Boston Mayor Gives Annual Dunlop Lecture

by David Luberoff
Senior Associate Director

In a more two-decade career that began in the construction trades and now brings him into a host of debates about federal policies, Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh says he’s “learned a lot about housing: how it gets built, the role it plays in working people’s lives, and the role it plays in community development.”

Walsh, who gave the Joint Center’s 17th Annual John T. Dunlop Lecture on March 20th before more than 300 people at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, hailed the fact that, in positions that included serving as dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and as U.S. Secretary of Labor, John Dunlop “spent his career bringing together academics, government officials, workers, and labor leaders to better understand our shared challenges.” Such collaboration, “is something we could use more of today,” noted Walsh, who added, “I’ve found that kind of dialogue and collaboration to be invaluable throughout my career,” particularly when it comes to housing.

Walsh, who emerged from a crowded field to win Boston’s mayoral race in 2013, said that upon taking office, “one of the first things I confronted was what more and more people were calling a housing crisis. Rents and home prices were rising beyond middle-class, working-class, and low-income people’s budgets.”  Addressing those challenges, he said, not only required setting and achieving ambitious goals, such as building more than 50,000 additional housing units by 2030, but also doing so in ways that go beyond “simply matching housing units to the population, or meeting market-driven demand.”

Rather, he said, “the challenge is to embrace our success as a city while retaining the core values that got us here. Those values center on inclusiveness, on opportunity, on social and economic diversity. We are a community that welcomes all and leaves no one behind. These aren’t just ideals. They are pragmatic needs.” The mayor, who also spoke about city initiatives to provide more housing, reduce homelessness, and address evictions, added that those efforts further highlight “the role of housing not just in community development but also in human development.”

Turning to current debates about the federal budget and other federal policies, Walsh said the Trump administration’s recent budget proposals and other federal initiatives are “an effort to end the system of federal partnerships that date to the New Deal and Great Society commitments of the 1930s [and] the 1960s.”  Left unchecked, he said, such policies would exacerbate the already significant problem of economic inequality in Boston.  Therefore, he added, he and other mayors are actively trying “to educate people on the impacts of inequality, and advocate for solutions” such as “health care; paid family leave and affordable daycare; strong labor laws and fair tax laws; financial regulation; [and] infrastructure investments.”

While these are daunting challenges, the mayor said, “I’m still counseling confidence” because the work the city has done and continues to do puts Boston “in a good position to respond to this moment. Even if the funding arrangements we’ve built seem threatened, the relationships we’ve built are strong. They will produce new solutions and new ideas. They will bring new partners to the table.”  Those partners, he concluded, hopefully will include the many graduate and undergraduate students who attended the lecture. “We are going to need you in the years ahead,” said the mayor.

Watch Mayor Marty Walsh deliver the 2017 Dunlop Lecture.

Remodeling Activity Projected to Grow in Most Metropolitan Areas

by Elizabeth La Jeunesse
Research Analyst

Spending on home improvements is expected to increase this year in 43 of the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas, according to our latest report about the home improvement industry, Demographic Change and the Remodeling Outlook. The report projects that, on average, home improvement spending in 2017 in these metro areas will be 6.8 percent higher than it was in 2016, slightly more than the projected 6.1 increase nationwide. 

However, as an interactive map released in conjunction with the report shows, the growth rates will vary widely. About a third of major metro areas are expected to see strong growth of 10 percent or more, while a similar number should see declines or slow growth of under 3 percent.

Some of the largest increases, in percentage terms, are expected to occur in several Midwestern metropolitan areas such as Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee, where there is a consistent demand for housing and prices are not as high as in other parts of the country.

Double-digit gains in home improvement expenditures are also expected in New England’s three largest metro areas—Boston, Hartford, and Providence—where home sales have been strong. While average per-owner spending in other metropolitan areas on the East Coast has been relatively high in recent years, total spending in several of those areas is expected to increase slowly in the next year. The report projects that spending will grow by less than one percent in New York, the nation’s largest metro area, and by less than four percent in the Washington, DC area.

Home improvement spending is also expected to pick up significantly in several fast-growing, Southern metropolitan areas where homebuilding activity has revived and more households are forming, such as Atlanta, Charlotte, Jacksonville, and Orlando. In contrast, spending will grow modestly or may even decline in Southern metro areas with oil-dependent economies such as Dallas, Houston, and Oklahoma City.

On the West Coast, the report projects a significant increase in spending on home improvements in the Sacramento metro area, where house prices recovered more slowly from the Great Recession than in other parts of the state. In contrast, spending is expected to increase only modestly or decline slightly in the Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, where leading indicators suggest housing markets may be approaching their cyclical peaks. In metro areas across the Mountain and Pacific Northwest regions, growth rates are also expected to vary widely, from a low of just under 2 percent in the Las Vegas metro to a high of nearly 10 percent in the Salt Lake City area.

These projections are based on two measures of housing demand—single-family starts and growth in existing home sales—that are strong leading indicators of national remodeling activity. The results broadly support our expectation that home improvement expenditures in certain high-cost markets may soon reach a cyclical peak, while spending will increase in markets where house prices are lower but are increasing steadily.

The report also finds that the national market for home improvements is somewhat more concentrated in the nation’s 15 largest metropolitan areas, which account for about 29 percent of the nation’s homeowners. Illustratively, according to estimates from the 2015 American Housing Survey, average per-owner improvement spending in the same 15 metro areas was $3,500, or more than 30 percent greater than average spending by homeowners outside of these areas. As a result, aggregate spending by homeowners in the same 15 areas totaled over $80 billion, or nearly 37 percent of the total spending by all owners on home improvements nationally.

When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism

by Michael Hankinson
Meyer Fellow

In theory, renters and homeowners disagree about proposals to build new housing in their communities, particularly if that housing is close to where they live. However, in practice, this is not always the case. 

Rather, in a new Joint Center working paper that is based on new national-level experimental data and city-specific behavioral data, I find that in high-housing cost cities, renters and homeowners both oppose new residential developments proposed for their neighborhoods. However, in high-cost markets renters are still more likely than homeowners to support citywide increases in the supply of housing. Since changes in city governments over the past several decades have generally strengthened the power of neighborhood-level opponents to proposed projects, my findings help explain why it is so hard to build new housing in expensive cities even when there is citywide support for that housing.

NIMBYism and the Rising Cost of Housing

Since 1970, housing prices in the nation’s most expensive metropolitan areas have dramatically increased. Real prices have doubled in New York City and Los Angeles and nearly tripled in San Francisco. Driving this appreciation is an inability of new housing supply to keep up with demand. Even accounting for the cost of materials and natural geographic constraints on supply, the dominant factor behind this decoupling of supply and demand is political regulation, such as limits on the density of new housing developments and caps on the number of permits issued by a localities’ government.

                                               

These limits are a classic example of the NIMBY (Not in My BackYard) phenomenon. Even if residents support a citywide increase in the supply of housing, they may still oppose specific projects in their neighborhood. This seeming disconnect between views on citywide and local development policies creates a classic collective action problem for those policymakers who must find ways to reconcile the conflicting views.  

Photo by Michael Hogan/Flickr

Despite its popularity as a scapegoat, there is no individual-level, empirical data on how NIMBYism operates and among whom. Students of urban politics generally assume that homeowners have strong NIMBY tendencies not only because they benefit from rising house prices but also because they worry that nearby new housing units, particularly nearby subsidized housing units, might decrease the value of their home.

There is less consensus on (or studies of) how renters view new development. New supply may help ease prices for renters but their pro-development views may not be reflected in local policies because renters are less likely to become politically involved than highly motivated homeowners.  Alternatively, renters might not favor new projects if they believe the units will increase demand in their neighborhood, which, in turn, will lead to increased housing prices. To date, however, there has been very little research on how renters view development projects and whether their views differ from those of homeowners.

                                               

Measuring NIMBYism

To measure NIMBYism and general support for new housing, I collected two unique datasets. I conducted the first experimental tests of NIMBYism through an online survey of 3,019 respondents across 655 cities in 47 states. Respondents were asked about their support for development policies, including whether they would support a 10 percent increase in their city’s housing supply, with the question customized to each respondent’s city, stating how many homes and apartments currently exist and how many more would be built. Respondents also participated in an experiment where they were presented with two housing developments and asked which of the two proposals they preferred for their city. Each proposed development was described using several attributes, such as height and affordability level. To measure NIMBYism, respondents were also told how far each the of developments would be from their home, from two miles away to ⅛ mile away. By randomly varying this distance along with the other attributes, I was able to measure respondents’ sensitivity to proximity (NIMBYism), holding all other attributes equal.

To supplement this national survey, I also conducted a 1,660-person exit poll during the 2015 San Francisco election. Voters at 26 polling locations were asked their opinions on several housing-related ballot propositions similar to those presented in the national survey.

When Renters Behave Like Homeowners

As noted, renters and homeowners are expected to disagree on support for new housing, with NIMBY homeowners opposing citywide and neighborhood development and renters likely supporting the new supply. In line with existing theory, homeowners in my national survey largely opposed the proposed 10 percent increase in their city’s housing supply (28 percent approval), while a majority of renters supported the new supply (59 percent approval). Likewise, when asked in the experiment which of two randomly generated buildings they would prefer for their city, homeowners exhibited consistent NIMBYism, preferring buildings that were farther away from their home. In contrast, renters on average did not pick buildings based on distance from their home. If anything, renters preferred affordable housing that was closer to their home, displaying a YIMBY or ‘Yes in My BackYard’ attitude. In short, homeowners and renters tend to have very different attitudes towards both NIMBYism and the citywide housing supply.

However, in high-rent cities, renters look far more like homeowners. Instead of paying little attention to the location of proposed new housing, renters in expensive cities are just as NIMBY towards market-rate housing as homeowners. Moreover, this renter opposition to nearby development does not mean they support less new development overall. In fact, renters in expensive cities show just as much support for a 10 percent increase in their city’s housing supply as renters in more affordable cities. The main difference between these groups of renters is their NIMBYism.

Results from the San Francisco exit poll show a similar combination of supporting supply citywide, but opposing it locally. When asked about a 10 percent increase in the San Francisco housing supply, both renters and homeowners expressed high levels of support, at 84 percent and 73 percent approval, respectively. But, somewhat surprisingly, when asked if they would support a ban on market-rate development in their neighborhood, renters showed far more NIMBYism than homeowners, with 62 percent of renters supporting the NIMBY ban compared to 40 percent of homeowners.

NIMBYism and How We Permit Housing

Renters in high-rent cities generally both want new housing citywide but behave like homeowners when it comes to their own neighborhood. These scale-dependent preferences present a policy challenge for keeping cities affordable. Over the past 40 years, city governments have increasingly empowered neighborhoods to weigh-in on housing proposals through formal planning institutions. In doing so, these decisions have amplified NIMBYism and the ability to reject new housing, without maintaining a counterweight for the broader interest for new supply citywide. In other words, while most residents may support new housing for the city as a whole, both homeowners and renters are willing and increasingly able to block that supply in their own neighborhood, effectively constraining the housing supply citywide. This is housing’s collective action problem.

In separate research, I am empirically testing the effect of these strengthened neighborhood institutions on the rate of housing permitting since 1980. Likewise, I am conducting further experimental research on what types of citywide housing proposals are able to win the greatest support among both homeowners and renters. Hopefully, by measuring the tradeoffs between the ‘city’ and ‘neighborhood’ in the politics of housing, we can better address the deepening affordability crisis facing many American cities.

The New Urban Agenda, HABITAT III, and the Celebration of a Multinational Agreement on Cities

by Jessica Jean-Francois
Harvard Graduate
School of Design

A few weeks ago, I was one of the approximately 50,000 people who came to Quito, Ecuador for the third UN-HABITAT conference (HABITAT III). The conference served as a celebration of the adoption of the New Urban Agenda, a multinational agreement that aims to “help to end poverty and hunger in all its forms and dimensions, reduce inequalities, promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, in order to fully harness their vital contribution to sustainable development, improve human health and well-being, as well as foster resilience and protect the environment.”

Excerpt from New Urban Agenda display

Having signed up for the newsletter over a year in advance, I had grown increasingly excited as I read about the research being done in anticipation of HABITAT III and the many meetings and events held to prepare for it as well. It was clear that this would be an incredible event and that I would have a unique opportunity to observe as key actors in city planning and urban policy came together, to hear about new approaches and practices, while also getting to know a new city.

HUD Secretary Julian Castro speaks 

Once there, I had plenty of activities to choose from. Main events included special sessions on public space, urban resilience and municipal finance. There were also networking and side events hosted by government agencies, nonprofit organizations and research institutions. There were roundtable discussions that brought together mayors, trade union leaders, businessmen and women, farmers and other key stakeholders. There were plenary meetings and many more events covering a wide range of topics, all happening simultaneously every day. On top of that, there was a six-hall exhibition zone with over 150 booths showcasing important ideas and activities related to urbanization.

For many people, all of this was overwhelming. Quito was completely transformed as much of the area surrounding the conference center could only be accessed via security checkpoints. Long lines, limited bathrooms and technical issues sometimes frustrated attendees.

Large lines formed at the event

Now that I’ve returned and debriefed with classmates, friends, and others who attended the gathering, I am left with many questions. What were the intended takeaways? What was the point of such a large expensive conference? Who benefited, who lost? Also, could the conference’s goals have been achieved in a better way? While we celebrate that HABITAT III was open and free to all those who wished to attend, people still had to travel to Quito and pay for accommodations, food, and, if they wanted to highlight their work, for exhibition booths that cost $4,000 or more. Moreover, the selection process for hosting a side or networking event seemed arbitrary. While the New Urban Agenda clearly indicated that issues such as energy and transportation, land tenure, safety and security, disaster risk management and inclusion in spatial planning were concerns, particularly for those living in informal settlements and slums, this was not clearly aligned with the schedule of events on informal settlements, which primarily focused on the UN Participatory Slum Upgrading Program (PSUP) and data collection tools.

Despite these questions and concerns, I still believe the conference was valuable. While in Quito, I primarily attended events addressing informal settlements, which was a focus of MIT’s Special Interest Group in Urban Settlement (SIGUS), the group that I traveled with to the conference. I also attended sessions that focused on Small Island Developing States, tourism, economic development and finance to inform my master’s thesis at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design. Scheduling conflicts and long lines were at times a barrier to my hopes, but even these offered some interesting surprises. The long lines became an unintended networking opportunity and equalizer where people with different backgrounds and positions were able to meet, share ideas and connect. The exhibition halls were a hotbed of activity as people who sought a place to rest often became consumed in unplanned conversations and experiences.

Jessica at MIT's SIGUS booth

That is how I got to know the Slum Dwellers International (SDI). Although I had previously been in contact with the group, on the last day of the conference, I heard an SDI celebration that featured singing and chanting. The participants were celebrating the launch of Know Your City a website featuring data collected by residents of informal settlements. SDI uses the data collection process to identify needs and encourage community-funded solutions. It also shares the data with policy members of their communities in an attempt to prevent evictions and prevent poor, top-down approaches to planning.

As I learned about this grassroots movement and about cases in Liberia, Zambia and South Africa, I thought about the many challenges that will hinder the effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda and the fact that many of the solutions to these barriers are present (but often hidden) in the communities it is supposed to serve. As we struggle to identify ways to make certain areas livable, it’s often forgotten that many people have already been forced to craft solutions in order to survive while only dreaming of gaining access to the resources needed to innovate on a larger scale. I am hopeful that many of the ideas and innovative approaches that were discussed and disseminated in Quito will help city dwellers take even more control of their own futures.

Jessica Jean-Francois, a second-year Master in Urban Planning student at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, was a Joint Center student research assistant in 2015-2016. Her trip was funded in part by Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (DRCLAS) and the Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Improving Housing and Neighborhoods in Mexico: Lessons from a New Harvard GSD Report

by David Luberoff
Senior Associate Director

What kinds of planning and design interventions can help improve housing and urban development practice in Mexico? Can housing be a key tool in efforts to redevelop and expand the country’s metropolitan areas in efficient and equitable ways?

In Revitalizing Places: Improving Housing and Neighborhoods from Block to Metropolis, a report released earlier this year, a team headed by Ann Forsyth, a Professor of Urban Planning at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design (GSD), tries to answer these questions. The report, which was part of the larger GSD project "Rethinking Social Housing in Mexico" does so by drawing on international and Mexican experience to identify policies, programs, planning approaches, and tools to help implement an ambitious housing and urban development policy announced by the Mexican government in 2012.

Vivienda Social en Cancun, one of the research case studies

In the report, Forsyth and three research associates who worked on the project – Charles Brennan, Nélida Escobedo Ruiz, and Margaret Scott – identify four key strategies that can help create more sustainable and inclusive communities.

First, they note that those who wish to densify existing metropolitan areas can use a range of policies and programs aimed at increasing development in the urban area as a whole (including the core cities and suburban regions). These include simplifying the infill development process, promoting public acceptance of infill, and promoting accessory apartments. Together these types of strategies promote densification on various levels and also address physical, regulatory, and organizational issues.

Second, they recognize that, in most of the world, accommodating all growth in existing urban areas is difficult, and that better approaches to developing greenfield sites are necessary. Key strategies for doing so include “creating additions to urban areas that are rich in infrastructure and services and using innovative designs to comprehensively develop neighborhoods and new towns.”

City square in Oaxaca, Mexico

Third, they emphasize that strategies to retrofit some areas should respond to concerns about existing developments. They note that “upgrading areas where services and infrastructure are lacking and dealing with abandoned housing are both vitally important.” They further assert that adding mixed-use, multi-functional neighborhood and town centers to developments and providing better job opportunities can better connect people to services and reduce the sense of isolation often found in new developments.

Finally, they observe that a lack of data coordination is a significant barrier to making positive changes in metropolitan areas. The authors note that Building Better Cities, a companion report also produced by the Rethinking Social Housing project, analyzes existing policy and political challenges to coordinate and promote densification strategies in key Mexican metropolitan regions. These challenges, they note, include data coordination, which is needed to develop and share success indicators that not only provide feedback on the process and interim achievements but also help key actors "recalibrate and improve actions."

Taken as a whole, the authors conclude that these policies and programs are not only useful for Mexico but are more broadly applicable in middle and higher income countries trying to meet housing demand while minimizing the negative effects of urban sprawl.

Housing development in Aguascalientes, one of the research case studies

The report was produced as part of a larger project "Rethinking Social Housing in Mexico" headed by Forsyth and Diane Davis, Charles Dyer Norton Professor of Regional Planning and Urbanism and Chair of GSD’s Department of Urban Planning and Design. The report and the larger project were funded by INFONAVIT (Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores), a major Mexican government-sponsored funder of mortgages for private sector workers that was interested in how its polices could help create a more stable housing market and better towns and cities.

INFONAVIT’s efforts in Oaxaca, which was the one of the areas studied in depth as part of the Rethinking Social Housing project, will be the subject of a panel discussion on “Staying a Step Ahead: Institutional Flexibility in the Rehabilitation Of Social Housing In Oaxaca, Mexico,” that will be held in Gund Hall at the GSD at 6:30 pm on Wednesday, November 9.

Developing a “New Urban Agenda” in Paraguay

by David Luberoff
Senior Associate Director

Since urban growth has come relatively late to Paraguay, the South American country has had the opportunity learn from the successes and failures of others, noted Maria Soledad Núñez, Paraguay’s Minister of Housing and Habitat in a Brown Bag talk hosted by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design on September 12.

The youngest person ever appointed a Cabinet-level minister in Paraguay, Núñez, who was appointed in 2014, when she was 31 years old, recalled that accepting the post represented a major change for her, as she had spent almost a decade working at NGOs that advocated on behalf of those living in slums in her country and other parts of Latin America. Although she worried about whether she would be given the authority to move forward with the ambitious policies she had been advocating, she ultimately decided that the opportunity was too promising to pass up.  

At her talk, which was co-sponsored by the Harvard Urban Planning Organization, Núñez recalled how, when she became minister, she pressed for a dramatic increase in the production of social housing for low-income families. At the time, the Ministry had been building less than 2,000 units a year and most observers didn’t think it had the capacity to even double that amount. Now, however, the Ministry is building more than 10,000 housing units a year. Núñez is also trying to build on that success by focusing not only on building new housing but also ensuring that the new units are part of larger plans to implement the country’s New Urban Agenda, which seeks to create viable and vibrant communities.

As part of those efforts, Núñez added, the Ministry is working with the local government of Asuncion, the capital and Paraguay’s largest city, to relocate low-income residents living in areas regularly subject to flooding from the Rio Paraguay to better housing and to transform some of those areas into badly needed open space for the city’s residents. She also is leading the country’s National Committee of Habitat, which comprises more than 50 public and private institutions that are working together to carry out the country’s urban plans.

Download Minister Núñez’s presentation
(Source: SENAVITAT, National Secretariat of Housing and Habitat of Paraguay)

New Population Data from U.S. Census Reveals Increasing Migration to Sunnier Regions

by Sonali Mathur

Research Assistant

Last week, the U.S Census Bureau released new population estimates and its analysis of components of population change for counties and metro areas. This data includes total population estimates for July 1, 2015, total population change, changes in population due to natural increase, and domestic and international migration between July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2015.

We can see that domestic migration continues on a post-recession path of recovery and with it, long-term patterns of growth and movement to the Sunbelt, slowed by the downturn, are reappearing. Suburban counties in the South are once again attracting the most movers, while northern, largely Midwestern counties are experiencing the greatest population losses.

According to this latest release, the Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix and New York metro areas rounded the top five for net population growth. In Texas, the metro areas of Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth saw population growth of 159,000 and 145,000 residents respectively over the past year. Two other metros in Texas—Austin-Round Rock and San Antonio—each grew by 50,000 people, putting them among the top growing metros in the nation. Collectively, these four metros added 412,000 in population. In all, Texas was home to 4 of top 16 metros in terms of population growth, in keeping with state-level data released late last year that showed Texas as the state with the most population growth followed by Florida, California, Georgia, and Washington. Among the top 100 metros, in percentage terms the Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metro Area saw the highest population gain of 3.3%.

In all, 96 metros lost population over the past year. Among the top 100 metros, the biggest net population loss was in the Chicago area where the population dropped by 6,200, followed by Pittsburgh which lost 5,000 people.

The micropolitan areas saw a net growth of 27,000 with more than half (a total of 261) micro areas gaining population, four of which added more than 2000 people.

At the county level, population growth was also skewed to the south and west with the top 30 counties for total population growth being located in either the South or the West. The top three for net population gains were first Harris County, Texas and Maricopa County, Arizona, followed by Los Angeles County, California. Counties with the largest population losses were Cook County, Illinois which had a net negative population change of nearly 10,500, and Wayne County, Michigan, which had a net negative population change of nearly 6,700 people.

In percentage terms, among counties that had a total of more than 100,000 people in 2015, the top counties that gained the most population growth are in Texas, Hays county (5.2%) and Comal County (4.5%), while the counties that lost the most are San Juan County, NM (-4.2%) and Hardin County, KY (-1.8%). Though these counties with highest percentage losses are in the South and West, overall the counties with largest net losses were overwhelmingly in the Midwest and Northeast, and the ones with the biggest net gains were concentrated in the South.

In addition to overall gains and losses in population in metros and counties, the population estimates data also show components of growth in terms of net gains and losses from international immigration as well as domestic migration, which allow us to see what parts of the country are attracting people from around the country and those that are losing population moving to other areas.

As for domestic migration, top ten counties with highest net inflows were in the Sunbelt states of Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Texas. Maricopa County, Arizona saw the highest net domestic inflow, which was 48% of the net population change in the county. Clark County, Nevada saw the second highest net domestic inflow, which was 54% of the net population change in the county. Lee County, Florida moved up to the third spot from the ninth in 2014 for net domestic inflow, which was 92 % of the net population change in the county.

Los Angeles County, California followed by Cook County, Illinois saw the most net domestic outflow for the second year in a row.

In general, counties and metros that were attractive to domestic migrants also had high levels of international immigration. However, some counties that saw high international immigration, such as Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, and Queens County, also saw high domestic out migration. Indeed, in many areas gains from international immigration staved off potentially larger population losses due to domestic migration.

The map below shows the changes in population for each county between July 2014 and July 2015. Click on a county to display its data. Select a tab to map percent change in population, net international immigration or net domestic migration. [May take a few seconds to load. Click on the (i) in the upper right to reveal color key information.]




Detailed explanation of the census bureau methodology.

Socialize: http://arcg.is/1pYaNfM

A City Revival? It Depends on Your Definitions

by Rachel Bogardus Drew
Post-Doctoral Fellow

Every spring, the Census Bureau publishes estimates of the population as of the prior July 1st at the sub-county level (i.e., individual municipalities, incorporated places, and non-incorporated county balances). Recent releases of these estimates suggest that cities have been expanding faster than their suburbs, with annual average population growth of 0.91 percent in 2010-2014 in the former, versus 0.77 percent average annual growth in the latter (Figure 1). Non-metropolitan areas, meanwhile, have recently seen their populations decline, by an average of more than 0.25 percent annually over the last four years.

Notes: Metropolitan areas and principal cities are defined as of 2013 by the Office of Management and Budget (http://www.census.gov/population/metro). Suburbs are all parts of a metro area not designated as a principal city. 
Source: JCHS tabulations of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage 2014 Postcensal Population Estimates.

This recent trend of city populations growing faster than those of suburbs is a dramatic departure from prior decades, when suburban population growth significantly outpaced that of cities. Indeed, analyses by the Brookings Institution, using slightly different data and definitions of cities and suburbs but reaching the same general conclusions, suggest that between 2000 and 2010 the suburbs of large metropolitan areas grew by 1.38 percent per year, while the primary cities of large metro areas expanded by only 0.42 percent annually.

Some commentators herald this trend as a long-awaited sign of a grand urban revival, attributable to the combination of recent market events and long-running demographic trends. They posit that cities are becoming more popular in the wake of the late-2000s recession and downturn in housing markets, which exposed many of the downsides to suburban living. Either unable or unwilling to purchase homes in suburbs, the argument goes, more households are opting instead to live in urban neighborhoods with their mix of affordable housing options and lifestyle amenities. At the same time, some subsets of the population that are traditionally more likely to live in cities, including young adults, minorities, and childless households, have been increasing as a share of all households. Even if all households continued to live in cities and suburbs at the same rates as in the past, these demographic shifts alone would elevate the populations of cities more than those of suburbs.

Not everyone agrees with the urban revival hypothesis, however. Researchers point out that the suburbs are still home to about half of the U.S. population, and remain the location of choice for most households, including young families and retirees. Proponents of this position further argue that the cities that are growing the most do not resemble the dense cores that urbanists favor, but are instead places with lower densities and auto-centric commuting patterns more akin to close-in suburbs.

The disparity in these viewpoints exists in part because of the way that most analysts define cities and suburbs. Figure 1 above, for example, uses the federal Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) classification of metropolitan areas and principal cities, and assumes that a principal city is effectively the ‘urban’ portion of the metro area, with the balance comprised only of ‘suburban’ places. This delineation, however, leaves no room for judgments about individual communities that blur the lines between urban and suburban areas. Some principal cities are themselves former suburbs that changed their status by making themselves more appealing to certain residents and/or by attracting a particularly large employer or industry, but that nonetheless retain many of their former suburban characteristics, such as neighborhoods with mostly single-family housing. Some suburbs, meanwhile, have developed dense centers with walkable amenities akin to cities, giving residents a taste of urban lifestyles in their small communities. The definitions used by OMB, however, group such places together with low-density bedroom communities under the broad umbrella category of suburbs. Indeed, even within a particular municipality there can be neighborhoods that have a more urban or suburban feel to them, so that classifying the entire municipality as either a city or suburb ignores the diversity that attracts residents to it in the first place.    

An alternative to the dichotomous definitions of city and suburb is to categorize places on one or more spectrums that take into account the different features of each type of community most significant to residents. These features can include everything from population density to type of housing stock, transportation usage, presence of retail establishments and cultural amenities, and walkability. Some researchers have already developed different classification schemes that take such characteristics into account, using density and commuting statistics to identify cities that are more or less urban in their character, or considering the degree of urbanization of suburban counties outside of large cities. Yet even these approaches still rely on assigned administrative boundaries of cities, counties, and metro areas that ignore the variations within them. A better option for those studying population shifts would thus be to see past political geography in favor of descriptive categories that better capture the diverse qualities sought by people as they choose where to live; researchers should define a spectrum of community types that represent this diversity. Such classifications will not only allow for richer analyses, but will better reflect the reality of where Americans live – not in cities or suburbs, but places that offer the best combinations of amenities to meet the needs of modern households.

VIDEO: An Interactive Conversation about the Role of Designers in Promoting Racial Justice in our Communities

by Jennifer Molinsky
Senior Research Associate

Earlier this month, the Joint Center for Housing Studies, together with the Loeb Fellowship and African American Student Union at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), hosted InFORMing Justice, an interactive conversation about designers’ roles in promoting racial justice in our communities. The event evolved in the wake of national discussions about the deaths of black men in Ferguson, Staten Island, South Carolina, and elsewhere, as a way for GSD students and the broader community to discuss how design and designers can promote community empowerment and ultimately justice (and its requisite parts, including equal access to safe, healthy neighborhoods and economic opportunities). 

In the opening panel, moderated by Professor Michael Hays, architects Kimberly Dowdell, Theresa Hwang, Liz Ogbu, and artist Seitu Jones touched on the intensely personal nature of their professional work in disadvantaged, racially segregated communities. They urged architects, designers, and planners to reflect on their own biases and assumptions as they work to build what Jones called “the beloved community;” the importance of active, intentional listening in engaging with community residents; the critical role of the design process in bringing about change; and the value of working collaboratively across disciplines. 

Following the panel, participants broke into small groups to brainstorm ideas about how design professionals can address racial injustice in the university curriculum and in practice. 

If you missed the event, you can now watch the webcast, view our Storify of tweets & images from the evening, or read more about design for equity, including contributions from panelists Liz Ogbu and Theresa Hwang.

Watch our Gateway Cities Summit on YouTube

If you missed our recent event at Harvard Graduate School of Design, Opening the Gates of Opportunity: Realizing the Potential of Gateway Cities in Massachusetts, you can now watch the full event on YouTube.

Gateway Cities are midsize urban centers in Massachusetts facing stubborn social and economic challenges, but with many assets that have unrealized potential. Our half-day event brought together community leaders, public officials, policymakers, faculty and students (agenda) to exchange ideas and information about workable solutions for these cities and local economies. Through these discussions, we captured innovative, cross-sector, collaborative ideas and models that we hope will feed into the work that is being done by students and faculty in urban planning.

We want to thank all of the speakers, panelists, students, and sponsors who made our event such a success.

The video is available in three sections:

Part 1:  Welcome & Keynote
Part 2:  Goals, Challenges, and Who Are We Trying to Help?
Part 3:  How Do We Get it Done? Tough Choices, Which Places, and Why?

Download the Agenda from the event

Boston's Housing Challenge: Affordability, Availability

Housing availability in Boston has been a particular passion for outgoing Mayor Thomas Menino, who recently unveiled an ambitious plan to build 30,000 homes in Boston by allowing taller structures with smaller units, selling public land to developers at a discount, and using subsidies to spur development of more affordable housing.  Last week, Joint Center managing director Eric Belsky, who served on the Housing Advisory Panel for the plan, joined other housing experts on the local NPR program Radio Boston, to discuss the mayor's plan and Boston's challenges.

Listen to the Radio Boston conversation online.

The Metropolitan Revolution

by Bruce Katz
Guest Blogger

Next Wednesday, September 25, I will be coming to Harvard to share a message: there is a Metropolitan Revolution underway in this country.

While the national economy continues to suffer the lingering effects of the Great Recession—with nearly 10 million jobs needed to make up the jobs lost during the downturn and keep pace with labor market dynamics and more than 107 million people living in poverty or near poverty—the federal government is mired in partisan gridlock and ideological polarization, leaving local and metropolitan leaders to pick up the slack.

In many ways, this transfer of responsibility is not only a cyclical event but also a structural change, given the harsh realities of the shifting federal budget. With a rapidly aging national population, mandatory federal spending on health care and retirement benefits is projected to rise by $1.6 trillion annually by 2023.  This will inevitably squeeze federal spending on critical investments around education, infrastructure, housing and innovation. The result will be a U.S. governance structure that looks very different in a decade: Washington will do less; local governments and metropolitan networks will do more.

To make it through this fiscal resort, we need to rethink power in America. Metros will lead on policy innovation; the federal government (and even state governments) will follow.

The good news is that smart city and metropolitan leaders aren’t waiting for national solutions to local problems. Across the nation, in metros as diverse as New York, Houston and Denver, Portland and Detroit, Los Angeles and Cleveland, leaders are doing the hard work to grow jobs and make their economies more prosperous: investing in infrastructure, making manufacturing a priority again, linking small businesses to new investors and global markets, giving workers the skills they need to compete.

A new metropolitan playbook defines the Metropolitan Revolution:

First, cities and metros are forming broad based networks to co-design and co-produce solutions. The unique advantage that metropolitan areas have over states and the national government is that they are networks of leaders, rather than hierarchies of government officials. Successful metro-level initiatives incorporate broad input and support—from business and civic leaders, heads of universities and philanthropies, as well as elected officials. 

Second, city and metropolitan leaders are taking the time to understand the starting points of their disparate economies and set distinctive visions based on their analysis. The Great Recession reminded us that metro areas perform different functions in the global economy depending on what they make, the advanced services they provide, what they trade and which cities and metros they trade with. What makes Denver a powerful metropolis on the global stage is different from what propels Detroit; the same for Portland, Pittsburgh and Phoenix. 

Finally, city and metropolitan leaders are “finding their game changers” -- designing, financing and delivering transformative economy-shaping solutions that build on their distinctive assets and advantages. The Applied Science Districts in New York City. State-of-the-art transit in Los Angeles and Denver. A new export strategy in Portland; smart manufacturing initiatives in Northeast Ohio; successful efforts to integrate immigrants in Houston.  Even a burgeoning Innovation District in Detroit.

Cities and metropolitan areas will do more because they can. 

The United States is the world’s quintessential Metropolitan Nation.  All 388 metropolitan areas house 84 percent of the nation’s population and generate 91 percent of the national GDP. The top 100 metropolitan areas in the United States alone sit on only 12 percent of the land mass of the country but house 65 percent of the population, generate 75 percent of the GDP. They also concentrate and congregate disproportionate shares of the assets that the nation needs to compete globally: modern infrastructure, skilled workers, advanced industry firms and advanced research institutions.

The United States also devolves more fiscal responsibilities to cities and metropolitan areas (and their states) than other countries. Despite the attention given federal efforts like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, local and state governments already account for over 90% of total government spending. Despite the focus on still unrealized proposals like a National Infrastructure Bank, states and localities already account for over 70 percent of transportation infrastructure spending and are the driving force behind such investments in such asset categories as roads, transit, rail, ports, airports, water and sewer and, of course, urban regeneration and basic municipal services.   

Make no mistake: cities and metropolitan areas (and a mixed group of states) will drive strategic investments in education and infrastructure going forward, and they already are. San Antonio’s recent passage of a ballot initiative—Pre-K for SA and Detroit’s corporate and civic support for the M1Rail along Woodward Corridor—are only the latest examples of communities (broadly defined) stepping up to get stuff done.

Yet it is also likely that cities and metropolitan areas will lead in areas traditionally left to the federal government, like investments in basic and applied science and affordable housing. The recent sequestration of federal funding for such traditional federal responsibilities as the National Institutes of Health and public housing sent a strong signal about how unreliable our national government has become. The response will be growing state and metropolitan support via the ballot box for basic and applied research (e.g., California’s $3 billion Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative) and growing local and metropolitan innovation on the affordable housing front via inclusionary zoning, public private partnerships and local housing trusts capitalized through real estate transfer taxes.

The bottom line is this: the health of the United States should never be defined by what happens in Washington, D.C. Our metropolitan areas are the engines of our economy, the centers of global trade and investment and the driving forces of national competitiveness and prosperity.  In the coming decade -- in this century -- they will be the vanguard of policy innovation and national progress.

Bruce Katz is a Vice President at the Brookings Institution, co-director of the Metropolitan Policy Program, and the co-author of The Metropolitan Revolution (Brookings Institution Press, 2013).  He will speak at the Harvard Kennedy School on Wednesday, September 25 at 7pm (Belfer Building, 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA, Starr Auditorium). The event is free & open to the public.