CHAPTER 3: TRENDS SHAPING METROPOLITAN FORM : SUBURBANIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION “If we could first know where we are, and wither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it.” Abraham Lincoln Joel Garreau, author of Edge Cities, succinctly summarizes three waves of U.S. suburbanization since World War II: “First we moved our homes out past the traditional idea of what constituted a city. This was the suburbanization of America . . . after World War II. Then we wearied of returning downtown for the necessities of life, so we moved our marketplaces out to where we lived. This was the malling of America, especially in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, we have moved our means of creating wealth, the essence of urbanism — our jobs — out to where most of us have lived and shopped for two generations.” This chapter reviews national and local metropolitan development patterns and explores the causes and impacts of these waves of suburbanization. Historical Metropolitan Development Our current metropolitan form has been shaped by a panoply of forces. Watershed influences include the invention of the automobile assembly line (1913), federally-funded home mortgage programs (beginning in 1934), Supreme Court integration decisions (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954), and federal funding for interstate highways (Federal Aid Highway Act, 1956). The process of historical urban growth (within the context of technological change and other influences) in this region has been classified into four major categories (based on Vance65 and ABAG). • inner cities or urban cores (largely built out by 1900), which contain the historic core of the region, including Oakland and San Francisco; • inner suburbs (developed between 1900 and 1940), which typically developed around the streetcar or railroad system; • suburbs (developed between 1940 and 1980) — large portions of the Bay Area developed during this time period; most were designed to accommodate automobile use, and thus contain wide commercial arterials connecting to predominantly single family dwellings; and • outer suburbs (developed after 1980), including newer residential subdivisions and commercial, retail, and service developments which are typically not interconnected; they are often isolated semi-urban developments connected by wide arterials and highways. Population Trends The overall settlement pattern in the U.S. has changed profoundly since World War II. While the rural population declined slightly and the urban population increased slightly, the suburban population skyrocketed. In 1950, within metropolitan areas, 7 in 10 Americans lived in cities; by 1990, this trend had nearly reversed, and 6 in 10 lived in suburbs. Most Americans Now Live in Large Metropolitan Areas National settlement patterns have shifted regionally and have tended toward larger metropolitan areas. A majority of the U.S. population currently resides in metropolitan areas of one million or more. However, not all metropolitan areas have been growing in the last couple of decades. For example, half of the 25 largest metropolitan areas either declined or were stable from 1970 to 1980. Bay Area Population Trends How does the Bay Area population compare to national population trends? Bay Area population has burgeoned over the last five decades, from about 2 million after the second World War to nearly 6.5 million in 1995, making this the fifth most populous metropolitan area in the country. With respect to central city population, the Bay Area picture is somewhat complex. San Francisco and Oakland populations followed the national pattern for central cities: population peaked in 1950 and declined steadily until the late 1980s. Since then, the population of both areas stabilized and has been increasing modestly. Looking at the overall regional population distribution, the traditional population centers of San Francisco and Oakland comprise a steadily decreasing share. Together, these two cities made up about half the regional total prior to 1950, declining to 30% in 1960, and to 18% in 1990. Figure 3.3 illustrates population growth in the region’s three largest cities. In contrast to the declining population witnessed by San Francisco and Oakland between 1950 and 1980, San José experienced extremely rapid population growth (some of it due to annexation). San José's population increased from roughly 95,000 in 1950 to over 780,000 in 1990. Future population growth will continue a pattern of decentralization, as the population of major cities increases modestly, and outer areas of the region continue to develop. San Francisco, Oakland and San José combined will capture less than 13% of new regional population growth (1995 to 2015), with San José accounting for a full three-fourths of the projected increase. The counties of Contra Costa, Santa Clara and Alameda capture about 17, 16 and 13 percent, respectively, of new population growth. However, the highest rates of growth will occur in the outer parts of the region, in the counties of Solano (40%), Contra Costa (32%), and Sonoma (31%). Employment Trends As a national trend, employment decentralization has been no less striking than population decentralization. However, it succeeded the early waves of population movement and it has been influenced by different forces. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the economy of the U.S. has shifted orientation from manufacturing to information and services. Along with changes in the kinds of jobs, workplace needs have also changed — and while the factory or industrial plant was the workplace of an industrial economy, the office has become the workplace of the information-based service economy. Business linkages to the city have decreased as location decisions are no longer based primarily on proximity to central city infrastructure such as ports, rail spurs and raw materials. Just as the automobile allowed a new pattern of residential development, the advent of commercial trucking contributed to a more dispersed employment pattern. In addition, recent innovations in communications and other technologies have further reduced the costs of moving people, goods, products and ideas, facilitating the spin-off of business operations to suburban locations. Moreover, population-serving businesses and activities, such as retail, have had an obvious incentive to move nearer to the new and growing population centers. Simultaneous with economic and technological changes, a mix of “push” and “pull” factors have also been influential. Suburban areas provide a set of desirable “pull” factors to attract businesses. Proximity to labor — highly-skilled, as well as clerical and support — is primary. Suburban communities also offer lower rent and land costs; greater amenities such as landscaping; and development incentives such as relaxed zoning requirements, publicly-funded improvements and tax breaks. These suburban "pull" factors, coupled with "push" factors in many cities (such as congestion, crime, lack of middle-income housing, racial friction, declining public services, and high downtown land and rent costs) have motivated many businesses to leave the cities. Bay Area Employment Trends In some ways, employment decentralization in the Bay Area mirrors population trends already discussed, and in other ways it is distinct. For example, while the three largest cities’ share of regional population has remained relatively constant, their share of regional employment declined (see Table 3.2). Over the past two decades, the share of Bay Area jobs in the 3 largest cities declined by about 8%. The share of the regional job market captured by the ten older “inner-ring” urban communitiesi declined by a wider 11% margin. Looking to the future, the employment decentralization pattern is expected to stabilize. ABAG projections indicate that in 2015, the three largest cities’ share of regional employment will be only slightly lower than it is currently (31%). In contrast to population trends, jobs in San Francisco have increased over the past three decades, and San Francisco retains its position as the top employment location in the region. Between 1960 and 1990, jobs increased from about 385,700 to 556,600. However, San Francisco’s share of total regional jobs has declined steadily over the same period, from about 31% in 1960 to about 18% in 1990. Employment in Oakland has been fairly steady over the last twenty years in absolute terms, but the relative share of the regional total has declined from about 9% in 1975 to about 6% in 1995. In contrast, employment in San José rose both in absolute terms (jobs increased by about 132,000 from 1975 to 1995) and in relative terms (a 1% increase: 9% to 10%). Trends Supporting Cities While most U.S. central cities have faced a formidable uphill struggle over the past couple of decades, some have fared reasonably well — and a fortunate few have prospered. Those cities that have fared well (including San Francisco) have done so by solidifying old (classic) urban functions, by successfully capturing new roles, and by pioneering new tools, often in public-private partnerships. Key classic functions of the successful cities include serving as a marketplace and as a center for trade, commerce, and art and culture; newer roles include becoming centers in the expanding tourism and entertainment and information industries. Broader trends which have supported urban successes and central city revitalization include demographic changes leading to more households preferring a city location, increases in travel and tourism, and the historic preservation movement. New tools were also pioneered and applied in the redevelopment arena. Public and private entities worked together, using direct government powers and public funds as a lever to attract private investment. Conclusions Decentralization trends have had significant effects on many central cities, including those in the Bay Area. While new residential and employment development increasingly located in the suburbs, what was left behind in the central cities? Too often the remaining uses included older and deteriorating housing, older industrial uses and older shopping districts. Government and civic uses often remained in the cities and served as a somewhat stabilizing force. Many older central cities faced declines in population, increases in low income population, declines in new building activity (and associated revenues); and declines in retail activity (and associated sales tax). Thus, suburbanization trends left many cities with an increasing demand for services, exacerbated by a declining tax base and reduced resources for providing those services.