DOCSLIB.ORG

Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: Concepts, Components, and Population

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: Concepts, Components, and Population Appendix II Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: Concepts, Components, and Population The United States Office of Management Defining Metropolitan and Micropoli- and Budget (OMB) defines metropolitan tan Statistical Areas—The 2000 stan- and micropolitan statistical areas accord- dards provide that each CBSA must con- ing to published standards that are ap- tain at least one urban area of 10,000 or plied to U.S. Census Bureau data. The more population. Each metropolitan sta- general concept of a metropolitan or mic- tistical area must have at least one urban- ropolitan statistical area is that of a core ized area of 50,000 or more inhabitants. area containing a substantial population Each micropolitan statistical area must nucleus, together with adjacent communi- have at least one urban cluster of at least ties having a high degree of economic 10,000 but less than 50,000 population. and social integration with that core. Cur- Under the standards, the county (or coun- rently defined metropolitan and micro- ties) in which at least 50 percent of the politan statistical areas are based on ap- population resides within urban areas of plication of 2000 standards (which 10,000 or more population, or that con- appeared in the Federal Register on De- tain at least 5,000 people residing within cember 27, 2000) to 2000 decennial cen- a single urban area of 10,000 or more sus data. Current metropolitan and micro- population, is identified as a ‘‘central politan statistical area definitions were announced by OMB effective June 6, county’’ (counties). Additional ‘‘outlying 2003, and subsequently updated as of counties’’ are included in the CBSA if they December 2003, November 2004, meet specified requirements of commut- December 2005, December 2006, ing to or from the central counties. Coun- November 2007, and November 2008. ties or equivalent entities form the geo- graphic ‘‘building blocks’’ for metropolitan Standard definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas through- areas were first issued in 1949 by the out the United States and Puerto Rico. then Bureau of the Budget (predecessor of OMB), under the designation ‘‘standard If specified criteria are met, a metropoli- metropolitan area’’ (SMA). The term was tan statistical area containing a single changed to ‘‘standard metropolitan statis- core with a population of 2.5 million or tical area’’ (SMSA) in 1959 and to ‘‘metro- more may be subdivided to form smaller politan statistical area’’ (MSA) in 1983. groupings of counties referred to as ‘‘met- The term ‘‘metropolitan area’’ (MA) was ropolitan divisions.’’ adopted in 1990 and referred collectively As of November 2008, there are 366 met- to metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), ropolitan statistical areas and 574 micro- consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs), and primary metropolitan statis- politan statistical areas in the United tical areas (PMSAs). The term ‘‘core-based States. In addition, there are eight metro- statistical area’’ (CBSA) became effective politan statistical areas and five micropoli- in 2000 and refers collectively to metro- tan statistical areas in Puerto Rico. politan and micropolitan statistical areas. Principal Cities and Metropolitan and OMB has been responsible for the official Micropolitan Statistical Area Titles— metropolitan areas since they were first The largest city in each metropolitan or defined, except for the period 1977 to micropolitan statistical area is designated 1981, when they were the responsibility a ‘‘principal city.’’ Additional cities qualify of the Office of Federal Statistical Policy if specified requirements are met concern- and Standards, U.S. Department of Com- ing population size and employment. The merce. The standards for defining metro- title of each metropolitan or micropolitan politan areas were modified in 1958, statistical area consists of the names of 1971, 1975, 1980, 1990, and 2000. up to three of its principal cities and the Appendix II 879 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010 name of each state into which the metro- In some instances, formerly separate politan or micropolitan statistical area ex- areas have been merged, components of tends. Titles of metropolitan divisions an area have been transferred from one also typically are based on principal city area to another, or components have been names, but in certain cases consist of dropped from an area. The large majority county names. of changes have taken place on the basis of decennial census data. However, Cen- Defining New England City and Town sus Bureau data serve as the basis for Areas—In view of the importance of cit- intercensal updates in specified circum- ies and towns in New England, the 2000 standards also provide for a set of geo- stances. graphic areas that are defined using cities Because of these historical changes in and towns in the six New England states. The New England city and town areas geographic definitions, users must be (NECTAs) are defined using the same cri- cautious in comparing data for these sta- teria as metropolitan and micropolitan tistical areas from different dates. For statistical areas and are identified as ei- some purposes, comparisons of data for ther metropolitan or micropolitan, based, areas as defined at given dates may be respectively, on the presence of either an appropriate; for other purposes, it may be urbanized area of 50,000 or more popula- preferable to maintain consistent area tion or an urban cluster of at least 10,000 definitions. Historical metropolitan area but less than 50,000 population. If the definitions are available for 1999, 1993, specified criteria are met, a NECTA con- 1990, 1983, 1981, 1973, 1970, 1963, taining a single core with a population of 1960, and 1950. at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of cities and Excluding Tables 20 through 24 in the towns referred to as New England city Population section; Table 581 in the Labor and town area divisions. Force section; Table 667 in the Income section, and the tables that follow in this Changes in Definitions Over Time— appendix, the tables presenting data for Changes in the definitions of these statis- metropolitan areas in this edition of the tical areas since the 1950 census have Statistical Abstract are based on the 1999 consisted chiefly of (1) the recognition of or earlier metropolitan area definitions. new areas as they reached the minimum For a list of component counties accord- required city or urbanized area population ing to the 1999 definition, see Appendix and (2) the addition of counties (or cities II in the 2002 edition of the Statistical and towns in New England) to existing Abstract or <http://www.census.gov areas as new decennial census data /population /www/estimates/pastmetro showed them to qualify. .html>. 880 Appendix II U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010 Figure A1 Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas of the United States As defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, November 2007 Metropolitan Statistical Area Micropolitan Statistical Area Territory Outside Core Based Appendix II 881 Statistical Areas Note: Under the 1990 standards, metropolitan areas were defined using counties, except in New England where minor civil divisions (MCDs) were used. Under the 2000 standards, metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas are defined using counties nationwide. For New England, the 2000 standards also identify a complementary set of areas-- New England city and town areas (NECTAs)-- defined using MCDs. Figure A2 Metropolitan and Micropolitan New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) As defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, November 2007 Metropolitan NECTA Micropolitan NECTA Territory Outside NECTAs Note: Under the 2000 standards, metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas are defined using counties nationwide. For New England, the 2000 standards also identify a complementary set of areas-- New England city and town areas (NECTAs) -- defined using MCDs. 882 Appendix II U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010 Table A. Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Components— Population: 2008 [Population as of July 2008. (160 represents 160,000). Metropolitan statistical areas as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget as of November 2007. All geographic boundaries for 2008 population estimates are defined as of January 1, 2008. All metropolitan areas are arranged alphabetically] Popu- Popu- Popu- Metropolitan statistical area lation, Metropolitan statistical area lation, Metropolitan statistical area lation, Metropolitan division 2008 Metropolitan division 2008 Metropolitan division 2008 Component county (1,000) Component county (1,000) Component county (1,000) Abilene, TX............. 160’’ Athens-Clarke County, GA . 189 Baton Rouge, LA ........ 774 Callahan County, TX.... 14 Clarke County, GA ..... 115 Ascension Parish, LA . 102 Jones County, TX...... 19 Madison County, GA.... 28 East Baton Rouge Par- Taylor County, TX...... 127 Oconee County, GA .... 32 ish, LA ............ 428 Oglethorpe County, GA . 14 East Feliciana Parish, Akron, OH ............. 699 LA............... 21 Portage County, OH .... 156 Atlanta-Sandy Springs- Iberville Parish, LA ..... 33 Summit County, OH .... 543 Marietta, GA ........... 5,376 Livingston Parish, LA . 120 Barrow County, GA..... 70 Pointe Coupee Parish, Albany, GA ............. 165
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Slum Clearance in Havana in an Age of Revolution, 1930-65
    SLEEPING ON THE ASHES: SLUM CLEARANCE IN HAVANA IN AN AGE OF REVOLUTION, 1930-65 by Jesse Lewis Horst Bachelor of Arts, St. Olaf College, 2006 Master of Arts, University of Pittsburgh, 2012 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2016 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS & SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Jesse Horst It was defended on July 28, 2016 and approved by Scott Morgenstern, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science Edward Muller, Professor, Department of History Lara Putnam, Professor and Chair, Department of History Co-Chair: George Reid Andrews, Distinguished Professor, Department of History Co-Chair: Alejandro de la Fuente, Robert Woods Bliss Professor of Latin American History and Economics, Department of History, Harvard University ii Copyright © by Jesse Horst 2016 iii SLEEPING ON THE ASHES: SLUM CLEARANCE IN HAVANA IN AN AGE OF REVOLUTION, 1930-65 Jesse Horst, M.A., PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2016 This dissertation examines the relationship between poor, informally housed communities and the state in Havana, Cuba, from 1930 to 1965, before and after the first socialist revolution in the Western Hemisphere. It challenges the notion of a “great divide” between Republic and Revolution by tracing contentious interactions between technocrats, politicians, and financial elites on one hand, and mobilized, mostly-Afro-descended tenants and shantytown residents on the other hand. The dynamics of housing inequality in Havana not only reflected existing socio- racial hierarchies but also produced and reconfigured them in ways that have not been systematically researched.
    [Show full text]
  • TULSA METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No
    TULSA METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No. 2646 Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 1:30 p.m. City Council Chamber One Technology Center – 175 E. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Others Present Covey Stirling Bates Tohlen, COT Carnes Walker Fernandez VanValkenburgh, Legal Dix Huntsinger Warrick, COT Edwards Miller Leighty White Liotta Wilkerson Midget Perkins Shivel The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, March 18, 2013 at 2:10 p.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk, as well as in the Office of the County Clerk. After declaring a quorum present, 1st Vice Chair Perkins called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. REPORTS: Director’s Report: Ms. Miller reported on the TMAPC Receipts for the month of February 2013. Ms. Miller submitted and explained the timeline for the general work program for 6th Street Infill Plan Amendments and Form-Based Code Revisions. Ms. Miller reported that the TMAPC website has been improved and should be online by next week. Mr. Miller further reported that there will be a work session on April 3, 2013 for the Eugene Field Small Area Plan immediately following the regular TMAPC meeting. * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:20:13:2646(1) CONSENT AGENDA All matters under "Consent" are considered by the Planning Commission to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Any Planning Commission member may, however, remove an item by request. 1. LS-20582 (Lot-Split) (CD 3) – Location: Northwest corner of East Apache Street and North Florence Avenue (Continued from 3/6/2013) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Metropolitan Growth: Reflections on the Twin Cities Experience
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ MANAGING METROPOLITAN GROWTH: REFLECTIONS ON THE TWIN CITIES EXPERIENCE Ted Mondale and William Fulton A Case Study Prepared for: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy © September 2003 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ MANAGING METROPOLITAN GROWTH: REFLECTIONS ON THE TWIN CITIES EXPERIENCE BY TED MONDALE AND WILLIAM FULTON1 I. INTRODUCTION: MANAGING METROPOLITAN GROWTH PRAGMATICALLY Many debates about whether and how to manage urban growth on a metropolitan or regional level focus on the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism and command-and-control government regulation. This paper proposes an alternative, or "third way," of managing metropolitan growth, one that seeks to steer in between the two extremes, focusing on a pragmatic approach that acknowledges both the market and government policy. Laissez-faire advocates argue that we should leave growth to the markets. If the core cities fail, it is because people don’t want to live, shop, or work there anymore. If the first ring suburbs decline, it is because their day has passed. If exurban areas begin to choke on large-lot, septic- driven subdivisions, it is because that is the lifestyle that people individually prefer. Government policy should be used to accommodate these preferences rather than seek to shape any particular regional growth pattern. Advocates on the other side call for a strong regulatory approach. Their view is that regional and state governments should use their power to engineer precisely where and how local communities should grow for the common good. Among other things, this approach calls for the creation of a strong—even heavy-handed—regional boundary that restricts urban growth to particular geographical areas.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-04-758 Metropolitan Statistical Areas
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Subcommittee on GAO Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives June 2004 METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS New Standards and Their Impact on Selected Federal Programs a GAO-04-758 June 2004 METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS New Standards and Their Impact on Highlights of GAO-04-758, a report to the Selected Federal Programs Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives For the past 50 years, the federal The new standards for federal statistical recognition of metropolitan areas government has had a metropolitan issued by OMB in 2000 differ from the 1990 standards in many ways. One of the area program designed to provide a most notable differences is the introduction of a new designation for less nationally consistent set of populated areas—micropolitan statistical areas. These are areas comprised of a standards for collecting, tabulating, central county or counties with at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but and publishing federal statistics for geographic areas in the United fewer than 50,000 people, plus adjacent outlying counties if commuting criteria States and Puerto Rico. Before is met. each decennial census, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) The 2000 standards and the latest population update have resulted in five reviews the standards to ensure counties being dropped from metropolitan statistical areas, while another their continued usefulness and 41counties that had been a part of a metropolitan statistical area have had their relevance and, if warranted, revises statistical status changed and are now components of micropolitan statistical them.
    [Show full text]
  • Urbanistica N. 146 April-June 2011
    Urbanistica n. 146 April-June 2011 Distribution by www.planum.net Index and english translation of the articles Paolo Avarello The plan is dead, long live the plan edited by Gianfranco Gorelli Urban regeneration: fundamental strategy of the new structural Plan of Prato Paolo Maria Vannucchi The ‘factory town’: a problematic reality Michela Brachi, Pamela Bracciotti, Massimo Fabbri The project (pre)view Riccardo Pecorario The path from structure Plan to urban design edited by Carla Ferrari A structural plan for a ‘City of the wine’: the Ps of the Municipality of Bomporto Projects and implementation Raffaella Radoccia Co-planning Pto in the Val Pescara Mariangela Virno Temporal policies in the Abruzzo Region Stefano Stabilini, Roberto Zedda Chronographic analysis of the Urban systems. The case of Pescara edited by Simone Ombuen The geographical digital information in the planning ‘knowledge frameworks’ Simone Ombuen The european implementation of the Inspire directive and the Plan4all project Flavio Camerata, Simone Ombuen, Interoperability and spatial planners: a proposal for a land use Franco Vico ‘data model’ Flavio Camerata, Simone Ombuen What is a land use data model? Giuseppe De Marco Interoperability and metadata catalogues Stefano Magaudda Relationships among regional planning laws, ‘knowledge fra- meworks’ and Territorial information systems in Italy Gaia Caramellino Towards a national Plan. Shaping cuban planning during the fifties Profiles and practices Rosario Pavia Waterfrontstory Carlos Smaniotto Costa, Monica Bocci Brasilia, the city of the future is 50 years old. The urban design and the challenges of the Brazilian national capital Michele Talia To research of one impossible balance Antonella Radicchi On the sonic image of the city Marco Barbieri Urban grapes.
    [Show full text]
  • Geography Variables
    The 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health reports four geographic variables on the public use file: FIPSST (State of Residence), CBSAFP_YN (Core-Based Statistical Area Status), METRO_YN (Metropolitan Statistical Area Status), and MPC_YN (Metropolitan Principal City Status). The intersection of CBSAFP_YN and METRO_YN allows users to also identify children in Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) are defined as a county or counties with at least one urbanized area or urban cluster (a core) of at least 10,000 population, plus adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration with the core (as measured through commuting ties). There are two types of CBSAs: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (μSAs). The differentiating factor between these types is that MSAs have a larger core, with a population of at least 50,000. A principal city – the largest incorporated place with a population of at least 50,000 – is identified in every MSA. The intersection of FIPSST, CBSAFP_YN, METRO_YN, and MPC_YN allows a user to identify four geographic areas: - Not in a Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSAFP_YN = 2) - Micropolitan Statistical Area (CBSAFP_YN = 1 and METRO_YN = 2) - Metropolitan Statistical Area, not Principal City (METRO_YN = 1 and MPC_YN = 2) - Metropolitan Principal City (MPC_YN = 1) To protect respondent confidentiality, CBSAFP_YN, METRO_YN, and MPC_YN could not be reported for children in some states. If a variable or intersection of variables could be used to identify a geographic area within a state with a child population under 100,000, reported values for that variable were replaced with ".D", indicating "Suppressed for Confidentiality", for all children in that state.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economist's Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1, Defining Excessive
    An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1 An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1 Defining Excessive Decentralization in California and Other Western States California Senate Office of Research January 2002 (Revised) An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1 An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part I Defining Excessive Decentralization in California and Other Western States Prepared by Robert W. Wassmer Professor Graduate Program in Public Policy and Administration California State University Visiting Consultant California Senate Office of Research Support for this work came from the California Institute for County Government, Capital Regional Institute and Valley Vision, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and the California State University Faculty Research Fellows in association with the California Senate Office of Research. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author. Senate Office of Research Elisabeth Kersten, Director Edited by Rebecca LaVally and formatted by Lynne Stewart January 2002 (Revised) 2 An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................... 4 What is Sprawl? ........................................................................................... 5 Findings ........................................................................................................ 5 Conclusions..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Infill and Redevelopment Plan City of Bismarck
    City of Bismarck’s Infill and Redevelopment November 16, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Adoption February 28, 2017 Plan Board of City Commissioners Acceptance Infill and Redevelopment Plan City of Bismarck Acknowledgements Jake Axtman, Axtman+Associates, PC Linda Oster, Design and Construction Engineer, City Ben Ehreth, North Dakota Department of of Bismarck Transportation Michael Greer, Design and Construction Engineer, Bismarck Board of City of Commissioners Kyle Holwagner, Daniel Companies City of Bismarck Accepted: February 28, 2017 Dave Patience, Swenson, Hagen & Co. Ron Kunda, Fire Marshall, City of Bismarck Mike Seminary, President Blake Preszler, Plainview Designs Jeff Heintz, Public Works Service Operations Josh Askvig Director, City of Bismarck Jason Tomanek, City of Bismarck Nancy Guy Sheila Hillman, Director of Finance, City of Bismarck Earl Torgerson, Bismarck State College Steve Marquardt Keith Hunke, City Administrator, City of Bismarck Bruce Whittey, Bismarck Futures Shawn Oban Rachel Drewlow, Bismarck-Mandan Metropolitan David Witham, Civitecture Studio PLLC Planning Organization Bismarck Planning and Zoning Commission Wayne Yeager, Planning and Zoning Commission Darin Scherr, Director of Facilities and Adopted: November 16, 2016 Transportation, Bismarck Public Schools Additional Assistance Wayne Yeager, Chair (City of Bismarck) Renae Walker, Community Relations Director, Bismarck Public Schools Doug Lee, Vice Chair (City of Bismarck) Brian Ritter, Bismarck-Mandan Development Michelle Klose, Public Works Utilities
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Statistical Areas
    Monday, June 28, 2010 Part IV Office of Management and Budget 2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas; Notice VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:27 Jun 25, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\28JNN3.SGM 28JNN3 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3 37246 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 123 / Monday, June 28, 2010 / Notices OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND Web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ nonstatistical activities or for use in BUDGET omb/fedreg_default/. program funding formulas. Furthermore, the Metropolitan and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2010 Standards for Delineating Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards Suzann Evinger, Office of Management Metropolitan and Micropolitan do not produce an urban-rural and Budget, telephone number (202) Statistical Areas classification, and confusion of these 395–3093, fax number 202–395–7245. concepts can lead to difficulties in AGENCY: Office of Information and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: program implementation. Counties Regulatory Affairs, Office of Outline of Notice included in Metropolitan and Management and Budget (OMB), Micropolitan Statistical Areas and many Executive Office of the President. A. Background and Review Process other counties may contain both urban ACTION: Notice of decision. B. Summary of Comments Received in and rural territory and population. For Response to the February 12, 2009 Federal instance, programs that seek to SUMMARY: This Notice announces OMB’s Register Notice adoption of 2010 Standards for C. OMB’s Decisions
    [Show full text]
  • The Geography of Government Geography
    Research Note The Geography of Government Geography Old Dominion University Center for Real Estate and Economic Development http://www.odu.edu/creed 1 The Geography of Government Geography In glancing over articles in journals, magazines, or newspapers, the reader quite often encounters terms that make sense within the article’s context, but are seemingly hard to compare with other expressions; a few examples would include phrases such as Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Planning Districts, Labor Market Areas, and, even, Hampton Roads (what or where is that?). Definitions don’t stay static; they occasionally change. For instance, in June 2004 the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) published new standards for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (GAO report, GAO-04-758). To provide some illumination on this topic, the following examines the basic definitions and how they apply to the Hampton Roads region. Terminology, Old and New Let’s review a few basic definitions1: Metropolitan Statistical Area – To be considered a Metropolitan Statistical Area, an area must have at least one urbanized grouping of 50,000 or more people. The phrase “Metropolitan Statistical Area” has been traditionally referred to as “MSA”. The Metropolitan Statistical Area comprises the central county or counties or independent cities containing the core area, as well as adjoining counties. 1 The definitions are derived from several sources included in the “For Further Reading and Reference” section of this article. 2 Micropolitan Statistical Area – This is a relatively new term and was introduced in 2000. A Micropolitan Statistical Area is a locale with a central county or counties or independent cities with, at a minimum, an urban grouping having no less than 10,000 people, but no more than 50,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Suburban Gentrification: Understanding the Determinants of Single-Family Residential Redevelopment, a Case Study of the Inner-Ring Suburbs of Chicago, IL, 2000-2010
    Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University Suburban Gentrification: Understanding the Determinants of Single-family Residential Redevelopment, A Case Study of the Inner-Ring Suburbs of Chicago, IL, 2000-2010 Suzanne Lanyi Charles February 2011 W11-1 Suzanne Lanyi Charles is the 2008 recipient of the John R. Meyer Dissertation Fellowship The author wishes to thank her dissertation committee members, Richard Peiser, Susan Fainstein, Judith Grant Long, and Daniel McMillen, as well as Eric Belsky for helpful comments and suggestions. She is also grateful to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, the Real Estate Academic Initiative of Harvard University, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing research funding. © by Suzanne Lanyi Charles. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Prepared under Grant Number H-21570 SG from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of University Partnerships. Points of views or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies. Abstract Suburban gentrification is most visible through capital reinvestment in the built environment. In this paper, I examine one type of reinvestment—the incremental, residential redevelopment process in which older single-family housing is demolished and replaced with larger single- family housing.
    [Show full text]
  • Infill Development Standards and Policy Guide
    Infill Development Standards and Policy Guide STUDY PREPARED BY CENTER FOR URBAN POLICY RESEARCH EDWARD J. BLOUSTEIN SCHOOL OF PLANNING & PUBLIC POLICY RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY with the participation of THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR SMART GROWTH RESEARCH AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND and SCHOOR DEPALMA MANALAPAN, NEW JERSEY STUDY PREPARED FOR NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (NJDCA) DIVISION OF CODES AND STANDARDS and NEW JERSEY MEADOWLANDS COMMISSION (NJMC) NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF SMART GROWTH (NJOSG) June, 2006 DRAFT—NOT FOR QUOTATION ii CONTENTS Part One: Introduction and Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations Chapter 1. Smart Growth and Infill: Challenge, Opportunity, and Best Practices……………………………………………………………...…..2 Part Two: Infill Development Standards and Policy Guide Section I. General Provisions…………………….…………………………….....33 II. Definitions and Development and Area Designations ………….....36 III. Land Acquisition………………………………………………….……40 IV. Financing for Infill Development ……………………………..……...43 V. Property Taxes……………………………………………………….....52 VI. Procedure………………………………………………………………..57 VII. Design……………………………………………………………….…..68 VIII. Zoning…………………………………………………………………...79 IX. Subdivision and Site Plan…………………………………………….100 X. Documents to be Submitted……………………………………….…135 XI. Design Details XI-1 Lighting………………………………………………….....145 XI-2 Signs………………………………………………………..156 XI-3 Landscaping…………………………………………….....167 Part Three: Background on Infill Development: Challenges
    [Show full text]