Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000

Micropolitan America: A Brank New Geography

Micropolitan areas” represent a new category of places introduced by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in June 2003.1 As the prefix “micro” implies, these places are generally (but not always) less populous than metropolitan areas. In particular, micropolitan principal cities are smaller than metropolitan cores; whereas the former range from 10,000 to 50,000 people, the latter must exceed 50,000 residents.2 Because the concept is so recent, there is no significant literature on micropolitan areas. This chapter establishes baseline data on the size, growth rate, and location of micropolitan areas. Micropolitan areas can be populous regions without big centers, whereas metropolitan areas may have big centers that are surrounded by little additional population. A place is defined as “metropolitan” or “micropolitan” based on the size of its center rather than total population. This raises an interesting question regarding the definition of “urban.” The traditional view holds that a large core city anchors subsequent suburbanization and creates 235 Micropolitan America: A Brand New Geography R O B E R T E . L A N G A N D D A W N D H A V A L E 10 1. OMB (2003). This new designation uses 2000 data as a reference point. In 2000, the new “core-basedstatisticalarea”(CBSA)replacedmetropolitanstatisticalareas(MSAs),consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs), and primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs). CBSAs define both micropolitan and metropolitan areas. 2. The OMB definition for a micropolitan area is “at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 in population,” although more than 50,000 residents can live in the entire micropolitan statistical area. Like metropolitan areas, micropolitan areas are constructed from counties containing the population center, and those that have commuting relationships with the central county. “ a metropolitan area. But micropolitan areas reverse this standard pattern: they grow to metropolitan scale without a large central city. Some of the largest micropolitan areas are more than just overgrown small towns—they appear to be exemplars of a new decentralized or even countrified city. Most research on decentralized cities (for example, edge cities and edgeless cities) looks at the places that have grown next to traditional cores, such as Tysons Corner, Virginia, outside of Washington, D.C.3 Yet the “suburban” growth in big micropolitan areas is not outside anything, because there is no real center, no urban area to be a suburb of. Micropolitan areas therefore represent a new metropolitan form with an expansive periphery and a relatively small core. METHODOLOGY In the study described in this chapter, we looked at the 567 micropolitan areas that lie within the continental United States, excluding those in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, which tend to be outliers. For example, there are remote Alaskan micropolitan areas that are actually closer to Seattle than Anchorage. In Hawaii, three entire islands are micropolitan areas. This chapter focuses on three basic dimensions of place—size, growth, and location. Micropolitan area location is especially important because it significantly affects the first two qualities. Our analysis shows that micropolitan areas proximate to big metropolitan areas tend to be bigger and faster-growing, whereas the more remote places are often smaller and slower growing. This finding is consistent with geographer Calvin Beale’s work that established remoteness as a critical indicator of metropolitan development.4 This chapter uses a remoteness indicator that measures the distance between the center of a micropolitan area and the center of a “big” metropolitan area. “Big” is defined as metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents, which describes the fifty most populous U.S. regions, which range in size from Richmond, Virginia, with just 1 million, to New York, with over 21 million people. Big metropolitan areas account for almost three-quarters of the U.S. population and are home to key transportation infrastructure, such as hub airports. Being distant from these places puts remote micropolitan areas at a distinct disadvantage. The twenty-five most remote micropolitan areas are at least 275 miles from a big metropolitan area, which means that their 236 Robert E. Lang and Dawn Dhavale 3. Garreau (1991); Lang (2003). 4. Beale (1990). residents must drive four or more hours to reach big-city services and amenities. We can measure the suburb-to-city-center relationship in both metropolitan and micropolitan areas. The ratio...