Click for next page ( 109


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 108
6 Growth of U. S. Cities and Recent Trends in Urban Real Estate Values JOHN S. ADAMS Urban infrastructure evolves at two geographical scales. At the national scale the physical infrastructure connects our system of urban centers; at the local scale, it supports activity inside each urban area. Activity at the two scales is largely separate but entirely complementary. At the national scale an infrastructure framework of transportation and communication channels has evolved to support production, distribution, and consumption activity, which increasingly has centered on urban areas. Indeed, the design and operation of the infrastructure has fostered the growth of the nation's system of cities while directing its evolution. The building of the infrastructure absorbed huge amounts of private capital investment; in return, it enhanced the productivity of natural and human resources devoted to producing the goods and services that people wanted to buy. At the local scales, urban areas were organized and built up mainly as economic entities to facilitate the collection, processing, and distribution of goods, and the production and distribution of business and personal services. Locally generated public and private finances traditionally were the main sources drawn on to build and maintain much of the local infra- structure (for example, dams, bridges, roads, and utilities). In recent decades the direct costs of new local infrastructure have been paid for from public sources (borrowing, taxes, fees, investment tax credits, tax breaks, etc.) or private sources (equity investments, borrowing). The in- direct costs of such infrastructure, which are often imposed on the rest of the system as a result of premature deterioration, underutilization, or 108

OCR for page 108
RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ESTA TE VAL UES 109 abandonment of existing infrastructure, are harder to assess but are just as real. This chapter examines the evolution of the transportation and com- munications aspects of the national infrastructure and then explores the dynamics of local infrastructure supply and demand as they relate to changing real estate values and new central city housing construction. In conclusion, questions are raised about what is needed in the way of urban infrastructure, what may not be needed, and who should pay for it. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE Urban growth nationwide can be divided into epochs that reflect the impacts of major technological innovations on the construction of urban infrastructure. The first epoch depended on the wagon and sailing vessels; the second, on steamboats and the early railroad; the third, on long-haul trains made possible by the advent of standard-gauge steel tracks; and the fourth, on autos, trucks, and airplanes powered by the internal combustion engine. The nation's current romance with computers and telecommuni- cations prompts us to wonder about a fifth epoch, but the impact of these innovations on the geography of metropolitan areas is still unclear. During the four epochs, changes in transportation and power generation technologies were strong propellants of population and investment redis- tributions because they altered relative distances between cities and defined the cost of accessibility to raw materials. In addition, they permitted workers and urban economies to specialize and to trade profitably with one another. Other kinds of innovations, such as advances in medicine and public hygiene that increased life expectancies in cities, were also important to growth. But transportation and power innovations were the changes that could bring new sources of raw materials within a city's reach or, alternatively, signal atrophy of a city's industry by increasing the accessibility of a nearby larger, more competitive center. The sail-wagon epoch spanned the first several decades (1790-1830) of U.S. history. Nearly all the largest cities at the beginning of this epoch were ports on the Atlantic Ocean or on rivers emptying into it. But despite their water route connections and a heavy emphasis on trade, these large cities were highly independent of each other and were as much extensions of European economies as they were organizers of their own. For most of the colonial period, Boston, Philadelphia, New York City, and the other ports interacted sparingly, and the land transportation network re- mained primitive in the early national period. The resulting inability to penetrate the interior of the continent with satisfactory low-cost transpor

OCR for page 108
110 JOHN; S. ADAlklS ration and communication infrastructure delayed the struggle for hinter- lands until the end of the epoch, thereby enabling most Atlantic ports to retain their places in the population size hierarchy. The most important resource of this first epoch and the ensuing "iron horse" epoch (1830-1870) was arable land. Especially in the early 1800s the vast majority of Americans worked in primary industries, most of them as farmers. Hence, cities of rapid growth were closely associated with the nation's westward expansion; as new farmlands and timber areas opened up, cities appeared on the navigable rivers and canals to serve them, and an assortment of steam vessels were developed to carry pas- sengers and cargo. In the 1840s the rising importance of the "iron horse" stimulated demand for iron ore and coal. As a result, boom towns grew up around areas of extraction of those resources as well, largely in the previously settled parts of the nation. Change became more rapid during the iron horse epoch as the struggle for hinterlands began in earnest. The development of regional rail networks extended the influence of rising urban centers deeper into the surrounding agricultural regions. Some Atlantic ports grew at the expense of others, and New York City's growth far outfaced that of its rivals Boston and Philadelphia as it became the nation's first-ranked metropolis. The fastest growing cities during this epoch were the inland ports such as Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, and St. Louis, which grew at junctures of regional rail networks and long-haul transport. The "steel-rail" epoch (1870-1920) saw the emergence of a national rail transportation system as the standardization of track and cars and the advent of improved steel rails made long-haul trains feasible. The im- provement of the rail network was a strong force in organizing new heavy industries particularly steelmaking- and therefore also stimulated pop- ulation redistribution. The large inland ports that had thrived earlier as commercial centers were now within easy rail access of bituminous coal deposits and the national market, and they soon became industrial centers. Their populations continued to grow, increasing their concentration of the population in the largest centers and thereby continuing a trend that had begun in the iron horse epoch. Although the number of large cities re- mained stable after growing rapidly in the previous epoch, they continued to increase their share of the national population. The steel-rail epoch also witnessed a large increase in the number of medium-sized cities as more places were brought within the national circulation patterns with the ex- pansion and improvement of the transportation and communication infra- structure to accommodate the flows of passengers, commodities, and ~ . intormahon. Most of the steel-rail epoch's new major urban centers appeared around

OCR for page 108
RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ESTATE VALUES 111 the recently opened agricultural areas of the West; a few others were associated with the deposits of copper in Montana, lead and zinc in Mis- souri, and iron ore on Lake Superior. Boom centers also accompanied exploitation of bituminous coal deposits. The largest group of cities to decline in relative importance during the epoch were concentrated on the Missouri-Mississippi-Ohio river systems, reflecting the rapid decline of steamboat traffic at the hands of the nationally integrated rail network. By the end of the steel-rail epoch, the outline of today's metropolitan system was established. Nevertheless, urban evolution continued in the "auto-air-amenity" epoch (1920-1960s). Cities near the coalfields now declined while those near the oil fields grew with the demands of the automobile, home heating, and industry. An important feature of the new epoch was the relative decline in the labor force of the primary and secondary industries, signaling their diminishing impact on the prosperity of large centers. Employment swung toward the hard-to-mechanize non- basic service activities, which mostly serve local populations, and their rising importance foretold the expanded role of inertia in metropolitan evolution. A rapidly growing national population and an increasingly sophisticated economy now ensured that large metropolitan centers could grow despite reverses in their industrial export sectors. INFRASTRUCTURE LESSONS FROM GEOGRAPHIC HISTORY Behind the steadily increasing proportion of Americans living in met- ropolitan centers lay a more complex picture of metropolitan growth. Each era featured boom and slow-growth centers as well as centers that grew at less extreme rates (these latter centers made up the majority). The growth patterns of individual urban centers were determined in large part by the state of technology and the resultant designation of important resources. With society's adoption of technological innovations, an advantageous location might become disadvantageous, and a specialized urban economy that meant boom in one epoch could spell doom in the next. Many centers prospered in two or more epochs by a combination of aggressive entre- preneurship and fortunate location within the transportation-communi- cation network of the day. Other centers faltered because they were unable to adapt quickly enough to a new technological regime and consequently dropped in ranking in the urban size hierarchy. St. Louis and Pittsburgh, for example, grew quickly during the iron horse epoch but later fell in size relative to many American cities. Even those centers that adjusted to changing conditions grew in different ways from one epoch to the next, as is revealed today in their physical structures. New York City is an old American metropolis that experienced

OCR for page 108
112 JOHN S. ADAMS a large proportion of its growth during the iron horse and steel-rail epochs, during which it became the nation's largest city and then one of the world's great industrial and financial centers. Chicago boomed in the iron horse epoch and maintained its rank thereafter. Los Angeles, on the other hand, is primarily a product of the auto-air-amenity epoch and has no real counterpart in the vast areas of New York or Chicago that were built up during the earlier eras. It would therefore be unreasonable to assume that Los Angeles will someday "grow up" to be another New York. There are many similarities among American metropolises and the layers of infrastructure that sustain them, but the nature of metropolitan evolution ensures that no single model of growth or structure will apply equally to such diverse centers as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Charleston, West Virginia. Urban policy, therefore, must be flexible enough to accommodate each city's unique characteristics and changing growth patterns. Metropolises with different physical structures, populations, and functions are likely to have different shortcomings as well. Based on our previous example, we can imagine that New York and Los Angeles have significantly different housing needs. They are also dissimilar in their needs for other infrastructure, in the kinds of pollution they suffer, in their physical resource bases, in their employment and unemployment profiles, and in their illegal alien problems. Their governmental structures and their different relationships with state and federal governments further com . . . pllcate comparisons. Moreover, it cannot be assumed that urban policies for the Los Angeles or the New York of today will be appropriate 20 years from now. The history of American urban planning fits largely into the auto-air-a;nenity epoch; consequently, planners have never faced the turmoil that accom- panies the accelerated change in growth patterns between epochs. Urban growth in some respects has been unidirectional within epochs, but it becomes confused as society adopts an important innovation that redefines the locational significance of places within the national transportation- communication infrastructure. A group of urban planners in 1880 might have been fairly successful at outlining growth patterns for the ensuing 20 or 30 years, but how would such a group have fared in 1920, when their experience with the characteristics of a rail-dominated transportation network was on the verge of becoming obsolete? We could derive some basic policy guidelines for individual metro- politan centers by grouping them and finding the problems common to members of each group. For example, metropolises that grew most rapidly in the same epochs and in approximately the same physical environments, that are of the same size, and that have similar employment structures usually have common needs. Because of the many ways in which met

OCR for page 108
RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ESTA TE VAL UES 113 ropolitan areas differ, however, comprehensive urban policies-whether initiated at the federal, state, or local level-must address unique problems as well. And, as we noted earlier, metropolitan needs change with time. An understanding of these complexities of urban policy is currently of special interest because of indications that metropolitan America is en- tering a new growth epoch. PAYING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE NEW SERVICE ECONOMY It can be argued that this new metropolitan growth epoch centers on the service industries and on an infrastructure of information handling; that the new jobs will come from the service industries; and that much of the new economic infrastructure will be built around offices, airports, computers, and telecommunications systems. But this limited view focuses merely on transactions and flows through the metropolitan economy and not on the stocks of physical and human capital that make the flows possible. Even after we measure the flows, we cannot be sure whether they mean what we think they mean. Some of what passes for productive economic activity these days looks suspiciously like the transfer of money from one set of pockets to another without the creation of anything of corresponding value. This charge is easy to make but hard to prove. At the moment, we do not have comprehensive economic balance sheets for cities or regions as we do for companies or even families. A family or a firm can usually tell at the end of a year whether it is in better or worse shape than it was a year earlier. Such a determination is harder to make for a city, a region, or a nation. As a consequence, we focus most of our policy attention on flows and on the annual operating statements that report the flows. To a certain extent, we can take the economic "temperature" of a city by looking at its bond rating or at the annual budget of the city government or at the change in the number of jobs located within its boundaries. But these glimpses fall well short of the full frontal view needed to assess the current infrastructure needs of our cities and society's continuing ability to pay for them. The nation's economy is fraught with instances in which potentially valuable capital investment is depreciated in value prematurely or allowed to deteriorate physically within metropolitan areas and between regions of the country in order to maintain cash flows to our expanding service industries-health care, government, legal services, finance, casualty insurance, and education, to name a few of the largest. The expanding service industries in the boom areas of the United States appear to require new infrastructure to support their activity, but they hesitate to pay for providing it. In fact, it is often unclear how today's

OCR for page 108
114 JOHN S. ADONIS expanding service industries are analogous to yesterday's goods-producing and distribution industries, which received much of the infrastructure that they needed. Equally unclear is the extent to which public funds should underwrite the infrastructure needs of service industries because in many cases (Houston in the 1970s is probably a good example) it is uncertain whether their activity produces net gains for the national or regional bal- ance sheets. What in earlier days of abundant and essentially free natural resources was a simple tug of war between saving and spending between investment and consumption has now escalated to a more serious and pernicious conflict. Nothing of value is free anymore. One set of forces urges long-term maintenance and improvement of physical infrastructure that will support the economical production and distribution of goods and services that people who have a measure of consumer choice really want to buy. The pull in the opposite direction often comes from rapacious elements in certain service sectors that have been able to deliver overpriced services to involuntary customers trapped by location and barriers to the entry of new service providers. The first set of forces entails earning money the old-fashioned way, and part of today's service sector follows that tradition. The second set often entails making money by systematically taking it through exploitative activity that disrupts healthy economic de- velopment, disturbs the rational evolution of our urban areas, and draws down our investments in infrastructure instead of building them up. In metropolitan areas, large and untaxed capital gains on residential real estate accumulate in high-class suburbs, whereas corresponding uncom- pensated capital losses are drained from the homes and businesses of inner- city neighborhoods. Suburbs grow faster than they otherwise would. Sub- urban shopping centers are bigger and enjoy larger sales volumes than they otherwise would. Central city infrastructure is abandoned prematurely or lies in need of repair or replacement, for which there is no ability to pay. Meanwhile, the gain, if any, to the metropolitan economy is hard to assess. Among the various regions of the country, capital in the form of savings and taxes is withdrawn from some areas to be spent or invested elsewhere. Populations reared and educated in one set of areas move elsewhere to live, work, or retire. Some regions appear to be winners, and others seem to be losers. Yet it is unclear whether the nation has gained by these redistributions of existing forms of wealth and capital. INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE LOCAL SCALE The biggest determinant of demand for urban infrastructure is popu- lation, which at the local level is measured by size and geographical

OCR for page 108
RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ESTA TE VAL UES 115 distribution. Within each locale, three broad classes of population move- ment affect size and distribution: (1) the long-term net movement from rural and small-town America to large urban areas; (2) the movement from central cities to surrounding suburbs; and (3) another long-term movement from the Northeast and Midwest to the West and South. Population moving out of one area and into another means added de- mand for infrastructure at the new location. It may also mean "wasted" capacity at the old location that is, capacity abandoned before reaching the end of its useful life, still fully usable but unwanted because of the relocation of demand and therefore lacking in economic value. Large-scale movement from one place to another normally raises land and housing prices at the destination and reduces them at the origin in relation to the levels that would have obtained without the movement. Thus, population movements affect the demand for infrastructure, and corresponding movements in real estate prices redistribute the ability to pay. Capital gains on real estate in new areas often escape taxes, however, and capital losses in areas of decline and outmigration are usually uncom- pensated. In the following sections, these issues will be examined in the context of (1) differential changes in the number of households from one metropolitan region to another, (2) price changes for owner-occupied and rental housing in three major metropolitan regions, and (3) new housing construction in selected central cities across the country at the end of the 1970s. HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING UNITS IN THE LARGEST CITIES About one of seven U.S. residents in 1980 lived in the five leading metropolitan areas at census time: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Detroit. During the 1960s and 1970s, these top five added households and housing units at varying rates, except for the New York area, which suffered a slump in the 1970s (Table 6-11. Except for Los Angeles, the central cities (areas within city limits) saw declines in the number of households in the 1970s. For New York and Philadelphia, the central city household declines of the 1970s were a reversal of gains during the 1960s. Aggregate net population and household changes over a decade or two depend on four kinds of demographic events: births, deaths, moves in, and moves out. For example, the Chicago standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) gained 300,000 households in 1970s, but the central city lost 45,000. Migrants who were added to the central city from the suburbs, from outside the metropolitan area, and from abroad, plus births to res

OCR for page 108
116 Cal Ct U: o ._ _' of To Cal o JO Cal V) V) Can _1 Cal Cal o .~ Cal - o C) of IS V Cal is: o C) of Do JO _ o Cal .= ~4 ._ o o C=~ o ._ Ct oo o V O ~ ~ cry aN _ _ 1 ~ ~ ~- - 1 1 ~ 1 rid ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~cr cat ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ON ~ ~ ~ ~ Cal 00 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~- 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o~ 1 ~- 1 ~- - ~ ~- kD ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00_ 0 00 _ 0 _ U~ ~0 ~ ~_ ~ 00 1 C~ ~ 1 ~ - ~ - ~ _ C~ 00 00 C~ ~ oo oo ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ 00 _ ~ o~ ~ ~ 0 ~ _ _ C~ ~ ~ C~3 -) (~\ ~ ~- ~ \0 C7N ~ O ~ O O 00 ~ ~O ~ ~C~ ~ CN ON 00 - - ) ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0~ - ~ r~ ~ ~ 0 ~ _ _ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~_ _ ~ ~ C ~ C~ O 00 ~ - O - ON r~ oo 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ - ~r _ 00 C~ - 0 0 ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~0 0 ~0 C~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~CS~ C) m ~L4 0 0 0 ;^ ~I ~;^ . _ . _ C~ _ Ct _ Ct Ct ~ C~ ~ C D 'o ~ = D ~ ~ = D ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ D 1 o ~o Ct D Q - =t _ _ ._ ~n ._ Ct . ~ U~ o m Ct Ct a ;^ ._ V~ Ct 1 ~ O . ~ ~C1 1 c U3 "D Ct E~ - ~Y 8 m ~ et c' ct k o ._ ._ V) V) o C~ Ct Ct Ct .. LU E~ O Y o ~ m Ct Ct Ct Ct ._ . O o ~: C) Ct - Ct ;^ o o^ C) 1 mo ~o m - _ c~ . . _ ~ ct o v' ~_ ~ - c') ~ I.,,

OCR for page 108
RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ESTATE VALUES 117 idents of the central city, minus those who moved out and residents who died meant a net loss of 45,000 households. The characteristics of the households in a metropolitan area and the decisions of their members about where to live establish the social ge- ography of the area. The social geography in turn determines much of the nature of demand for urban infrastructure and patterns of its use. In the Chicago area, as in other major urban regions, there are three main patterns of geographical variation from place to place (Berry and Kasarda, 1977; Pinkerton, 1969, 19731: variation in (1) socioeconomic status of house- holders, (2) stage in the life cycle of the household, and (3) race and ethnicity. Socioeconomic Status of Households The first pattern is the spatial variation in average socioeconomic status of householders and in the related value of the housing units they occupy. The map of social status and housing value usually shows distinct areal sectors radiating outward from the downtown. The sectors are often bounded by and aligned with major radial transport corridors linking the city center with places outside the metropolitan area. Upper-middle-class neighbor- hoods are found in one or more sectors of the city; other sectors are middle class in character, and the rest are distinctly working class in their measures of income, occupation, education levels, housing values, rent levels, and life-styles. Each sector reveals a tendency to project outward the general social class character of its inner-city neighborhoods.* Working-class central city neighborhoods project their outlooks and behaviors outward into what become working-class suburbs. Upper-class inner-city areas carry their affluence, life outlooks, and styles outward into exclusive suburbs. Middle-class and upper-middle-class sectors are usually the most dynamic. They generate the most vigorous and rapidly expanding suburban exten- sions and leave the largest number of vacancies at their inner precincts near the downtown. These vacated areas in turn lure immigrants and native minority households who are eager to establish themselves on the low rung of the housing and neighborhood ladder as they try to repeat the upward mobility success story of those who have already achieved the comfortable suburbs. Neither the rich nor the working poor display ag *A leading early discussion of this process appears in Park et al. (1925), especially chapters 2 and 3, pp. 47-79. The most complete treatment appears in Hoyt (1939), especially chapter 2, pp. 96-104. For comprehensive recent accounts, see Abler and Adams (1976) and Adams (1987).

OCR for page 108
118 .. JOHN S. ADAlLfS gressive efforts to document socioeconomic mobility through the practice of intraurban geographic mobility. Unlike the middle class, neither the rich nor the poor consider that their status has changed or that it will change soon. It is the mobile middle class that supplies most of the energy that transforms the map of social status. Stage in the Household Life Cycle A second geographical pattern is formed by the spatial segregation of households according to stage in the household life cycle. Small housing units built at high densities and favored by single persons, and small households at the beginning and ending stages of the household life cycle, are located mainly near the core of the central city along transit routes, near outlying commercial centers, and in suburban apartment districts, often adjacent to transport corridors and commercial land.* At the other extreme of the unit size and housing density continuum are large, single- unit houses on ample lots, catering to family households at their stage of maximum involvement with family life and child rearing. The family status of a household is basically independent of a household's socioeco- nomic status. Thus, the geographic patterning due to variations-usually sectoral-in the social status of an urban area is different from, and essentially unrelated to, the geographic patterning of an urban area in terms of the life-cycle stage of households and corresponding unit size and housing density. This second kind of pattern is usually concentric around the city center. Race and Ethnicity The third basic pattern of geographical variation in metropolitan areas is an expression of race and ethnicity. Maps of racial and ethnic patterns are significantly different from maps of family status and socioeconomic status, except in cases where social class is due in part to racial or ethnic characteristics or when family status flows in some measure from cultural practices based on ethnic roots or on practices rooted in religious belief (for example, the number of children or the persistence of extended fam- ilies). * On the location preferences of young unmarried persons and households without children and their willingness to pay high prices to be near goods and services they want, see Nelson (1973). For locational requirements of single and childless women in the labor force, see Roistacher and Senyoung (1980). On the general problem of family change and its impact on the city, see Frey and Korbin (1982).

OCR for page 108
135 Rr;scS IN U~ MEL E ~MCKEE r {m. Her of Units ~ i01 - 10 51 - 100 26 - 50 1_25 1 - 10 * No Data . ~ ~ - ~ , " continued Fast 6-4 ~ ~4 {m

OCR for page 108
136 \ JOHN 5. ADAA~S Housing Units Built 1979 through March 1980: Midwest if. ~ rat ~ ~en.: CINCINNATI ~ ~ Cal ~ , in, ~ ~ ~ o | ~ ~- T 0 4 Km. 4 Ml. _ . . . >, ~ I'm! ~ ~ FIGURE 6-5 New central city housing in the Midwest: Cincinnati, Kansas City, and St. Louis. Data source: see Figure 6-3. Cincinnati reported several large clusters of new housing completed on the west side, with two tracts each receiving >150 new units, and another >200. The east and north sides had significant numbers of new units in various locations, but almost no new construction occurred in the old core-city tracts. One tract near downtown Kansas City, Mo., received almost 100 new housing units, and a peripheral tract in Kansas City, Kans., had >50. Other tracts in both cities had few or none. The same was true in St. Louis. Several tracts close to downtown had a total of ~500 new housing units. Another western tract west of Forest Park by Washington University had almost 200. Elsewhere, new construction was extremely limited or nonexistent.

OCR for page 108
RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ESTATE VALUES - r, , KANSAS CITY Number of Units 101 - 1000 51 - 100 26- 50 e 1 1 - 25 ~ 1 - 10 * No Data FIGURE 6-5 Continued. 2 Km. _ : ,.~ 1 ST. LOUIS /1 /~ ~i i, ' 1 ~ ~ it' 137 N 0 2 Ml. I , . J 0 2 Km.

OCR for page 108
138 JOHN S. ADONIS Housing Units Built 1979 through March 1980: South ; ~ ,, <... MIAMI : lo' 1 to 1,, I, 0 2 Km. OF ~~ ..3 1 -A ~ , t} 1 ~ i.~ , ,, / ~ i.':> 1'~-;'' ~ 1 I / Number of Units 101 - 1000 Is 1 1 - 25 51 - 100 ~ 1 - 10 > 26- 50 ~ No Data FIGURE 6-6 New central city housing in the South: Baltimore, Washington, and Miami. Data source: see Figure 6-3. Scattered development and redevelopment projects in Baltimore added >100 new housing units in each of seven tracts, but the core tracts in general had little new housing, like most tracts elsewhere in the city. New housing construction occurred throughout Washington and was espe- cially intense around the core and in tracts to the north and east of Rock Creek Park. The largest increment was at the northeastern edge, behind the National Arboretum. In Miami, new housing construction was significant in all parts of the city, but was most intense in tracts by the ocean just north and south of downtown.

OCR for page 108
RE CENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ES TA TE VAL UES it, at,, \ \ BALTIMORE a 1 ' ' 1 1 0 4 Km. J~ : ( '--em ' 'I ~)'.~: 4 Mi. ~:~ ': -~1~ ~/ , A, ~ WASHINGTON, D.C. ~, ~ FIGURE 6-6 Continued. - l n 0 4 Km. 139 /

OCR for page 108
140 JOHN S. ADA1,IS Housing Units Built 1979 through March 1980: South Jot 1 \r~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~1~ ~1 o l 2 Km. NEW ORLEANS Number of Units 2501 or more (6026) ~ 51 - 100 1 001 - 2500 ~26 - 50 101 - 1000 * 11 - 25 1 - 10 - \ FIGURE 6-7 New central city housing in the South: Dallas, Houston, and New Orleans. Data source: see Figure 6-3. The few hundred new housing units added to core tracts in Dallas do not compare with the many thousands built on the north and east sides during the same period. There was a modest rate of construction on the south and west sides as well, with a peak of >600 in one peripheral tract there. Houston was one of the nation's great boom cities of the 1970s and new housing construction throughout the city in the 1970s was part of the result. The west side got the most new units, but almost all tracts in all parts of the city got significant numbers of new units. New Orleans received significant new construc- tion, especially in the newly developed northeastern, western, and southeastern down-river tracts. The old, historic, and often protected inner city tracts had modest rates of new construction, but the number of units in each tract is small.

OCR for page 108
RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ESTATE VALUES 141 HOUSTON 4 Em FIGURE 6-7 Continued.

OCR for page 108
142 ~ WW n6RnFN GROVE ~ JOHN S. ADAMS Housing Units Built 1979 through March 1980: West SACRAMENTO ~ ''\ ~ o ~ . . 0 2 Km. ~ M _ ~ Number of Units 1 001 - 2500 101 _ 1000 5 1 - 1 00 * 26- 50 ~ 11 - 25 ~ 1 - 10 ~ No Data = . ~ 1~ ~ I - . ~\~ f 1 t l: .) . . .1 L" . . ~ :_T r at:,: -it ,.~ _., ~ o t-r ~ ' ' ' 0 4 Km ~ hi,.) SANTA ANA REV N 4 Ml. FIGURE 6-8 New central city housing in the West: Sacramento, Anaheim/Santa Ana/Garden Grove and Riverside/San Bernadino/Ontario. Data source: see Figure 6-3. Half of the core tracts of Sacramento received no new housing construction, and the other half had only modest amounts. Farther out, in the south, east, and north sides, construction was vigorous. Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana received new housing in all parts of these cities. It is hard to see any bias toward

OCR for page 108
RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ESTATE VALUES ~ 1 SAN BERNARDINO J /~' 1 ~/ .~.d ~ /V ONTARIO 0 4 N - - I 0 4 Krn FIGURE 6-8 Continued. the downtowns and old cores (which are not very old by East Coast standards) or away from them. The Riverside area on the south had new construction at significant levels in all parts of the city. San Bernadino was also vigorously building in all districts of the city. Only two tracts in Ontario had no construction. In all three cities, core tracts generally had new construction but at levels lower than in newer peripheral tracts. 143 . , it* : of: ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ RIVERSIDE , By, ~ ,;..~; \ .~ - ~ it,. \ r \ ~ ~ ~ >by\

OCR for page 108
144 JOHN S. ADAMS infrastructure at public expense; otherwise, it is easy for situations to develop in which capital losers subsidize capital winners, instability in- creases, and infrastructure is wasted. REFERENCES Abler, R. F., and J. S. Adams. 1976. A Comparative Atlas of America's Great Cities: Twenty Metropolitan Regions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Adams, J. S. 1987. Housing America in the 1980s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Apps, A. F. 1973. An approach to urban modeling and evaluation. 1. A residential model. 2. Implicit prices for housing services. Environment and Planning 5:705-717. Badcock, B. 1984. Unfairly Structured Cities. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Bagby, D. G. 1981. The effects of traffic flow on residential property values. Journal of the American Planning Association 46:88-94. Berry, B. J. L., and J. D. Kasarda. 1977. Contemporary Urban Ecology. New York: Macmillan. Bielby, W. T. 1980. Evaluating Measures of Neighborhood Quality in the Annual Housing Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Dale-Johnson, D. 1982. An alternative approach to housing market segmentation using hedonic price data. Journal of Urban Economics 11:311-332. Daniels, C. B. 1975. The influence of racial segregation on housing prices. Journal of Urban Economics 2:105-122. Follain, J. R., and S. Malpezzi. 1981. Estimates of housing inflation for 39 SMSAs: An alternative to the consumer price index. Annals of Regional Science 14(31:41-56. Frey, W. H., and F. E. Korbin. 1982. Changing families and changing mobility: Their impact on the central city. Demography 19(3):261-275. Hoyt, H. 1939. The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities. Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administration. Jackson, J. R. 1979. Intraurban variation in the price of housing. Journal of Urban Eco- nomics 6(4):464-479. Lansing, J. B., C. W. Clifton, and J. N. Morgan. 1969. New Homes and Poor People: A Study of Chains of Moves. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Laska, S.B., and D. Spain, eds. 1980. Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation. New York: Pergamon Press. Mercer, J., and D. A. Phillips. 1981. Attitudes of homeowners and the decision to reha- bilitate property. Urban Geography 2(3):216-236. Nelson, R. H. 1973. Accessibility and rent: Applying Becker's time-price concept to the theory of residential location. Urban Studies 10(1):83-86. Palm, R. I. 1981. The Geography of American Cities. New York: Oxford University Press. Park, R. E., E. W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie. 1925. The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pinkerson, J. R. 1969. City-suburban residential patterns by social class: A review of the literature. Urban Affairs Quarterly 4(4):499-519. Pinkerton, J. R. 1973. The changing class composition of cities and suburbs. Land Eco- nomics 49(4):462-469. Roistacher, E. A., and J. S. Senyoung. 1980. Working women and city structure: Impli- cations of the subtle revolution. Signs 5(3):220-225. Rosenthal, D. O., ed. 1980. Urban Revitalization. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

OCR for page 108
RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN REAL ESTA TE VAL UES 145 Stegman, M. A. 1985. Housing in New York. Piscataway, N.J.: The Center for Urban Policy Research. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1984. 104th ed. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Vance, J. E., Jr. 1976. The American city: Workshop for a national culture. Pp. 1-49 in Contemporary Metropolitan America, Vol. 1, J. S. Adams, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.