013 Figure 27 more than city dwellers do, residents of market share gains since 2000, however high density communities, including much of that has been for commuters 97 in those areas with extensive transit to New York80% City, who represent less systems, often suffer the longest than 3 percent of the US population, 70% commutes. The longest commutes yet account for one-third of transit Drive Alone commuting60% trip destinations.98 in America are in dense areas such Car Pool 50% as the four principally residential Between 1980 and 2013, the number Transit New York City boroughs (the Bronx, of commuters40% who drove alone daily Walk & Other 93 Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island). increased30% by 47 million, a rise from 64 Work at Home Market Share Market In each, one-way work trip travel percent of20% trips to 76 percent. Car pool usage has declined by 5.7 million, with a times exceeded 40 minutes in 2013, 10% approximately 60 percent more than change in market share from 29 percent 0% the national average time of 26 minutes. to 9 percent. Transit usage1980 is up 1.4 1990 2000 2010 2013 By comparison, average commute million, though its market share has Market Share for Indicated Years Only time ranged from 28 to 36 minutes in fallenDerived from Census 6.2 Burea percent data to 5.2 percent. New York's suburban counties. This The number of those who work at home is considerably above the national has increased by 4 million, with a market average, because of the impact of long share rise from 2.3 percent to 4.4 percent. commutes to Manhattan. Nationally, Ultimately, work at home may among people working in the suburbs, constitute the most revolutionary change the average commute time range is 25 for middle class families. In the US, minutes in the outer counties and 28 working at home has replaced transit minutes in the inner counties.94 as the principal commuting alternative Public transit overall, despite the to the automobile in 37 of the 52 major many new transit lines built around the metropolitan areas with over 1 million country, has experienced no growth population in 2013.99 Overall, 9.4 percent

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 27 Figure 25 Employment % Share: By Urban Sector MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2013

60% 2000 Share

49.5% 2007 Share 50% 45.9% 44.4% 2013 Share

40%

30% 24.7% 25.6% 20.9% Job Location Job 20%

11.2% 11.2% 10.5% 9.7% 9.9% 10.4% 8.7% 9.0% 10% 8.4% of Americans commute from home at The environmental savings related to least once a week, up from seven percent reducing office energy consumption, 0% Urban Core: Urbantwenty Core: yearsEarlier Suburb ago, a Later nearly Suburb 40 percent Exurb roadway repairs, urban heating, office CBD Innerincrease. Ring 100 Work at home has been construction, business travel and paper Small Areasgrowing (Zip Codefar faster Tabulation than transit Areas) ridership, usage (as electronic documents replace but without the need for a massive public paper) could also be prodigious.104 Figure 26 subsidy. More than half of the nation’s Yet for most young families, perhaps Stem Job Creatorssmall businesses are run from their the biggest benefit comes from breaking STEM JOB GROWTH, 2001-2014owners’ homes.101 the great barrier between work and Millennials, notes a recent Ernst and home life. The great futurist Alvin Provo-Orem, UTYoung study, embrace telecommuting 37.5% Toffler predicted that “the electronic Raleigh, NC 32.6% Madison, WIand flexible schedules more than previous32.4% cottage” may become the center of a new Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 29.4% Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TXgenerations did, in large part due25.8% to economy that is far friendlier to family Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 23.8% San Antonio-New Braunfels, TXconcerns about finding balance21.6% between life, allowing "… mothers and fathers Salt Lake City, UT 102 20.9% Austin-Round Rock, TXwork and family life. This20.6% is particularly the opportunity to work while being Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MDtrue of entrepreneurs. A 201218.0% survey of active parents.”105 The implication for Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 13.7% Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC3,000 millennial-generation13.6% business house form is fairly obvious: As people San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 11.8% Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TXowners found that 9.0%82 percent believe that more often use their homes for work, Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 8.7% Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZmany businesses will6.9% be built entirely with they are likely to look for places to live Nation 4.0% 103 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WIvirtual teams of3.0% online workers by 2022. in that are larger and more comfortable, Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 0.3% 106 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH The(1.6%) shift to home-based work not smaller places. Indeed, over the New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (3.6%) Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MDalso addresses(4.0%) some environmental past quarter century the size of homes San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CAproblems(4.5%) often associated with suburbs, nationwide has been on the rise, while Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA (4.9%) Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WInotably(7.4%) issues around auto commuting. the size of lots has been shrinking. Source: EMSI 2015.2 One-Way Work Trip Market Share UNITED STATES: 1980-2013 Figure 27

80%

70%

60% Drive Alone Car Pool 50% Transit 40% Walk & Other 30% Work at Home Market Share Market 20%

10%

0% 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013

Market Share for Indicated Years Only Derived Census Burea data

28 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Figure 28 Change: Predominant Commuting Modes DRIVE ALONE, CAR POOL TRANSIT, WORK AT HOME

With the rise of telecommuting, more 20 people want home offices. Paul Glosniak, president of Bellevue, California-based 15 33-36 are the weird maps Bennett Homes, notes that he often 10 builds both his-and-her offices. With one or two people working from home, 5 the size of the home, not yard space, has 107 0 become the priority. Change in Millions 198199090 -5 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2013

SECTION THREE:DEMOGRAPHIC Derived Census Bureau data constituted roughly one-quarter of AND FAMILIAL TRENDS Figure 29 residents in the urban cores, but only 52 Major Metropolitan Areas:2010 In the 1960s, the great urbanist Jane 14 percent or less of those who live in Jacobs could assert that “suburbs must be 16%suburbs, where the bulk of people15.0% go as 11114.2% 108 13.5% a difficult place to raise children.” But 14%they enter the age of family13% formation. demographic changes in places like her 12% Perhaps the11.6% ultimate primary example of the new childfree city is beloved Greenwich Village in New York 10% City shows how far we have traveled from San Francisco, home now to 80,000 8% 112;113 Jacobs’ ideal city. Rather than the family- more dogs than children. In centric community of the past, the area 6%1970, children5.3% made up 22 percent of today now largely consists of students, 4%the population of San Francisco. Four wealthy people and pensioners. In the 2%decades later, they comprised just 13.4 Village today, about 6 percent of the 0%percent of San Francisco's 800,000 Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb OVERALL population is aged 5 to 17, far below the residents.CBD NearlyInner Ring half of parents of young norms for New York City, and less than children in the city, according to 2011 Small Areas (Zip Code Analysis Zones) half the 13.1 percent found across the 52 survey by the Mayor’s office, planned to largest US metropolitan areas.109 leave in the next three years.114

The Rise of the Childless City FigureA Tale 34 of Two Geographies: One Agefor Families,20-29 Share Another of Growthfor The Urban theorist Terry Nichols Clark BYChildless FUNCTIONAL And SECTOR: Single 2000-2011 of the University of Chicago suggests that the “new American metropolis” revolves ThisEarlier is Suburb not just a recent development, Later Suburb around a dramatically “thinner family,” 14.3% nor one that is confined to cities like52.8% often without children, and those who San Francisco. In virtually every region, prefer a childless lifestyle.110 This was Innerincluding Ring in older cities like Washington 7.9% the pattern during the last decade, when and New York, the largest concentrations the urban core population aged 5 to 14 CBDof children are on the periphery, often dropped by 600,000, almost three times 2.6%in the exurbs, while the most child- the net gain of 200,000 residents aged 20 free areas are almost always near the to 29. By 2011, people in their twenties denseExurb urban core. This is most true in 22.4%

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 29

Major Metropolitan Areas: City Sector Model: Small Area Analysis (ZCTA) Figure 28 Change: Predominant Commuting Modes DRIVE ALONE, CAR POOL TRANSIT, WORK AT HOME

20 traditional urban centers such as New The world of the coming time will 15 York, but it is also occurring in more still have its Homes and33-36 its real are the weird maps sprawling, post-World War II centers Mothers, the custodians of human 10 such as Houston. succession, and its cared for children,

5 If you examine the map, it is clear the inheritors of the future, but in that central Houston, particularly its core addition to this Home world, 0 inside the 610 inner loop, is becoming frothing tumultuously over and Change in Millions 198199090 increasingly child-free. Yet, the further amidst these stable rocks, will be an -5 1980-1990out suburbs1990-2000 beyond Beltway2000-2010 8 continue2010-2013 enormous complex of establishments Derived Censusto Bureau show data a high percentage of children. and hotels, and sterile households, and flats, and all the elaborate Figure 29 furnishing and appliances of a 52 Major Metropolitan Areas:2010 luxurious extinction.116

16% 15.0% 14.2% Wells accurately predicted that urban 13.5% 14% 13% cores would evolve into “essentially a 12% 11.6% bazaar, a great gallery of shops, and 10% places of concourse and rendezvous.” 8% They would remain central to some industries; “an old nucleus,” ideally 6% 5.3% suited to some specialized economic 4% functions, and would continue to attract 2% portions of the upper classes.117 0% In the 1960s, sociologist Herbert Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb OVERALL CBD Inner Ring Gans saw much the same pattern: Small Areas (Zip Code Analysis Zones) one geography of family–centric suburbanites, and a second of inner-city The appeal of the outer suburbs for dwellers made up of “the rich, the poor, families–lower prices, and often better the non-white, as well as the unmarried 34 Figure schools–can be seen by the fact that and childless middle class.”118 Gans noted Age 20-29more Share than eight of Growthout of ten homebuyers in that suburbanites approach community BY FUNCTIONALrecent SECTOR:years have 2000-2011 moved beyond Beltway with very different goals and aspirations 8 to the generally more affordable outer than their urban counterparts. Rather Earlier Suburb 115 14.3%suburban belt. Later Suburb than lifestyle innovations and late-night Rather than a move52.8% to a one-size-fits- entertainment, they prioritize such Inner Ring all housing market, we are witnessing the things as privacy, good schools for their 7.9% emergence of two distinct geographies kids, nice parks, friendly and stable that serve distinct populations and neighborhoods, and other prosaic but CBD 2.6% somewhat different purposes. H.G. fundamentally critical determinants in Wells foresaw this new division over a their choice of a community. century ago: In contrast singles and childless Exurb couples often see the advantages of 22.4% urban settings. University of California

30 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Major Metropolitan Areas: City Sector Model: Small Area Analysis (ZCTA) psychology professor Bella De Paulo cohort of young educated, affluent people asserts that singles increasingly cluster is nothing new. In the 1980s, the new in “urban tribes.” These are made urban pioneers were called yuppies.126 up of mostly single people “creating Yet only 20 percent of millennials live community ties that connect people to in urban core districts.127 Nearly 90 one another through work and leisure, percent of millennial growth in major holidays and crises.”119 Eric Klinenberg, metropolitan areas between 2000 and in his provocative 2012 book Going Solo, 2011 took place in the suburbs and notes that for “hip” young professionals, exurbs.128 Like their parents, many living alone in the city constitutes “… a millennials will probably end up in sign of success and a mark of distinction, suburban and low density locations. a way to gain freedom and experience Extensive generational survey the anonymity that can make city life research done by Frank N. Magid so exhilarating… it’s a way to reassert Associates reveals that 43 percent of control over your life."120 millennials describe suburbs as their “ideal place to live,” compared to just Prospects for 31 percent of older generations. Only Millennial Families 17 percent of millennials identify the urban core as their preferred long- What happens to young people term destination.129 A 2014 survey by when they grow up, particularly if the Demand Institute came up with they want to buy a house, or start a similar findings, with the largest group family? The millennials, the generation of millennials expressing a desire for born after 1983, constitute the largest more space, suburban locations, and cohort in the country; by 2020 they homeownership.130 will constitute one-third of the adult In a National Association of Home population.121 In the next five years, Builders survey, roughly two-thirds of this generation will spend more (on a millennials said they ultimately desire per household basis) than any other a home in the suburbs. Even the Urban generation does; $2 trillion on rent and Land Institute, historically less than home purchases combined.122 friendly to the suburbs, found that Some believe that millennials some 80 percent of current millennial will choose high density urban living, homeowners live in single family putting an effective end to the long houses, and seventy percent of the entire trend towards suburbanization.123 generation expects to be living in one by Urban theorist Peter Katz, for example, 2020.131 What matters here are not the suggests that this generation has little exact numbers, but that so many surveys, interest in “... returning to the cul-de- using different measurements, end up sacs of their teenage years.”124 with essentially the same findings. Yet do millennials actually “hate This shift to suburbia is only part the burbs,” as one Fortune editor has of the millennial story. Another aspect confidently claimed?125 This seems is this generation's gradual movement unlikely. The urban preference of a from expensive regions to less expensive

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 31 Percent Children Under 18 Years Old 2010. New York Percent Children Under 18 Years Old 2010. New York Figure 30 Figure 30

Source: Geolytics Neighborhood Change Database 2010.

Percent Children Under 18 Years Old 2010, Washington Percent Children Under 18 Years Old 2010, Washington Figure 31 Figure 31

Source: Geolytics Neighborhood Change Database 2010.

32 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Percent Children Under 18 Years Old 2010, Bay Area Percent Children Under 18 Years Old 2010, Bay Area Figure 32 Figure 32

Source: Geolytics Neighborhood Change Database 2010. Source: Geolytics Neighborhood Change Database 2010.

Percent Children Under 18 Years Old 2010, Houston Percent Children Under 18 Years Old 2010, Houston Figure 33 Figure 33

Source: Geolytics Neighborhood Change Database 2010. Source: Geolytics Neighborhood Change Database 2010.

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 33 Figure 28 Change: Predominant Commuting Modes Figure 28 DRIVE ALONE, CAR POOL TRANSIT, WORK AT HOME Change: Predominant Commuting Modes DRIVE ALONE, CAR POOL TRANSIT, WORK AT HOME 25 25 20 20 15 33-36 are the weird maps 15 33-36 are the weird maps 10 10 5 5 0 Change in Millions 198199090 0 Change in Millions 198199090 -5 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2013 -5 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2013 Derived Census Bureau data Derived Census Bureau data

Figure 29 Figure 29 52 Major Metropolitan Areas:2010 52 Major Metropolitan Areas:2010 16% 15.0% 16% 15.0% 14.2% 14.2% 14% 13.5% 13.5% 13% 14% 13% 12% 11.6% 12% 11.6% 10% 10%

8% 8%

6% 5.3% 6% 5.3% 4% 4% 2% 2% 0% 0% Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb OVERALL Urban Core: Urban Core: Early Suburb Later Suburb Exurb OVERALL CBD Inner Ring CBD Inner Ring Small Areas (Zip Code Analysis Zones) Small Areas (Zip Code Analysis Zones)

34 Figure 34 Figure Age 20-29 Share of Growth Age 20-29 Share of Growth BY FUNCTIONAL SECTOR: 2000-2011 BY FUNCTIONAL SECTOR: 2000-2011 Earlier Suburb Earlier Suburb 14.3% Later Suburb and even the Washington, DC area.132 14.3% Later Suburb 52.8% 52.8% The costs of purchasing a house are even Inner Ring more lopsided: In Los Angeles and the Inner Ring 7.9% 7.9% Bay Area, a monthly mortgage takes, on CBD average, close to forty percent of income, CBD 2.6% compared to 15 percent nationally.133 2.6% The shift to such lower-cost regions Exurb as Atlanta, Orlando, New Orleans, Exurb 22.4% Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, 22.4% Columbus and even Cleveland is particularly occurring among educated millennials.134 Some are also moving to Major Metropolitan Areas: City Sector Model: Small Area Analysis (ZCTA) areas more distant from the central city, Major Metropolitan Areas: City Sector Model: Small Area Analysis (ZCTA) such as from Los Angeles to Riverside-San Bernardino, which has become the largest ones. According to the real estate inter-county move in the country.135 tracking site Zillow, for workers age 22 These trends may also reflect a and those age 34, rent costs upwards of resurgence of first time buyers. In 45 percent of income in Los Angeles, San 2015, first time buyers made up 32 Francisco, New York and Miami. But percent of all buyers, a rise from 27 less than 30 percent of income is used percent a year earlier.136 for rent in cities like Dallas, Houston Millennial Life Style Choicees COMPARED TO OLDER GENERATIONS Figure 35

Big City

Suburb

Small City

Current Residence Current Country Millenials Older Generations

Big City

Suburb

Small City

Country Ideal Place to Live

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Source: Frank N. Magid Associates

Figure34 CHAPMAN 36 UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Space Preference

15%

Want more space 24% 61% Want the same amount Want less space

Source: 2013 Demand Institute Housing and Community Surve

Figure 37 Where do millennials want to live

Cities 10%

Rural Areas 24%

Suburbs 66%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% From: National Association of Home Builders Millennial Life Style Choicees MillennialCOMPARED Life TO OLDER Style GENERATIONSChoicees Figure 35 COMPARED TO OLDER GENERATIONS 35 Big City Figure

BigSuburb City

SmallSuburb City

Small City

Current Residence Current Country Millenials

Current Residence Current Country MillenialsOlder Generations Big City Older Generations

BigSuburb City

SmallSuburb City

SmallCountry City Ideal Place to Live

Country Ideal Place to Live 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Source:Figure Frank 39 N. Magid0% Associates 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Source: Frank N. Magid Associates FigureUS 20-27 36 Year Olds vs. 28-35 Year Old FigureSpace42 36 Preference Space41 Preference 40 15% 39 38 15% This will likely grow in the future, 37 Want more space given millennial attitudes towards 24% 61% 36 WantWant morethe same space amount family. While they hold some very liberal 3524% 61% Want theless same space amount social views, they often have surprisingly 34 2016 2018 2014 2024 2028 2052 2026 2042 2056 2020 2022 2058 2050 2032 2036 2054 2060 2038 2030 2034 2046 2048 2040 traditional attitudes towards teenage 2044 Want less space sex, abortion, and the desirability of From: Business Insider/Andy Kiersz, data from US Census Bureau marriage.137 Rather than being committed to perpetual singlehood, a Pew study Source:Figure 2013 40 Demand Institute Housing and Community Surve

found that a majority of American Source:Percent 2013 Demand Living Institute Housingin Urban and Community Surve millennials ranked being “good parents” Neighborhoods, By Age Group as their highest priority, followed by a 35 third who identified having a successful 30 37 marriage as most important. In contrast, Figure25 having a “high paying career” was named WhereFigure20 37 do millennials want to live 138, 139 by 15 percent. The latest Monitoring Where15 do millennials want to live the Future report found that 78 percent of 10Cities 10% 5 female high school seniors and 70 percent Rural CitiesAreas 10% 24% of males say that having a good marriage 0 RuralSuburbs Areas 24% 66% and family life is “extremely important” 18-21 22-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-59 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ 66% to them—numbers that are virtually Suburbs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% unchanged since the 1970s.140 From: National Association of Home Builders 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Millennials may be staying in the From: National Association of Home Builders city longer than previous generations did partly due to economic pressures that Figure 38 have made changing locations or buying a house very difficult.141; 142 Growth in Residents with BA+ Degrees But by 2018, when the peak of SELECTED METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2010-2013

the millennial population turns Houston, TX 30, suggests economist Kolko, the Denver, CO demand for suburban houses is likely Dallas-Fort Worth,TX to increase dramatically.143 Faced with Seattle, WA Phoenix, AZ

a huge student debt load, a weaker job Boston, MA-NH market, and often high housing prices, Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV millennials face tougher challenges than Riverside-San Bernardino, CA San Francisco-Oakland, CA

some previous generations, but retain Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 144 remarkably similar aspirations. Miami, FL New York, NY-NJ-PA

Los Angeles, CA

Newcomers to the Dream Detroit, MI

Atlanta, GA

America’s changing demographics Chicago, IL-IN-WI will also contribute to growing demands for family-oriented housing 0% 5% 10% 15% and communities. According to the Source: Census Bureau Data

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 35 Figure 39 US 20-27 Year Olds Figurevs. 28-35 39 Year Old US42 20-27 Year Olds vs.41 28-35 Year Old Census Bureau, minority children will 4240 4139 outnumber white non-Hispanic children by as early as 2020, and by 2050, non- 4038 white racial ethnic group members will 3937 3836 equal the total number of white-non 3735 Hispanics in the US population. These 3634 estimates could understate the rate of 2016 2018 2014 2024 2028 2026 2042 2052 2056 2022 2020 2058 2050 2032 2036 2054 2060 2038 2030 2034 2046 2048 2040 35 2044 ethnic transformation because of the From: Business Insider/Andy Kiersz, data from US Census Bureau 34 country’s growing number of mixed-race 2016 2018 2014 2024 2028 2026 2042 2052 2056 2020 2022 2058 2050 2032 2036 2054 2060 2038 2030 2034 2046 2048 2040 2044 households. Urban Institute researchers From:Figure Business 40 Insider/Andy Kiersz, data from US Census Bureau predict that more than three of four Percent Living in Urban new households this decade, and seven FigureNeighborhoods, 40 By Age Group of eight in the next, will be formed by Percent35 Living in Urban minorities. Nearly half of these new Neighborhoods,30 By Age Group households will be Hispanic.145 3525 The suburbs, once largely resistant 3020 to diversity, now increasingly personify 2515 it. This is in sharp contrast to the past. 10 20 As late as 1970, some 95 percent of US 155 suburbanites were white.146 Levittown, 100 the quintessential middle income suburb, 5 18-21 22-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-59 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ excluded African-Americans in its early 0 years.147 But this old notion of 'white' 18-21 22-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-59 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ suburbia is increasingly becoming archaic as America itself become more diverse. Between 1970 and 1995, more Figure 38 African Americans moved into the 41 suburbs than in the previous seventy Figure Growth in Residents with BA+ Degrees 148 Figure 38 years. According to data from the Cities WithSELECTED Fewer BlackMETROPOLITAN Children AREAS: 2010-2013 2010 US Census, 55 percent of African- Growth in Residents with BA+ Degrees AGES 5-14 IN MAJORHouston, METROPOLITAN TX AREAS: 2000-2010 Americans live in the suburbs of the 149 0% SELECTEDDenver, METROPOLITAN CO AREAS: 2010-2013 major metropolitan areas. Dallas-Fort Worth,TX Houston, TX The trend was particularly marked -10% Seattle, WA 150 Foreign Born Share of New Households Denver, CO among black families with children. It Phoenix, AZ U.S. 1970-2010 Dallas-Fort Worth,TX Figure 44 -20% Boston, MA-NH is not surprising that, among the major Seattle, WA 80% Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV metropolitan area core municipalities, Total Owner Renter Phoenix, AZ -30% Riverside-San Bernardino, CA Boston, MA-NH the largest loss of African Americans 70% San Francisco-Oakland, CA Pittsburgh Cleveland San Diego Chicago Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV St. Louis Los Angeles was in hurricane ravaged New Orleans. Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 60% -40% Riverside-San Bernardino, CA Miami, FL But it is a surprise that San Francisco San Francisco-Oakland,San Fransisco Detroit CA New York, NY-NJ-PA lost more of their 5 to 14 year old black 50% -50% Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD New Orleans Oakland Los Angeles, CA Miami, FL population than devastated Detroit Detroit, MI 40% -60% New York, NY-NJ-PA Atlanta, GA did. A total of ten core municipalities Los Angeles, CA 30% From: Census Bureau Chicago, IL-IN-WI lost one third or more of their children, Detroit, MI

Atlanta, GA 20% 0% 5% 10% 15% Chicago, IL-IN-WI36 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 10% Source: Census Bureau Data 0% 5% 10% 15% 0% 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 Source: Census Bureau Data From: Census Bureau Figure 42 Largest African American Change Foreign Born Population: Fastest Growing MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS 1970-2010 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2012 Figure 45 100% New York (15.7% Increase) Houston (53.8%) 80% Washington (55.5%) Miami (25.4%) 60% Dallas-Fort Worth (49.9%) Riverside-San Bernadino (54.0%) Atlanta (69.5%) 40% Seattle (58.5%) Chicago (15.2%) 20% San Francisco (18.8%) Denver (37.5%) 0% 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

From: Census Bureau Phoenix, AZ Orlando, FL Raleigh, NC Atlanta, GA Las Vegas, NV Salt Late City, UT Providence, RI-MA Charlotte, NC-SC Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI Change in Asian Population 2000-2010 From: Census Bureau BY CORE CITIES & SUBURBS Figure 46 3.0 Figure 43 Smallest Aftrican American Change 2.5 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2013 2.0 3% 1.5 Chicago, IL-IN-WI Chicago, MI Detroit, Los Angeles, CA San Fransisco-Oakland, CA New Orleans, LA 0% 1.0

-3% NYBuffalo, Cleveland, OH Cleveland, San Diego, CA Pittsburgh, PA 0.5 -6% New York, NY-NJ-PA 0.0 Core Cities Suburbs -9%

-12%

-15%

Source: Census Bureau Figure 41 Cities With Fewer Black Children AGES 5-14 IN MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2010 0%

-10% Foreign Born Share of New Households U.S. 1970-2010 Figure 44 -20% 80% Total Owner Renter -30% 70% Chicago Pittsburgh Cleveland San Diego St. Louis Los Angeles -40% 60% 41 Figure San Fransisco Detroit 50% -50% Cities With Fewer Black Children New Orleans Oakland 40% AGES 5-14 IN MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS:-60% 2000-2010 0% From: Census Bureau 30% 20% -10% Foreign Born Share of New Households U.S. 1970-2010 10% Figure 44 -20% 80% Total Owner0% Renter 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 -30% 70% Chicago Pittsburgh Cleveland San Diego St. Louis Los Angeles From: Census Bureau -40% 60% Figure 42 San Fransisco Detroit 50% -50% Largest African American Change New Orleans Oakland Foreign Born Population: Fastest Growing MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS 1970-2010 40% -60% MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2012 Figure 45 100% From: Census Bureau 30% New York (15.7% Increase) Houston (53.8%) including two of the three largest cities, 20% 151 80% Washington (55.5%) Los Angeles and Chicago. Miami (25.4%) 10% Blacks are also moving to less 60% Dallas-Fort Worth (49.9%) Riverside-San Bernadino (54.0%) expensive cities, largely in the south, 0% Atlanta (69.5%) where housing costs are cheaper, 40% 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000Seattle 2000-2010 (58.5%) Chicago (15.2%) From: Census Bureau densities are lower and, in many cases, 20% San Francisco (18.8%) Figurethe employment 42 prospects are more Denver (37.5%) Largestrobust. Centers African of African-American American Change 0% 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 Foreign Born Population: Fastest Growing MAJORlife, such METROPOLITAN as St. Albans, Queens AREAS in New1970-2010 From: Census Bureau Phoenix, AZ Orlando, FL Raleigh, NC Atlanta, GA York, now see more of their population Las Vegas, NV MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2012 Figure 45 100% Salt Late City, UT Providence, RI-MA Charlotte, NC-SC headed south. “The notion of the North Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York (15.7% Increase) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI Houston (53.8%) Change in Asian Population 2000-2010 and80% its cities as the promised land Washington (55.5%) From: Census Bureau has been a powerful part of African- Miami (25.4%) BY CORE CITIES & SUBURBS Figure 46 60% Dallas-Fort Worth (49.9%) American life," notes Clement Price, Riverside-San Bernadino (54.0%) 3.0 professor of history at Rutgers. “The moreFigure affordable, 43 "sprawling" cities. Atlanta (69.5%) 40% Seattle (58.5%) And within every region in which 2.5 black urban experience has essentially Chicago (15.2%) 152 Smallest Aftrican American Change immigrants settle, they increasingly San Francisco (18.8%) lost20% its appeal with blacks in America.” MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2013 Immigrant populations also are choose the suburban areas. Between Denver (37.5%) 2.0 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 increasingly0% moving to less dense, more 20003% and 2013, suburbs accounted affordable regions. The movements of for three quarters of the growth From: Census Bureau 1.5 Phoenix, AZ Orlando, FL Raleigh, NC Atlanta, GA IL-IN-WI Chicago, MI Detroit, Los Angeles, CA San Fransisco-Oakland, CA New Orleans, LA Las Vegas, NV 0% 153 theSalt Late foreign City, UT born are critical, as they Providence, RI-MA amongCharlotte, newcomers. NC-SC Among Asians, constitute upwards of 40 percent of all now the country’sDallas-Fort Worth, TX largest source of 1.0 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI -3% NYBuffalo, Change in Asian Population 2000-2010 Cleveland, OH Cleveland, San Diego, CA new households. The fastest growth immigrants, the preferencePittsburgh, PA for suburbs From: Census Bureau BY CORE CITIES & SUBURBS 46 among immigrants is taking place in is overwhelming, as shown below. 0.5 Figure New York, NY-NJ-PA -6% 3.0 0.0 Figure 43 Core Cities Suburbs Smallest Aftrican American Change-9% 2.5 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2013 -12% 2.0 3% -15% 1.5 Chicago, IL-IN-WI Chicago, MI Detroit, Los Angeles, CA San Fransisco-Oakland, CA New Orleans, LA 0% Source: Census Bureau 1.0

-3% NYBuffalo, Cleveland, OH Cleveland, San Diego, CA Pittsburgh, PA 0.5 -6% New York, NY-NJ-PA 0.0 Core Cities Suburbs -9%

-12%

-15%

Source: Census Bureau

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 37 FigureFigure 41 41 CitiesCities With With Fewer Fewer Black Black Children Children AGESAGES 5-14 5-14 IN IN MAJOR MAJOR METROPOLITAN METROPOLITAN AREAS: AREAS: 2000-2010 2000-2010 0%0%

-10%-10% ForeignForeign Born Born Share Share of of New New Households Households U.S.U.S. 1970-2010 1970-2010 FigureFigure 44 44 -20%-20% 80%80% TotalTotalOwnerOwnerRenterRenter -30%-30% 70%70% ChicagoChicago PittsburghPittsburgh ClevelandCleveland San DiegoSan DiegoSt. LouisSt. Louis Los AngelesLos Angeles -40%-40% 60%60% Brookings Institution demographer San FransiscoSan FransiscoDetroitDetroit William Frey has found that Hispanic 50%50% -50%-50% New OrleansNew OrleansOaklandOakland and Asian immigrants have been more 40%40% likely to settle first in cities, but, “After -60%-60% 30%30% they get settled, they follow the train From:From: Census Census Bureau Bureau to the suburbs.”154 In the 1990s, more 20%20% than a third of all 13.3 million new 10%10% suburbanites were Hispanic, compared with 2.5 million blacks and 2 million 0%0% 1970-19801970-1980 1980-1990 1980-1990 1990-20001990-2000 2000-2010 2000-2010 Asians. In all, whites accounted for a 155 From:From: Census Census Bureau Bureau fifth of suburban growth.” According to a Harvard research FigureFigure 42 42 paper, suburbs now are generally far less LargestLargest African African American American Change Change 156 ForeignForeign Born Born Population: Population: Fastest Fastest Growing Growing segregated than denser urban areas. MAJORMAJOR METROPOLITAN METROPOLITAN AREAS AREAS 1970-2010 1970-2010 MAJORMAJOR METROPOLITAN METROPOLITAN AREAS: AREAS: 2000-2012 2000-2012 FigureFigure 45 45 Roughly 60 percent of Hispanics and 100%100% Asians already live in suburbs; more than New NewYork York(15.7% (15.7% Increase) Increase) HoustonHouston (53.8%) (53.8%) 40 percent of non-citizen immigrants now 80%80% WashingtonWashington (55.5%) (55.5%) move directly to suburbs.157,158 Between MiamiMiami (25.4%) (25.4%) 60%60% Dallas-FortDallas-Fort Worth Worth (49.9%) (49.9%) 2000 and 2012, the Asian population in Riverside-SanRiverside-San Bernadino Bernadino (54.0%) (54.0%) suburban areas of the nation’s 52 biggest AtlantaAtlanta (69.5%) (69.5%) 40%40% SeattleSeattle (58.5%) (58.5%) metro areas grew 66.2 percent, while ChicagoChicago (15.2%) (15.2%) that in the core cities expanded by 34.9 San Francisco (18.8%) 20%20% San Francisco (18.8%) 159 DenverDenver (37.5%) (37.5%) percent. Of the top 20 cities with an 0%0% 0 0 100,000100,000 200,000 200,000 300,000 300,000 400,000 400,000 500,000 500,000 600,000 600,000 700,000 700,000 800,000 800,000 Asian population of more than 50,000, all 160 From:From: Census Census Bureau Bureau but two are suburbs. Phoenix,Phoenix, AZ AZ Orlando,Orlando, FL FLRaleigh,Raleigh, NC NC Atlanta,Atlanta, GA GA Las Vegas,Las Vegas, NV NV This shift can be understood in the Charlotte, NC-SC Salt LateSalt City,Late UTCity, UT Providence,Providence, RI-MA RI-MA Charlotte, NC-SC Dallas-FortDallas-Fort Worth, Worth, TX TX context of changing patterns of settlement Minneapolis-St.Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WIPaul, MN-WI ChangeChange in in Asian Asian Population Population 2000-2010 2000-2010 among minorities. In the decade From:From: Census Census Bureau Bureau BYBY CORE CORE CITIES CITIES & SUBURBS& SUBURBS FigureFigure 46 46 that ended in 2010 the percentage of 3.0 3.0 suburbanites living in “traditional” largely 4343 white suburbs fell from more than half (51 FigureFigure 161 Smallest Aftrican American Change 2.5 2.5 percent) to 39 percent. According to a Smallest Aftrican American Change University of Minnesota report, in the 50 MAJORMAJOR METROPOLITAN METROPOLITAN AREAS: AREAS: 2000-2013 2000-2013 2.0 2.0 largest US metropolitan areas, 44 percent 3%3% of residents live in racially and ethnically 1.5 1.5 diverse suburbs, defined as between 20 Chicago, IL-IN-WI Chicago, MI Detroit, Los Angeles, CA San Fransisco-Oakland, CA New Orleans, LA Chicago, IL-IN-WI Chicago, MI Detroit, Los Angeles, CA San Fransisco-Oakland, CA New Orleans, LA 162 0%0% and 60 percent non-white. 1.0 1.0 The fastest integration into the Buffalo, NYBuffalo, -3%-3% NYBuffalo, middle class and American norms is Cleveland, OH Cleveland, Cleveland, OH Cleveland, San Diego, CA Pittsburgh, PA San Diego, CA Pittsburgh, PA 0.5 0.5 taking place in the most disdained New York, NY-NJ-PA -6%-6% New York, NY-NJ-PA geography of all: the furthest flung, 0.0 0.0 CoreCore Cities Cities SuburbsSuburbs newly minted suburbs. An examination -9%-9% of this phenomena in Houston by a

-12%-12% 38 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY

-15%-15%

Source:Source: Census Census Bureau Bureau Association of Realtors survey found found survey Realtors of Association The Role of Seniors What was once an overwhelmingly white white overwhelmingly once an was What (including Cinco Ranch) and Sugarland. Sugarland. and Ranch) Cinco (including 65 looked in suburban areas, followed areas, suburban 65 looked in Rice University researcher found that found that University researcher Rice will double to eighty million by 2050 has has by 2050 million double to eighty will During the last decade more than 99 99 more decade than last the During Not surprisingly, nine of the top of ten the nine Not surprisingly, that the vast majority of buyers majority over vast the that in suburban locations. suburban in the vast majority of don’t seniors majority vast the have than move location. to amorethan urban the above maps make very clear. very above maps make the minorities and lower and income residents minorities more likely to buy a suburban house to buymore asuburban likely urban below well traditional mile, did better in terms of education, income terms in better did densities. Seniors are seven times times seven are Seniors densities. people square per belowdensities 2,500 diverse over the past quarter century as as century quarter over past diverse the Katy newer like suburbs rights” civil children at home, estimates run that that run at home, estimates children future. the in change counties for housing active seniors are are seniors for active counties housing by rural locales. rural by population—as it is for millennials— for is it population—as relieved of their children, are leaving their their leaving are children, of their relieved people aged 65 in major metropolitan majorpeople 65 aged in metropolitan among percent growth of population that “millions” of aging boomers, now boomers, of aging “millions” that have claimed reports Some news trend. level, and home ownership in “post- homelevel, and in ownership suburban ring has become increasing become increasing has ring suburban appears to be familialism. Although Although familialism. to be appears areas took place in counties with with counties took in place areas suburban homes for city apartments. homes for city suburban been seen as fostering a "back to the city" city" to the a"back fostering as seen been A key driver for older the driver A key This is something of an urban legend. urban an of something is This The fact that the US population overthe 65 population US that fact The 166 This is not likely to likely is not This 165 A National National A 163

164

Source: Geolytics Neighborhood ChangeDatabase2010. GeolyticsNeighborhood Source: PoplulationPercent in 2010 Minority ChangeDatabase 2010. GeolyticsNeighborhood Source: PoplulationPercent in 2000 Minority Percent Minority PoplulationPercent in 2010 Minority ChangeDatabase2010. GeolyticsNeighborhood Source: ChangeDatabase2010. GeolyticsNeighborhood Source: PoplulationPercent in 2000 Minority Source: Geolytics Neighborhood ChangeDatabase2010. GeolyticsNeighborhood Source: ChangeDatabase2010. GeolyticsNeighborhood Source: PoplulationPercent in 2010 Minority PoplulationPercent in 2000 Minority Source: Geolytics Neighborhood ChangeDatabase2010. GeolyticsNeighborhood Source: PoplulationPercent in 1990 Minority Percent Minority PoplulationPercent in 1990 Minority PoplulationPercent in 1990 Minority Source: Geolytics Neighborhood ChangeDatabase2010. GeolyticsNeighborhood Source: ChangeDatabase2010. GeolyticsNeighborhood Source: BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE CITIES BEST 39

Figure 49 Figure 48 FigureFigure 49 49 FigureFigure 48 48 Figure 47 FigureFigure 47 47 roughly eighty percent have offspring.167 is simply shifting away from the 1950s So, while only one in four US families paradigm dominated by the nuclear have children at home, kinship ties may family, and towards “blended” patterns be more important, given the longer associated with the more distant past.169 lifespans that grandparents and even The primacy of family ties can be Projected Household Growth By Age: Figure 53 great-grandparents now experience.168 seen in a 2014 study by the US moving 50 2015 - 2025 In many ways, notes historian andFigure family company Mayflower. It found thatAustralia: GHG Emissions by Urban Sector 12 PER CAPITA: CAPITAL CITIES OVER 1 MILLION scholar Stephanie Coontz, the family10.7 most frequent reason seniors move is to be close to their children and 30 10 Projected Household Growth By Age: grandchildren. Similarly, as manyFigure as one 53 20158 - 2025 Figure 50 in four millennials have relocatedAustralia: more25 GHG Emissions by Urban Sector 12 proximate to their parents, oftenPER to enjoy CAPITA: CAPITAL CITIES OVER 1 MILLION 6 10.7 20 life in a more affordable community30 and 10 4 receive help with child raising.170 2.5 25 15 8 2 Families are clustering together, 0.9 -1.8 0.1 reversing a trend towards autonomy that 6 10 0 has been developing for decades.17120 The 4 -2 number of people over 65 living with their Under 35 45-54 45-54 55-64 65+ 5 2.5 children grew fifty per cent between15 2000 2 Millions of Households 0.9 Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of -1.8Harvard, 2014 0.1 and 2007, according to the US Census0 0 bureau.172 And we are also seeing 10the rise Inner Inner Ring Second Ring Outer

-2 of the multi-generational household— Under 35 45-54 45-54 55-64 65+ aging grandparents, adult children,5 and Millions of Households even friends all living together.173 Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard, 2014 0 Inner Inner Ring Second Ring Outer Senior Population: 2000 & 2010 CITY SECTORS: MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS Figure 51 1000% 2000 2010 8.96 2.96 Senior Population: 2000 & 2010 CITY800% SECTORS: MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS Figure 51 1000% 2000 2010 8.96 2.96 600%

800% 4.59 400% 3.61 2.82 2.70 2.95 2.73 600%

Population (Millions) Population 200% 4.59

400% 3.61 2.95 0% 2.82 2.70 2.73 Urban Core Earlier Suburban Later Suburban Exurban

Population (Millions) Population 200% By Functional City Sector

40 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 0% Urban Core Earlier Suburban Later Suburban Exurban By Functional City Sector

Multi-Generation Households Share of U.S. Population Living in Multi-Generational Family Households, 1940-2008 Figure 52 25 Multi-Generation Households Share of U.S. Population Living in Multi-Generational Family Households, 1940-2008 Figure 52 20 25

15 20

15 10 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Source: Pew Research Center, Census Data

10 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: Pew Research Center, Census Data Home Ownership UNITED STATES: 2000-2014 Figure 55 80% 70% 60% Home50% Ownership 40% UNITED30% STATES: 2000-2014 Figure 55 80%20% 70%10% 60%0% 50% 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014 40% From: Census Bureau 30% 20% 10% 0% 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014 From: Census Bureau Projected Household Growth By Age: Figure 53 2015 - 2025 Figure 50 Australia: GHG Emissions by Urban Sector

12 PER CAPITA: CAPITAL CITIES OVER 1 MILLION 10.7 30 10

8 25

6 20

4 2.5 15 2 0.9 -1.8 0.1 0 10

-2 Under 35 45-54 45-54 55-64 65+ 5 Millions of Households Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard, 2014 0 Inner Inner Ring Second Ring Outer

Senior Population: 2000 & 2010 CITY SECTORS: MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS Figure 51 1000% 2000 2010 8.96 2.96

800%

600% 4.59

400% 3.61 2.82 2.70 2.95 2.73

Population (Millions) Population 200%

0% Urban Core Earlier Suburban Later Suburban Exurban By Functional City Sector

Multi-Generation Households Share of U.S. Population Living in Multi-Generational Family Households, 1940-2008 Figure 52 25

10 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Source: Pew Research Center, Census Data

The percentage of multi-generational segment. Pulte, Lennar, and Tusino, homes has risen from a low of 12 percent New England’s largest homebuilders, in 1980 to 16.7 percent of all households have all created houses—some with in 2009. The last time multi-generational separate entry-ways and kitchens— Home Ownership households stood at this level was in the that appeal to multi-generational UNITED STATES: 2000-2014 Figure 55 174 179 80% 1950s. In a 2015 report by the National households. Home builder Toll 70% Association of Realtors, over 13 percent Brothers has started incorporating a 60% 50% of all new homes purchased were for guest suite with a kitchenette in lieu of 40% multigenerational families.175 the traditional family room.180 This, like 30% 20% Living together allows for greater home-based work, could help explain 10% pooling of financial resources and reduces why, contrary to predictions, house sizes 0% poverty. But it was also seen by some 80 have expanded.181 A new record was set 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014 From: Census Bureau percent of those in multigenerational in 2012, with new homes 300 square homes to “enhance family bonds."176 feet larger than in 2000, although often Another major factor driving the return on smaller lots.182 Between 2010 and to multi-generational housing, notes a 2011, the average size of new houses Pew report, has been the rise of minority increased from 2,392 square feet to 2,480 households; Latinos and Asians, as well as square feet, the largest gain since the late African Americans, have nearly twice the 1980s. Census Bureau data shows that percentage of multi-family households as even though the past two generations non-Hispanic whites.177 The city with the of Americans have had fewer children, highest percentage of multi-generational the size of new homes keeps rising. This houses is Norwalk, a primarily Hispanic, trend towards larger homes may in close-in Los Angeles suburb. The state part reflect the desire of minorities and with the highest percentage of multi- multigenerational households to have generation households is the heavily enough room for their families, rather Asian/Pacific Islander Hawaii.178 than just a lust for space.183 Many major developers have recently targeted this growing market

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 41 Section Four: Creating a New Urban Paradigm

Frank Lloyd Wright once noted conditions are sparking a shift towards that the city should not be a device density. Some time ago New Urbanist to “destroy the citizen” and his architect and planner Peter Calthorpe, affiliations, but instead, to serve as for example, claimed that suburbs do a “means of human liberation.” Rather not fit the current post-industrial society than being frozen in pre-existing of households that are shifting towards form, he suggested, cities should be two earner families, empty nesters judged on how they meet the needs of and childless people. His conclusion: citizens for privacy, for space and for “Realizing the old American dream in fostering strong communities through existing development patterns seems associations, churches, and family ties.184 increasingly unlikely.”190 Yet two decades after this assessment, the American Planning As family appears to be every bit as drawn to Social Engineering suburban lifestyles, despite the apparent ascent of two-income families.191 Such an approach differs distinctly Sometimes retro-urbanists have from the growing imposition by planners suggested that suburbs could end up as and political forces of what one critic the “ghost towns” of the future, as people labels “proscriptive policies and social departed suburbia for downtowns.192 restraint on the urban form.”185 One Ways to carve up the suburban carcass strong smart growth advocate suggests have been widely discussed in places like siphoning tax revenues from suburbs to the New York Times, where some writers prevent them from “cannibalizing” jobs envisioned such things as suburban three and retail sales, and to “curb sprawl” in car garages that would be “… subdivided order to recreate the imagined high- into rental units with street front density community of the past, with cafés, shops and other local businesses.” heavy transit usage and main streets that Abandoned swimming pools would have housing over the shops.186 become skateboard parks.193 Advocates of strict land use policies claim that traditional architecture Suburbs and the Environment and increased densities will enable us to once again enjoy the kind Much of current urban planning of “meaningful community” that theory revolves around concerns about supposedly cannot be achieved in the environment. Groups such as the conventional suburbs.178 Planners in Sierra Club argue that local, state, and some areas, such as Minneapolis- federal governments should enact St. Paul, go further, suggesting that policies that make people live closer regional government engineer income together, and, consequently, rely less on and race “balance” through the their cars. In order to do this, theorists imposition of higher density, transit advocate establishing urban growth oriented development and subsidies.188,189 boundaries which ban new development 194 Many smart growth advocates beyond the urban fringe. Their vision believe that today’s changing economic has been reinforced by the smart

42 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY growth movement’s promotion of "more area GHG emissions were included.199 scientific planning" for how land will In addition, one recent study from the be used, buttressed, of course, by "strict National Academy of Sciences found regulations.”195 This makes it impossible that New York City, despite its transit to build the lower cost starter homes that system and high density, was the most are affordable because of cheap land on environmentally wasteful of the world’s the urban fringe. 27 megacities, well ahead of more In the past, some environmentalists dispersed, car-dominated Los Angeles.200 even celebrated the potential In one of the most comprehensive demographic impact of densification, nationwide reviews of greenhouse gas seeing in denser cities a natural emissions, Australian Conservation contraceptive. Stewart Brand, who Foundation research showed per capita in 1968 founded the Whole Earth emissions to decline with distance from Catalog, embraces denser urbanization, the urban core, through suburban rings particularly in developing countries, as a force for “stopping the population Advocates of strict land use policies explosion cold.”196 More recently, climate change has claim that traditional architecture been used to justify greater density. “What is causing global warming is the and increased densities will enable lifestyle of the American middle class," us to once again enjoy the kind of insists New Urbanist architect Andres Duany, who is himself a major developer “meaningful community” that of dense housing.197 One retro-urbanist author, David Owen, in his book Green supposedly cannot be achieved in Metropolis suggests that the planet needs to live in densities associated with his conventional suburbs. former Manhattan home, although he outward.201 Another study, this one in himself moved to bucolic Connecticut.198 Halifax, Nova Scotia, found the carbon Sadly, much of the research footprints of core residents and suburbanites advocating density as a solution to to be approximately the same.202 climate change is deeply flawed, since Higher densities, according to data it usually excludes greenhouse (GHG) in a recent National Academy of Sciences emissions from common areas, including report, can do relatively little—perhaps elevators, and from lighting fixtures, as little as two percent—to reduce space heaters and air conditioners, the nation greenhouse gas emissions: usually because data is not available. "Urban planners hoping to help mitigate Research by Energy Australia, which CO2 emissions by increasing housing took this and overall consumer energy density would do better to focus on spending into account, found that town fuel-efficiency improvements to vehicles, houses and detached housing produced investments in renewable energy, and less GHG emissions per capita than cap and trade legislation."203 Economist high density housing when common- Anthony Downs of the Brookings

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 43 Institution, a proponent of smart growth are actually better for the environment policies, has said, "If your principle goal than multi-family houses. Researcher is to reduce fuel emissions, I don’t think Hugh Byrd challenges “… conventional future growth density is the way to do it." thinking that suburbia is energy- As Downs suggests, there may inefficient," a belief that has become be other, more effective and less enshrined in architectural policy: “In damaging ways to reduce emissions. fact, our results reverse the argument Improved mileage on cars, including for a compact city based on transport electric and natural gas or hydrogen energy use, and completely change the propelled vehicles, would thus be far current perception of urban sprawl.”206 more impactful, not to mention less Byrd notes, there are numerous ways disruptive.204A report by McKinsey & to make lower-density environments Company and the Conference Board more environmental friendly, such as indicates that sufficient reduction planting more trees.207 in greenhouse gas emissions could Other research shows that compact, be achieved without any "… of the dense cities are not necessarily better draconian changes in living standards for the environment. Packing people and lifestyles widely promoted by smart into an environment of concrete, steel growth advocates."205 and glass creates what is known as “the Suburbs could enjoy some urban heat island effect.”208 In Japan, environmental advantages over denser researchers found that higher density developments. A 2013 New Zealand areas create more heat than less dense paper suggests that, with proper design areas.209 NASA has similarly has found and use of their greater surface area for that “… Densely developed, aggregated solar, single family homes potentially cities produce stronger urban heat islands than sprawling cities with less Projected Household Growth By Age: Figure 53 development density.” 210 2015 - 2025 Figure 50 Australia: GHG Emissions by Urban Sector There are other, unintended

12 PER CAPITA: CAPITAL CITIES OVER 1 MILLION negative consequences to densification. 10.7 30 Increased densities, for example, create 10 congestion and 'stop and go' traffic 8 25 conditions that ultimately add to emissions. Transport Canada research 6 20 indicates that fuel consumption per 4 kilometer (and thus GHG emissions) 2.5 15 rise nearly 50 percent as arterial street 2 0.9 traffic conditions deteriorate.211 -1.8 0.1 0 10 In another example, California’s

-2 bid to restrict suburban growth in Under 35 45-54 45-54 55-64 65+ 5 order to combat climate change has had Millions of Households mixed results. Attempts to promote Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard, 2014 0 Inner Inner Ring Second Ring Outer transit oriented developments have proven notably ineffective in reducing

44 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY

Senior Population: 2000 & 2010 CITY SECTORS: MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS Figure 51 1000% 2000 2010 8.96 2.96

800%

600% 4.59

400% 3.61 2.82 2.70 2.95 2.73

Population (Millions) Population 200%

0% Urban Core Earlier Suburban Later Suburban Exurban By Functional City Sector

Multi-Generation Households Share of U.S. Population Living in Multi-Generational Family Households, 1940-2008 Figure 52 25

10 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Source: Pew Research Center, Census Data

Home Ownership UNITED STATES: 2000-2014 Figure 55 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014 From: Census Bureau How Millennials View Marriage and Children (% SAYING THEY . . . ) Figure 60

Do you want to get married? Do you want to have children?

5 7

25 19 Want

Not sure

Don’t want 70 74

Based on ages 18-29, unmarried and without children, n=305

Source: Pew Research Center

Figure 54 Emissions increases caused by Net Domestic Migration from California Versus CARB 2020 Reduction Target automobile travel. A Los Angeles from 2000–2004 Levels Times report found that relatively few people in these buildings actually took (tons of CO2e per annum) transit.212 In addition, California’s strict policies may also have unintentionally 50,000,000 driven people, jobs and factories to areas in the United States and abroad 40,000,000 where heat and cold, as well as weaker 41,714,614 Net CO2e regulation, lead to increased energy 30,000,000 Annual Emissions consumption. In practical terms this Increase from California Domestic has all but wiped out any net reductions 20,000,000 Migration Losses achieved by state policies.213 since 1990 10,000,000 Keeping the Ownership Option: Back to the New Deal 0

The drive against suburbs and lower -10,000,000 density development threatens the CARB Scoping essential nature of American democracy, -20,000,000 Plan Reduction as well as the prospects for the middle Objective from class. "A nation of homeowners,” -30,000,000 2000–2004 Franklin Roosevelt believed, “of people Average State Emission Levels -42,000,000 who own a real share in their land, is -40,000,000 unconquerable.” 214 Under the New Deal, housing policies enacted with bipartisan -50,000,000 support lifted up a working class that could now enjoy privacy, space and quiet the middle class expanded, while that of that had previously been available only to 217 the affluent classes.215 the wealthiest actually fell. By 1962, over 60 percent of As sociologist Robert Lynd has noted: Americans owned their own homes, “The characteristic thing about democracy is its diffusion of power among the an increase from the 41 percent 218 before World War II. The increase in people.” The house remains, even in homeownership between 1946 and 1956, these more difficult times, the last great notes Stephanie Coontz, was greater than asset of the middle class. Homes represent that achieved in the preceding century only 9.4 percent of the wealth of the top 1 and a half.216 Even though the rate has percent, but 30 percent for those in the dropped since the Great Recession, it upper twenty percent and, for the overall 60 percent of the population in the middle, remains high by historical standards. 219 This expansion of property owner- roughly 60 percent. ship became a critical factor in America’s This aspiration—held by most experiment with self-government at a middle and working-class Americans—is time when the share of income held by now being directly threatened, often by

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 45 Projected Household Growth By Age: Figure 53 2015 - 2025 Figure 50 Australia: GHG Emissions by Urban Sector

12 PER CAPITA: CAPITAL CITIES OVER 1 MILLION 10.7 30 10

8 25

6 20

4 2.5 15 2 0.9 -1.8 0.1 0 10

-2 Under 35 45-54 45-54 55-64 65+ 5 Millions of Households Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard, 2014 0 Inner Inner Ring Second Ring Outer

Senior Population: 2000 & 2010 CITY SECTORS: MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS Figure 51 1000% 2000 2010 8.96 2.96

800%

600% 4.59

400% 3.61 2.82 2.70 2.95 2.73

Population (Millions) Population 200%

0% Urban Core Earlier Suburban Later Suburban Exurban By Functional City Sector

Multi-Generation Households Share of U.S. Population Living in Multi-Generational Family Households, 1940-2008 Figure 52 25

10 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Source: Pew Research Center, Census Data

Home Ownership UNITED STATES: 2000-2014 Figure 55 80% 70% 60% 50% A 2012 study by the Joint Center 40% 30% for Housing Studies at Harvard 20% found “… little evidence to suggest 10% that individuals' preferences for 0% 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014 owning versus renting a home have From: Census Bureau been fundamentally altered by their exposure to house price declines and Figure 56 Figure 58 loan delinquency rates, or by knowing What do Americans Own? others in their neighborhood who have Percent who agree “homeownership MAKEUP OF ASSETS BY HOUSEHOLD WEALTH: 2010 defaulted on their mortgages."222 A 2013 is an important part of the survey by the University of Connecticut American Dream” 70% found that 76 percent believe being able to own your own home is necessary to 90 89 60% 223 be considered middle class. 88 Nor do these aspirations seem to be 86 50% fading among millennials. A survey by 86 84 the online banking company TD Bank 84 40% found that 84 percent of renters aged 18 to 34 intend to purchase a home in the 82 81 80 30% future. Still another, this one from Better 80 Homes and Gardens, found that three 78 20% in four saw homeownership as “a key indicator of success.”224 A Merrill Lynch 76 survey found millennials to have roughly 10% the same interest in home buying as 74 Base Age 21+ Gen x 0% previous generations. The problem facing millennials is Total population Boomers Home Bank Deposits Pension Stocks & Other Business Misc. Millennials Silent Gen & Other Liquid Accounts Securities Equity & Other not that they don’t want to own, but Assets Real Estate that economic circumstances have, Source: Merrill Lynch – Age Wave, 2014 9.4% 5.5% 7.8% 25.4% 50.3% 1.6% Top 1% particularly in unaffordable markets,

30.1% 6.8% 20.6% 14.9% 25.6% 2% made purchasing a house very difficult. Next 19% Saddled with student debt as well as the 66.6% 5.9% 14.2% 3.1% 8.9% 1.3% Middle 60% weak economy, many millennials will be Source: Jordan Weissman, “The Recession’s Toll: How Middle Class Wealth Collapsed to a 40-Year Low,” The Atlantic, December 4, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/the-recessions-toll-how-middle-class -wealth-col- forced to find housing not in those areas Less Money to Spend lapsed-to-a-40-year-low/265743/. that they prefer, per se, but in places One-way bet Median income for 25-34 year olds as a % of national median Figure 59 government and sometimes by business. they can afford. Some Wall Street analysts predict the Recent survey information also 150% evolution of a “rentership society,” where confirms the preference of millennial 140 % even new homes might be built primarily generation households for low density 130% for lease rather than sale.220 Between 2006 housing. The National Association of 120% 110 % and 2014 alone, the number of single Realtors surveyed the housing types that Defining Attributes of the Middle Class Figure 57 100% family homes that were occupied by had been purchased by homebuyers in 90% renters grew 31 percent.221 2013 and 2014. They found that 80 percent 80% 70% Being able to save money 60% 46 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 85 for the future 50% 2 011 2012 2013 2010 2001 2002 2007 2004 2005 2003 2008 2006 2000 2009 1974 1981 1976 1991 1978 1975 1979 1977 1987 1982 1997 1992 1994 1984 1986 1985 1993 1995 1980 1998 1983 1988 1989 1996 1999 1990 Being able to own your Source: BLS own home 76

Being able to afford college 69 Having enough money to sometimes buy things you’d like to have, even 68 Figure 60 if you don’t absolutely need them House Purchase: Under Age 35 Having enough money for 62 vacation travel 2014-2015 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Being able to buy a new car OF REALTORS from time to time 60 Other Multi-Unit 4% 0 18 36 54 72 90 7% Townhouse Source: Tom Breen, “UConn/Hartford Courant Poll: Middle Class Dream Persists, 8% Though Harder to Attain,” UConn Today, February 11, 2013, http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2013/02/uconnhartford-courant-poll-middle-class-dream-persists-though-harder-to-attain/.

Detached House From National Association of Realtors, 2015 81% Figure 56 Figure 58 What do Americans Own? Percent who agree “homeownership MAKEUP OF ASSETS BY HOUSEHOLD WEALTH: 2010 is an important part of the American Dream” 70%

90 89 60% 88 86 50% 86 84 84 40% 82 81 80 30% 80

78 20% 76

10% 74 Base Age 21+ Gen x 0% Total population Boomers Home Bank Deposits Pension Stocks & Other Business Misc. & Other Liquid Accounts Securities Equity & Other Millennials Silent Gen Assets Real Estate Source: Merrill Lynch – Age Wave, 2014

9.4% 5.5% 7.8% 25.4% 50.3% 1.6% Top 1%

30.1% 6.8% 20.6% 14.9% 25.6% 2% Next 19%

66.6% 5.9% 14.2% 3.1% 8.9% 1.3% Middle 60%

Source: Jordan Weissman, “The Recession’s Toll: How Middle Class Wealth Collapsed to a 40-Year Low,” The Atlantic, December 4, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/the-recessions-toll-how-middle-class -wealth-col- Less Money to Spend lapsed-to-a-40-year-low/265743/. One-way bet Median income for 25-34 year olds as a % of national median Figure 59

150% 140 % 130% 120% 110 % Defining Attributes of the Middle Class Figure 57 100% 90% 80% 70% Being able to save money 85 60% for the future 50% 2 011 2012 2013 2010 2001 2002 2007 2004 2005 2003 2008 2006 2000 2009 1974 1981 1976 1991 1978 1975 1979 1977 1987 1982 1997 1992 1994 1984 1986 1985 1993 1995 1980 1998 1983 1988 1989 1996 1999 1990 Being able to own your Source: BLS own home 76

of millennial buyers had purchased detached houses, and 8 percent had Figure 56 chosen attached housing. Only 7 percent Figure 58 What do Americans Own? purchased units in multi-unit buildings, Percent who agree “homeownership MAKEUP OF ASSETS BY HOUSEHOLD WEALTH: 2010 although many more, unable to buy, do is an important part of the end up renting in high density buildings American Dream” Detached 225 70% longer than they expect. House From National Association of Realtors, 2015 81% These results track, almost precisely, 90 89 60% the data from the survey for all buyers Ultimately, the issue of home-ownership 88 86 50% relates to the quality of community 86 life, particularly for middle class 84 families. This is critical, because the 84 40% vast majority of millennials intend to 82 81 get married and have children, although 80 30% they will tend to do this later in life than 80 earlier generations. 78 20% This suggests that there will be a renewed demand for houses in areas 76 10% that have many homeowners. Families 74 generally do best in such areas. After Base Age 21+ Gen x 0% all, homeowners naturally have a Total population Boomers Home Bank Deposits Pension Stocks & Other Business Misc. much greater financial stake in their & Other Liquid Accounts Securities Equity & Other Millennials Silent Gen 226 Assets Real Estate neighborhoods than renters do. They Source: Merrill Lynch – Age Wave, 2014

9.4% 5.5% 7.8% 25.4% 50.3% 1.6% Top 1%

30.1% 6.8% 20.6% 14.9% 25.6% 2% BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 47 Next 19%

66.6% 5.9% 14.2% 3.1% 8.9% 1.3% Middle 60%

150% 140 % 130% 120% 110 % Defining Attributes of the Middle Class Figure 57 100% 90% 80% 70% Being able to save money 85 60% for the future 50% 2 011 2012 2013 2010 2001 2002 2007 2004 2005 2003 2008 2006 2000 2009 1974 1981 1991 1976 1978 1975 1979 1977 1987 1982 1997 1992 1994 1984 1986 1993 1995 1985 1998 1980 1983 1988 1989 1996 1999 1990 Being able to own your Source: BLS own home 76

90 89 60% 88 86 50% 86 84 84 40% 82 81 80 30% 80

78 20% 76

9.4% 5.5% 7.8% 25.4% 50.3% 1.6% Top 1%

30.1% 6.8% 20.6% 14.9% 25.6% 2% Next 19%

66.6% 5.9% 14.2% 3.1% 8.9% 1.3% Middle 60%

150% 140 % of church attendance and volunteerism 227 130% among homeowners. 120% Research suggests that homeowners 110 % are more satisfied than renters with Defining Attributes of the Middle Class Figure 57 100% 90% their lives, are less exposed to crime and 80% are more supportive of parks. Research 70% published by Habitat for Humanity shows, Being able to save money 85 60% perhaps most important of all, the many for the future 50% 2 011 2012 2013 2010 2001 2007 2002 2004 2005 2003 2008 2006 2009 2000 1974 1981 1976 1991 1978 1975 1979 1977 1987 1982 1997 1992 1994 1984 1986 1985 1993 1995 1980 1998

1983 1988 1989 advantages for children associated with 1996 1999 1990 Being able to own your 76 Source: BLS homeownership versus renting. These own home include better educational performance and better prospects for income, as Being able to afford college 69 also participate in elections much more well less of a tendency to become single Having enough money to sometimes frequently than renters. One study parents or to be on welfare.228 buy things you’d like to have, even 68 Figure 60 if you don’t absolutely need them found that 77 percent of homeowners House Purchase:had at some Under point votedAge in35 local Redefining Urban Policy Having enough money for 62 elections, compared with 52 percent vacation travel 2014-2015 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION of renters. About 38 percent of Ultimately, urban policy should Being able to buy a new car OF REALTORS be about choices driven by consumer from time to time 60 homeowners knew the name of their local schoolOther board representative, preferences. People should be allowed, Multi-Unit compared4% with only 20 percent of renters. as much as is feasible and economically 0 18 54 72 90 7% 36 The study also showed a higher incidence sustainable, to live where they please, Townhouse Source: Tom Breen, “UConn/Hartford Courant Poll: Middle Class Dream Persists, 8% Though Harder to Attain,” UConn Today, February 11, 2013, How Millennials View Marriage and Children http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2013/02/uconnhartford-courant-poll-middle-class-dream-persists-though-harder-to-attain/. (% SAYING THEY . . . ) Figure 60

Do you want to get married? Do you want to have children?

5 7

Detached 19 25 House Want From National Association of Realtors, 2015 81% Not sure

Don’t want 70 74

Based on ages 18-29, unmarried and without children, n=305

Source: Pew Research Center

48 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY

Figure 54 Emissions increases caused by Net Domestic Migration from California Versus CARB 2020 Reduction Target from 2000–2004 Levels (tons of CO2e per annum)

50,000,000

40,000,000 41,714,614 Net CO2e 30,000,000 Annual Emissions Increase from 20,000,000 California Domestic Migration Losses since 1990 10,000,000

-10,000,000 CARB Scoping -20,000,000 Plan Reduction Objective from -30,000,000 2000–2004 Average State Emission Levels -42,000,000 -40,000,000

-50,000,000 whether in core cities, suburbs or actually pine to live in the dense elsewhere. As shown above, the notion environments of places like Prague, that development be “steered” into ever and away from their more mobile denser pockets runs counter to the automobile-oriented communities. wishes of the vast majority. 229 And to be sure, Prague is a wonderful Moreover, the attempt to force a place to visit, but it’s doubtful that particular lifestyle on all can have very most American families would like to expensive consequences, not only in live in the 70 square meter (753 square respect to housing affordability, but in feet) apartments that accommodate the respect to economic equity. Thomas average household in that city.234 Piketty, the French economist, recently In the long run, to be both socially described the extent to which inequality and demographically sustainable, the in 20 nations has deteriorated in recent city needs to embrace both its urban decades, erasing the hard earned and suburban geographies, playing not progress of previous years in the earlier part of the twentieth century.230 Matthew People should be allowed, as Rognlie of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology examined Piketty's ground- much as is feasible and economically breaking research on rising inequality and concluded that much of the observed sustainable, to live where they inequality is from redistribution of please, whether in core cities, housing wealth away from the middle- class.231;232 Rognlie concluded that much suburbs or elsewhere. of this was due to land regulation, and suggested the need to expand the only to the wealthy, the young, and the housing supply and reexamine the land very poor, but also to families. A society use regulation that he associates with the that wants to replace itself needs to loss of middle-class wealth. pay attention to the needs of suburban families as well as to those of inner city Towards a 'Policy Pluralism' dwellers. As Frederick Law Olmstead, the creator of Central Park, once Rather than impose one solitary ideal, remarked: “No great town can long we should embrace what Robert Fishman exist without great suburbs.”235 described nearly three decades ago as an For most middle and working “urban pluralism” that encompasses the class families, the goal is to achieve city center, close-in suburbs, new fringe residence in a small home in a modest 233 developments and exurbs. neighborhood, whether in a suburb or Some densification will, of course, a city, where children can be raised occur, due to changing demographics, and also where—of increasing escalating land costs and, sadly, slower importance—seniors can grow old income growth. But it is absurd to amidst familiar places and faces. suggest, as does urbanist author Roberta Rather than insist on one form of Brandes Gratz, that most Americans urbanism, we need to support the idea

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 49 that a metropolis’ heart exists where its people choose to settle. “After all is said and done, he—the citizen—is really the city," Frank Lloyd Wright suggested. “The city is going wherever he goes."236 To succeed, planners and politicians need to listen to people’s aspirations and help them accomplish that goal in a responsible manner. Such a consumer-based approach can be messy, and will need to be constrained by considerations of the common good and the environment. But a new approach to urbanism clearly is desperately needed: one that sees people and families not as assets or digits to be moved around and shaped by their betters, but as the fundamental element that defines a city's essence, and provides its ultimate purpose.

50 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY SIDEBAR: BEST CITIES FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES

Our Best Cities for Middle-Class Our Best Cities for Middle Class Families Index ranks all of the 106 US Families rankings are based on three metropolitan areas with populations of equally-weighted categories of metrics: more than 500,000 in 2014. • Median family income adjusted To create these rankings, we didn't for cost of living just look at conditions across the board. • Economic opportunity, with a We also focused on those factors that focus on middle class jobs are illustrative of current and future • Family friendliness, determined trends: income, current housing prices, by several quality of life and migration data. This approach, metrics for school age children rather than leading us to the best places and parents for families and careers in years past, revealed those places that may provide Final Rankings the best opportunities in the future. As a result of our broader outlook, Overall, our Best Cities index our findings are somewhat opposite of balances the economic costs and quality many “best places” rankings. Studies of life issues that matter to middle class such as Monocle or the Economist families. When we integrate our three Intelligence Unit are oriented to big categories a very interesting picture executives living abroad, and have little emerges. Notably, the best rated cities room for cost considerations. Those tend to be smaller. The three most rankings generally favor high-cost highly rated, Des Moines, Madison cities such as Melbourne or Vancouver, and Albany, all have populations of and cities, like Vienna and Helsinki in less than 1,000,000. Among our top 10 European nations with low birthrates.1 metropolitan areas for families there are Nor does our list calculate which five that are larger than this, but only places are best for older populations. two—Washington (including both its In many cases, people in West Coast surrounding suburbs and the largely and the Northeastern cities have child-free District) and Minneapolis-St. measurably better health, and they live Paul—are among the nation's 20 largest longer. But this is not where people, and metropolitan areas. particularly families, are moving. Low Our bottom ten includes two of the costs, the availability of more middle media's favorite cities, New York and class jobs, and shorter commute times Los Angeles, which are also the largest are driving young families to places that metropolitan areas in the nation. There are becoming the new nurseries of the are three additional large metropolitan nation.2 These families would have to pay areas in the bottom 10: Miami, and the exceedingly high costs to enter the Riverside-San Bernardino, among Bay Area, New York or even Seattle or the top 10 and top 20 most populous Portland real estate market. cities in the nation respectively, and Las Vegas, which has a population of more than 1,000,000. It seems what we usually see as “fun cities”—New York,

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 51 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Table E.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Table E.2

Median Family Middle Income Change in Long Term Median Family Middle Income Change in Long Term Income: Increase Jobs: % of Labor Middle Income Unemployment Income: Increase Jobs: % of Labor Middle Income Unemployment Metropolitan Area Rank 1999-2013 Market: 2014 Jobs: 2004-14 Rate: 2005-2014 Metropolitan Area Rank 1999-2013 Market: 2014 Jobs: 2004-14 Rate: 2005-2014

Salt Lake City, UT 1 28 2 5 7 Worcester, MA-CT 54 36 70 59 60 Provo, UT 2 55 17 2 5 Grand Rapids, MI 55 47 34 51 74 Austin, TX 3 75 11 1 12 Indianapolis. IN 56 82 42 30 50 Des Moines, IA 4 4 23 17 3 St. Louis,, MO-IL 57 26 46 82 66 Ogden, UT 5 8 19 19 9 Scranton, PA 58 9 59 92 79 Baton Rouge, LA 6 13 3 14 31 Syracuse, NY 59 11 77 99 46 Oklahoma City, OK 7 24 21 15 4 Rochester, NY 60 50 47 87 37 San Antonio, TX 8 41 50 6 19 Bridgeport-Stamford, CT, 61 30 88 72 34 Houston, TX 9 87 9 3 27 Tucson, AZ 62 76 60 43 45 Fayetteville, AR-MO 10 15 53 24 10 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 63 37 31 81 70 Omaha, NE-IA 11 29 22 40 1 Akron, OH 64 34 26 95 73 Madison, WI 12 33 10 33 6 Augusta, GA-SC 65 56 24 62 85 Tulsa, OK 13 39 5 29 11 McAllen, TX 66 3 103 8 100 Pittsburgh, PA 14 1 28 64 32 Buffalo, NY 67 21 84 93 56 Charleston, SC 15 12 33 13 52 Columbus, OH 68 74 74 57 38 Raleigh, NC 16 72 54 4 28 Lakeland, FL 69 57 39 56 92 Seattle, WA 17 42 36 11 35 San Francisco-Oakland, CA 70 83 79 32 51 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 18 6 57 53 13 Cleveland, OH 71 58 41 98 43 Albany, NY 19 2 18 73 20 Springfield, MA 72 67 76 54 67 Colorado Springs, CO 20 66 1 27 59 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 73 64 55 80 62 Baltimore, MD 21 7 25 45 26 Jackson, MS 74 70 64 70 53 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 22 19 62 44 8 Cape Coral, FL 75 52 96 42 84 Denver, CO 23 44 27 18 33 Milwaukee,WI 76 88 68 79 47 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 24 93 15 7 25 Orlando, FL 77 89 99 16 65 Portland, ME 25 5 69 71 14 New Haven CT 78 65 83 85 78 Durham, NC 26 71 13 20 23 San Diego, CA 79 99 35 55 71 Richmond, VA 27 45 14 37 17 New Orleans. LA 80 53 73 105 40 Little Rock, AR 28 48 8 46 22 Melbourne, FL 81 49 80 100 82 Boise, ID 29 51 63 22 24 Atlanta, GA 82 100 56 41 77 Harrisburg, PA 30 10 30 91 18 Winston-Salem, NC 83 86 72 69 80 Nashville, TN 31 68 29 21 36 Sarasota, FL 84 23 97 101 68 Boston, MA-NH 32 32 71 34 21 Daytona Beach, FL 85 40 95 84 89 Birmingham, AL 33 18 6 76 42 San Jose, CA 86 95 100 23 69 El Paso, TX 34 79 12 9 83 Chicago, IL-IN-WI 87 81 75 83 86 Columbia, SC 35 46 7 39 64 Miami, FL 88 98 90 48 54 Knoxville, TN 36 16 49 60 39 Sacramento, CA 89 90 52 67 97 Kansas City, MO-KS 37 43 16 49 44 Providence, RI-MA 90 59 87 96 96 Honolulu, HI 38 92 44 38 2 Oxnard, CA 91 63 94 90 81 Lancaster, PA 39 20 85 75 15 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 92 77 92 86 87 Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC 40 61 4 97 16 Greensboro, NC 93 97 82 77 91 Albuquerque, NM 41 31 66 68 29 Toledo, OH 94 73 78 102 94 Greenville, SC 42 54 32 28 76 New York, NY-NJ-PA 95 103 91 61 57 Louisville, KY-IN 43 25 65 36 72 Youngstown, OH-PA 96 38 89 106 98 Hartford, CT 44 35 45 58 55 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 97 84 93 50 101 Wichita, KS 45 60 37 65 30 Santa Rosa, CA 98 94 98 94 63 Phoenix, AZ 46 78 51 26 41 Dayton, OH 99 96 67 104 88 Spokane, WA 47 27 43 35 90 Detroit, MI 100 85 40 103 102 Jacksonville, FL 48 62 20 47 61 Bakersfield, CA 101 91 102 10 103 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 49 14 61 89 49 Los Angeles, CA 102 106 81 66 95 Chattanooga, TN-GA 50 22 48 78 48 Las Vegas, NV 103 104 106 63 99 Allentown, PA-NJ 51 17 86 52 58 Stockton, CA 104 102 101 88 104 Portland, OR-WA 52 69 58 25 75 Modesto, CA 105 101 104 74 106 Charlotte, NC-SC 53 80 38 12 93 Fresno, CA 106 105 105 31 105

US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25 US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25

52 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Table E.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Table E.2

US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25 US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 53 Miami, Las Vegas, Los Angeles—are not Riverside-San Bernardino and Fresno— so amenable to the new generation of but Los Angeles also did poorly here, young families. ranking #99. Other areas with poor The other cities at the bottom scores included three in Florida—Miami, tend to have large populations that Daytona Beach and Lakeland—while El live under the poverty line. Four are Paso and McAllen in south Texas scored in California's San Joaquin Valley: at the absolute bottom. Many of the Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton and worst performing regions suffer from a Modesto. This low group also includes combination of below average incomes El Paso and McAllen in Texas. and high costs. Even New York, when both earnings and costs are factored, Income Relative to shows up at a poor #70. Cost Of Living Interestingly, some cities may offer a better economic deal to people before In our breakdown of factors that they get to their child raising years. A determined the overall rankings, we New York City controller's report shows looked at median family incomes, that the New York “premium” tends to adjusted for the cost of living. erode by the time workers enter their When we use this adjusted family late 30s. The advantages of a central income metric, we see that many top location may jump start careers by performers—that is, cities that give providing key contacts and experiences, a lot of proverbial bang for the bucks but this fades later on. “The New York their residents earn—are in ultra-high metro area is always sucking people in income/ high cost regions. Cities that and spitting them out,” notes Bernard rank well on this income list in spite of Weinstein, an economist at Southern their high costs include several in the Methodist University. “I’ve watched this Northeast: Washington DC, Bridgeport cycle of all these kids moving to New and Boston all make the top 10 for York, and ten years later moving back adjusted median family income. Other to Dallas. You discover that you can find high income/ high cost cities that employment in Dallas or Atlanta at a topped this adjusted income list were roughly comparable salary, but in real San Jose and San Francisco. terms it’s a boost because the cost A different phenomena could be of living is much lower.”3 seen in cities that landed in the top 15 due to average or below average costs Economic Opportunity paired with reasonable incomes: Albany, Madison, Des Moines, and Raleigh fall Being located in a place with an into that category. average high income can, of course, be On the other end of the adjusted a positive, but sometimes the resulting income spectrum, California cities gains accrue to only a relatively small are also prominent, including five of portion of the population. In order the bottom ten. Many of these areas to focus on middle class economic are inland— Bakersfield, Modesto, opportunity, we looked at three key

54 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY categories: increases in median family Riverside-San Bernardino, Bakersfield, income, percentage of middle class jobs in Stockton, Modesto and Fresno. Also in the labor market, and growth in such jobs. the bottom 10 are two rustbelt metros, Our definition of middle class jobs Dayton and Detroit. The other city at the includes occupations paying 67-200 bottom is Las Vegas, an area prone to percent of the national median hourly boom-bust cycles with an economy that wage. This group of 574 job types has long been tied closely to California's. account for 60 percent of the nation’s total employment. The share of middle Family Friendliness class jobs in each of the 106 metropolitan areas varies, ranging from 66 percent of This might be considered the most all jobs in Colorado Springs, to a low of subjective of our categories, but in some 49 percent in Las Vegas. ways it may be the most persuasive. Our Our list of highest ranking cities rankings on overall family friendliness for economic opportunity is dominated include such things as commute times, by areas that have also experienced a major concern of young parents, considerable economic growth. The best the cost of a single family house (the performer, Salt Lake, is one of three overwhelming choice of families) Utah areas in that list's top ten, which adjusted for income, crowding (number also includes Provo and Ogden. In Utah, of rooms per person), and finally, the net economic growth has been expansive, migration of people aged 5-17 over the 4 including many technology operations 2005-2009 period. that landed there after leaving California, It is critical to understand that many a strong manufacturing base, and an of the areas that do best on this list are expanding business and financial service not always ranked by others as “best sector. All these fields tend to pay above cities” for children, and other lists show average wages, although these Utahans admiration for places that didn't meet are unlikely to make the mega-salaries our standards. For example, upscale of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs or Wall suburbs located around such as places Street investment bankers. as Boston (Newton) and San Francisco Other strong performers in (Palo Alto) are no doubt excellent places economic opportunity include three to raise children if you bought years ago, Texas cities: Houston, Austin and San come from a wealthy family or became Antonio. The top ten list is rounded rich in the tech business. Our study out by four diverse economies: Des ended up giving the best ratings largely Moines, Fayetteville (Arkansas-Missouri), to some smaller cities, as well as to some 5 Oklahoma City and Baton Rouge. suburban areas. In contrast, the bottom of the One of the key components of this economic opportunity list is dominated ranking is commute time. Commutes by some of those areas hardest hit in the tend to be much shorter in small cities. last recession. Seven are in California, Average one-way commute times are including Los Angeles, Santa Rosa just under 20 minutes in Wichita (the and the inland metropolitan areas of lowest, at 18.4 minutes), and in Provo,

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 55 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: FAMILY FRIENDLINESS Table F.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: FAMILY FRIENDLINESS Table F.2

Detached House Detached House 5-17 Migration: Journey to Work Price to Income 5-17 Migration: Journey to Work Price to Income Metropolitan Area Rank Rooms: 2013 2005-2009 Time : 2013 Ratio: 2014 Metropolitan Area Rank Rooms: 2013 2005-2009 Time : 2013 Ratio: 2014

Fayetteville, AR-MO 1 84 1 5 30 Portland, ME 54 19 78 42 76 Scranton, PA 2 12 23 15 4 Nashville, TN 55 48 19 79 50 Toledo, OH 3 21 43 6 3 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 56 26 69 62 45 Syracuse, NY 4 14 39 10 7 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 57 42 88 58 32 Melbourne, FL 5 9 6 41 34 Charleston, SC 58 25 76 49 79 Youngstown, OH-PA 6 8 59 13 1 Allentown, PA-NJ 59 20 28 86 48 Colorado Springs, CO 7 30 3 19 78 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 60 46 54 76 36 Wichita, KS 8 62 51 1 9 Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC 61 16 94 54 63 Des Moines, IA 9 69 15 2 25 Jackson, MS 62 76 49 56 44 Columbia, SC 10 38 5 52 27 Augusta, GA-SC 63 40 103 47 16 Greenville, SC 11 41 17 18 43 Las Vegas, NV 64 83 16 53 81 Dayton, OH 12 11 71 12 14 Atlanta, GA 65 47 10 98 33 Greensboro, NC 13 31 24 24 31 Tucson, AZ 66 70 47 60 66 Rochester, NY 14 27 85 8 8 New Haven CT 67 57 64 51 86 Boise, ID 15 74 9 9 49 Milwaukee,WI 68 53 95 46 64 Buffalo, NY 16 15 92 7 10 San Antonio, TX 69 94 8 63 54 Omaha, NE-IA 17 51 74 3 20 Phoenix, AZ 70 73 29 68 74 Akron, OH 18 4 68 40 5 Salt Lake City, UT 71 90 46 21 83 Tulsa, OK 19 68 36 11 28 Portland, OR-WA 72 61 34 66 88 Columbus, OH 20 22 37 39 26 Provo, UT 73 98 35 4 84 Madison, WI 21 6 70 14 61 Baton Rouge, LA 74 81 25 88 42 Harrisburg, PA 22 13 82 25 15 Detroit, MI 75 60 99 83 2 Kansas City, MO-KS 23 39 44 35 22 Denver, CO 76 29 48 78 90 Raleigh, NC 24 37 7 65 47 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 77 86 27 85 52 Chattanooga, TN-GA 25 54 30 37 21 Providence, RI-MA 78 71 79 70 80 Little Rock, AR 26 65 33 31 17 Sacramento, CA 79 85 32 72 89 Knoxville, TN 27 34 41 36 35 Orlando, FL 80 64 81 84 71 Spokane, WA 28 23 62 16 59 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 81 35 89 94 70 Louisville, KY-IN 29 36 45 45 19 Baltimore, MD 82 10 61 102 77 Lancaster, PA 30 63 26 28 37 Worcester, MA-CT 83 78 75 91 75 Cape Coral, FL 31 24 2 89 68 Houston, TX 84 95 18 96 67 Durham, NC 32 3 83 27 46 Bakersfield, CA 85 103 53 43 82 Daytona Beach, FL 33 18 21 50 58 Seattle, WA 86 59 73 92 94 Albany, NY 34 32 63 26 39 Fresno, CA 87 100 96 22 91 Oklahoma City, OK 35 79 22 30 24 El Paso, TX 88 104 91 38 60 Grand Rapids, MI 36 58 77 23 18 Santa Rosa, CA 89 77 84 48 101 Sarasota, FL 37 2 55 32 85 McAllen, TX 90 106 40 17 41 Winston-Salem, NC 38 49 66 34 29 Modesto, CA 91 96 60 87 87 Cleveland, OH 39 7 87 61 6 Bridgeport-Stamford, CT 92 55 93 97 97 Indianapolis. IN 40 45 42 57 23 Chicago, IL-IN-WI 93 82 97 101 73 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 41 28 67 59 13 Boston, MA-NH 94 66 86 99 95 Pittsburgh, PA 42 5 50 77 11 Oxnard, CA 95 89 72 69 99 Ogden, UT 43 88 14 20 55 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 96 33 57 105 92 Richmond, VA 44 1 52 64 69 New Orleans. LA 97 56 106 80 51 Lakeland, FL 45 67 12 71 40 Miami, FL 98 91 102 90 98 Albuquerque, NM 46 75 31 33 62 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 99 101 13 103 96 Charlotte, NC-SC 47 50 11 73 65 San Diego, CA 100 87 90 55 102 Hartford, CT 48 52 58 44 53 Stockton, CA 101 99 65 104 93 Jacksonville, FL 49 44 20 75 56 San Jose, CA 102 97 98 82 106 Springfield, MA 50 72 56 29 57 New York, NY-NJ-PA 103 92 100 106 100 Austin, TX 51 80 4 74 72 San Francisco-Oakland, CA 104 93 101 100 104 Birmingham, AL 52 17 38 81 38 Los Angeles, CA 105 102 104 95 103 St. Louis,, MO-IL 53 43 80 67 12 Honolulu, HI 106 105 105 93 105

*Based on four one-year samples from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey *Based on four one-year samples from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey

56 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: FAMILY FRIENDLINESS Table F.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: FAMILY FRIENDLINESS Table F.2

*Based on four one-year samples from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey *Based on four one-year samples from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 57 Omaha, Des Moines and Fayetteville. and Akron. But other more economically Commutes in most other metropolitan vibrant heartland cities such as Omaha, areas (including Los Angeles) range from Madison, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh 20 minutes to 28 minutes.6 The longest placed high. The bottom rungs were commute times are in metropolitan areas overwhelmingly seen in California, with larger transit market shares, because which accounts for six of the bottom commuting by transit takes about twice as ten of our 106 metropolitan areas, with long as by automobile. New York's average San Jose at the bottom, followed by commute is 34 minutes each way, while Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles Washington's is 32.3 minutes. Chicago, and San Diego. Los Angeles has become San Francisco and Boston also are among very unaffordable, despite generally low the worst ten for commute times, due to income growth.8 their high transit market shares. Finally, we looked at the migration Some places in the bottom ten of people aged 5 to 17, which tells us how in commuting time are part of larger people are “voting with their feet.” The metropolitan areas; Stockton (San biggest percentage gain in migration Francisco Bay area), Riverside-San of school-age children has been in Bernardino (Los Angeles area) and Fayetteville, Arkansas-Missouri, which Baltimore (Washington area). Bridgeport reported growth of 2.5 percent over the is also in the bottom ten, along with 2005-2009 period. Other big gainers were Atlanta and its less-than-optimum Cape Coral, Florida; Colorado Springs; freeway and arterial street system. and Columbia, South Carolina; the Another key component is home next five included Melbourne, Florida; buying. In this era of elevated housing Raleigh; San Antonio; Boise; and Atlanta. prices and generally depressed incomes, In the future this process will be the issue of cost has become paramount, accelerated by the growing shift of and could become even more important immigrants (who tend to have more if interest rates rise.7 Due to the vast children) to both suburbs and smaller preference of families for single family cities, a trend well documented by the houses, we focused on the relative cost Pew Foundation. More immigrants of such a dwelling. Our calculations are moved to metropolitan areas like based on current prices, because that is Minneapolis, Baltimore and Charlotte what would be most relevant to younger than to Los Angeles between 2000 and families; for older households bought 2013. Atlanta and Seattle, largely in their years ago, the higher prices may seem lower cost suburbs, saw an increase in something of a boon (unless they want immigrants during this period far their children to buy or even rent close by). greater than Chicago, San Francisco, Overall, the closest relationships Boston, or Los Angeles did.The between house price and income we immigrant population doubled or more saw were in the economically depressed in nine mostly southeastern metro cities of the Midwest and the Northeast. areas: Cape Coral, Knoxville, Nashville, Youngstown was the most affordable, Charlotte, Louisville, Charleston, Raleigh, followed by Detroit, Toledo, Scranton Scranton, and Indianapolis.9

58 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY What areas are families increasingly City, Raleigh, Omaha, Oklahoma City, avoiding? California sits at the bottom of Salt Lake and Des Moines, each of the list of places where families choose to which offer some surprising amenities move, with three of the ten areas with the that are easily accessible to residents of lowest migration of children: Los Angeles, the surrounding region.10 Getting from San Francisco and San Jose. These high Overland Park to downtown Kansas priced areas are joined by other pricey City takes 20 minutes without traffic cities like Honolulu and New York. Any congestion, compared to a similar trip future demography of America will likely from White Plains, in Westchester reflect these movements, which will make County, New York, to Manhattan, or the South and Intermountain West more from Thousand Oaks to downtown Los family-centric, while the Northeast and Angeles; each of those would take at least the West Coast, for the most part will twice as long. become less so. At the same time, many suburbs and 'second tier' cities have been boosting their The Question Of Amenities cultural offerings. There are numerous cultural institutions today in suburbs So why do families pick different like the Woodlands outside Houston, in places than those that are generally California's Orange County, in areas considered hotbeds of 'the creative outside of Atlanta, and on the western class'? One answer has to do with which periphery of Chicago.11 amenities are valuable to different people To be sure, no one will mistake at different stages of life. San Francisco, downtown Omaha for Manhattan or New York, and Los Angeles offer much San Francisco. But for most families, to those who want to enjoy the arts, fine particularly those without lots of money, dining and bracing street scenes. But many there is also no comparison in terms of of the things that appeal to those focused housing costs or ease of getting around. on urban culture do not fulfill the needs Our great urban centers and elite regions of families who seek family-oriented will continue to attract some of the attractions like farmer’s markets, bike unattached young, the restless, and the trails and Fourth of July parades. well-heeled for the foreseeable future.12 Some of the more media-favored Increasingly, though, America’s children cities seem over-anxious to embrace will be raised elsewhere, in places perhaps a future of singles. This is especially less celebrated but more amenable to the illustrated by the constraint of needs of families. the housing choices that families overwhelmingly prefer. But, for the most part, the better rated cities in our rankings have continued to maintain their attractiveness to families while expanding their more urban options. Downtown areas are undergoing improvement in places such as Kansas

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 59 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: SCORES IN RANK ORDER Table A.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: SCORES IN RANK ORDER Table A.2

COLI Adjusted Median Economic Family Overall COLI Adjusted Median Economic Family Overall Metropolitan Area Rank Family Income Opportunity Friendliness Score Metropolitan Area Rank Family Income Opportunity Friendliness Score

Des Moines, IA 1 0.806 0.775 0.848 0.810 Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC 54 0.562 0.609 0.738 0.810 Madison, WI 2 0.833 0.712 0.808 0.785 Chattanooga, TN-GA 55 0.504 0.593 0.806 0.785 Albany, NY 3 0.847 0.684 0.796 0.775 Scranton, PA 56 0.460 0.575 0.867 0.775 Austin, TX 4 0.756 0.796 0.758 0.770 Charlotte, NC-SC 57 0.527 0.586 0.765 0.770 Raleigh, NC 5 0.786 0.701 0.808 0.765 Greenville, SC 58 0.440 0.605 0.832 0.765 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 6 0.851 0.684 0.751 0.762 Milwaukee,WI 59 0.642 0.508 0.725 0.762 Hartfort, CT 7 0.912 0.600 0.762 0.758 Springfield, MA 60 0.568 0.546 0.759 0.758 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 8 1.000 0.678 0.573 0.750 Knoxville, TN 61 0.439 0.626 0.801 0.750 Omaha, NE-IA 9 0.707 0.713 0.821 0.747 Houston, TX 62 0.504 0.725 0.636 0.747 Ogden, UT 10 0.684 0.755 0.774 0.737 Jacksonville, FL 63 0.501 0.596 0.760 0.737 Salt Lake City, UT 11 0.626 0.844 0.720 0.730 Spokane, WA 64 0.434 0.596 0.800 0.730 Kansas City, MO-KS 12 0.725 0.624 0.808 0.719 New Haven, CT 65 0.593 0.504 0.727 0.719 Pittsburg, PA 13 0.669 0.702 0.777 0.716 Toledo, OH 66 0.507 0.432 0.865 0.716 Durham, NC 14 0.685 0.661 0.797 0.714 San Jose, CA 67 0.935 0.477 0.388 0.714 Colorado Springs, CO 15 0.603 0.682 0.856 0.713 Atlanta, GA 68 0.571 0.497 0.731 0.713 Harrisburg, PA 16 0.677 0.644 0.808 0.710 Providence, RI-MA 69 0.639 0.469 0.688 0.710 Fayetteville, AR-MO 17 0.518 0.720 0.880 0.706 Albuquerque, NM 70 0.408 0.607 0.767 0.706 Baltimore, MD 18 0.775 0.678 0.658 0.704 Oxnard, CA 71 0.720 0.465 0.577 0.704 Boston, MA-NH 19 0.890 0.642 0.578 0.703 San Francisco-Oakland, CA 72 0.832 0.548 0.366 0.703 Richmond, VA 20 0.675 0.661 0.770 0.702 Augusta, GA-SC 73 0.444 0.561 0.733 0.702 Bridgeport-Stamford, CT 21 0.929 0.572 0.584 0.695 Phoenix, AZ 74 0.417 0.596 0.723 0.695 Provo, UT 22 0.546 0.827 0.710 0.694 Melbourne, FL 75 0.361 0.498 0.858 0.694 Seattle, WA 23 0.768 0.685 0.625 0.693 Dayton, OH 76 0.453 0.402 0.832 0.693 Denver, CO 24 0.703 0.670 0.699 0.691 Winston-Salem, NC 77 0.402 0.487 0.783 0.691 Oklahoma City, OK 25 0.532 0.748 0.792 0.691 Sacramento, CA 78 0.515 0.475 0.679 0.691 St. Louis, MO-IL 26 0.739 0.576 0.754 0.690 Youngstown, OH-PA 79 0.380 0.426 0.856 0.690 Akron, OH 27 0.675 0.563 0.820 0.686 Sarasota, FL 80 0.391 0.481 0.784 0.686 Syracuse, NY 28 0.615 0.573 0.860 0.683 Greensboro, NC 81 0.384 0.433 0.831 0.683 Portland, ME 29 0.628 0.662 0.753 0.681 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 82 0.320 0.567 0.744 0.681 Wichita, KS 30 0.585 0.599 0.850 0.678 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 83 0.425 0.454 0.751 0.678 Louisville, KY-IN 31 0.629 0.604 0.799 0.677 Detroit, MI 84 0.544 0.383 0.702 0.677 Charleston, SC 32 0.582 0.702 0.746 0.676 Chicago, IL-IN-WI 85 0.572 0.476 0.580 0.676 Tulsa, OK 33 0.499 0.707 0.813 0.673 Jackson, MS 86 0.349 0.543 0.734 0.673 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 34 0.693 0.545 0.778 0.672 Cape Coral, FL 87 0.316 0.509 0.798 0.672 Columbus, OH 35 0.646 0.554 0.812 0.671 Tucson, AZ 88 0.291 0.569 0.730 0.671 Baton Rouge, LA 36 0.534 0.751 0.703 0.663 Lakeland, FL 89 0.225 0.552 0.767 0.663 Columbia, SC 37 0.517 0.627 0.844 0.663 Orlando, FL 90 0.308 0.507 0.678 0.663 Cleveland, OH 38 0.656 0.548 0.783 0.662 Daytona Beach, FL 91 0.198 0.479 0.797 0.662 Little Rock, AR 39 0.524 0.656 0.802 0.660 Honolulu, HI 92 0.596 0.613 0.258 0.660 Nashville, TN 40 0.580 0.644 0.753 0.659 Santa Rosa, CA 93 0.440 0.413 0.601 0.659 Lancaster, PA 41 0.566 0.610 0.798 0.658 New Orleans. LA 94 0.385 0.499 0.562 0.658 Buffalo, NY 42 0.596 0.555 0.822 0.658 San Diego, CA 95 0.387 0.501 0.522 0.658 Rochester, NY 43 0.559 0.573 0.826 0.652 El Paso, TX 96 0.099 0.636 0.613 0.652 Boise, ID 44 0.463 0.651 0.824 0.646 Las Vegas, NV 97 0.337 0.222 0.733 0.646 Birmingham, AL 45 0.543 0.637 0.757 0.646 New York, NY-NJ-PA 98 0.480 0.480 0.427 0.646 Grand Rapids, MI 46 0.567 0.583 0.786 0.645 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 99 0.284 0.284 0.414 0.645 San Antonio, TX 47 0.475 0.731 0.723 0.643 Bakersfield, CA 100 0.207 0.207 0.360 0.643 Indianapolis. IN 48 0.558 0.580 0.782 0.640 Miami, FL 101 0.190 0.190 0.476 0.640 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 49 0.562 0.663 0.693 0.639 McAllen, TX 102 0.000 0.000 0.555 0.639 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 50 0.657 0.593 0.668 0.639 Modesto, CA 103 0.267 0.267 0.191 0.639 Portland, OR-WA 51 0.619 0.587 0 .711 0.639 Stockton, CA 104 0.290 0.290 0.201 0.639 Worcester, MA-CT 52 0.679 0.585 0.651 0.638 Los Angeles, CA 105 0.265 0.265 0.356 0.638 Allentown, PA-NJ 53 0.577 0.588 0.745 0.637 Fresno, CA 106 0 .118 0 .118 0.188 0.637

US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25 US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25

60 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: SCORES IN RANK ORDER Table A.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: SCORES IN RANK ORDER Table A.2

US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25 US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 61 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ALPHABETICAL SCORES Table B.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ALPHABETICAL SCORES Table B.2

Akron, OH 27 0.675 0.563 0.820 0.686 McAllen, TX 102 0.000 0.555 0.596 0.384 Albany, NY 3 0.847 0.684 0.796 0.775 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 83 0.425 0.454 0.751 0.543 Albuquerque, NM 70 0.408 0.607 0.767 0.594 Miami, FL 101 0.190 0.476 0.529 0.398 Allentown, PA-NJ 53 0.577 0.588 0.745 0.637 Milwaukee, WI 59 0.642 0.508 0.725 0.625 Atlanta, GA 68 0.571 0.497 0.731 0.600 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 6 0.851 0.684 0.751 0.762 Auqusta, GA-SC 73 0.444 0.561 0.733 0.580 Modesto, CA 103 0.267 0.191 0.584 0.348 Austin, TX 4 0.756 0.796 0.758 0.770 Nashville, TN 40 0.580 0.644 0.753 0.659 Bakersfield, CA 100 0.207 0.360 0.634 0.400 New Haven, CT 65 0.593 0.504 0.727 0.608 Baltimore, MD 18 0.775 0.678 0.658 0.704 New Orleans, LA 94 0.385 0.499 0.562 0.482 Baton Rouge, LA 36 0.534 0.751 0.703 0.663 New York, NY-NJ-PA 98 0.480 0.427 0.383 0.430 Birmingham, AL 45 0.543 0.637 0.757 0.646 Sarasota, Fl 80 0.391 0.481 0.784 0.552 Boise. ID 44 0.463 0.651 0.824 0.646 Ogden, UT 10 0.684 0.755 0.774 0.737 Boston, MA-NH 19 0.890 0.642 0.578 0.703 Oklahoma City, OK 25 0.532 0.748 0.792 0.691 Bridgeport-Stamford, CT 21 0.929 0.572 0.584 0.695 Omaha, NE-IA 9 0.707 0.713 0.821 0.747 Buffalo, NY 42 0.596 0.555 0.822 0.658 Orlando, FL 90 0.308 0.507 0.678 0.498 Cape Coral, FL 87 0.316 0.509 0.798 0.541 Oxnard, CA 71 0.720 0.465 0.577 0.587 Charleston, SC 32 0.582 0.702 0.746 0.676 Melbourne, FL 75 0.361 0.498 0.858 0.573 Charlotte, NC-SC 57 0.527 0.586 0.765 0.626 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 50 0.657 0.593 0.668 0.639 Chattanooga, TN-GA 55 0.504 0.593 0.806 0.634 Phoenix, AZ 74 0.417 0.596 0.723 0.579 Chicago, IL-IN-WI 85 0.572 0.476 0.580 0.543 Pittsburgh, PA 13 0.669 0.702 0.777 0.716 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 34 0.693 0.545 0.778 0.672 Portland, ME 29 0.628 0.662 0.753 0.681 Cleveland, OH 38 0.656 0.548 0.783 0.662 Portland, OR-WA 51 0.619 0.587 0 .711 0.639 Colorado Springs, CO 15 0.603 0.682 0.856 0.713 Providence, RI-MA 69 0.639 0.469 0.688 0.598 Columbia, SC 37 0.517 0.627 0.844 0.663 Provo, UT 22 0.546 0.827 0.710 0.694 Columbus, OH 35 0.646 0.554 0.812 0.671 Raleigh, NC 5 0.786 0.701 0.808 0.765 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 49 0.562 0.663 0.693 0.639 Richmond, VA 20 0.675 0.661 0.770 0.702 Dayton, OH 76 0.453 0.402 0.832 0.562 Riverside-San Bernadino, CA 99 0.284 0.414 0.526 0.408 Daytona Beach, FL 91 0.198 0.479 0.797 0.491 Rochester, NY 43 0.559 0.573 0.826 0.652 Denver, CO 24 0.703 0.670 0.699 0.691 Sacramento, CA 078 0.515 0.475 0.679 0.556 Des Moines, IA 1 0.806 0.775 0.848 0.810 St. Louis, MO-IL 26 0.739 0.576 0.754 0.690 Detroit, MI 84 0.544 0.383 0.702 0.543 Salt Lake City, UT 11 0.626 0.844 0.720 0.730 Durham, NC 14 0.685 0.661 0.797 0.714 San Antonio, TX 47 0.475 0.731 0.723 0.643 El Paso, TX 96 0.099 0.636 0.613 0.449 San Diego, CA 95 0.387 0.501 0.522 0.470 Fayetteville, AR-MO 17 0.518 0.720 0.880 0.706 San Fransisco-Oakland, CA 72 0.832 0.548 0.366 0.582 Fresno, CA 106 0 .118 0.188 0.617 0.308 San Jose, CA 67 0.935 0.477 0.388 0.600 Grand Rapids, MI 46 0.567 0.583 0.786 0.645 Santa Rosa, CA 93 0.440 0.413 0.601 0.485 Greensboro, NC 81 0.384 0.433 0.831 0.549 Scranton, PA 56 0.460 0.575 0.867 0.634 Greenville, SC 58 0.440 0.605 0.832 0.625 Seattle, WA 23 0.768 0.685 0.625 0.693 Harrisburg, PA 16 0.677 0.644 0.808 0.710 Spokane, WA 64 0.434 0.596 0.800 0.610 Hartford, CT 7 0.912 0.600 0.762 0.758 Springfield, MA 60 0.568 0.546 0.759 0.624 Houston, TX 62 0.504 0.725 0.636 0.621 Stockton, CA 104 0.290 0.201 0.496 0.329 Indianapolis, IN 48 0.558 0.580 0.782 0.640 Syracuse, NY 28 0.615 0.573 0.860 0.683 Jackson, MS 86 0.349 0.543 0.734 0.542 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 82 0.320 0.567 0.744 0.544 Jacksonville, FL 63 0.501 0.596 0.760 0.619 Toledo, OH 66 0.507 0.432 0.865 0.601 Kansas City, MO-KS 12 0.725 0.624 0.808 0.719 Tucson, AZ 88 0.291 0.569 0.730 0.530 Knoxville, TN 61 0.439 0.626 0.801 0.622 Tulsa, OK 33 0.499 0.707 0.813 0.673 Lakeland, FL 89 0.225 0.552 0.767 0.515 Honolulu, HI 92 0.596 0.613 0.258 0.489 Lancaster, PA 41 0.566 0.610 0.798 0.658 Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC 54 0.562 0.609 0.738 0.636 Las Vegas, NV 97 0.337 0.222 0.733 0.431 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 8 1.000 0.678 0.573 0.750 Little Rock, AR 39 0.524 0.656 0.802 0.660 Wichita, KS 30 0.585 0.599 0.850 0.678 Los Angeles, CA 105 0.265 0.356 0.316 0.312 Winston-Salem, NC 77 0.402 0.487 0.783 0.558 Louisville, KY-IN 31 0.629 0.604 0.799 0.677 Worcester, MA-CT 52 0.679 0.585 0.651 0.638 Madison, WI 2 0.833 0.712 0.808 0.785 Youngstown, OH-PA 79 0.380 0.426 0.856 0.554

US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25 US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25 US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25

62 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ALPHABETICAL SCORES Table B.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ALPHABETICAL SCORES Table B.2

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 63 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ALPHABETICAL RANK Table C.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ALPHABETICAL RANK Table C.2

Akron, OH 27 25 64 18 27 McAllen, TX 102 106 66 90 102 Albany, NY 3 7 19 34 3 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 83 80 92 57 83 Albuquerque, NM 70 82 41 46 70 Miami, FL 101 103 88 98 101 Allentown, PA-NJ 53 45 51 59 53 Milwaukee, WI 59 31 76 68 59 Atlanta, GA 68 47 82 65 68 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 6 6 18 56 6 Auqusta, GA-SC 73 75 65 63 73 Modesto, CA 103 98 105 91 103 Austin, TX 4 14 3 51 4 Nashville, TN 40 44 31 55 40 Bakersfield, CA 100 101 101 85 100 New Haven, CT 65 41 78 67 65 Baltimore, MD 18 12 21 82 18 New Orleans, LA 94 86 80 97 94 Baton Rouge, LA 36 58 6 74 36 New York, NY-NJ-PA 98 70 95 103 98 Birmingham, AL 45 57 33 52 45 Sarasota, Fl 80 84 84 37 80 Boise. ID 44 72 29 15 44 Ogden, UT 10 22 5 43 10 Boston, MA-NH 19 5 32 94 19 Oklahoma City, OK 25 59 7 35 25 Bridgeport-Stamford, CT 21 3 61 92 21 Omaha, NE-IA 9 18 11 17 9 Buffalo, NY 42 40 67 16 42 Orlando, FL 90 94 77 80 90 Cape Coral, FL 87 93 75 31 87 Oxnard, CA 71 17 91 95 71 Charleston, SC 32 43 15 58 32 Melbourne, FL 75 89 81 5 75 Charlotte, NC-SC 57 60 53 47 57 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 50 28 49 81 50 Chattanooga, TN-GA 55 66 50 25 55 Phoenix, AZ 74 81 46 70 74 Chicago, IL-IN-WI 85 46 87 93 85 Pittsburgh, PA 13 27 14 42 13 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 34 20 73 41 34 Portland, ME 29 34 25 54 29 Cleveland, OH 38 29 71 39 38 Portland, OR-WA 51 36 52 72 51 Colorado Springs, CO 15 38 20 7 15 Providence, RI-MA 69 32 90 78 69 Columbia, SC 37 63 35 10 37 Provo, UT 22 55 2 73 22 Columbus, OH 35 30 68 20 35 Raleigh, NC 5 11 16 24 5 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 49 52 24 77 49 Richmond, VA 20 26 27 44 20 Dayton, OH 76 74 99 12 76 Riverside-San Bernadino, CA 99 97 97 99 99 Daytona Beach, FL 91 102 85 33 91 Rochester, NY 43 53 60 14 43 Denver, CO 24 19 23 76 24 Sacramento, CA 078 64 89 79 78 Des Moines, IA 1 10 4 9 1 St. Louis, MO-IL 26 15 57 53 26 Detroit, MI 84 56 100 75 84 Salt Lake City, UT 11 35 1 71 11 Durham, NC 14 21 26 32 14 San Antonio, TX 47 71 8 69 47 El Paso, TX 96 105 34 88 96 San Diego, CA 95 85 79 100 95 Fayetteville, AR-MO 17 62 10 1 17 San Fransisco-Oakland, CA 72 9 70 104 72 Fresno, CA 106 104 106 87 106 San Jose, CA 67 2 86 102 67 Grand Rapids, MI 46 49 55 36 46 Santa Rosa, CA 93 76 98 89 93 Greensboro, NC 81 87 93 13 81 Scranton, PA 56 73 58 2 56 Greenville, SC 58 77 42 11 58 Seattle, WA 23 13 17 86 23 Harrisburg, PA 16 24 30 22 16 Spokane, WA 64 79 47 28 64 Hartford, CT 7 4 44 48 7 Springfield, MA 60 48 72 50 60 Houston, TX 62 67 9 84 62 Stockton, CA 104 96 104 101 104 Indianapolis, IN 48 54 56 40 48 Syracuse, NY 28 37 59 4 28 Jackson, MS 86 90 74 62 86 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 82 92 63 60 82 Jacksonville, FL 63 68 48 49 63 Toledo, OH 66 65 94 3 66 Kansas City, MO-KS 12 16 37 23 12 Tucson, AZ 88 95 62 66 88 Knoxville, TN 61 78 36 27 61 Tulsa, OK 33 69 13 19 33 Lakeland, FL 89 100 69 45 89 Honolulu, HI 92 39 38 106 92 Lancaster, PA 41 50 39 30 41 Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC 54 51 40 61 54 Las Vegas, NV 97 91 103 64 97 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 8 1 22 96 8 Little Rock, AR 39 61 28 26 39 Wichita, KS 30 42 45 8 30 Los Angeles, CA 105 99 102 105 105 Winston-Salem, NC 77 83 83 38 77 Louisville, KY-IN 31 33 43 29 31 Worcester, MA-CT 52 23 54 83 52 Madison, WI 2 8 12 21 2 Youngstown, OH-PA 79 88 96 6 79

64 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ALPHABETICAL RANK Table C.1 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: ALPHABETICAL RANK Table C.2

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 65 MIDDLE CLASS ASPIRATION INDEX: INCOME RANKING Table D.1

COLI Adjusted Median COLI Adjusted Median Metropolitan Area Family Income Ranking Metropolitan Area Family Income Ranking

Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 1 Indianapolis. IN 54 San Jose, CA 2 Provo, UT 55 Bridgeport-Stamford, CT 3 Detroit, MI 56 Hartford, CT 4 Birmingham, AL 57 Boston, MA-NH 5 Baton Rouge, LA 58 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 6 Oklahoma City, OK 59 Albany, NY 7 Charlotte, NC-SC 60 Madison, WI 8 Little Rock, AR 61 San Francisco-Oakland, CA 9 Fayetteville, AR-MO 62 Des Moines, IA 10 Columbia, SC 63 Raleigh, NC 11 Sacramento, CA 64 Baltimore, MD 12 Toledo, OH 65 Seattle, WA 13 Chattanooga, TN-GA 66 Austin, TX 14 Houston, TX 67 St. Louis,, MO-IL 15 Jacksonville, FL 68 Kansas City, MO-KS 16 Tulsa, OK 69 Oxnard, CA 17 New York, NY-NJ-PA 70 Omaha, NE-IA 18 San Antonio, TX 71 Denver, CO 19 Boise, ID 72 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 20 Scranton, PA 73 Durham, NC 21 Dayton, OH 74 Ogden, UT 22 Augusta, GA-SC 75 Worcester, MA-CT 23 Santa Rosa, CA 76 Harrisburg, PA 24 Greenville, SC 77 Akron, OH 25 Knoxville, TN 78 Richmond, VA 26 Spokane, WA 79 Pittsburgh, PA 27 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 80 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 28 Phoenix, AZ 81 Cleveland, OH 29 Albuquerque, NM 82 Columbus, OH 30 Winston-Salem, NC 83 Milwaukee,WI 31 Sarasota, FL 84 Providence, RI-MA 32 San Diego, CA 85 Louisville, KY-IN 33 New Orleans. LA 86 Portland, ME 34 Greensboro, NC 87 Salt Lake City, UT 35 Youngstown, OH-PA 88 Portland, OR-WA 36 Melbourne, FL 89 Syracuse, NY 37 Jackson, MS 90 Colorado Springs, CO 38 Las Vegas, NV 91 Honolulu, HI 39 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 92 Buffalo, NY 40 Cape Coral, FL 93 New Haven CT 41 Orlando, FL 94 Wichita, KS 42 Tucson, AZ 95 Charleston, SC 43 Stockton, CA 96 Nashville, TN 44 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 97 Allentown, PA-NJ 45 Modesto, CA 98 Chicago, IL-IN-WI 46 Los Angeles, CA 99 Atlanta, GA 47 Lakeland, FL 100 Springfield, MA 48 Bakersfield, CA 101 Grand Rapids, MI 49 Daytona Beach, FL 102 Lancaster, PA 50 Miami, FL 103 Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC 51 Fresno, CA 104 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 52 El Paso, TX 105 Rochester, NY 53 McAllen, TX 106

US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25 US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population, Draft at 2015.09.25

66 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 67 1. Fernand Braudel, The Structures of Everyday Life (Berkeley: University of California, 1992), 29.

2. Ibid., 481.

3. Based on net domestic migration of children aged 5-17, 2006-2010, American Community Survey 5 year.

4. “The Evolving Expenditures of U.S. Households,” Townhall Finance, March 26, 2015, http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ politicalcalculations/2015/03/26/the-evolving-expenditures-of-us-households-n1976354/page/full; “Rising Housing Costs Swallow Up Savings Elsewhere,” August 20, 2015, iPR Newswire, http://www.ibloomberg.net/rising-housing- costs-swallow-up-savings-elsewhere/.

5. William Fischel, Regulatory Takings, Law, Economics and Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).

6. Les Shaver, “The Demise of the Starter Home”, Architect, April 14, 2015, http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/ market-intel/the-demise-of-the-starter-home_s; Megan McArdle, “New Starter Homes Hit a Dead Stop”, Bloomberg View, April 17, 2015, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-17/new-starter-homes-hit-a-dead-stop; Bob Sullivan, “The Death of the Starter Home,” August 11, 2015, http://www.dailyfinance.com/2015/08/11/death-of-starter-homes/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl16|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D368585882.

7. “Affordable Housing Stock in U.S. Declines as Home Prices Gain,” Economy Watch, August 12, 2014, http://www.economy- watch.com/news/affordable-housing-stock-in-us-declines-as-home-prices-gain.12-08.html.

8. Janny Scott and Randal C. Archibold, “Across Nation, Housing Costs Rise as Burden,” The New York Times, October 3, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/nyregion/03census.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0; Christine Haughney, “New York City Renters Cope With Squeeze,” May 10, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/nyregion/10rent. html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FH%2FHousing&_r=0.

9. “Building Permits Survey,” United States Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/construction/bps/.

10. Mike Krieger, “The Oligarch Recovery – Renting in America is Most Expensive Ever,” Zero Hedge, August 14, 2015, http:// www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-14/oligarch-recovery-renting-america-most-expensive-ever; http://online.wsj.com/ documents/print/WSJ_-A002-20150401.pdf (don’t have access)

11. Chelsea Dulaney, “Apartment Rents Rise as Incomes Stagnate,” The Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2014, http://www.wsj. com/articles/apartment-rents-rise-as-incomes-stagnate-1404273662.

12. Krishna Rao, “The Rent is Too Damn High”, Zillow, April 15, 2014, http://www.zillow.com/research/rent-affordability-2013q4-6681/.

13. David Winzelberg, “NAR: NY rental costs unsustainable,” libn.com, March 16, 2015, http://libn.com/2015/03/16/ nar-ny-rental-costs-unsustainable/.

15. Data from US Census Bureau.

16. Laura Kusisto and Kris Hudson, “Renters are Majority in Big U.S. Cities,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/renters-are-majority-in-big-u-s-cities-1423432009?ref=/home-page&c- b=logged0.8001066217238658&cb=logged0.856963346974228.

68 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 17. Evelyn Wang, “Housing Solution: Increase Density in Western Neighborhoods and Fix Transit,” San Francisco Public Press, October 27, 2014, http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2014-10/housing-solution-increase-density-in-western-neighborhoods-and-fix-transit; Matthew Yglesias, “The Biggest Thing Blue States Are Screwing Up,” Real Clear Policy, August 29, 2014, http://www.realclearpolicy.com/2014/08/29/the_biggest_thing_blue_states_are_screwing_up_21791.html.

18. Gerard Mildner, “Density at Any Cost,” Portland State University, November 2014, http://www.pdx.edu/realestate/sites/ www.pdx.edu.realestate/files/Mildner_UGR_article_3.pdf.

19. Jonathan Fearn, Denise Pinkston, Nicolas Arenson, "The Bay Area Housing Crisis: A Developers Perspective," Submittal to Plan Bay Area.

20. David L.A. Gordon and Mark Janzen, “Suburban Nation? Estimating the Size of Canada’s Suburban Population,” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 30:3 (Autumn 2013): 197-220, http://japr.homestead.com/Gordon_FinalVer- sion131216.pdf.

21. Wendell Cox, “City Sector Model (2015) Criteria,” Demogaphia, 2015, http://www.demographia.com/db-citysectormodel pdf.

22. Calculated from American Community Survey, 2012.

23. Calculated at the zip code level, using the City Sector Model (see: http://www.demographia.com/db-citysectormodel.pdf)

24. Wendell Cox, “Urban Core Millennials? A Matter of Perspective”, New Geography, March 6, 2015, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004864-urban-core-millennials-a-matter-perspective;Wendell Cox, “Plan Bay Area: Telling People What to Do”, New Geography, August 28, 2013, www.newgeography.com/content/003899-plan-bay-area-telling-people- what-do; Mike Lanza, “Suburb-Hating is Anti-Child”, Playborhood, August 15, 2013, http://playborhood.com/2013/08/ suburb-hating-is-anti-child/.

25. Matthew Yglesias, “The best cure for wage stagnation nobody in Washington is talking about,” Vox Media, November 12, 2014, http://www.vox.com/2014/11/12/7193609/zoning-wage-stagnation?wpisrc=nl-wonkbk&wpmm=1;Peter Nivola, Laws of the Landscape: How Policies Change Cities in Europe and America (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1999), 1; Matthew J. Belvedere, “’End of suburbia’ may nearly be upon us: Sam Zell”, CNBC, October 8, 2013, http:// www.cnbc.com/id/101095397#; Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speak, Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (New York: North Point Press, 2000), 44-46; City Life, “Micro Units – The Newet Trend in Real Estate”, Cities Journal, April 25, 2015, http://www.citiesjournal.com/micro-units-newest-trend- real-estate/; Karrie Jacobs , “It’s a Small World: The newest trend in urban development? Micro Units”, Metropolis, April 9, 2003, http://www.vancouversun.com/Huge+demand+tiny+rental+units+Vancouver/9628610/story.html.

26. Gan Yu Jia, “3 Bedroom condo unit at 635 sq. feet: A New Low”, The Straits Times, March 21, 2012.

27. Derived from American Community Survey, 2013.

28. Based upon an analysis of American Community Survey (2010) data for 422 counties comprising the largest metropolitan areas in the United States (over 1,000,000 population).

29. Calculated from Census Bureau data.

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 69 30. This actually understates the suburban growth, since many core cities have annexed areas that were formerly suburban.

31. Wendell Cox, “Urban Cores, Core Cities, and Principal Cities”, New Geography, August 1, 2014, http://www.newgeography. com/content/004453-urban-cores-core-cities-and-principal-cities.

32. Becky Nicolaides, “How Hell Moved From the Cities to the Suburbs”, in The New Suburban History, ed. Kevin M. Kruse and Thomas J. Sugre (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 87.

33. Pat Garofalo, “Obama: The Days of ‘Building Sprawl Forever’ Are Over,” Think Progress, February 10, 2009, http:// thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/02/10/172595/obama-sprawl/; Bruce Frohnen, “Fixing the Suburbs for the Family”. Family Policy, May-June 2000, https://www.heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/ pdfs/7251.pdf; Charles Marohn, “The Conservative Case Against the Suburbs,” The American Conservative, http://www. theamericanconservative.com/urbs/the-conservative-case-against-the-suburbs/; Nick Schulz, “The Life and Death of Great American Cities,” American Enterprise Institute, May 11, 2012, http://www.aei.org/publication/the-life-and-death- of-great-american-cities/.

34. Duany, et al., 5-9, 137; William Schneider, “The Suburban Century Begins”, The Atlantic, July 1992, http://www.theatlantic. com/past/politics/ecbig/schnsub.htm;

35. James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency (New York City: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005), 19; http://www.democrati- cunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x119541 (website is shut down, could not access more info); James Quinn, “As Things Fell Apart, Nobody Paid Much Attention,” Financial Sense, November 19, 2010, http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/james-quinn/as-things-fell-apart-nobody-paid-much-attention.

36. Richard Florida, “Rise and Fall of the House?” Creative Class, April 20, 2007, http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/cre- ative_class/2007/04/20/rise-and-fall-of-the-house/.

37. Jan K. Brueckner and Ann G. Largey, “Socia Interaction and Urban Sprawl”, Department of Economics, Irvine, October 2006, http://www.economics.uci.edu/files/economics/docs/workingpapers/2006-07/Brueckner-07.pdf.

38. Sommer Mathis, “Overall, Americans in the Suburbs Are Still the Happiest”, CityLab, August 25, 2014, http://www.citylab. com/politics/2014/08/overall-americans-in-the-suburbs-are-still-the-happiest/378964/; David Peterson, “In Twin Cit- ies metro, more young people are moving to the urban core, while suburbs age”, Star Tribune, January 5, 2014, http:// www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/238734151.html; Christopher B. Leinberger, “The Next Slum?”, The Atlantic, March 2008, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/03/the-next-slum/306653/,

39. http://www.realtor.org/file/819/download?token=vKf_myg9t612Ubqcdi6txJxk4Zaxof0MUu8fmA0Myv4 (unable to access without sign in)

40. An organization dedicated to higher density urban living.

41. Ed Braddy, “Smart Growth and the New Newspeak”, New Geography, April 4, 2012, http://www.newgeography.com/content/002740-smart-growth-and-the-new-newspeak.

42. Metro, which administers Portland's smart growth land use system.

43. “Residential Preference Study,” DHM Research, May 2014, http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/Residential- PreferenceStudy-FullReport.pdf.

70 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 44. Derived from 2013 FBI crime data. Based on average core municipalities and suburban areas of the 52 major metropolitan areas. Chicago data incomplete and not included. Principal cities that are not core cities are included in the suburban category.

45. Monica Davey and Mitch Smith, “Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities,” The New York Times, August 31, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html?_r=0.

46. Jane S. Shaw and Ronald Utt, A Guide to Smart Growth: Shattering Myths, Providing Solutions (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 2000), 89.

47. “The Status of Rural Education,” National Center for Education Statistics, May 2013, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ indicator_tla.asp; Sam Dillon, “Large Urban-Suburban Gap Seen in Graduation Rates,” The New York Times, April 22, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/education/22dropout.html?_r=0 Suzanne E. Graham and Lauren E. Provost, "Mathematics Achievement Gaps Between Suburban Students and Their Rural and Urban Peers Increase Over Time," The Carey Institute, University of New Hampshire, June 1, 2012, http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=carsey; Paul Emrath and Natalia Siniavskaia, "Household Type, Housing Choice, and Commuting Behavior," National Association of Home Builders, December 1, 2009, https://www.nahb.org/en/research/housing-economics/special-studies/household-type-housing-choice-and-commuting-behavior-2009.aspx; "Urban Schools: The Challenge of Location and Poverty," National Center for Education Statistics, June 1, 1996, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ web/96184ex.asp.

48. Paul Krugman, “Home Not-So-Sweet-Home”, New York Times, January 23, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/ opinion/23krugman.html.

49. Richard Florida, “How the Crash Will Reshape America”, The Atlantic, March 2009, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ archive/2009/03/how-the-crash-will-reshape-america/307293/?single_page=true.

50. Neil Shah, “Suburbs Regain Their Appeal,” The Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB 20001424052702303749904579576440578771478.

51. Conor Dougherty, “Cities Grow at Suburbs’ Expense During Recession”, The Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2009, http://www. wsj.com/articles/SB124641839713978195; Christopher B. Leinberger, “The Death of the Fringe Suburb”, The New York Times, November 25, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/opinion/the-death-of-the-fringe-suburb.html?_r=0; Jed Kolko, “No, Suburbs Aren’t All the Same. The Suburbiest Ones Are Growing Fastest”, The Atlantic, February 5, 2015, http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/02/no-suburbs-arent-all-the-same-the-suburbiest-ones-are-growing-fastest/385183/; Emily Badger, “New Census data: Americans are returning to the far-flung suburbs”, The Washington Post, March 26, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/26/new-census-data-americans-are- returning-to-the-far-flung-suburbs/; “Seeding Sprawl”, Wall Street Journal, October 18, 2006.

52. Jed Kolko, “How Suburban Are Big American Cities?”, FiveThirtyEightEconomics, May 21, 2015, http://fivethirtyeight.com/ features/how-suburban-are-big-american-cities/.

53. Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data.

54. Jed Kolko, “Even After the Housing Bust, Americans Still Love the Suburbs”, Center for Opportunity Urbanism, October 11, 2012, http://opportunityurbanism.org/2015/01/even-after-the-housing-bust-americans-still-love-the-suburbs/

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 71 55. Richard Florida, “The Power of Density,” The Atlantic, September 8, 2010, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/the-power-of-density/62569/.

56. John G. Clark, Three Generations in Twentieth Century America (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1982), 499.

57. Wendell Cox, “Dispersion and Concentration in Metropolitan Employment,” New Geography, May 13, 2015, http://www. newgeography.com/content/004921-dispersion-and-concentration-metropolitan-employment.

58. Elizabeth Kneebone, “Job Sprawl Revisited: The Changing Geography of Metropolitan Employment,” Brookings Institution, April 2009, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2009/4/06%20job%20sprawl%20knee- bone/20090406_jobsprawl_kneebone.PDF.

59. “Dispersion and Concentration”; Jean Gottman, The Coming of the Transactional City (College Park: University of Maryland Institute for Urban Studies, 1983), 23, 41.

65. Kim Hjelmgaard, “Where the world’s super-rich send residential prices soaring,” USA Today, June 1, 2015, http://www. usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/05/31/global-house-prices-global-cities/25507897/; Elizabeth A. Harris, “Why Buy a Condo You Seldom Use? Because You Can,” The New York Times, February 11, 2013, http://www.nytimes. com/2013/02/12/nyregion/paying-top-dollar-for-condos-and-leaving-them-empty.html?_r=0; Louise Story and Stephanie Saul, “Stream of Foreign Wealth Flows to Elite New York Real Estate,” The New York Times, February 7, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign-wealth-flows-to-time-warner-condos.html?_r=0.

66. Author’s analysis of EMSI 2015.2.

67. Joel Kotkin and and Michael Shires, “The Cities Stealing Jobs from Wall Street”, New Geography, June 27, 2014, http:// www.newgeography.com/content/004390-the-cities-stealing-jobs-from-wall-street; Susan Fainstein, The City Builders: Property, Politics and Planning in London and New York (London: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), 25.

68. Aaron M. Renn, “The Rise of the Executive Headquarters,” New Geography, April 15, 2014, http://www.newgeography. com/content/004265-the-rise-executive-headquarters.

69. Martha De Lacey, “The REAL Story of Britain’s servant class,” Daily Mail, September 25, 2012, http://www.dailymail. co.uk/femail/article-2207935/Downton-Abbey-servants-New-BBC-series-Servants-The-True-Story-Life-Below-Stairs. html#ixzz3ll6WXcVO.

70. Christian Gonzalez-Rivera, “Low-Wage Jobs, 2012”, Center for an Urban Future, April 2013, http://nycfuture.org/data/ info/low-wage-jobs-2012;Patrick McGeehan, “More Earners at Extremes in New York Than in U.S.”, The New York Times, May 20, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/nyregion/middle-class-smaller-in-new-york-city-than-nationally- study-finds.html?_r=0.

71. “More Earners at Extremes”; Sam Roberts, “Rich Got Richer and Poor Poorer in N.Y.C., 2011 Data Shows”, The New York Times, September 20, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/nyregion/rich-got-richer-and-poor-poorer-in-nyc- 2011-data-shows.html?_r=0; C. Zawadi Morris, “New City Council Study Shows NYC’s Middle Class Shrinking Fast”, Bed-Stuy Patch, February 11, 2013, http://bed-stuy.patch.com/articles/new-city-council-study-shows-nyc-s-middle- class-shrinking-fast; Lizzy Ratner, “Boom Town and Bust City: A Tale of Two New Yorks,” The Nation, January 27, 2011, http://www.thenation.com/article/boom-town-and-bust-city-tale-two-new-yorks/.

72 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 72. “Kings County, New York”, United States Census Bureau, May 29, 2015, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/36/36047.html; “Kings County”; Michael Howard Saul, “New York City Leads Jump in Homeless”, The Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732453940457834073180963921 0.html?mod=djemalertNEWS; This is clearly true in the United States, where the highest degrees of inequality can be found in its premier global city, New York, as well as that city’s prime competitors for international commerce including Chicago, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay Area. These cities tend to develop an economy based in large part on serving the wealthy; what economist Ajay Kapur calls a “plutonomy” an economy and society driven largely by the very rich. This process has been amplified by the gloal recovery from the Great Recession which has particularly benefited those with inherited wealth, as the returns on capital have surpassed those of labor.

73. Joel Garreau, “Review: The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City”, New Geography, April 23, 2012, http:// www.newgeography.com/content/002787-review-the-great-inversion-and-future-american-city; Pete Saunders, “Two Chicagos, Defined”, New Geography, December 12, 2014, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004795-two-chicagos-defined; Daniel Kay Hertz, “Watch Chicago’s Middle Class Vanish Before Your Very Eyes”, City Notes, March 31, 2014, http://danielkayhertz.com/2014/03/31/middle-class/.

74. Joe Cortright and Dillon Mahmoudi, “Lost in Place: Why the persistence and spread of concentrated poverty – not gentrification – is our biggest urban challenge.” CityReport, December 2014, http://cityobservatory.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/12/LostinPlace_12.4.pdf.

75. Richard Morrill, “Inequality of the Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” New Geography, September 1, 2013, http://www. newgeography.com/content/003921-inequality-largest-us-metropolitan-areas.

76. Joel Kotkin, “Where Inequality is Worst in the United States,” New Geography, March 21, 2014, http://www.newgeography. com/content/004229-where-inequality-is-worst-in-the-united-states.

77. Aaron M. Renn, “The Rise of the Executive Headquarters”, New Geography, April 15, 2014, http://www.newgeography.com/ content/004265-the-rise-executive-headquarters.

78. Wendell Cox, “Beyond Polycentricity: 2000s Job Growth (Continues to) Follow Population,” New Geography, August 22, 2014, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004486-beyond-polycentricity-2000s-job-growth-continues-follow-population; William T. Bogart, Don’t Call It Sprawl: Metropolitan Structure in the Twenty-first Century, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK: 2006), 43.

79. Scott Donaldson, “City and Country: Marriage Proposals”, in New Towns and the Suburban Dream, ed. Irving Lewis Allen (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1977), 101.

80. Calculated from American Community Survey, 2013 one year.

81. Calculated from Census Bureau County Business Pattern data at the Zip code (ZCTA) level.

82. Derived the CoStar Office Report: National Office Market, Midyear 2012 and Midyear 2015, https://www.costar.com/.

83. Wendell Cox, “Dispersion and Concentration in Metropolitan Employement,” New Geography, May 13, 2015, http://www. newgeography.com/content/004921-dispersion-and-concentration-metropolitan-employment.

84. Dominic Basulto, “The future of innovation belongs to the mega-city”, DailyNews.com, October 28, 2014, http://www. dailynews724.com/local/the-future-of-innovation-belongs-to-the-mega-city-h287221.html.

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 73 85. Author’s analysis of EMSI 2015.2 employment data.

86. Henry Grabar, “The Biggest Problem with San Francisco’s Rent Problems,” Slate, June 22, 2015, http://www.slate.com/ articles/business/metropolis/2015/06/san_francisco_rent_crisis_the_solution_isn_t_in_the_city_it_s_in_the_ suburbs.html.

87. Wendell Cox, “2010 Major Metropolitan Area & Principal Urban Area (Urbanized Area) Population & Density”, Demographia, http://demographia.com/db-msauza2010.pdf.

88. Joel Kotkin and Mark Schill, “The Valley and the Upstarts: The Cities Creating the Most Tech Jobs”, New Geography, April 15, 2015, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004899-the-valley-and-the-upstarts-the-cities-creating-the-most- tech-jobs.

89. Wendell Cox, “New York, Legacy Cities Dominate Transit Urban Core Gains”, New Geography, June 25, 2014, http://www. newgeography.com/content/004384-new-york-legacy-cities-dominate-transit-urban-core-gains.

90. Amy Morin, “Want To Be Happier? Change Your Commute or Change Your Attitude,” Forbes, December 7, 2014, http:// www.forbes.com/sites/amymorin/2014/12/07/want-to-be-happier-change-your-commute-or-change-your-attitude/

91. Aarian Marshall, “NYC’s Long Commutes May Be Forcing Mothers Out of the Workforce,” CityLab, March 19, 2015, http:// www.citylab.com/work/2015/03/how-nycs-long-commutes-force-mothers-out-of-the-workforce/388208/.)

92. Alexander von Hoffman, John Felknerm “The Historical Origins and Causes of Urban Decentralization in the United States”, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, January 2002

93. By contrast, Manhattan residents, in the most dense environment of the United States have much shorter average commutes, at 31 minutes. This, however, is not due to Manhattan's high density as much as it is to Manhattan's distorted jobs-housing balance. There are nearly three times as many jobs as resident workers (a ratio of 3 to 1), a situation that could not be replicated throughout a metropolitan area (labor market), where the ratio must be nearly 1 to 1.

94. Wendell Cox, “Commuting in New York,” New Geography, April 26, 2015, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004967-commuting-new-york.

95. Wendell Cox, “Evaluating Urban Rail,” December 5, 2014, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004789-evaluating-urban-rail.

96. Largely owing to the availability of federal funding, a large number of new rail and exclusive bus way lines have been constructed since 1980 (in the previous recent decades, new lines were built in just a few metropolitan areas, such as Washington and San Francisco).

97. As opposed to the New York metropolitan area.

98. Wendell Cox, “Transit Ridership Increases: No Escape From New York,” New Geography, April 11, 2015, http://www. newgeography.com/content/004895-transit-ridership-increases-no-escape-new-york.

99. http://www.newgeography.com/content/004929-us-work-home-commute-centers

74 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 100. Yonah Freemark, “Why Telecommuting Really Matters, in 6 Charts,” CityLab, February 4, 2014, http://www.citylab.com/ commute/2014/02/why-telecommuting-really-matters-6-charts/8227/.

101. Neema P. ROshania, “A Hot Trend: Home-Based Businesses,” Kiplinger, August 10, 2010, http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T049-C000-S005-a-hot-trend-home-based-businesses.html.

102. Nanette Fondas, “Millennials Say They’ll Relocate for Work-Life Flexibility,” Harvard Business Review, May 7, 2015, https://hbr.org/2015/05/millennials-say-theyll-relocate-for-work-life-flexibility.

103. Frederick L. Pilot, Last Rush Hour: The Decentralization of Knowledge Work in the Twenty-First Century (Portland: Bookbaby, 2015), 4-15.

104. “Pros and Cons”, Global Workplace Analytics, http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/pros-cons.

105. Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: William Morrow, 1980), 42-45, 119-145, 195.

106. Sarah Susanka, “The future of homes and housing,” The Christian Science Monitor, January 5, 2005, http://www. csmonitor.com/2005/0105/p14s01-lihc.html.

107. “Bigger home and smaller lots?” Rain City Guide, September 12, 2005, http://raincityguide.com/2005/09/12/bigger- homes-and-smaller-lots/.

108. James Alan Kushner, “Urban Planning and the American Family,” Stetson Law Review, 36 (2006), http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1010221.

109. Appleseed, “The Economy of Greenwich Village: A Profile”, New York University, May 2011, http://www.gvshp.org/_ gvshp/preservation/nyu/doc/nyu-report-05-2011.pdf Calculated from American Community Survey, 2012.

110. Terry Nichols Clark, et al., “Amenities Drive Urban Growth: A New Paradigm and Policy Linkages”, in The City as Entertain- ment Machine, ed. Terry Nichols Clark (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004), 291-318; Terry Nichols Clark and Ronald Inglehart, “The New Political Culture” in The New Political Culture, ed. Terry Nichols Clark and Vincent Hoffman-Martinett (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998), 58-59.

111. Wendell Cox, “Exodus of the School Children”, New Geography, December 29, 2014, http://www.newgeography.com/ content/004815-exodus-school-children; Joel Kotkin, “The Geography of Aging: Why Millennials are headed to the Suburbs”, December 9, 2013, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004084-the-geography-of-aging-why-millennials-are-headed-to-the-suburbs.

112. San Francisco is the core municipality of the San Francisco Bay Area and is home to slightly more than 10 percent of its population, with 800,000 residents.

113. Norimitsu Onishi, “In San Francisco, Coyotes in Parks Are a Concern”, The New York Times, May 14, 2012, http://www. nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/in-san-francisco-coyotes-in-parks-are-a-concern.html.

114. “San Francisco, California”, City-Data.com, http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Francisco-California.html; Joshua Sabatini, “San Francisco becoming a child-free zone as youth population declines”, The Examiner, March 23, 2011, http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/san-francisco-becoming-a-child-free-zone-as-youth-population-declines/ Content?oid=2171813; Rachel Gordon, “Many with children planning to leave city/Survey finds them upset with safety,

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 75 housing, schools”, SFGATE, October 22, 2005, http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Many-with- children-planning-to-2600243.php; “Families Flee San Francisco: City Has Lowest Percentage Of Kids Of Any Major U.S. City”, The Huffington Post, March 11, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/families-flee-san-fran- cisco_n_1335639.html; Joe Eskenazi, “Newsflash: San Francisco Expensive, Minorities and Families Leaving”, SF Weekly, March 9, 2012, http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/03/09/newsflash-san-francisco-expensive-minorities-and-families-leaving; Joel Kotkin, “Aging America: The cities that are graying the fastest”, New Geography, December 14, 2012, http://www.newgeography.com/content/003314-aging-america-the-cities-that-are-graying-the-fastest.

115. http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Homes-outside-Loop-610-draw-8-out-of-10-buyers-4432802.php

116. H.G. Wells, Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought (Mineola, NY: Dover: 1999), 75-76.

117. Wells, Anticipations of the Reaction, 32.

118. Bogart, op. cit., p.108 (which book?) Bella DePaulo, Singled Out (St. Martin’s Press, 2007), 259.

120. Eric Klinenberg, “America: Single and Loving It”, New York Times, February 22, 2012, http://www.nytimes. com/2012/02/12/fashion/America-Single-and-Loving-It.html.

121. Dionne Searcey, “Marketers are Sizing Up the Millennials,” The New York Times, August 21, 2014, http://www.nytimes. com/2014/08/22/business/marketers-are-sizing-up-the-millennials-as-the-new-consumer-model.html?_r=0.

122. “Millennials and Their Homes: Still Seeking the American Dream,” Demand Institute, 2013. http://www.demandinstitute. org/sites/default/files/blog-uploads/millennials-and-their-homes-final.pdf

123. Matthew Hardy, “The Renaissance of the Traditional City”, Axess Magazine, September 2003, http://www.academia. edu/2129665/The_Renaissance_of_the_Traditional_City_Axess_September_2003.

124. Peter Katz, “The New Urbanism in the new Millenium: A Postcard to the Future” in Cities in the 21st century, ed. Robert Fishman (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2000); Jeff Speck, “Sprawl and the Future of the Old Neighborhood”, Asheville Citizen Times, September 3, 2000.

125. Jeremy Hobson and Leigh Gallagher, “Millennials Prefer City Life to Suburban Life”, Here & Now, July 27, 2014, http:// hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/06/27/millennials-america-suburbs; Leigh Gallagher, The End of Suburbs (New York: Penguin, 2013), 19.

126. ALDEN BAKER, “U.S. cities left on their own” The Globe and Mail (Canada), March 24, 1981; Jenny Thompson, “Bright Lights, Big City: Early 1980s New York”, The American past: NYC in focus, September 4, 2014, http://americanpast. blogspot.com/2014/09/bright-lights-big-city-early-1980s-new.html.

127. Zip codes (zip code tabulation areas) with population densities 7,500 per square mile & above and transit/walk/bicycle commute shares of 20% and above. See City Sector Model, at http://www.demographia.com/csmcriteria.png and http://www.newgeography.com/category/story-topics/city-sector-model.

128. Wendell Cox, "Urban Core Millennials? A Matter of Perspective", New Geography, March 6, 2015, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004864-urban-core-millennials-a-matter-perspective.

76 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 129. Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, “The Millennial Metropolis”, New Geography, April 19, 2010, http://www.newgeography.com/content/001511-the-millennial-metropolis.

130. Jeremy Burbank and Louise Keely, “New Millennials and their Homes”, Demand Institute, September 16, 2014, http:// demandinstitute.org/blog/millennials-and-their-homes

131. M. Leanne Lachman and Deborah L. Brett, “Gen Y and Housing: What they want and where they want it”, Urban Land Institute, 2015, http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Gen-Y-and-Housing.pdf.

132. Patrick Clark, “The Exact Moment Cities Got Too Expensive for Millennials,” Bloomberg Business, July 15, 2015, http:// www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-15/the-exact-moment-big-cities-got-too-expensive-for-millennials?utm_ source=Mic+Check&utm_campaign=2b200dd408-Thursday_July_167_15_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_ter- m=0_51f2320b33-2b200dd408-285306781.

133. Lauren Braun, “Renting Less Affordable Than Ever Before, While Mortgages Remain Affordable, by Historical Standard,” Zillow, August 13, 2015, http://zillow.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=28775&item=137182.

134. Ricky Piiparinen and Jim Russell, “Globalizing Cleveland: A Path Forward,” Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, May 1, 2014, http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2166&context=urban_facpub; Joel Kotkin and Mark Schill, “America’s Smartest Cities,” New Geography, November 18, 2014, http://www.newgeography. com/content/004774-americas-smartest-cities; Joel Kotkin, “The U.S. Cities Getting Smarter The Fastest,” New Geography, August 9, 2012, http://www.newgeography.com/content/003007-the-us-cities-getting-smarter-the-fastest; Joel Kotkin, “America’s New Brainpower Cities,” New Geography, April 3, 2014, http://www.newgeography.com/ content/004246-americas-new-brainpower-cities; Aaron M. Renn, “Brain Gain in America’s Shrinking Cities,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, August 2015, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_102.htm#.VeJjEZeny1s.

135. Yuqing Pan, “Bright Lights, Not-So-Big Cities: Where Americans Are Moving,” realtor.com, August 26, 2015, http:// www.realtor.com/news/trends/nation-on-the-move-new-census-bureau-data-reveal-migration-pattern/?cid=syn_out- brain_0214_mob_news-01.

136. Laura Kusisto, “U.S. Existing-Home Sales Increase 5.1% in May,” The Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2015, http://www. wsj.com/articles/u-s-existing-home-sales-increase-5-1-in-may-1434981986.

137. Michael Barone, “Is America Entering a New Victorian Era?” Real Clear, July 28, 2015, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ articles/2015/07/28/is_america_entering_a_new_victorian_era_127563.html.

139. “Parenting a Priority,” Pew Research Center, March 24, 2010, http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/parenting-a-priority/.

140. “Monitoring the Future,” University of Michigan, July 31, 2015, http://monitoringthefuture.org/.

141. Kris Hudson, “Generation Y Prefers Suburban Home Over City Condo”, The Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/millennials-prefer-single-family-homes-in-the-suburbs-1421896797?c- b=logged0.7028438908287595; Rose Quint, “Most Millennial Buyers want Single-Family Home in the Suburbs”, National Association of Home Builders, January 28, 2015, /http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/01/most-millennial-buyers-want-single-family-home-in-the-suburbs/.

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 77 142. Elliot Schimel and Jennifer Marchetti, “Next Generation of Homebuyers are Knowledgeable, Responsible and Savvy According to New Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Survey”, Market Wired, October 22, 2012, http://www. marketwired.com/press-release/next-generation-homebuyers-are-knowledgeable-responsible-savvy-according-new-better-nyse-rlgy-1716114.htm.

143. Jed Kolko, “Urban Headwinds, Suburban Tailwinds”, Trulia, January 22, 2015, http://www.trulia.com/trends/2015/01/ cities-vs-suburbs-jan-2015/.

144. “Millennials Will Play a Large Role in Shaping Housing Demand, Reports the Demand Institute,” The Conference Board, September 16, 2014, https://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=5278;

145. Nick Timiraos, “New Housing Headwind Looms as Fewer Renters Can Afford to Own,” The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-housing-crisis-looms-as-fewer-renters-can-afford-to-own-1433698639?c- b=logged0.8265339631128316.

146. Clark, Three Generations, 469.

147. Crystal Galyean, “Levittown”, U.S. History Scene, April 10, 2015, http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/levittown/.

148. Nicole Stelle Garnett, “Suburbs as Exit, Suburbs as Entrance,” Michigan Law Review 106 (2007): 7-22, http://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=975217.

149. Calculated from Census data for the "African American only" population, based on "historical core municipalities,"( http://www.demographia.com/db-histcore2000-2010.pdf).

150. Mark Duell, “Census reveals African-American children are leaving large U.S. cities as their young parents head for better life in suburbs”, Daily Mail, June 30, 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009903/African-American-children-leaving-biggest-U-S-cities-young-parents-head-suburbs.html

151. Calculated from Census data for the "African American only" population. See ###wc newgeography article in prepara- tion 20150912

152. Walter Russell Mead, “Black and Blue 2: Blacks Flee Blue States in Droves,” The American Interest, March 27, 2011, http://www.the-american-interest.com/2011/03/27/black-and-blue-2-blacks-flee-blue-states-in-droves/; Dan Bilefsky, “For New Life, Blacks in City Head to South,” The New York Times, June 23, 2011, http://www.nytimes. com/2011/06/22/nyregion/many-black-new-yorkers-are-moving-to-the-south.html?_r=0.

153. Jill H. Wilson and Nicole Prchal Svaljenka, “Immigrants Continue to Disperse, with Fastest Growth in the Suburbs”, Brookings, October 29, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/10/29-immigrants-disperse-suburbs-wilson-svajlenka.

154. Sam Roberts, “In Shift, 40% of Immigrants Move Directly to Suburbs,” The New York Times, October 17, 2007, http:// www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/17census.html.

155. Sabrina Tavernise and Robert Gebeloff, “Immigrants Make Paths to Suburbia, Not Cities”, The New York Times, December 14, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15census.html?_r=0.

78 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 156. Edward L. Glaeser and Matthew E. Khan, “Sprawl and Urban Growth”, Handbook of Urban Regional Economics, May 13, 2003, http://www.econ.brown.edu/faculty/henderson/sprawl.pdf.

157. William H. Frey, “Melting Pot Cities and Suburbs: Racial and Ethnic Change in Metro America in the 2000s,” Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, May 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/5/04%20 census%20ethnicity%20frey/0504_census_ethnicity_frey.pdf.

158. Census Bureau Current Population Survey for 2013 to 2014. The number is actually higher, because this report uses the "principal cities" to identify non-suburban immigration. Principal cities include the core cities as well as municipalities that are suburban employment centers and which are overwhelmingly suburban in their built form. Wendell Cox, “Urban Cores, Core Cities and Principal Cities,” August 1, 2014, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004453-urban-cores- core-cities-and-principal-cities.

159. Joel Kotkin, “The Changing Geography of Asian America: To the South and the Suburbs,” New Geography, September 13, 2012, http://www.newgeography.com/content/003080-the-changing-geography-asian-america-to-the-south-and-the- suburbs.

160. Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox, “The Evolving Geography of Asian America: Suburbs are High-Tech Chinatowns”, New Geography, March 19, 2015, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004875-the-evolving-geography-asian-america- suburbs-are-new-high-tech-chinatowns; Jon C. Teaford, The American Suburb: The Basics (New York: Routledge, 2008), 82-83.

161. Stephanie Czekalinski, "Suburbs Diversify but Many Areas Still Segregated, Report Says," National Journal, July 19, 2012, http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/demographics/suburbs-diversify-but-many-areas-still-segregated-report-says-20120719.

162. Amy Stuart Wells, “The Diverse Suburbs Movement Has Never Been More Relevant”, The Atlantic, October 3, 2014, http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/10/the-diverse-suburbs-movement-has-never-been-more-relevant/381061/.

163. Leah Binkovitz, “Study: Newer Houston suburbs offer best opportunities for minorities”, Houston Chronicle, April 18, 2015, http://www.houstonchronicle.com/neighborhood/katy/news/article/Study-Newer-Houston-suburbs-offer-best-6209145. php?t=2346c5d044fda33e64&cmpid=email-premiumapter;Dierdre Pfeiffer, “Racial equity in the post-civil rights suburbs? Evidence from US regions 2000-2012”, Urban Studies, December 19, 2014, http://usj.sagepub.com/content/ early/2014/12/19/0042098014563652.abstract.

164. Steve Yoder, “Millions of Seniors Are Moving Back to Big Cities”, Business Insider, June 6, 2013, http://www.businessin- sider.com/millions-of-seniors-are-moving-to-cities-2013-6.

165. Al Heavens, “Active-Adult Boomers Still Favor Suburbs”, RealtyTimes, October 13, 2004, http://realtytimes.com/consum- eradvice/newhomeadvice1/item/11550-20041014_boomers; Gary V. Engelhart, “Housing Trends Among Baby Boomers”, ResearchGate, December 2006, http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228200303_Housing_Trends_Among_ Baby_Boomers.

166. Nar Res, “2012 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers: Press Highlights”, National Association of Realtors, November 10, 2012, http://www.slideshare.net/NarRes/2012-profile-of-home-buyers-and-sellers-press-highlights; “Home in Retire- ment: More Freedom, New Choices”, Merril Lynch, August 2014, https://mlaem.fs.ml.com/content/dam/ML/Articles/ pdf/AR6SX48F.pdf.

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 79 167. Paula Span, “New Old Age”, The New York Times, March 25, 2011, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/ aging-without-children/?_r=0.

168. Linda A. Jacobsen, Mark Mather, and Genevieve Dupuis, “Household Change in the United States”, Population Reference Bureau, September 2012, http://www.prb.org/Publications/Reports/2012/us-household-change.aspx. 169. Stephanie Coontz, The Way We Never Were (New York:Basic Books, 1992), 183.

170. Melissa Sullivan, “Survey also reveals Millennials are ‘boomeranging’”, Mayflower, April 20, 2015, http://www.mayflower. com/about-us/news/boomerang-press-release.

171. Aaron Glantz, “Multigenerational Housing Is a Real Estate Growth Niche,” The New York Times, April 21, 2011, http:// www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/22cncmultigenerational.html?_r=0.

172. Jane Gross, “Boomerang Parents”, The New York Times, November 18, 2008, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes. com/2008/11/18/boomerang-parents/?_r=0.

173. “While Families Get Smaller, New Houses Grow Larger,” http://www.gwssi.com/villageverdeokc/images/news/family- house.pdf

174. Paul Taylor, et al., “The Return of the Multi-Generational Family Household”, Pew Research Center, March 18, 2010, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/03/18/the-return-of-the-multi-generational-family-household/.

175. “Home Buyer and Seller Generational Trends”, National Association of Realtors, 2015, http://www.realtor.org/reports/ home-buyer-and-seller-generational-trends.

176. Les Christie, “The new American household: 3 generations, 1 roof,” CNN Money, April 3, 2012, http://money.cnn. com/2012/04/03/real_estate/multi-generation-households/index.htm.

177. Richard Fry and Jeffrey S. Passel, “In Post-Recession Era, Young Adults Drive Continuing Rise in Multi-Generational Living,” Pew Research Center, July 17, 2014, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/07/17/in-post-recession-era-young-adults- drive-continuing-rise-in-multi-generational-living/.

178. Christopher Palmeri and Frank Bass, “Grandma Bunks With Jobless Kids as Multigenerational Homes Surge,” Bloomberg Business, August 29, 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-30/grandma-bunks-with-jobless-kids-as-multigenerational-homes-surge.

179. Krisanne Alcantra, “Multigenerational Homes: Real Estate’s Next Big Thing as More Families Share a Space”, AOL Real Estate, November 16, 2012, http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012/11/16/multigenerational-homes-real-estates-next-big- thing-as-more-fa/.

180. Les Christie, “The New American household: 3 generations, 1 roof”, CNN Money, April 3, 2012, http://money.cnn. com/2012/04/03/real_estate/multi-generation-households/index.htm.

181. Bruegmann, Sprawl (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005), 61, 81; Peter Coy, “The Death of the McMansion Has Been Greatly Exaggerated”, Bloomberg Business, November 16, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-11-16/death-of-the-mcmansion-has-been-greatly-exaggerated.

80 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 182. Wendell Cox, “U.S. Sets New House Record in 2012”, New Geography, June 15, 2013, http://www.newgeography.com/ content/003772-us-sets-new-house-size-record-2012.

183. Kriston Capps, “The Recovery Is Super-Sizing Houses,” City Lab, August 3, 2015, http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/08/the-recovery-is-super-sizing-houses/400094/)

184. Frank Llyod Wright, The Living City (New York:New American Library, 1958) ( 83, 231.

185. Austin Williams, Enemies of Progress, 57; Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson, “Critiquing Sprawl’s Critics”, Policy Analysis, No. 365, January 24, 2000, 5, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa365.pdf.

186. James A. Kushner, “Urban Planning and the American Family”, Emory Law School, March, 6, 2007, http://www.stetson. edu/law/lawreview/media/urban-planning-and-the-american-family.pdf.

187. Steven Conn, “Let’s make suburbs into cities: New urbanism, car culture and the future of community”, Salon, August 17, 2004, http://www.salon.com/2014/08/17/lets_make_suburbs_into_cities_new_urbanism_car_culture_and_the_ future_of_community/.

188. The metropolitan planning organization (Metropolitan Council). 189. Katherine Kersten, “Turning the Twin Cities into Sim City,” The Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/ articles/SB10001424052702304536104579560042268686598; Katherine Kersten, “About the Met Council’s stamp on housing: Do we really want to live like this?” Star Tribune, September 25, 2015, http://www.startribune.com/about- the-met-council-s-stamp-on-housing-do-we-really-want-to-live-like-this/329599581/.

190. Peter Calthorpe, The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 18-19.

191. Scott A. Hodge and Andrew Lundeen, “America Has Become a Nation of Dual-Income Working Couples,” Tax Foundation, November 21, 2013, http://taxfoundation.org/blog/america-has-become-nation-dual-income-working-couples.

192. “American suburbs turning into ghost towns: How homeowners are ditching out of town areas to live in city areas”, Daily Mail, April 5, 2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125507/American-suburbs-turning-ghost-towns-How- homeowners-ditching-town-areas-live-big-cities.html.

193. Allison Arieff, “What Will Save the Suburbs?” The New York Times, January 11, 2009, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes. com/2009/01/11/what-will-save-the-suburbs/?_r=0.

194. Eric Parfrey, “What is Smart Growth?” Sierra Club, http://vault.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/smartgrowth.asp.

195. Shaw and Utt, A Guide to Smart Growth, 18; Brenden O’Neill, “Too Many People? No, Too Many Malthusians,” spiked, November 19, 2009, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/7723#.VVTK-pMYG48.

196. Stewart Brand, “Cities & Time”, The Long Now Foundation, April 8, 2005, http://longnow.org/seminars/02005/apr/08/ cities-and-time/.

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 81 197. Martin Dreiling, “New Urbanism Examined by Time Magazine, Andres Duany”, Planetizen, December 24, 2007, http:// www.planetizen.com/node/29063; Brian Stone, “Land Use as Climate Change Mitigation”, Environmental Science and Technology43 (2009), 9052-9056; Ronald D. Utt, “The Oberstar Transportation Plan: A Costly Exercise in Lifestyle Modification”, Heritage Foundation Web Memo, November 10, 2009.

198. ATL Urbanist, “Streetcar Tour of Bad Land Use in Atlanta”, Streetsblog Southeast, August 7, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801306.html; Eric Klinenberg, (New York:Penguin:2013) .,p.207 (Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone)

199. Wendell Cox, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reality: Residential Emissions”, New Geography, April 8, 2009, http://www. newgeography.com/content/00728-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-reality-residential-emissions.

200. Christopher A. Kennedy, “Energy and material flows of megacities,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (2015): 5985-5990, http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5985.abstract.

201. Wendell Cox Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policy: From Rhetoric to Reason , New Geography http://www.newgeography.com/content/0039-greenhouse-gas-reduction-policy-from-rhetoric-reason

202. “Carbon footprint assumptions do not hold true for Halifax”, CBC News, April 29, 2013, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/carbon-footprint-assumptions-do-not-hold-true-for-halifax-1.1371095.

203. Phil McKenna, “Forget Curbing Suburban Sprawl”, MIT Technology Review, September 3, 2009, http://www.technologyre- view.com/news/415135/forget-curbing-suburban-sprawl/;Rebecca Alvania and Luwam Yeibio, “Increasing Residential ad Employment Density Could Mean Reductions in Vehicle Travel, Fuel Use, and CO2 emissions,” The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, September 1, 2009, http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem. aspx?RecordID=12747.

204. McKenna, “Forget Curbing Suburban Sprawl”; Witold Rybczyniski, Makeshift Metropolis (New York: Scribner, 2010), 186.

205. Wendell Cox, “California Declares War on Suburbia II: The Cost of Radical Densification”, New Geography, April 18, 2012, http://www.newgeography.com/content/002781-california-declares-war-suburbia-ii-the-cost-radical-densification; “Re- ducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?” McKinsey & Company, November 21, 2007, file:///C:/ Users/MIMKA/Downloads/Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Executive_Summary%20(1).pdf.

206. Hugh Byrd, et al., “Measuring the Solar Potential of a City and Its Implications for Energy Policy”, Energy Policy 61 (October 2013): 944-952, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513005272.

207. Christopher G. Boone and Ali Modarres, City and Environment (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2006), 105.

208. Werner H. Terjunb and Stella S-F Laurie, “Solar Radiation and Urban Heat Islands”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 63 (1973): 181-207, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562269.

209. Hashem Akbari, “Energy Saving Potentials and Air Quality Benefits of Urban Heat Island Mitigation”, SCITech Connect, August 23, 2005, http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/860475; Sachiho A. Adachi, et al., “Moderation of Summertime Heat Island Phenomena via Modification of the Urban Form in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area”, Journal of Applied Meteo- rology & Climatology 53 (August 2014): 1886-1900, https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.chapman.edu/ehost/detail/ detail?vid=5&sid=bc7d8f89-8605-4f26-a574-6a02d6ddcdae%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4113&bdata=JkF1dGhUeX- BlPWlwLHVpZCxjb29raWUsdXJsJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=97411213.

82 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY 210. Ping Zhang, et al., “Potential Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast USA”, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/ 505254main_zhang.pdf.

211. Transport Canada, The Cost of Urban Congestion in Canada, April 2006, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;j- sessionid=9CD2D9FA6D7AE54580D380138C052FED.

212. Lloyd Alter, “To Go Green, Live Closer to Work”, treehugger, October 2, 2007, http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/to-go-green-live-closer-to-work.html; Sharon Bernstein and Francisco Vara-Orta, “Near the rails but on the road”, Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2007, http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/30/local/me-transit30.

213. David Friedman and Jennifer Hernandez, “California Environmental Quality Act, Greenhouse Gas Regulation and Climate Change”, Chapman University Press, 2015, http://www.chapman.edu/wilkinson/_files/GHGfn.pdf.

214. Eric John Abrahamson, Building Home: Howard F. Ahmanson and the Politics of the American Dream (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), 5-11.

215. Abrahamson, Building Home, 5; Stephanie Coontz, The Way We Never Were (New York: Basic Books, 1991), 77.

216. Coontz, The Way We Never Were, 29, 61.

217. Thomas Piketty and Emmanual Saez, “The Evolution of Top Incomes: A Historical and International Perspective”, American Economics Association, 2006, http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezAEAPP06.pdf.

218. Clarence Senior, Land Reform and Democracy (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1958), 11.

219. Jordan Weissmann, “The Recession’s Toll: How Middle Class Wealth Collapsed to a 40-Year Low,” The Atlantic, December 4, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/the-recessions-toll-how-middle-class-wealth-collapsed-to-a-40-year-low/265743/.

220. Robbie Whelan, “Housing Analyst-Turned-Investor’s ‘Jerry Maguire’ Moment,” The Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2012, http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2012/12/04/housing-analyst-turned-investors-jerry-maguire-moment/; Conor Dougherty, “New Homes Get Built Renters in Mind,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2013, http://www.wsj.com/ articles/SB10001424052702303843104579171791879768178.

221. AnnaMaria Andriotis, “New Ways to Profit From Renting Out Single-Family Homes,” The Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-ways-to-profit-from-renting-out-single-family-homes-1411150866.

222. Rachel Bogardus Drew and Christopher Herbert, “Post-Recession Drivers or Preferences for Homeownership”, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, August 2012, http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/w12- 4_drew_herbert.pdf.

223. Tom Breen, “UConn/Hartford Courant Poll: Middle Class Dream Persists, Though Harder to Attain,” UConn Today, February 11, 2013, http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2013/02/uconnhartford-courant-poll-middle-class-dream-persists-though-harder-to-attain/.

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 83 224. Wendell Cox, “84% of 18-to-34-Year-Olds Want to Own Homes,” New Geography, May 22, 2012, http://www.newgeography.com/content/002859-84-18-34-year-olds-want-to-own-homes; “Study Finds 84 Percent of Renters Intend to Buy a Home”, National Mortgage Professional , May 21, 2012, http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/23453/ study-finds-84-percent-renters-intend-buying-home; https://www.flatfee.com/realestateblog/the-millennial-generation-and-home-ownership/ (could not find)

225. “Home Buyer and Seller Generational Trends,” National Association of Realtors, March 2015, http://www.realtor.org/ sites/default/files/reports/2015/2015-home-buyer-and-seller-generational-trends-2015-03-11.pdf?utm_source=hs_ email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=21927799&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_12AfxVI9zZ4mSzz8SS75C7_yXu2vb- K_9e9KKi2jd3KYJUdPscTskdIYZplm6sOINV2lWx1JJ4RaFAEtFKfjN0rWEQKg&_hsmi=21927799.

226. See for example, Denise DiPasquale and Edward L. Glaeser, “Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citi- zens?” Journal of Urban Economics 45 (1998): 354-384, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/54.Glaeser.Home_. pdf; Kim Manturuk, K, Mark Lindblad, and Roberto Quercia, “Friends and Neighbors: Homeownership and Social Capital among Low-to-Moderate Income Families,” Journal of Urban Affairs 32 (2010): 471-488, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00494.x/abstract.

227. “Social Benefits of Homeownership and Stable Housing,” National Association of Realtors, April 2012, http://www.realtor. org/sites/default/files/social-benefits-of-stable-housing-2012-04.pdf: ; William H. Rohe, Shannon van Zandt and George McCarthy, “The Social Benefits and Costs of Home Ownership”, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard, October 2001, http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/publications/social-benefits-and-costs-homeownership-critical-assessment-research.

228. Robert D. Dietz, “The social consequences of homeownership”, Ohio State University, Center for Urban and Regional Analysis, June 18, 2003; “Benefits of Homeownership,” Habitat for Humanity - New York City, http://www.habitatnyc. org/pdf/Toolkit/homewonership.pdf.

229. Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson, “Critiquing Sprawl’s Critics”, Cato Institute, January 24, 2000, http://object.cato. org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa365.pdf.

230. Thomas Picketty, "Capital in the 21st Century," Cambridge: Harvard University (2014). Available online at http://www. marcellodibello.com/PHI169/resources/Piketty-response-about-rg.pdf.

231. Matthew Rognlie, "A note on Piketty and diminishing returns to capital,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 15, 2014, http://www.mit.edu/~mrognlie/piketty_diminishing_returns.pdf.

232. Picketty, "Capital in the 21st Century.”

233. Robert Fishman, “ Cities After the End of Cities: towards an urban pluralism”, Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring 1997, 14-15.

234. Roberta Brandes Gratz, “Americans Want What Czechs Have”, Association for Thrifty Transport, November 1995, http:// doprava.ecn.cz/en/Amerika.php; “Selected Data on Housing 2013”, Ministry of Regional Development CZ and Institute for Spatial Development, July 2014 Prague, http://www.mmr.cz/getmedia/1e967746-c803-44e9-90e1-e2008c337f1e/ Selected-data-housing-2013.pdf.

236. Frank Lloyd Wright, The Living City , op.cit., 87.

84 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY Sidebar:

1. “The world’s most ‘liveable’ cities,” The Economist, August 18, 2015, http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicde- tail/2015/08/daily-chart-5; http://monocle.com/magazine/ (

2. Richard Florida, “The Geography of Well-Being,” City Lab, April 23, 2015, http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/04/the-geography-of-well-being/391188/.

3. Patrick McGeehan, “New Yorkers Earn More, Early On, a Study Shows,” The New York Times, April 25, 2010, http://www. nytimes.com/2010/04/26/nyregion/26earn.html?_r=0.

4. Robin Madell, “What Working Moms Really Want,” U.S. News, September 12, 2013, http://money.usnews.com/money/ blogs/outside-voices-careers/2013/09/12/what-working-moms-really-want.

5. “10 Best Cities for Families,” Livability, May 2015, http://www.livability.com/top-10/families/10-best-cities-families/2015; ; John S. Kiernan, ‘2015’s Best and Worst Cities for Families,” WalletHub, 2015, http://wallethub.com/edu/best-cities-for-families/4435/.

6. Includes working at home, which is assumed to be zero minutes.

7. Laura Kusisto, “Rising Mortgage Rates to Test Housing Market’s Strength,” The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2015, http:// www.wsj.com/articles/rising-mortgage-rates-to-test-housing-markets-strength-1434913633.

8. “The Los Angeles and Orange County area becomes even more unaffordable when it comes to housing: In last two years home prices up 28 percent while wages are up 2 percent.” Dr. Housing Bubble, March 27, 2015, http://www.doctorhous- ingbubble.com/los-angeles-orange-county-wages-and-home-prices-unaffordable-la/.

9. “Things to Do in Omaha’s Old Market,” Visit Omaha, http://www.visitomaha.com/things-to-do/entertainment-districts/ old-market/#.Ve3l1Zeny1s; Robert Ogilvie, “Transforming Oklahoma City: Using downtown revitalization to build a healthier community,” ReportingonHealth, July 8, 2014, http://www.reportingonhealth.org/2014/07/03/transforming-oklahoma-city-using-downtown-revitalization-build-healthier-community; http://www.downtownkc.org/; “Things to do in the Des Moines Area,” Catch Des Moines, http://www.catchdesmoines.com/things-to-do/.

10. “You are here,” The McKnight Foundation and FORECAST Public Artworks, 2005, https://www.mcknight.org/system/ asset/document/546/YouAreHere_full.pdf.

11. See: Wendell Cox, “Urban Core Millennials? A Matter of Perspective,” New Geography, March 6, 2015, http://www.newgeography.com/content/004864-urban-core-millennials-a-matter-perspective

BEST CITIES FOR PEOPLE 85 Design Notes

Best Cities for People and the graphics utilize the following:

To achieve visual harmony a modified version of the grid Jan Tschichold conceived for his book Typographie was employed.

MINION PRO Chapman’s serif family, is a digital typeface designed by Robert Slimbach in 1990 for Adobe Systems. The name comes from the traditional naming system for type sizes, in which minion is between nonpareil and brevier. It is inspired by late Renaissance-era type.

BERTHOLD AKIZEDENZ GROTESK is Chapman’s san serif family. It is a grotesque typeface originally released by the Berthold Type Foundry in 1896 under the name Accidenz-Grotesk. It was the first sans serif typeface to be widely used and influenced many later neo-grotesque typefaces after 1950.

Page 6: Chinese Family Giving Daughter Ride on Shoulders In Park Copyright: www.123rf.com/18709944

Page 14-15, Multi Generation African American Family on Cycle Ride Copyright: www.123rf.com/31003727

Front Cover: Group of Friends Eating Meal On Rooftop Terrace Copyright: www.123rf.com/31098777

Back Cover: Family Playing Soccer Together Copyright" www.123rf.com/31065822

Book exterior and interior design by Chapman University professor Eric Chimenti. His work has won a Gold Advertising Award, been selected for inclusion into LogoLounge: Master Library, Volume 2 and LogoLounge Book 9, and been featured on visual.ly, the world’s largest community of infographics and data visualization. He has 17 years of experience in the communication design industry. To view a client list and see additional samples please visit www.behance.net/ericchimenti.

Professor Chimenti is also the founder and head of Chapman’s Ideation Lab that supports undergraduate and faculty research by providing creative visualization and presentation support from appropriately qualified Chapman University undergraduate students. Services include creative writing, video, photography, data visualization, and all aspects of design. The students specialize in the design and presentation of complex communication problems.

Special thanks to Ideation Lab workers Cheyenne Gorbitz, Erin Hiromoto, Justin Pintda, Sarah Pratt, Jamey Siebenberg, and Annie Woodward.

86 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY

BuildingRESEARCH IN Cities ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION WILKINSON COLLEGE FOR PEOPLEof Humanities and Social Sciences

RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

RESEARCH IN ACTION RESEARCH IN ACTION

WILKINSON COLLEGE of Humanities and Social Sciences

WILKINSON COLLEGE Center for Demographics and Policy of Humanities and Social Sciences

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY CHAPMAN PRESS PRESS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY Center for Demographics and Policy Center for Demographics and Policy

CHAPMAN PRESS UNIVERSITY PRESS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY Center for Demographics and Policy

PRESS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY PRESS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY Center for Demographics and Policy

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY PRESS