CHAPTER 1 ~ INTRODUCTION “You can't be a suburb of nowhere.” Jerry Abramsoni The relative position of cities vis à vis suburbs has changed dramatically over the last few decades by almost any relevant measure: shares of people and jobs, median income, concentrations of wealth and poverty, labor force preparedness, fiscal health, growth expectations, etc. By these measures, many cities and older suburbs are faring poorly, compared to newer suburbs. Central cities face a real dilemma: increasing demands for services, with a diminished ability to pay for these services. Cities contain higher percentages of needy populations, and their revenue streams are static or declining. Moreover, attempted remedies are often counterproductive, since attempts by a city to raise revenues (typically from business or non-poor residents) can provide a motivation to relocate to nearby areas. This sets the stage for a worrisome downward spiral for cities. Central Questions A debate has been simmering in academic and journalistic circles over the years regarding the nature of the relationship between cities and suburbs. Some call for increased regional cooperation to address central city problems and improve overall conditions in the suburbs. Others argue that suburbs no longer need central cities, since, by definition, these new “edge cities” have become self-sufficient and functionally independent. Arguments for stronger ties typically revolve around either economic development (greater cooperation to meet mutual economic needs of a metropolitan region) or equity (fairness demands trying to offset economic inequities). In recent years, the economic development argument has received heightened attention and focus for pragmatic as well as political reasons. This study explores relationships between cities and suburbs, seeking answers to two questions: 1. To what extent are Bay Area cities, suburbs and geographic regions interdependent? 2. Can a compelling case be made that regional economic prosperity depends upon the economic and social health of older, central cities? At the conclusion of this report, a menu of strategies is presented to address the issues raised. It is intended to initiate discussion and to gauge initial interest and policy direction. The San Francisco Bay Region is Unique In some ways, the Bay Area mimics urban and suburban trends and existing conditions throughout the nation. In other ways, Bay Area patterns are distinct and unique. Most profoundly, this region has no single largest city. This is in contrast to the typical model of one large city and surrounding environs exemplified by Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, or New York. San Francisco is the historic center of the region. As one of the world's favorite cities, it is undeniably prominent from an outsider's or tourist's perspective. To Bay Area residents, the expression "the City" is commonly used and readily understood to mean "San Francisco." Nevertheless, in demographic and economic terms, it is no longer predominant. Today, San Francisco is not even the most populous city; instead, San José now lays claim to that title. Study Definitions and Data Presentation This distinction — the lack of a single central city — has pervasive implications for this study. Issues of definition and terminology (what is meant by “city,” “central city,” and “suburb”) have been thorny. For example, San José, as the region’s most populous city, faces most of the challenges associated with large older central cities. However, its predominant low-density development pattern, and the time period when most of its growth occurred, are generally consistent with most connotations of “suburban.” Also, many older, “inner ring” suburbs face most of the urban challenges more closely associated with the “central” cities than with newer “outer ring” suburbs. Moreover, these older suburbs often lack the level of problem-solving resources (e.g. large redevelopment agencies or political muscle) available to the larger cities. In addition to issues of definition, data availability and format often constrained the geographic grouping of information. For example, limited information was available at a census-tract level. Rather than rely on a single definition of the terms “city” and “suburb,” this report presents data in four main geographic groupings, based on data availability and relevance: 1. Three largest cities —San Francisco, San José, and Oakland (3 cities) — contrasted with the rest of the region; 2. A sampling of older cities and inner-region suburbs is contrasted with the overall region or with a sampling of newer or outer-region suburbs (for example, the following cities had a population greater than 60,000 in 1960, and generally represent the “inner ring” of central cities and older suburbs: Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco, San José, San Leandro, San Mateo, and Vallejo); 3. County aggregations: San Francisco is clearly an urban county; the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa include both older urban/suburban and newer suburban areas; and the remaining counties are predominantly suburban (with limited urban areas); and finally 4. Census tract (typically used for census information and to highlight disparities within cities as well as between larger geographic areas).