Once the American Dream: Inner-Ring Suburbs of the Metropolitan United States

8. Different Types of Inner-Ring Suburbs

8 Different Types of Inner-Ring Suburbs S ome inner-ring suburbs are in crisis, and, in general, decline is more prevalent among inner-ring suburbs than outer ones. However , as the previous chapter demonstrates, some inner-ring suburbs performed well between 1980 and 2000. Inner-ring suburbs are a mix of places. Some are wealthy; others are working class. Some are mostly white; others are much more diverse. Some have changed dramatically since their origins; others have changed less. In short, several types of inner-ring suburbs have evolved over time. Three recent studies have developed typologies to identify different sorts of suburbs. These typologies were developed for all suburbs rather than just innerring suburbs. In this chapter, I explore these suburban typologies and offer a typology specifically for inner-ring suburbs. Suburban Typologies Swathes of development outside central cities have grown to the point where now almost two out of every three U.S. metropolitan residents live in suburbs (Beauregard 2006). What has evolved from this increasing development is a complex array of suburban areas (Baldassare Different Types of Inner-Ring Suburbs / 111 1992). The diversity among suburbs has been explored in a number of recent typologies. In the following sections, I examine three. Orfield Typology Myron Orfield (2002) conducted a cluster analysis of 4,606 suburban municipalities and 135 unincorporated areas in twenty-five different metropolitan regions and identifies six different types of suburbs: at risk, segregated ; at risk, older; at risk, low density; bedroom developing; affluent job center; and very affluent job center. The three at-risk types of suburbs are communities with high social needs but limited or declining local resources. The at-risk, segregated suburbs have very high poverty rates and low tax capacity. The housing in these suburbs is old. They are similar to at-risk, older suburbs, except they have a high concentration of minority children in public schools. Orfield also identifies a number of at-risk, lowdensity suburbs. They are typically outer suburbs that have higher-thanaverage poverty rates and low tax capacity. In addition, Orfield identifies bedroom-developing suburbs. They are recognized as typical, traditional suburbs. The population of these suburbs is mostly white. The housing stock is new, and these suburbs are typically low density with high rates of population growth. The final two types of suburbs are affluent job centers and very affluent job centers. These suburbs are quintessential edge cities. They have large amounts of office space, and they are the primary location for the most affluent and well-educated suburbanites. They have a large tax base and offer many amenities. Orfield (2002) aptly describes these suburbs as “having it all.” Typical examples of these suburbs are areas along Route 128 outside Boston, the Irvine area south of Los Angeles, around O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, and the Perimeter Center north of Atlanta. The biggest concern among residents of affluent job centers is growth. According to Orfield (2002), antigrowth initiatives are disproportionately found on local ballots in these types of suburbs. Hanlon,Vicino, and Short Typology Based on a descriptive analysis of 1,639 suburban census places in thirteen different metropolitan areas, Bernadette Hanlon, Thomas Vicino, and John Short (2006) identify five types of suburbs: rich, poor, manufacturing, black, 112 / Chapter 8 and immigrant. In their analysis, they find substantial variation in income levels among suburbs, and in each of the metropolitan regions in their study, the poorest suburban place had a lower median family income than the central city. Poor suburbs were often poorer than the central city. Some suburbs in the Hanlon, Vicino, and Short study had high levels of manufacturing employment. The overwhelming majority of these blue-collar suburbs experienced increasing levels of poverty in recent decades. Bluecollar suburbs were generally struggling with deindustrialization and a shift in emphasis from manufacturing to more service-based employment. Hanlon, Vicino, and Short (2006) also note increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the suburbs. Out of the 1,639 suburban places they analyze , 1,245 increased their black population (in 227 places by more than 10 percent, and in 114 places by more than 25 percent). They identify 252 suburban places where the black population was more than 25 percent and 132 suburbs where it was more than 50 percent in 2000. These suburbs they term “black suburbs...