.ANALYSlS 0F INTRA'URBAN POPULATLON MOVEMERT IN LARGE. URBAN-RED AREAS N THE UNITED' STATES BETWEEN 1950 AND i970 Thesis for thé Segree of M. S. WCWGAN STATE UNIVERSE?! PHiUP A. BABCOGK E 97 5 1d 5.305% g ‘ ’ amounts of"? HUAG & SUNS' BUGI'.’ BIHDERY INC. URBARY Bl N DEBS "i'Efl-‘E‘I'L ; ABSTRACT ANALYSIS OF INTRA-URBAN POPULATION MOVEMENT IN LARGE URBANIZED AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN 1950 AND 1970 by Philip A. Babcock The purpose of this study was to examine intra- urban migration in large urbanized areas in the United States between 1950 and 1970. The study of migration concentrated on a concept termed "centralization" which was defined in terms of population movement at the intra- urban level and some of the circumstances influencing those movements. In conducting the study, emphasis was placed on obtaining a high degree of refinement in its general- ization and concepts. This was done in order to obtain information that would have potential for practical uses such as public policy formation or providing a basis from which population projection methods might be deve10ped. In order to obtain.a high degree of refinement in the study, a conceptual model referred to as a "stage theory of growth" was used to test the concept of centralization. This test of centralization was con- ducted on the twenty-five largest urbanized areas in the United States as of 1970. The results of the test of centralization indicated a widespread increase in what was termed "positive centralization" during the 1960's decade when compared to the 1950's decade. This increase in positive centralization was accompanied by a decrease in the reciprocal of positive centralization which was termed "negative centralization". ANALYSIS OF INTRA-URBAN POPULATION MOVEMENT IN LARGE URBANIZED AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN 1950 AND 1970 By Philip A. Babcock A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 197 5 Copyright by: Philip A. Babcock 197 5 Iwish to 8X? wait-tee, Dr. Ra; Developzent, and : Department 01‘ Res: ail-1r. Donn Ande: Laziscape Archite' I also wish 25- Iith my resea: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to my thesis committee, Dr. Raleigh Barlowe, Department of Resource Development, and my chairman; Dr. Milton Steinmueller, Department of Resource Development, and my adviser; and Mr. Donn Anderson, School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture. I also wish to thank my wife, Jacqueline, who assisted me with my research effort. ii ,3..\.,\ _. a ‘ "Ith‘- ""'-n aduu‘~‘~:‘J¢‘.L“lb .-JT CF Tn‘ 3' 33,, I‘Fv‘... V "hy,. 1 LL: $.‘I! , A S f" Q (5 Q 2 m:"r\v~-- *“Lvn; \h Li-SIGJ z o J QTUDlr hdf‘sh.h4f1r‘anfnr-'H IIY .' g 1?; ‘~ ,1] ¢ *rvr‘) My run—Jrfi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .0coo000000000000000.00.000.00 ii LIST OF TABLESoooooooooooooono...coco-00000000 v LIST OF APPENDICESOOOQOOOOOOOCOcoo.00000000000 Vii Chapter 1 DEFINITION OF PROBLEM................ I Introduction and Statement of StUdy Need...00.000000000000000. 1 Study Purpose................... 3 Study Hypothesis................ A 2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE STUDY DESIGN AND REVIEW OF RELATED WORK.... _ A 3 STUDY DESIGNCCOOOOOCOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... 1# Introduction and General DefinitionBOCOOOOOOO00.0.0000... lt.‘ Study Sample.................... 15 Operational Definition of a Centralized Area................ 15 Operational Definition of Population Centralization....... 18 Restatement of Study Hypothesis. 26 Outline and Summary of Study Procedure....................... 27 # ANAIJYSIS OF REULTSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 29 Outline of Presentation......... 29 Test of Study Hypothesis........ 29 Detailed Analysis of Data....... 32 New York Urbanized Area......... Los Angeles Urbanized Area...... 48 Chicago Urbanized Area.......... 50 Philadelphia Urbanized Area..... 52 iii . 4 .. J a v. .3 6L.:u "I. 9- 5 t. 1.: 3 Am .C o o. ‘v Gum‘s)..\&t. nu rU inhibignnnbs. e ‘U n O C r o I. e e a. s A. an; .nu 1‘ Adi IF.“ 9. c F4 bu ~‘ 3. S c» F. 0 an "L ”r. a: Mb \ r. . I & hr. 5 .A C “Li: D S m. sum - ~~ «(NI Table of Contents - Chapter 4 (Cont.) Chapter 5 Detroit Urbanized Area.......... San Francisco - Oakland Urbanized Area.................. Boston Urbanized Area........... Washington Urbanized Area....... Cleveland Urbanized Area........ St. Louis Urbanized Area........ Pittsburgh Urbanized Area....... Minneapolis - St. Paul Urbanized Area.................. Houston Urbanized Area.......... Baltimore Urbanized Area........ Dallas Urbanized Area........... Milwaukee Urbanized Area........ Seattle Urbanized Area.......... Miami Urbanized Area............ San Diego Urbanized Area........ Atlanta Urbanized Area.......... Cincinnati Urbanized Area....... Kansas City Urbanized Area...... Buffalo Urbanized Area.......... Denver Urbanized Area........... San Jose Urbanized Area......... SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............. APPEIqDICESOOOOOOOQOQo.0.0000000000000000000000 BIBLIOGRAPHYCOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCOOIOOOCOOOOOOOOOOC iv 105 IA? Table l. 3. 1+. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 11+. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. LIST OF TABLES Relationship between growth cycle, centralization classification, and census tract classification code. Comparison of extent of positive centralization in the 1950's decade with the 1960's decade. Total centralized areas. New York urbanized area. Los Angeles urbanized area. Chicago urbanized area. Philadelphia urbanized area. Detroit urbanized area. San Francisco urbanized area. Boston urbanized area. Washington D. C. urbanized area. Cleveland urbanized area. St. Louis urbanized area. Pittsburgh urbanized area. Minneapolis-St. Paul urbanized area. Houston urbanized area. Baltimore urbanized area. Dallas urbanized area. Milwaukee urbanized area. V Page 28 50-51 55 45-47 #9 51 55 55 58-59 61 65 65 67 69 71-72 74 76 78 80 “if" «I Seattle at Efiazi urba San Diego Atlanta u: Cincinnati Kansas Cit Buffalo 1;} Denver Ur] San Jose 1 Table 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. LIST OF TABLES (CONTo) Seattle urbanized area. Miami urbanized area. San Diego urbanized area. Atlanta urbanized area. Cincinnati urbanized area. Kansas City urbanized area. Buffalo urbanized area. Denver urbanized area. San Jose urbanized area. vi Page 82 8A 86 88 9O 92 93 95 97 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR CENSUS TRACTS....lOS CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREAOOCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO00.0.000000106 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN LOS ANGELES URBANIZED AREAOO00.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0000000120 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CHICAGO URBANIZED ARE-AOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000000000000000123 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN PHILADELPHIA URBANIZED AREAOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....00129 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN DETROIT URBANIZED AREAOOOOCOOIO0.0.0.0....0.00.00.00.000000001w CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN SAN FRANCISCO URBANIZED AREAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOO00.00.000.131 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN BOSTON URBANIZED AREAOQOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.00....133 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN WASHINGTON D. C. URBANIZED AREACOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCOOCOOOO0.0.0136 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CLEVELAND URBANIZED AREA0000000000000000000000000000000000.0900137 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN ST. LOUIS URBANIZED AREAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000.000.0000...0.0.138 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN PITTSBURGH URBANIZED AREA.......................................138 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL URBANIZED AREAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.0139 vii Haj hpeniix "t’m ltlnr—l L‘.RM any Pp» “mecca... "2"?“ .. ?~—- b“‘*Rl‘l-ulu“.' . :0“- ”V" I7 '7“. CL‘iR’quL; IWP. “a“. O . . . . . CFP““I v v ,7“, “J‘MQJlLLL. cam-.1122; ."“v-\ .:.| LIST OF APPENDICES (CONT.) Appendix Page CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN HOUSTON URBANIZED ARE-Acooooooooooooooooooo00000OOQQOo-oooooooll"0 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN BALTIMORE URBANIZED AREA...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0..0140 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN DALLAS URBANIZED MOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOlul CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN MILWAUKEE URBANIZED AREAOOOOOQOOOQOOQOOOOOOQCoo.OOOOOOQOOOOOOOOll-lvl CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN SEATTLE URBANIZED AREAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00000...OOOOOOOOOOOCOlAZ CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN MIAMI URBANIZED AREA.1A2 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN SAN DIEGO URBANIZED AREA.00000000000000.0000CoaoOOoooooooooooooll+3 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN ATLANTA URBANIZED AREA.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.00...00.0.0.0.143 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CINCINNATI URBANIZED AREA...0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.144 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN KANSAS CITY URBANIZED AREAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00.cocoooooocoll}5 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN BUFFALO URBANIZED AREA...CO"OCOCOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.000000000145 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN DENVER URBANIZED AREACCOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOICOCOOCOOOOCOCOOCI46 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN SAN JOSE URBANIZED AREAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOll+6 viii CHAPTER 1 DEFINITION OF PROBLEM Introduction and Statement of Study Need There exists today a.widely accepted generalization among persons concerned with demographic trends in the United States. This generalization is that recent United States pepulation migration has been characterized by centralization into large metropolitan areas, while population migration in metrOpolitan areas has been characterized by decentralization. Because of the dominance of the centralization- decentralization theory many observers have been slow to accept evidence that a possible change may now be occurring in both migration trends. It may, in fact, be necessary to eXperience another ten or twenty years of change in order to fully understand contemporary migration patterns. It is not necessary, however, to wait until migration patterns become obvious in order to begin documenting them. This thesis will contend that the established trend of decentralization inside large urbanized areas had already begun to change in the 1960's and that such change 1 2 can be demonstrated by comparing the 1960's decade to the 1950's. In demonstrating this view, the thesis will report a study of pepulation migration within large urbanized areas between 1950 and 1970. The structure of the thesis was designed to contribute information on two separate but related aspects of intra- urban population.migration. The first such aspect of intra-urban.migration considered for study was the need to re-examine contemporary migration theory in light of the recently completed 1970 United States Census of Population. This examination involved a comparison of intra-urban migration in the 1950's decade with intra- urban migration in the 1960's decade as documented by the United States Census of Population in 1960 and 1970 respectively. The second aspect of intra-urban migration considered for the study was the need to develop a particular level of demographic information. This level of information was designed to fit between the highly generalized demo- graphic studies used for theory building and the more refined applied research studies which are generally too limited in scope for theory building. In deveIOping this level of information, emphasis has been placed on obtaining information useful in theory building. Hopefully, however, theories based on a precise level of generalization will prove more useful in practical application than highly generalized theories. '1' ' w . l - ‘i- Study M 1110 ; ligation emit] e: cm, of United St: caper. U of 1 cone: 1 de' “an‘ find an; W- Sm Amide nth mi. lition 1n 1‘ ”10 be “fined ‘ Study Purpose The purpose of this proposed study of intra-urban migration is to examine migration patterns in the high density centers, here on referred to as centralized areas, of the twenty-five largest urbanized areas in the United States. The aim of this examination will be to compare the 1950's decade to the 1960's decade in terms of a concept described as "population centralization" . A detailed definition of population centralization is presented in Chapter 3, but at present, it can be de- fined simply as location of population in a centralized area. Such pepulation centralization will be further classified as being either positive or negative in nature, with positive centralization defined as location of popu- lation in a centralized area that is likely to continue in the near future, while negative centralizdtion is defined as either movement of population out of a central- ized area or location in a centralized area that is not likely to continue in the near future. The limitation of the study to a twenty year time span was done in order to concentrate on migration patterns that are most relevant for contemporary decision smug. Such an emphasis is consistent with the purpose of the study which was to provide a level of information geared not only to theory building, but also to practical application such as public policy creation. Study Hypothesis Stated in a general form, the hypothesis of this study is that when the 1960's decade is compared to the 1950's decade there will appear a widespread trend in large United States urbanized areas toward positive population centralization. The hypothesis as stated does not deny the large dominant trend of negative centralization that existed in both the 1950's and 1960's, but only wishes to demon- strate the relative growth of positive centralization to negative centralization. CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE STUDY DESIGN AND REVIEW OF RELATED WORK As implied by the study hypothesis the high level of generalization used in contemporary research on intra- urban migration has resulted in a failure to note a wide- spread trend of positive centralization in large United States urbanized areas. It would follow then that in testing its hypothesis this research will strive for a high level of refinement in its generalizations. In choosing to use a highly refined level of general- ization there was no intention to imply any inherent goodness about the use of such a generalization level. The level of generalization was chosen instead simply to produce information for sources of need not served by more generalized studies. In reviewing existing studies of intra-urban population migration the most basic and perhaps most widely applied study design is the large scale demographic approach. This approach compares the population growth of central cities with their suburban areas over a long period of time. In such studies the concept of positive centrali- zation is represented by central city population growth 5 6 and negative centralization by population growth in suburban areas. In conceptualizing centralization in such a highly generalized manner studies in this category suffer from a common problem. This problem involves including great amounts of areas in a central city classification which are suburban in character and in- cluding a growing number of areas in a suburban classifi- cation which are actually central city in character. This problem by itself is enough to invalidate such studies for all but the most general uses. Two studies which are good examples of large scale demographic research while at the same time possessing some refinements are Amos Hawley's 1956 study of intra- urban migration trends from 1900 to 19501 and Leo Schnore and Vivian Klalf's study2 of intra-metropolitan pOpulation from 1950 to 1970. The Hawley study in 1956 was one of the more ex- haustive studies done in the 1950's on intra-urban mi- gration. In his study Hawley used both the United States Census Bureau's Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (S.M.S.A.'s) and his own Extended Metropolitan Areas for dual levels of analysis. This analysis involved a study of concentration or deconcentration trends in urban 1Amos Hawley, The Chan in Sha e of Metro olitan America: DeconcentraEIon SInce I920 (Glencoe, IIlinois: Free Press,l956). 2Leo F. Schnore and Vivian Klalf, "Suburbanization in the Sixties: A Preliminary Analysis", Land Economics, Vol. #8 (Feb., 1972). 23-53. 7 pepulation between 1900 and 1950. In designing his study Hawley resorted to the standard central city - suburban classification scheme but added a major refinement in the suburban area by further sub- dividing it according to its distance from the city hall of the central city. This was accomplished by extending a radius in five mile intervals from the central city's city hall over the entire metropolitan area. Calculation of papulation migration inside suburban areas was then done by use of zones created by the intervals along the radius extended from city hall. Strangely enough the central city was excluded from such analysis but the attempt to conceptualize population concentration by more than municipal limits represents a major refinement in study method. The central conclusion of Hawley's study was that population migration within United States Metropolitan Areas had been dominated by concentration movement from 1900 to around 1920 and deconcentration from 1920 to 1950. Hawley went on to speculate about the causes of this shift in migration patterns but didn't present any re- search to confirm his speculations. A study which is similar to Hawley's but of somewhat more interest because of its recency is the Schmore and Klalf study of 1971.3 3.1229... p. 5. 8 For their study Schmore and Klalf used preliminary returns from the 1970 census to compare intra-urban migration patterns in the 1950's with the 1960's. The stated purpose of the study was to see if any reversal in the decentralization trends of the 1950's had occurred in the 1960's. In order to test for decentralization Schmore and Klalf used the basic central city - suburban classification scheme without modification. However, the study did include one important refinement in its research method which was to enlarge somewhat the defi- nition of centralization. This enlargement involved including cases as centralizing when a suburban area declined in pepulation at a rate greater than the central city. Although this may seem an obvious step to take in designing the classification systems it does make use of the concept of centralization to imply something other than a.movement of pe0ple into an area. As a result of their study Schmore and Klalf found that 7A% of the United States S.M.S.A.'s experienced decentralization in the 1960's compared to 70% in the 1950's. Unfortunately Schmore and Klalf did not wait for 1970 census data which was adjusted for annexation so the only thing they really measured was the percent of central city in each decade annexing significant amounts of population. Even if annexation adjusted figures had been used the percent of S.M.S.A.'s experiencing centralization by Schmore and Klalf's measurement would 9 have been so small for both decades under study that a comparison would have demonstrated little. With the recognition of the problems involved in standard large-scale demographic study a review was made of theory building at a more refined level of analysis which is generally termed process-oriented studies. Process-oriented studies vary from the large scale demo- graphic studies in that they generally attempt to under- stand large scale demographic phenomenon by trying to understand the process by which it occurs. One early process oriented study which provided a possible foundation for a study design was the 195A study of population movement in the Philadelphia metropolitan area conducted by Hans Blumenfeld}+ In his study Blumenfeld hypothesized that a given population density will move outward from a metropolitan core over time like a wave. From his test on Philadelphia and a later test on Toronto Blumenfeld was able to determine a constant ratio between the distance that a particular population density ring moved outward from a metropolitan core and the rate of pOpulation growth in the metropolitan area. Blumenfeld admitted that the similarity he found between the ratio of movement to growth in Philadelphia with that in Toronto, .83 and .85 respectively, was probably coincidental. 4Hans Blumenfeld, "The Tidal Wave of Metropolitan Expansion", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 20 (Winter, 195h7, B-IEI 10 The fact that the existence of a ratio could be demon- strated at all, however, is strong evidence that intra- urban migration is more structured than might have been imagined before Blumenfeld's work. The next major process oriented theory that held potential for a study design is what is generally termed a stage theory of growth. A stage theory of growth basically considers growth to occur through a number of ordered stages which are cyclical in nature and usually tied to the life cycle of housing units within a particular urban neighborhood. If one plots the papulation growth of a neighborhood as it passes through a life cycle a wave-like formation appears. This wave-like papulation growth pattern provides a connection between a stage theory of growth and Blumenfeld's wave theory although Blumenfeld's wave theory involved a much larger scale of study. Assuming, however, a general connection between a neighborhood's stage in a growth cycle and its distance from a metropolitan core one can easily transform a stage theory into Blumenfeld's wave theory. One of the earliest discussions of an actual stage theory of growth occurred in a section of Hoover and Vernon's 1959 book, Anatomy 9; _a_ Metromlis. The section titled "How a Neighborhood Evolves" listed five stages which a typical metropolitan neighborhood passed through as it experiences an initial cycle of development. The five stages listed in Hoover and Vernon's ll presentation include a first stage of rapid, low density residential development followed by a second stage of higher density apartment development. The stage of higher density deveIOpment consumes the remaining avail- able building sites in a neighborhood as well as replacing some of the older single family homes with multi-family units. Following the second stage is a third stage of downgrading in which housing, both single family and multi-family is subdivided. This downgrading stage is further characterized by a transition of housing to lower income groups who often overcrowd it. Hoover and Vernon added that the third stage is optional and may never occur if a neighborhood maintains its original class of residents. If a third stage does occur Hoover and Vernon list a fourth stage which involves a thinning out of pepulation in a neighborhood. This thinning of neigh- borhood population is caused by children of the lower income residents leaving the overcrowded housing as they become adults. Finally there is a fifth stage in which the housing is removed by renewal efforts and the land is reused for higher density or non-residential uses. After the early discussion of a staged growth cycle by Hoover and Vernon little was done with a stage theory until 1971. In that year David Birch published a population 12 study on New Haven, Connecticut which was designed to test a stage theory of growth which was similar to that described by Hoover and Vernon.5 In order to test his stage theory Birch defined seven separate stages for a single life cycle of a typical metropolitan neighborhood. These seven stages were nearly identical to the five stages in Hoover and Vernon's earlier theory. The only major difference between the two was the addition of a rural stage at the beginning of the process and the addition of a separate final stage in which the land that is cleared in the renewal stage is reused. Using his seven stages Birch then assigned particular statistical parameters to each stage. With the statistical parameters it was possible for Birch to score individual census tracts within New Haven according to the characteristics they possessed from each stage in his cycle. Using census tracts as a form of urban neigh- borhoods Birch found that census tract characteristics tend to concentrate heavily in or around one particular stage in his cycle and that the stage characteristics of census tracts pass with great consistency through his cycle although not at a uniform rate. Based on Birch's success in demonstrating the exis- tence of a staged pattern of growth in New Haven it was decided 5Edgar M. Hoover and Raymond Vernon, Anatomy of a Metro 0118 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 19595. 5“" ta adept a stage ’. apraach or a581,: ;. :eztralization. 5:32: include, f- rifles an explanat; 'tn ’ o ‘ a 5‘ - 55* relate"; b: writ: .519 SEC OTIS re .s that a state 1‘; ‘. ‘ ‘ .‘n w 3- a neighborho 'na ~ "“ h‘ «v “““l"*pal 2‘ s . ‘ «-n- a h ‘ “he- 3 aae‘b.‘~or\! \ 0. ‘~ - .. ,v-u—h ‘ “V. avaon the 13 to adopt a stage theory of growth as a basic theoretical approach or assumption in designing a study of population centralization. The reasons for selecting a stage theory include, first the fact that a stage theory pro- vides an explanation of population migration which can be related to the concept of pepulation centralization. The second reason for selecting a stage theory is that a stage theory considers population migration at the neighborhood level. This in turn results in a more refined level of generalization than analysis at the municipal or multi-municipal level. Also by using a neighborhood as the basic unit for measurement of migration the problem of mutual cancelation of opposing migration trends is largely avoided when compared to measurement at the muncipal level. I:troduction an; AS eXplaim :‘ezc irate the 573'“ by LIS'ing Sui-mecticut. E :‘etailed exp-la: f8.t to hOld Di .1_ ‘_ e.Qtlaon C entra‘ ""5403 of I“: “rated urba ‘I‘ea. h :ilstln tar; CHAPTER 3 STUDY DESIGN Introduction and General Definitions As eXplained in Chapter 2, David Birch was able to demonstrate the existence of a staged pattern of urban growth by using a stage theory in a study of New Haven, Connecticut. Because such a stage theory involves a detailed explanation of population growth it was also felt to hold potential for refining the study of pOp- ulation centralization. In order to apply a stage theory of growth to the study of population centraliza- tion it is necessary to begin with a general definition of p0pulation centralization. For the purpose of this study p0pulation centralization will be defined as: location of residential population within a geographical area of intense urban character. An area of such con- centrated urban activity will be defined as a centralized6 area 0 6The terms centralized and centralization are to be distinguished as centralized refers to an actual geographical area and centralization refers to the activity of location of population within a centralized area. It. 15 Study Sample The sample used in this study of centralization was a complete count sample of the twenty-five largest United States urbanized areas in 1970 as defined by the United States Census Bureau. The choice of large urban- ized areas for a study sample was based on their po- tential to represent exaggerated urban conditions along with the fact that they are of major concern for pur- poses such as public policy planning. Operational Definition of a Centralized Area Defining a centralized area poses major problems when the definition must be based on a uniform sources of information for twenty-five different urbanized areas over a twenty year time span. The Census Bureau provides some such statistical information but even this information suffers inconsistencies from one census to the next. Using census information that was reasonably consistent, a relatively simple definition for a centralized area was devised based on spatial proximity to the central business core of an urbanized area and the density type of residential structures in the area. Such a definition rests on the assumption that areas in the central portion of an urbanized area with high density housing tend to have intense urban characteristics. This assumption has some drawbacks but by using two factors to provide a cross check on each other, reasonable results were :th-ined' There is: 01 :iszical “flare 3' this the CF95“ involve the perm 3 not a serious as long as the b :2’ observations ' The actual . the central bUSi accaeplished by that central bus as a restraining be considered ce The length l‘l'eishting it e “‘3 Urbanized a1 1:! rad: “8 Was a 16 obtained. There is, of course, no universally accepted sta- tistical measure for intense urban character. Because of this the creation of such a statistical measure must involve the personal bias of its creator. Such bias is not a serious problem for comparison studies, however, as long as the bias remains constant for both groups of observations being compared. The actual determination of spatial proximity to the central business core of the urbanized area was accomplished by extending a single radius outward from that central business core. This radius then served as a restraining limit beyond which areas would not be considered centralized. The length of the restraining radius was determined by weighting it according to the total land coverage of the urbanized area under question. The actual size of the radius was a length that would have extended half way between the central business core and the outer edge of urbanization in a perfectly concentric urbanized area of equal land coverage to the urbanized area under question. The origin of the restraining radius was located as close as could be determined to the so-called 100%lcorner 17 of real estate value in the central business core.7 By using a restraining radius in the delineation of a centralized area high density cores that were extremely linear in shape were penalized somewhat if they extended beyond the restraining radius. 0f the ur- banized areas in the study that were limited somewhat by the restraining radius only Miami, with its high density ocean front development, was limited significantly. The intended purpose of the restraining radius, which actually was to eliminate the numerous high density nodes scattered throughout large urbanized areas, was generally fulfilled successfully. Once the limiting radius was extended, a centralized area within the radial area was defined in terms of the percent of its total housing units classified by the Census Bureau as being in structures with three or more units.8 7In two cases, Minneapolis-St. Paul and San Francisco- 0akland,twin centers existed and dual radii were extended by dividing the total urbanized land area. In two other cases, New York and Los Angeles, twin 100% corners existed in close proximity (Mid Town-Downtown, Wilshire Blvd.- Downtown, respectively) in which case the radius was extended from a point midway between the two centers. 8Areas of less than 25,000 population which were surrounded on all urbanized sides by centralized areas but had retained a predominance of lower density type units such as the Georgetown area in Washington D.C. were still classified as centralized. Such low density areas with over 25,000 pOpulation, however, were considered independent sections of the city and not classified as centralized even if surrounded by centralized areas. 18 The choice of three or more unit structures for a statistical parameter was designed to balance the amount of areas classified as centralized between the older and younger urbanized areas. As an example, areas such as Philadelphia and Boston were deve10ped with large numbers of three and four unit buildings which are generally as high in density as the predom- inantly five or more unit structures in apartment areas of Los Angeles and Houston. The exact percentage of high density units required for classification as a centralized area was set at a simple majority of more than 50%, a point at which an area should start appearing high density in character. Operational Definition of Population Centralization Once the centralized portion of an urbanized area had been defined the study's second important definition of pepulation centralization was deve10ped by reference to a stage theory of growth. According to the general definition of population centralization used in this study all areas within the centralized portion of an urbanized area would experience pepulation centralization of some form. The stage theory of growth was then used to define specific types of centralization into which neighborhoods or sub-areas within a centralized area could be classified. To describe the development of the centralization l9 classification system it is convenient to start with a basic description of a stage theory of growth. In a simplified form a stage theory of growth can be described by a three stage cycle of urban growth.9 The first stage of growth in such a three stage cycle would involve the initial building of a neighborhood with a particular housing density type usually dominating the development. Population growth in the initial building stage is generally rapid due to the great amount of land available for deve10pment. The second stage of the cycle would follow the initial building stage with an aging process in which the original housing units would age but still receive the degree of maintenance necessary for preservation of the neigh- borhood. Few new housing units would be built in this stage because of a lack of building sites and population would remain generally stable. The third and final stage of the cycle would involve the obsolescence of the original housing units as the increasing amounts of maintenance needed to preserve the housing is discontinued. Population generally declines in this stage but may not do so until the very end. Ultimately the third stage leads to the removal of the obsolete housing which would in turn create building sites for a new growth cycle to begin. A second 9A rural stage was not included in this study. 20 growth cycle would then follow the pattern of the first, except that the initial building would usually be dom- inated by a higher density housing type. For the sake of definition in the study a growth cycle began with predominately one or two unit residen- tial structures will be referred to as a first cycle of growth and a growth cycle began with predominantly “three or more unit residential structures will be re- ferred to as a second cycle of growth. In this system of defining growth cycles the terms first and second refer to residential density types and not necessarily a time ordered sequence. Second cycle neighborhoods then, can be deve10ped in non-urbanized areas without a first cycle ever existing. Such a prac- tice was in fact common in the United States before the widespread use of the automobile and has been regaining popularity since the late 1960's. In theory it is also possible for a second cycle of growth to be followed by a first cycle but the econ- omic factors involved make such deveIOpments very rare. After starting with the basic three stage growth cycle it was necessary to add certain refinements in the description of particular stages in order to more precisely aline the stages with certain forms of popu- lation centralization. In the first stage of a growth cycle, titled the initial building stage, two variations were identified 21 which were labeled the open and the forced variations. The Open variation Of the initial building stage has the common characteristics of the initial building stage along with possessing new housing that is designed to compete for residents who have a reasonable amount Of options in housing location. The forced variation also exhibits the basic char— acteristics of the initial building stage but its new housing is designed only for residents whose income generally force them to reside in the area. The second stage in the growth cycle, titled the stability stage, is measured as the time period for which the housing units constructed in the initial building period continue to fulfill the function they were ori- ginally designed to serve, Occasionally the housing in such a neighborhood can experience some change in use with only a minor or temporary instability of its population, but such areas have been rare in large United States urban centers. The third stage in the growth cycle, titled the obsolescence stage, is the most complex of the three. Because of the complexity in the obsolescence stage an Optional stage, titled the overuse stage was identified as existing within it. Along with this Optional stage the Obsolescence stage itself can follow a number of individual patterns. The first common pattern found in the Obsolescence 22 stage is characterized by the Obsolescence of the social structure within a neighborhood. Such obsolescence will usually lead to decline in the neighborhood's public facilities such as school systems. When social structure Obsolescence occurs the neighborhood often suffers rapid declines in population as families with children leave. Occasionally, however, such neighborhoods reestablish themselves as stable areas with childless couples or single persons as residents. The second common pattern found in the obsolescence stage is characterized by the actual physical obsolescence Of the neighborhood's housing. Once such obsolete housing loses utility it is generally removed for reuse Of the land or simply abandoned. It is in this physical obsol— escence pattern that the optional overuse stage can occur. The overuse stage of the growth cycle is charac- terized by the transfer of obsolete housing to lower income groups who cannot afford other housing. Over- crowding of housing is common in the overuse stage as housing units are often subdivided in order to make low rents profitable. Neighborhoods in this stage commonly experience some momentary increase in population but quickly begin to lose population again as the overused housing quickly becomes unlivable. A third pattern of Obsolescence that for purposes of this study will not be classified as such was also identified. This form of obsolescence involves the economic Obsolescence 23 of the housing in a neighborhood. Such economic Obsoles- cence is caused by rapid increases in land value and is most common in rapidly growing areas. This increase in land value generally results in the removal of phy- sically sound housing to make room for higher density deveIOpment. Since such economic Obsolescence moves a neigh~ borhood directly from a stability stage to the initial building stage of a new cycle, a stage of obsolescence as defined for this study never Occurs. In Order to explain the sequence of develoPment in a growth cycle, however, economic Obsolescence is presented under the tOpic of the Obsolescence stage. The three basic stages of the growth cycle, initial building, stability, and obsolescence, generally follow in the time sequence presented above. The duration of any particular stage, however, can vary considerably as David Birch discovered in his study.10 By using a simple three stage cycle it was possible to apply the resulting stage theory to a wide range of urbanized areas in the United States. The somewhat more elaborate growth cycles of Hoover and Vernon and Birch are not so easily applied because of their customized nature. 10David L. Birch, "Toward a Stage Theory of Urban Growth", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 37 (March, 1971). 2Q After developing basic stages for a.simp1e growth cycle statistical parameters for the various stages were devised from Census Bureau information. The fac- tors used for this process included the actual popula- tion growth in an area between ten year census counts, the percentage of new housing units built during the same ten year time span, the medium family income in an area, and the amount Of overcrowded housing units in an area. The actual classification system used is presented in the appendix of this paper. Once a stage classification system has been devised four types of pOpulation centralization were identified. These four types of centralization encompassed all of the various stages in a simple growth cycle. Two of the four types of population centralization were then grouped as being positive in nature and two were grouped as being negative in nature. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the determination of whether a particular type of popu- lation centralization was positive or negative in nature was not based entirely on population growth. As examples, in areas in which pOpulation rose but did so from overuse of residential units, centralization was considered negative in nature; and in areas in which population showed a slight decline (reflecting the nation wide average decline in population per household) but still was generally stable, centralization was considered positive in nature. 25 Two specific types of population centralization were then identified as being positive in nature and were labeled active centralization and passive centralization. Two types of pOpulation centralization were also identi- fied as being negative in nature and were labeled post- poned decentralization and decentralization. Among the four types of centralization, active centralization was intended to correspond to the open variation of the initial building stage Of the growth cycle. In this initial building stage population is either generally stable or rising due to large amounts of new housing construction. The term "active" was used for this stage to refer to its construction activ- ity. The second type of centralization, passive central- ization, was intended to correspond to the stabilization stage of the growth cycle. In this stage the population of an area is generally stable due to the preservation efforts Of its residents. The term "passive" used to des- cribe this stage refers to the lack of new construction. The third type of centralization, postponed decen- tralization, was intended to correSpond to both the forced variation of the initial building stage and the Optimal overuse stage of the growth cycle. In both of these stages, the pOpulation is either stable or rising but will probably begin decentralizing in a very short time. The term "postponed" used for this stage 26 refers to the fact that decentralization is only being temporarily postponed. The final type of centralization, decentralization, was intended to correspond to the obsolescence stage of the growth cycle. In this stage the population declines rapidly as large numbers of people move from the area. The term "decentralization" used for this stage refers to the actual migration of population out of an area. With a system for stage classifications that corres- ponded to particular types of population centralization it was possible to classify sub-areas within a centralized area as experiencing either positive or negative population centralization. This, in turn, made it possible to test the study hypothesis. Restatement Of Study Hypothesis States in testable form, the hypothesis of this study is that the population of census tracts classified as experiencing positive centralization will increase be- tween the 1950's decade and the 1960's decade as a proportion of both the total pOpulation in a particular urbanized area and the centralized section of that ur- banized area. Such increases in areas experiencing positive centralization would be expected to occur in at least 80%tof the urbanized areas in the test in order to be considered widespread in nature. 27 Outline and Summary of Study Procedure The actual procedure used in the study was designed to be descriptive in nature as well as test the study hypothesis. Census tracts were selected as the basic unit of analysis in the study because of the variety of infor- mation available at that level and because census tracts often roughly approximate an urban neighborhood. Tech- nically the unit of analysis in the study was the census tract and not the neighborhood. However, a limit of 5,000 population was placed on any single tract or groups of adjacent tracts with centralized characteristics below which analysis was not made because the area was considered too small to constitute a single urban neigh- borhOOd. Also predominantly institutional census tracts such as military bases, ships, colleges or other insti- tutional facilities were excluded from analysis along with census tracts that contained fewer than 100 total housing units during the period under study. After all census tracts within a centralized area were classified according to their position or stage in the growth cycle population totals were calculated for each of the various growth cycle stages. This was followed by a further grouping of population into the four major types of population centralization. The population totals collected from the l960census for the 1950 to 1959 time span were 28 then used as an independent variable and the 1970 pOpu- lation totals for the 1960 to 1969 time span served as a dependent variable. The actual classifications used in the study are presented in Table 1 below: TABLE 1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROWTH CYCLE CENTRALIZATION Stage in Growth Cycle Initial Building- Open Variation Initial Building- Forced Variation Stability Overuse (Optional) Obsolescence CLASSIFICATION, AND CENSUS TRACT CLASSIFICATION CODE Type of Centralization Active Centralization Postponed Decentrali- zation Passive Centralization Postponed Decentrali- zation Decentrali- zation Nature of Centralization Positive Negative Positive- Negative Negative Census Tract Classification Code 1A 1B 2A 3A 4A By using the detailed classification system develOped for the study significant gains were made over the stan- dard central city - suburban study design. These gains occurred in both the conceptualization of pOpulation Centralization and in the level at which generalizations were made about population migration. CHAPTER 1, ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Outline of Presentation The study presentation will begin with a presen- tation of the results of testing the study hypothesis. This information will be followed by a detailed analysis of the data gathered in the hypothesis testing proce- dure. The detailed data analysis will involve a presen- tation of statistical results followed by an interpre- tation Of the results and a short subjective description of the actual conditions from which the results were derived. This analysis process will be repeated for each of the twenty-five urbanized areas in the study as well as the totals for all twenty-five areas. Test Of Study Hypothesis The hypothesis Of this study was that the pOpulation of census tracts classified as experiencing positive centralizing would increase between the 1950's and the 1960's as a proportion of both the total population in a particular urbanized area and the centralized section of that urbanized area in 80% of the cases tested. 29 30 As stated, the study hypothesis was confirmed, as 96% of the twenty-five urbanized areas tested experienced increases in both the proportion of their urbanized and centralized population classified as experiencing positive centralization. The actual results of the test are listed below in Table 2. TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF EXTENT OF POSITIVE CENTRALIZATION IN THE 1950's DECADE WITH THE 1960' s DECADE Percent of Centralized Population Classified Population Classified as Experiencing as Experiencing Urbanized Area Positive Centralization Positive Centralization Percent Of Urbanized 1950's 1960's 1950's 1960's New York 6.91 11.97 17.23 32-96 Los Angeles #.85 8.28 61.33 73.25 Chicago 3.60 6.88 10.98 23.55 Philadelphia .71 2.46 11.36 40.27 Detroit .39 .88 7.16 19.95 gzfiliggncisco- #.45 7.60 26.82 48.16 Boston 4.67 9.92 15.62 37.16 Washington D. C. 9.79 11.43 49.77 55-63 Cleveland .90 3.01 9.16 30.19 St. Louis .00 .53 .00 6.75 Pittsburgh .96 1.1% 21.96 23.70 Minneapolis- .77 3.82 7.01 42.07 St. Paul ‘ I a Crbanizod Area I Huston Baltizore Dallas Hillaukee Seattle Tan 5311 Diego ' ‘! sham 31 TABLE 2--Continued Percent of Centralized Population Classified Population Classified as Experiencing as Experiencing Urbanized Area Positive Centralization Positive Centralization Percent of Urbanized 1950's 1960's 1950's 1960's Houston .66 3.17 25.28 84.26 Baltimore 1.10 1.40 20.76 27.42 Dallas 2.73 5.18 45.03 56.05 Milwaukee .00 2.45 .00 44.02 Seattle 1.24 2.86 12.88 36.79 Miami 1.21 3.98 9.17 31.18 San Diego .81 1.81 17.07 49.76 Atlanta .97 3.#0 8.16 25.75 Cincinnati .00 4.53 .00 28.05 Kansas City .57 .00 4.52 .00 Buffalo .00 .39 .00 8.65 Denver 1.46 5.54 18.41 71.86 San Jose .492 .2426 __.-.9.9. 2.1.3.2 Average for Total 3.52 6.53 18.12 36.19 25 Urbanized Areas As can be seen in Table 2, only the Kansas City urbanized area did not confirm the study hypothesis. In all other urbanized areas,with the exception of Pittsburgh, the percentage of population in areas exper- iencing positive centralization increased at fairly rapid rates. This general trend is reflected in the large average increase for all twenty-five urbanized areas 0 32 Although the rate of increase for population ex- periencing positive centralization was large the actual numbers of such persons in the 1960's constituted an average of only 36.19% of all centralized pOpulation. This is Opposed to 63.81% of all centralized areas in the 1960's that experienced negative centralization. The balance between positive and negative areas is testimony to the continuing large scale negative centralization taking place in large United States urbanized areas. The continuation of large scale neg- ative centralization is not inconsistent with the study hypothesis, however, as long as it declined in relation- ship to positive centralization. Detailed Analysis Of Data Since the study was designed to be descriptive in nature much of its value results from descriptive information gathered from the raw data. As was stated earlier the presentation Of this information will in- volve both an interpretation of the data and a short subjective description of the actual condition from which the data was gathered. The presentation will begin with a summary of all twenty-five urbanized areas followed by a look at each of the twenty-five urbanized areas individually. A summary of data for all twenty-five urbanized areas is shown in Table 3 on the following page. Some 1‘! ’"I‘l—n MOIDCOOhOL 1"! I'll I‘ ‘F ‘ ‘IN HOoOCOUHOQ link ‘11.! “F— Mu . OAW$H HOADEOOLOL 1'hw. H'L‘CQU MOouCOOMOL .“x nil . .~ 4. ~ .635 OUROOQ «weevfinAwN COR“ mo.wa oo.ooa oms.mas.ma ms.mH oo.ooa ssa.~mm.as Hesse 33 soapmuaama»smo Hm.Ha Hw.nm sma.oma.m Hm.ma ww.aw H¢¢.sms.m eesssmez mswosefiamdxm GOHuMNHHMHpsoo mm.w ma.wm nmm.mmw.s mm.m ma.ma mos.smo.m eefluawos msHOsOHnomxm no. H oo.ooa oms.mua.ma ms.m oo.oo ssH.m m.aa asses qus: mm.ma mam.mom.w- om.mm ww.wm mmw.wmw.m as as.m aw.ma sam.msa.a as.m ma.ma oaa.oa¢.fl an sm.a ma.oa mwm.ssm.a oa.m mm. mmo.omm am sense on. mw.m www.mm: es. mw.m mms.ass ma mm.s ss.mm oam.msm.m mm.m Ho.ma m o.som.H «a .H :m. s .mm a. mm.n . m Hesse Hm. H www.mmm was mm.H mmm.aam as Ho. no. mwm.m mo. OH. mms.HH an seas ma. Hm. mom.maa mo. es. omn.om am asseseu mo. as. www.mm so. mm. amm.wm ma esaesso mm. ms.m ewm.mms mm. mH.H nmm.sma «a m . a s.nm mms.smm.HH o . mm. m . .a asses mm.m a . m m we ma mw.mm mma.mmm.m as ms.m mm.ma smm.msa.a ms.m mm.ma mas.mms.a an seas ms.a mm.m ssm.wmm.a Hm. sm.¢ msm.mmm am decades mm. ms.m ooo.sms on. mm.m mnm.mas ma seamsH am.m Ho.mm mmm.~am.m om.m mm.HH omn.osm.a «a sums dmmm ~.mosomm¢q J: sees sows Nummsommaq soasseaasmeemm UONHQGQHD vOSHHMHPQOO mum 009 GONEDHD UGNflHdhaficv ovwoon do: Hoevfioohnm moeuncohtm m.OmmH Hoepdoohom Hoeuhoohonm w.0mm.n n mqm<8 VHHV GHZITVHLNHO 34 caution must be used in interpreting this summary in- formation because the data is heavily weighted by a very few of the twenty-five urbanized areas. New York, in particular, represented 46.07% of the total centralized population in the summary. Some statements that can be made about the summary data include the fact that while the total population of all centralized areas increased from the 1950's to the 1960's it did not increase at as great a rate as did the non-centralized areas. By individual count twenty out Of twenty-five urbanized areas experienced absolute increases in their centralized population. However, only nine out of twenty-five areas eXperienced increases in their centralized areas that were greater in rate than the non-centralized portion Of their urbanized area. In looking at individual centralization categories both active and passive centralization showed a rapid and wide-spread increase among the twenty-five urbanized areas. Decentralization, on the other hand, showed a moderately rapid and widespread decrease. Postponed decentralization showed a moderately rapid increase but one that was almost entirely contained in the New York urbanized area. Centralized areas within central city municipal limits followed a pattern of growth similar to the total of all urbanized areas as they represented 93.46% 35 Of that total in the 1960's even after declining as a percentage since the 1950's. Centralized areas outside of central cities differed from the summary totals in that they possessed a much greater percentage of population in the active central- ization category as well as showing a gain in areas experiencing decentralization and a large gain in areas experiencing postponed decentralization. To consider the four types of centralization, active, passive, postponed decentralization, and decentralization, conditions in urbanized areas that resulted in classi- fication of active centralization seem to fall into three categories. The first such condition involves the rebuilding Of areas in or near the major central business district of an urbanized area with high rise luxury apartment towers. Most of the urbanized areas in the study experienced some degree Of this form of building, but only in New York, Chicago, and Washington had it reached a point where a significant net gain in population occurred. A second common condition resulting in the classi- fication Of active centralization is the building of high and medium rise luxury apartments in established high income residential areas. These areas are generally removed somewhat from the central business district but are still within close enough commuting range to create a demand for high density housing. Many of these 36 areas had experienced some luxury apartment house building between World Wars I and II which in turn provided a high density atmosphere that generally lessens neigh- borhood Oppositions to additional high density develOp- ment. The fact that such areas usually contained rela- tively low cost building sites also helped make them prime areas for the resurgence Of high density luxury building that has occurred throughout the United States since the early 1960's. Classic examples of such areas would include the Pacific Heights section Of San Francisco and the Forest Hills section of Queens Borough, New York as well as some suburban areas such as Brookline, Massachusetts and Lakewood, Ohio. The third common condition resulting in the classi- fication Of active centralization is the building of low rise apartment houses for the middle and lower middle income market. Such apartment development has been extremely active since the earlier 1960's both inside and outside the centralized portion of the ur- banized areas. Inside centralized areas such develop- ment has tended to occur at the outskirts of the central- ized area where land prices are lowest and open sites most readily available. In newer urban centers such as Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta where low cost sites were still available relatively close to the central business district such develOpment was especially attrac- tive because it could offer locational convenience as 37 well as middle income rents. Areas classified as experiencing passive central- ization increased rapidly in total between the 1950's and the 1960's. This increase, however, was largely contained in eight or nine of the larger urbanized areas. A possible explanation of this occurrence could be that moving to the outskirts of a very large urbanized area usually results in a difficult.commuting situation back to employment centers in the central area. Con- sequently, there might be more incentive for persons in very large urbanized areas to preserve their neigh- borhoods when possible if their jobs remain in the central area. This preservation incentive in turn Often results in an area experiencing passive centralization. Other than size no common factor seemed to be present among the urbanized areas that experienced increased passive centralization. Areas classified as experiencing postponed cen- tralization showed a modest total increase between the 1950's and 1960's but followed no consistent pattern from one urbanized area to the next. Areas experiencing postponed decentralization of the overuse variety were generally characterized by either in-migrations of large rural families or by high rent levels which resulted in doubling up in apartments. Areas experiencing postponed decentralization Of the forced variation of initial building variety usually 38 involved public aided housing projects. Of all the urbanized areas in the study only New York and Chicago have continued to build large numbers Of housing units in the traditional low income family projects during the 1960's. Low income projects for the elderly, how- ever, have been built at an ever increasing rate in most of the urbanized areas in the study. Two other forms of postponed decentralization that appeared in scattered instances were developments for students around college campuses and high rent, low income retirement projects develOped in the Miami area. Neither of these develOpment forms actually follows the intent of the postponed decentralization classifi- cation. Both instead represent a statistical misrepre- sentation because the income of residents in such areas are usually assisted by parental funds or saving accumu- lations which actually permit a greater degree of housing Options than would otherwise be expected. These final two forms of postponed decentralization accounted for nearly all centralized areas so classified outside the central city in both the 1950's and 1960's.' Areas classified as experiencing decentralization showed a fairly uniform decline throughout most Of the twenty-five urbanized areas with only three or four exceptions. TO consider in more depth the similarities and variations in trends among individual urbanized areas 39 it is helpful to begin by referring to Tables 4 - 29 which provide a summary of centralization characteris- tics for each of the twenty-five urbanized areas in the study. The first characteristic to be considered for each Of the twenty-five urbanized areas was the amount of area classified as centralized. The extremes for this characteristic ran from an understated high of 36.31%11 in New York, to a low of 3.63% in San Diego. Urbanized areas with centralized portions of over 20.00% included Chicago, Boston,and Washington along with New York and urbanized areas with centralized portions Of under 5.00% included Houston, San Jose, Detroit, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh, along with San Diego. 0f the areas classified as centralized most were in the municipal limits of central cities. Major exceptions to this were Arlington in the Washington area; Miami Beach in the Miami area; Brookline, Cambridge, and Somerville in the Boston area; Beverly Hills, Glendale, Inglewood, Pasadena, and West Hollywood in the Los Angeles area; and East Cleveland and Lakewood in the Cleveland area. Detailed analysis of size variations in centralized w 11A significant amount of the centralized area of New York and a small amount of centralized area Of Washington were not included in the study because of a lack of census data. 40 areas was not warranted because of the inability of a particular housing density type to be completely accur- ate in indicating a highly urbanized area. It is possible, however, to compare the degree of growth in centralized areas as a portion of a given urbanized area. As was stated earlier only nine of the twenty-five urbanized areas in the test experienced increases in the propor- tion of their population classified as centralized during the 1960's. Of the nine areas that did have such in- creases only four, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and San Jose increased by any significant margin. These same four areas also had very high percentages Of their centralized areas classified as actively centralizing and were marked by large amounts of low-rise middle income apartment development. Urbanized areas experiencing a significant decline in the prOportion Of their pOpulation classified as centralized between the 1950's and 1960's included Detroit, St. Louis, Buffalo, and Kansas City, all of which had large declining central areas with little rebuilding activity. These areas were joined by Seattle and San Diego which experienced such high rates of noncentralized growth that centralized growth suffered in comparison. The three most highly centralized areas, New York, Chicago, and Boston, also suffered declines in their centralized area Of a somewhat less severe magnitude, while the fourth most highly centralized area, Washington, 41 eXperienced an increase in its degree of centralization. In order to consider the specific centralization characteristics of each of the twenty-five urbanized areas in the study each area will be covered indivi— dually by a short subjective analysis beginning with New York. 42 NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA The New York urbanized area contained the largest and one of the most mature centralized areas in the study. The use of the term mature refers to the fact that the centralized portion of the New York area experienced considerable positive centralization during the 1950's. Consequently the New York area entered the 1960's with a history of demand for centralized living unlike most Of the other areas in the study. Even with its early start the New York urbanized area experienced a large increase in positive centrali- zation during the 1960's. Along with this increase positive centralization exhibited a major change in its pattern of occurance from the 1950's to the 1960's which corresponded quite closely to the national pattern. During the 1950's positive centralization in the New York area was dominated by the active variety of positive centralization which occurred at the edge of the urbanized area in the boroughs Of Queens, Brooklyn, and Bronx. This active centralization took the form of mixed high, medium, and low rise develOpment build on vacant or low density sites passed over by the single family development that had preceded it. The passive variety of positive centralization during this time accounted for less than 4.00% of New York's total cen- tralized area and was largely contained in Brooklyn. 43 By the 1960's positive centralization has increased in total from 17.23% of the centralized area to 32.96%. This increase was due to a very large increase in active centralization in Manhattan where extensive rebulding efforts, both public and private, were completed during the 1960's. Large increases in active centralization also occurred in Bronx in the form Of extensive high rise building. This building was concentrated in the Riverdale section of the Bronx as well as the initial development of giant Co-Op City on the borough's north- east side. Some increases in active centralization were also recorded in Brooklyn and Richmond during the 1960's which more than effects a slight decline in Queens during the same time. In general active centralization changed significantly in nature from the 1950's to the 1960's. This change resulted from a shift in building activity from the relatively Open sites at the edge of the centralized area to sites requiring extensive clearance at the center of town. Areas experiencing the passive variety of active centralization during the 1960's had a uniformly rapid increase throughout the boroughs. The only exception to this was Richmond which was still too young in terms Of high density develOpment to eXperience a stable sit- uation. Of the areas experiencing passive centralization those at the outer edge Of the centralized area may 1.4 have been caused by the relatively new housing stock that was constructed there in the 1950's. The large increases in passive centralization in Manhattan as well as the central parts of Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens, however, is a reflection of the tremendous increase in long term preservation efforts that has occurred in the New York area during the 1960's. Negative centralization in the New York area ex- perienced large declines of the decentralization variety. These declines centered in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Bronx, reflecting an increasing interest in long term preservation mentioned earlier. Queens and Richmond, however, showed a small increase in this variety of negative centralization as both boroughs have relatively new housing stocks that are just beginning to move into the Obsolescence stage of the growth cycle. The New York area's only growth in negative cen- tralization came in the form of postponed decentralization. Strong growth in this category appeared in Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens while a sharp decline took place in Manhattan. These trends resulted from migration of lower income families from Manhattan to the other three boroughs. In summary, the increase in positive centralization in the New York area was largely responsible for New York City being one of the very few large cities in the United States to gain population in the 1960's without annexations. 45 mum Ann is; M... mm mm“? m... m mm mm.a em. ow .mm on. ma. mam.ma an sass oa.m nH.H as .mma ms. mm. m .as Am smsosom .. u- a- mo. no. ems.s ma Assess He.m mo.m mom.mmm ms.o om.m mnm.smm AH mmfim mine 8&3; sham no.3 mmmfimm; asses magma mexw .mmmqmmm.i mm.am mesa: w w mam a as mm.a mm. mmm.om sm.s mm.H m.me an ease mm.a am. mo.mm mm. mm. omm.ms am smsosom A... A. ..... A. A. as A AAA... 0 O O O N s . m Hm.ma Mme. ma.m om. o . .m 0. Hence $8.3 No.0 3% . m o i: .e H .3 ma.oa wo.m ems mam ms.m om.m was can an ease om.s mm.a cam.smm om.H Aw. mem.om Am swsoeom A... A. a... as A A... . .a .o m mm. m. m «a a. m so. ssm.mom.a m .Hm . ms.s . asses w mimic Namimml m H m mllqmwwlwmw ow L3 mm.m mm.m Am .mam ms.m om.H mmo.mam an saso a .H mm. mma.moa mm. Hm. www.mm am smsosom .H m:. mms.ee om. om. mmm.wm ma wsoem nm.s sm.s wom.msm mm.m so.H Amm.msa AH mMHfl. mend NumomONMAM 11, moms mend Ndmomommaw soapsOHMflmmmHo newsflash: noufiaoupsoo cocoon vouacmnns ommflamspsoo oomoon send Ho.psoonom mo.pseoaod m.ommH mo.psooaod mo.usoouom m.ommH 4mm< QMNHzon NH mqmda Hesse soHsAsHHAspseo O>Hpmmoz msHosoHaooxm HOHpmuHHmesoo eeHsHeoo msHosoHHode Hesse Hence Am ssHo Am Heesseo mH eoHesso AH Hssoe As An HsHo Am Hesssoo mH oonsH AH soHsseHHHeesHo mead VHHV GHZITVHINHO 66 ST. LOUIS URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the St. Louis area was dominated overwhelmingly by negative centralization in both the 1950's and 1960's. Even with a small gain in positive centralization areas experiencing negative centralization still accounted for more than 90% Of the centralized portion of the St. Louis area in the 1960's. The areas in St. Louis experiencing positive central- ization include two urban renewal projects near the central business district, a small area near Washington University, and a small area near the edge of the St. Louis city limits sheltered from the rest of the city by Forest Park. Negative centralization in the St. Louis area showed few of the signs of decline that were common in most Of the other urbanized areas under study. In summary, even with the signs of positive central- ization that did occur in the 1960's there is little reason to believe that negative centralization will not continue to dominate the centralized portion of the St. Louis area for some time to come. 5‘ I. olefin-l..- 1‘... 6? oo.ooH ow.a mno.msH oo.ooH ma.o msm.moH Hosea III Illn IIIIII soapmuaasnpsoo m~.mo nm.a sso.wnH oo.ooH os.m msn.noH oeHeswez usage «Henna 3333223 ms.o mm. owo.o nn -- nn eeHeHeos was one «Henna e e o a e e . HM». OB ~m.mmw mm..m . Eo E mmmkaH H As mm.s “n. H a. Ho.o o. HNH.HH an so.m N. wmm nn nu nu Am Hosea os.~H Ho. mm.oH ma.~H m~.H nmo.o~ mH oo.n ow. oms.m nu nu nu AH nu nn un nu nu un Hence II II II II II II 4.: nu nu nu un nn nn Am SsHo nn nu nn nu un nn Am Hesssoo nn nn .. n- n- un mH oeHesso -n nn -n nn nu nu AH e 8 O Q e e a :00“. mm... mm amen... mm. . was. . A. mn.s “m. H a.“ Hs.s o. HmH.HH An HHHo so.m N. m. nn nu nn Am Hesssoo wa.mH Ho.H mo.mH ms.~H m~.H nmw.om mH eeHesH oo.m am. oms. nu nu nn AH Illllludso II ._ Eleoufl jade A.“ l Hindi I: sound. Numomowmad s_o_.3._soHuHmms.mo_ UONHQGDRD voufifldhafloo OUGOOQ flog—Hank: to NHHdhvfloo OUGOOQ “and Hoenaoohom Ho.»noouom n.0me Hoovdoonom Hoouaoohom m.OmmH a GNNHED WHDOA .8»... ma mama. W (IEZI'IVHMO 68 PITTSBURGH URBANIZED AREA The Pittsburgh area is unique among large urban- ized areas in that it experienced almost no growth during the 1960's. The centralized portion of the Pittsburgh area, which represents only a small part of the total urbanized area, followed this pattern Of limited growth with few changes occurring from the 1950's to the 1960's. Passive centralization did increase enough in the Pittsburgh area during the 1960's to result in a modest increase for positive centralization. The little active centralization that did Occur was concentrated in the Pittsburgh central business district and the Oakland district near the University of Pittsburgh and Carniege Tech. Negative centralization remained at about the same level in both the 1950's and 1960's and was the dominate force in the area. In summary, although there is little reason to believe that the situation in the Pittsburgh area will change much in the near future, there have been some urban renewal efforts of considerable size around the central business district of Pittsburgh including Allegheny Center on the near north side that should stimulate positive centralization in the 1970's. 69 VEHV GHZITVHENEO oo.ooH mo.s omH.mm oo.ooH am.s Hem.os Hesse l null lull... soapoufidnpseo on.ma oo.m smo.oo so.os Hs.n osm.Ho oeHsemez wsHosoHHeaxm soHsoeHHssssoo os.n~ sH.H NnH.Hm oo.H~ oo. mmn.sH oeHsHeod mudonodneaxm e e um e e a 10.09 .mmqmmw mmnm. mmmnum. _mmqmmw .wmum. _wwmqmw_ «m se.o as. mmm.o as.m sm. NHn.s Am Hesse oo.H no. N nu un nn mH oo.nH so. mss.~H om.oH a. oHo.nH AH nn -n nu nu nn nn Hoses II II II II II II 4.: nn nn un -n -u nn An HoHo un nu nn nu -n un Am Hesssoo nu -n nn nn nn un mH ooHesso nu -n nn un un nu AH oo. o mm.m www.mm oo.ooH wn.m Hem.ms Hosea Hm mH o 5 AN H an. a: nu nn nu nu nu nn A o ss.o as. mmm.o as.m sm. NHn.s Am Hessseo oo.H no. N nu nn nn mH eeHesH oo.nH so. oss.mH om.oH ms. oHo.MH AH llama llamas 4% .92 sends 3883 8388383 souHsdnup coufiasapseo cocoon soufissnna nomadsavsoo oedema mend no.9soonem Ho.vsooaem o.omma no.9seonom no.9sooaom o.omma dflmd QHNHZflpmmoz wnaoqoauoqxfl qoapwufidwupuoo :o.m¢ mm.n mmo.mm Ho.n up. mam.oa o>dpamom wauou¢fiuonxm . H o.o 5 .:na 0 .o mm.oa .H a Hapoa pmqmmufl m3 “WA” im Man i z mo.: mm. om~.w In an n: «m mm.m om. m:m.ma .: u- u- «m Haves I- .l' 'I III- I.‘ I- m :m.nm Ho.n umn.am do.“ an. mam.oa «H uau< womq .qummmummq mon< amm«_ ~qmomommdq noflpuoauammaao vouanwnua voaaawnpnoo mvwooq umuaumnn: nonaamnpaoo ovmoon «and No.9nconom uo.»nooaom m.omma no.9aoonom «0.»:oonom m.omma AnmszHazoov ma mqm¢a VEHV GEZITVHINHO 73 HOUSTON URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the Houston urbanized area was small in the 1960's but grew rapidly. Like other young urbanized areas the centralized portion of the Houston area had numerous available sites for develop- ment during the 1960's. Because of the available land in the centralized portion of the Houston area, the 1960's were dominated by positive centralization of the active variety. This dominance almost completely reversed an earlier trend in the 1950's of negative centralization. Positive centralization in the Houston area was con- centrated to the south and west of the central business district locating close to Houston's finest residential areas. Negative centralization, on the other hand, re- mained in the immediate area surrounding the central business district in both the 1950's and 1960's. In summary, positive centralization in Houston should last as long as the nationwide popularity of apartment living, but may slow down as its centralized area runs out of sites for low rise apartments. I. ‘-.c—-L 3:. 9’ 7tn oo.ooH :u.mH mm.oom H wu.oa w¢.nn no.9noouom mu.m mm. 5H.m H3. mb.m n... mu.m mHH.nm Nnm.m umH.mm oHH.mw moms Nan.w: mMH.mm mom.m mwn.m¢ Illllsolhfl Illlwdmo «.momomma.“ doufiddnha UONdehpnoo Ho.Hnoouom ovmoon 00.00H Nu.:u $va w~.mm «and vouaamnns m.om¢H Ho.Hsoouom «mmd QMNHz¢mm= zoamaom ma mdm<9 Hm.m www.mm Hopes IIII soapuufiflmupnoo mm.H HmH.- o>Haumoz wnHosoHHOQMH soapmuaawupnoo mm. mom.u asHuHmom maaosofinomxm H .~ smw.m~ Haves H a: nu nu an uu nu am Huuoa nu uu mH mm. mom.u «H nu un Haves uu uu 4: un un «m maHo uu uu am Haapnoo nu nu mH oeHmpso nu uu «H mm.w nmm.mw Hence H H H mm a: nu nu an mpHo nu nu «m Hangman un uu mH oeHmsH mm. mom.s 4H sou< ~.momoomH“ aoHumoHuHmmmHu vouaadhpuoo ocmoon «0&4 Ho.Hnoonom «.ommH VHHV OZZITVHINHO 75 BALTIMORE URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the Baltimore area was comparatively small and dominated by negative centralization 1 in both the 1950's and 1960's. The small growth in positive :1, centralization experienced by the centralized area resulted h from urban renewal in the central business district, and some private high rise develOpment in the Washington Monument area. This positive centralization was continued further by high and medium rise development in the tra- ditionally attractive Guilford area north of Johns Hopkins University. In summary, even though the Baltimore area has experienced successful residential renewal in the central business area and Johns Hopkins University remains a strong attraction for positive centralization, there is little reason to believe that positive centralization will pose a serious challenge to negative centralization in the near future. 76 oo.OOH mo.m mm.Nn ou.m N:.u~ 0:.H as. an... m H:.~H «a. ~:.w mm. 34.... 0.3 m H«.~H mm. m¢.m mm. ~:.u~ 0:.H Illlljmmmm send eouHaaaus eouHHuusnoo no.0qoouem Ho.HHoeuom oa«.om ~o«.wm moo.- mmm.m me.m wmo.mm om”.om m mmm.m mmH.m wmo.mm 00.00H ¢~.mu MK m¢.m mm.:H 3% J... ounces mm uonanenua coNHHenuseo n.0wma no.9aoouom m.” am”... am. mwo.« as. «mm.0H dumfl Numomowmdw oumoon no.9eoonom o.ommH «Wmd QHNqummD mmoxHaqdm NH mqm¢e New.mm moa.mm Hence :OHaeNHHenaseo e>HHHMez msfioaeanomxm sodaeuHHsHpsoo osHaHmom maHoseHHenxm Hoses 4: «n «m Hence mH «H Haney «: «m HuHo «m Haupaoo mH meHmuso «H Haney «J «n spHo «m Heavens mH osHmsH «H qupeoHHHuueHo mead VEHV GEZITVHENHO 77 DALLAS URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the Dallas area grew rapidly in the 1960's experiencing gains in both positive and negative centralization. Positive centralization, however, expanded at a much greater rate than the negative. All of the positive centralization in the Dallas area was in the form of active centralization, basically low rise in form. This low rise development concentrated near the edge of the centralized area to the northeast and northwest of the central business district. Along with a small growth in decentralizing areas the centralized portion of the Dallas area experienced a gain in the postponed decentralization category due to the construction of low income housing projects. In summary, even though the Dallas area has experienced some growth in negative centralization and will, as other low density cities, gradually run out of building sites for low rise development, the immediate future still should see a predominance of positive centralization. 78 VHHV GEZITVHLNEO oo.ooH mm.m wan.an oo.ooH mo.m oom.em Hence Illu .Illu qupenaaeuuseo mm.n: $0.: mo¢.¢m Hs.sn nn.n oeo.Hn o>Haemoz quoquueaum QOHumuHHeapaeo mo.wm wH.m man.om mo.m: ma.~ o¢¢.mm opHeHmom mnaoaoHaeaxm e e m a e e u 3 OH W1mmh m wmmka H“ mHurmmH Wm www.mu 3 nu un nu om.oH w. soH.m «n un nu nn nu nu un «m Hence n:.wH oa.H mH .NN nu nu nu mH mo.mn mH.m we .os mo.m« ma.~ o«¢.mm «H uu uu uu uu nu uu Hence I... II II II II In. <+~ nn nu nu nn nu nn «n HuHo nu nu un un nu nn «m Heavens nn nu nn nu nu nu mH oeHmpso nu nu nu un nu nu «H oo.ooH .m a s.n~H oo.oOH o. . Hence quwmu mmqm. _smwnwwn. qusmu Wuqm mmmqmm «e nu nn nu om.0H e. 0H.e «m HeHo nn nn nn nn nn nu «m Heusaoo m:.mH ou.H MH .NN uu uu nu ma euHmnH no.0m mH.m we .mw no.m¢ ma.m o««.mm «H eon« ewmm. Hammmmummq eon« mama Numomomqu aoHaeoHeHemmmm ueNqunna ceNHHmauseu eueoea veanmnHD veuHHmeneo oedema send mo.vneonem «o.useoaem «.ommH Ho.HBeoHem mo.pceeaem n.0mmH «mm« nmqu«mm= m«HH«q wH msm«a 79 MILWAUKEE URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the Milwaukee area experienced a large gain in positive centralization during the 1960's along with a significant drop in negative centralization. Growth in positive centralization in the Milwaukee area was totally of the active variety and involved high rise develOpment along the north lake shore - Prospect Avenue area just north of the central business district. This high rise develOpment gradually merged into low rise develOpment at the edge of the centralized area on the far north side. Some low rise building also took place on the far west side of the centralized area. Negative centralization in the 1960's declined in those general areas that experienced a growth in active centralization. In summary, the Milwaukee area would seem to be experiencing a major trend of decline in negative centralization even if the low rise active centralization is not able to continue at the pace it maintained in the 1960's. f my _F' ‘4 I wo.mm mm.mm mo.¢: No.3: No.¢¢ nlllllJflHMfl coudnunha Ho.quuaem Hun n NH.n mmo.mm oo.ooH so.e us.mm Hssoa .Ilnn .qun noHpmuHHmapseo «HA 30.9“ oo.ooH Se 32$ epHpsmez madameHaemxm soHpmuHHmapneo 2.... 3.3 uu uu uu 33.8 msHerHnemxm e n e e 5Q HNHOH. an... mam in E. E. n... nu nu un nu nu « uu nu nu nu nu 4N Hence II I.“ II. II II a m:.m new on nu nu un «H un un nu nu nu Haves nu uu uu uu uu 3 uu uu nu uu uu «n .33 nu nu nu uu nn «m Hmuuaeo nu nu un nu nu mH euHmpso un nu uu nu un «H e u e e . mm m Db DDH ww m «Hm mm Haves m mmmqmm oo ooa m H m 4: nu nn nu nu uu «m tho nu nu nu nu nu «m MMMWMeu un nu nu un nu mH H ms.m mes.on un nn nu «H «mm :80 Hum 8.2. «mad .aomloeumuqH quseoHeHmmmuHio ceuHHeraoo eumoen ueuaaenaa veuHHeuaseo eveeen send Ho.Hueoaem m.omma mo.uqeoaem mo.uaeouem m.ommH 4mm¢ QMNHz¢mmD mmxbdquz 0H mqm«a VEHV QEZITVHENHO 81 SEATTLE URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the Seattle urbanized area experienced a fairly large gain in positive central- ization during the 1960's. This gain in positive cen- tralization was also accompanied by some loss in negative centralization. The gain in positive centralization in the Seattle area involved mixed high rise and low rise development. This develOpment was largely concentrated between the central business district and Queen Anne Hill district, as well as an urban renewal project on First Hill. In summary, the Seattle area has experienced only the active variety of positive centralization and has .yet to experience any major stabilization efforts. The Seattle centralized area has, however, reversed a trend of negative centralization that occurred in the 1950's. 82 I I I n. . .. . .NJ I. u. r. . 3L; oo.OOH aa.s www.mm oo.ooH H~.ne Hs.: nmm.om «H.5m aa.em em.~ amn.mn mw.mH e e u e in an i “saw. mmuoH «m. men.oH nu aa.en em.m amn.mn mm.~H e e u e new. «i anus mum. smug «mu 3H3 nu ma.mn mm.m mmn.mn ww.mH nnuuuumums. sou« Nammmmmmmq eon« ueuHuenaa ueuHHmuvneo eumoen ceufisenua mo.pseenem mo.useouem n.0mma Ho.Hseouem HvHeom msHosoHHemnm Hence «« «n «m Hence mH «H Hence «« «m ssHo «m Heavens mH oeHeaso «H Hence «4 «n ssHo «m H.238 mH oeHusH «H smmq. once H mmHueoHaHmmmwm souHHenseoe mo.pqeonem 0N mamHsHmom msHeneHHeaNm oo.OOH an. H an.mm oo.oo mm.MH mmm.mHH Hence MMHWH mo.m mwmumm amnu Ho H H m m «m nu nu we.« on. mmo.m «m Hence m~.m« mOH.ma mH.nm mm.0H mam.nm mH mH.Hm smm.m« mm.« mm. mw~.m «H mp.mm om«.Hm . on.m mum. Hence nn un H m mm.; wow.mu «m msH nn nu nu nu nn « 0 un nu nn nu nu nu «m Heusnoo mm.wm mm.n mmwnms sm.mm HH.m www.mm m“ oeHmsso e e N I... I-nl III d mm.mw mm.m mmm.«0H mm.«m mm.m mmn.mm Hmpoa aH eH mm m mom.m~ m «m a . . nu nn nn « sHo nn nn nn w«.« mm. mmo.m «m Heavens mm.mH om.m m««.on He.mm mw.s mmH.am mH oeHmsH aw.¢m «H.m H«H.mm mm.« mm. mm~.m «H send mmm¢ ~HN¢MQNMHM mend mea¢ Numomommaw soHpeeHHHmmmHo voNHsmnua ueuHHmemeo eveoen ueuanmnua woufiamapseo oesoea meu< Ho.HneeHem Ho.HHeoHem m.ommH Ho.HaeoHem mo.pseouom n.0mmH HsHmom waHoseHnemNm oo.oo“ mm.m Hmm.mu oo. 0H mm.« .mm Hence Hm.mm mm. new. mmumm= . mmwM w «« mm 0H me « «m OH on 0mm. «m .. a”. 8...... .3 n. . m n... ma.m« Hm.H mem.Hm aa.w ms. ms«.m «H nu nn nn nu nn nn Hence II II II II II II 4: nn nu nu nn nu nu «n ssHo nu nn nu nn nu nn «m Henseoo nn nn nn nn nn nn «H eeHmpso nn nn nn nu nu nn «H oo.oo“ mm.m www.mu oo.oo mm.m .m Hence Hm mm Hm mm m m mwm. m «« mm.oH mm. me.« «$.0H om. ommnm «m HsHo nu nu nu om.w mm. omm m «m Hensaoo om.uH «w. omw.u um um nu ma ouHmnH we as Hm H New Hm as m N: as: m «H sou« somq Humommmmmq «.H« «.H« Numomommmq amHseoHHHmmsHo ueufiqenns veNHHmauseo eceoen veanmnaa ueuHHmnpaoo ecmoon mend Ho.Hseonem Ho.HHeoHem m.ommH Ho.HaeeHem Ho.Haeouem m.omma Hpmwoz wdHoseHnoaxm QOHumsHHmuuqeo opHsHmom mnHoneHHomxm Hence «« «n «m Hence mH «H Hence «a «m HsHo «m Hmnuqoo mH oeHmpso «H Hence «« «n ssHo «m Heavens 3 .33: «H aOHseOHHHmmaHo mend VHHV GEZITVHINEO 89 CINCINNATI URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the Cincinnati area is still another example of an area experiencing a large growth in positive centralization but still being dom- Hi inated by negative centralization during the 1960's. The growth in positive centralization in the Cincinnati area during the 1960's occurred in the form JJ of low, medium, and high rise develOpment. This develop- ment concentrated on the northwest and northern edge of the urbanized area. An area of mixed high rise and low rise development running in a belt along the Ohio River from the Walnut Hills area east to the Hyde Park area also experienced positive centralization. Negative centralization in the Cincinnati area was centered in the areas surrounding the central business district on the north where the oldest housing in Cincinnati now exists. In summary, the Cincinnati area seems to be pro- gressing rapidly toward positive centralization but the very old housing stock in the area will retain a po- tential for negative centralization for some time to come. 9O O0.00H mm.Hm Dm.mmH H S... e: 3.5 send souHsenus Ho.HneoHem oH.mH mm.HH mm«.auH mmH.mmH umm.om mama. H am. m«.s Hm. «s.m mm.m «am.n« seem ~.mmdommHu ceuHHeHuseo unseen mo.aseouem oo.OOH 00.00H O0.00H NN_mN wN.mm mus. mmumm send €59.95 m.ommH Ho.Haoouom m¢.mH m«.mH sums Numomewmww oomoea m.ommH souHHmupseo Ho.HHeouem HsHmom msHoseHuoaxm Hence Hence «n HHHo «m Hensaoo mH osHmsso «H Hence «« «m spHo «m Heavens mH 8.35 «H nOHpeoHHHmueHm men< VEHV GHZITVHINEO 91 KANSAS CITY URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the Kansas City area was totally dominated by negative centralization in the 1960's and became the only area to experience a decline in positive centralization between the 1950's and 1960's. The size of the negatively centralizing area in Kansas City did not expand from the 1950's to the 1960's but no sizeable rebuilding efforts took place in the central- ized area either. In summary, the Kansas City area should continue to be dominated by negative centralization for some time to come, but rebuilding activities that were started in the 1960's should produce at least a small amount of positive centralization in the near future. BUFFALO URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the Buffalo area was almost completely dominated by negative centralization in both the 1950's and 1960's. The only exception to this was a small area of passive centralization on the north side of the centralized area. In summary, even though the city of Buffalo is presently sponsoring some rebuilding effort in the central business district the general slow growth of the Buffalo area does not present much potential for rebuilding in the centralized area. 92 O0.00H O0.00H H .m meg. flamenwnqmmfi _. may-H. vequmnua oo.mmH mm.m mH mm. mo. meh< cesHsmnaa ueuHHmapseo no.9seonem Ho.HHeoHem mma.«OH mms.:0H mmu.:0H www.mom on» At. . .n mam- oedema O0.00H m:.mm mm.¢ O0.00H Md.Hm mm”: m... in. mm”: Hs.s «.oemH ao.pqoonom Hence qOHpmNHHmnuseo e>Hpmmez wdHomoHueaxm :OHumuHHmHuneo e>HpHmom mnHoseHHemxm Hence «« «m «m mH «H Hence Hence 4: «m «N mH HpHmom quoseHaeaxm o.oo m.« mmm.m oo.oo « . .0 Hence mW4HHH. H mMHnwm qunmw. “mum mmmuam «m II II. II. II. .II II 4 mm.w mm. Ham.s nu nn nu «m Hence nn nn nn ss.m mm. mmo.s mH nn un un un nu nu «H II II II II II II H6909 II In In I... II In. 4.: nn nn nn nn nu nu «m ssHo nu uu un un un uu «N Heapseo nu nu nu nn nu nu mH usHmsso nn nn nu nn nn nn «H oo.oo m.s mm .m oo.oo « . mmmnmm Hence 31me H $me nndem Kim 1. un nn nn nu nn nu «n spHo mm.w an. Ham.¢ nn nu nu «m Heavens nn un nn as.m mm. «mo.s mH oeHmsH nu nu nu nn nu nn «H unnu:.mmu« «ems ~.mom0NmHM emu« eomm ~.momommHM aoHpeoHHHmmeHo meuHsmnaa neuHHmuvsoo oumoen ueNHdmnha veuHHmHuseo ecmeen mend no.9:eoaem Ho.Hneerm o.ome Ho.HsooHem Ho.HHeonem m.ommH HsHmom maHoseHaeaam e O Nuem. .0 0e e a H5909 mmqmww quw mmmjmm qummw mmqw M$%umm «m «n.s an. wmm.m H«.mH w«.H mms.HH «w Hence II II .II II I...- II. m mm.«« mm.« mOH.mm nn nu un «H nu nn nn un un nn Hence uu nu nu uu un nu 4: nn nn nu nn nn nu «n ssHo nn nn nu un nu nu «m Heavens un nu nu nu nu nn «H oeHmsso '8 II all .I' I- all i oo.oOH 5.5 a.o oo.ooH . msn.mm Hence «nle TH m mwfilmm mm 3H mum HHo m .38 «n.a an. mmm.m H«.«H m«.H mas.HH «m Heavens nn nn nu un nn nn «H oeHmnH mm.«« mm.« moH.~m un nn un «H unnluflflH 8Q. 3% 8.2 3T g nOHseoHaHmueHo soanenaa neuHHmauseo osmoea couHamnna ueNHHmAHHeo osmoen meu« Ho.H:eeaea Ho.HHeoaem m.ommH Ho.HHeonem Ho.HHeonem m.ommH 4Hm¢ QHNHz¢mm= mm>zmn um Wanda 96 SAN JOSE URBANIZED AREA The centralized portion of the San Jose area is unique among the areas under study in that it developed during the 1960's in the midst of sprawling suburban development similar to that of Southern California. The develOpment of a centralized area in the San Jose area is a direct outgrowth of the nationwide trend toward apartment living that occurred in both the cen- tral city and suburbs during the 1960's. Centralization in the San Jose area was dominated by positive centralization of the active variety. This development took the form of low rise development scattered throughout the centralized area in both the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara. In summary, the future of centralization in the San Jose area will be closely tied to the general popularity of apartment living. This is because no real dominate centralized business area has yet deve10ped in the San Jose urbanized area capable of attracting centralized development when development sites became scarce. 97 VEHV GEZITVHINEO oo.ooH mH.¢ mmm.N« nu nu nu Hmpoa .uuln «OHueuHHmuusoo Rum“... omH $.de nn nn nu $38.2 wsHoquaemMm soHumuHHmeaeo MN.Hu mm.m mwm.on uu un nu e>HpHmom mnHoaeHaeaxm 00.00H mH.¢ mmm.wm nu uu un Hence Hm u N o N nu nu nu «M «Hum «H. mHm.H nn nn un «m H38. 3. H~ Hm . men ”a nu nu nu mH m:.mm Hw.m Hum mm uu nu nn «H mm... .m. E ...... H. H m... nu nu un nn nu nn «n .33 uu nu uu nn nu uu «N Heapseo ..... u... -... H u... H... a .33.. No mH mm «HH m «H . “Mom . I... I... ll flan—OB nmmnmmH w Mofime nu nu un «m a H uu nu nu nn nn un s 0 «sum «Hm mHmnH nn nu nu «m Hangs mm.HN Hm. mwn.m nu mm mm mH eUHmsH me we Ho m Re om «H Illulnmflwnfl menm «amonllmmo NHIM mesa. no.2 ~._momommHm 33¢..on HemmHo sesHsenuo ueuHHmapneo eumeen ueuHsmpHp ueuHHmnpseo ecsoen men« Ho.HseeHem Ho.HHooHem m.ommH Ho.HseoHem no.9soonem n.0maH «mi 9392mm: «mos z«m mm 393. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS By using a detailed method of analysis the study has demonstrated a widespread trend towards positive centralization in large United States urbanized areas when the 1960's are compared to the 1950's. Positive centralization in this case was defined as location of population in a manner that would indicate either pop- ulation stability or growth has occurred and will prob- ably continue to occur in the near future. Negative centralization on the other hand was defined as location of population in a manner that would indicate either pOpulation loss has occurred or probably will occur in the near future. With few exceptions the amount of positive central- ization in both the 1950's and 1960's has been small in comparison to the more dominate force of negative cen- tralization. The percentage of centralized areas ex- periencing positive centralization, however, has risen from 18.12% to 36.19%nbetween the 1950's and 1960's, while its reciprocal negative centralization has de- clined from 81.88% to 63.81%» By referring to Table 3, Page 33, it can be seen 98 99 that the increase in positive centralization was due to rapid growth in both the 1A, Initial Building-Open Variation, and the 2A, Stability, stages in the growth cycle. The decrease in negative centralization, however, is totally the result of a decline in the 4A, Obsolescence Stage. At this point a question may be asked as to the relation of the decline in the obsolescence stage to the increase in the initial building stages. Unfor- tunately the study cannot answer this question directly, as it was not designed as a test of the stage theory of growth. However, in spot checking individual census tracts from the 1950's to the 1960's one can see that numerous areas experiencing obsolescence in the 1950's reverted back to the stability stage in the 1960's. This, of course, is in direct contradiction to the stage theory. A number of explanations can be offered for the apparent inconsistency resulting from using a stage theory of growth. These include the use of imperfect test measures such as census tracts and arbitrary classifi- cation limits. Perhaps a better explanation of the stage theory is that it is a general explanation of urban growth. Such a general explanation can in turn be greatly affected by factors such as transportation systems, court ordered school busing programs, land scarcity, mortgage lOO markets, taxation policies, and the rate of local econ- omic expansion to mention only a few. Because of the large numbers of factors affecting a growth cycle each urbanized area in the study was somewhat unique. By generalizing somewhat, however, it is possible to talk about major categories of cen- tralized areas. The first such major category included areas lo- cated in rapidly developing urbanized areas sometimes referred to as "young" cities or areas. The first major characteristic of a young urbanized area is that the. central city in the area is still considered a safe place by deve10pers to market new housing. This means a cen- tralized area located in that central city can attract new development without having to contend too heavily with the city's bad reputation. A second characteristic of a young city is a rapid growth rate which provides a large market demand for new housing construction. In these cases centralized areas can usually capture at least a share of that market demand. The last major characteristic of a young city is that it has generally deve10ped at low densities. This results in low cost land so new higher density develOp— ment usually has an easy time finding suitable construc- tion sites. Centralized areas in the study that generally fall 101 into the "young" area category include Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, San Jose and possibly Los Angeles and Oakland, although these final two are presently moving out of the category. A second major category of centralized area in- cludes those located in urbanized areas with strong central business districts. In these cases the central F] business districts generally are attractive enough to A ‘1 overcome the serious problems the centralized areas may face in the form of old housing, bad schools, poverty, 3 .1 F crime, and congestion. EA Urbanized areas in the strong centers category usually have centralized areas that are not popular with middle class family-oriented persons. They can, however, attract the more adventurous urban types, as well as families who will make some sacrifices to live near large business and institutional centers. Residential develOpment in a centralized area with a strong central business district is generally difficult. This is because building site costs are high and usually require clearance which means development must generally be very high density in nature. Centralized areas in the study that generally fall into the category of strong central business districts include New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, and Minneapolis. The final major category of centralized areaincludes 102 those located in an urbanized areas with strong business districts. All of the areas in this category are presently struggling with their urban problems but as yet have not clearly demonstrated the ability to attract positive centralization. Areas in the study that generally fall into the category of weak central business districts include Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Buffalo, Kansas City, and Cincinnati. These three major categories of centralized areas included all of the major areas in the study with the exception of Miami, St. Paul and Milwaukee. Miami is truly unique among United States urbanized areas, while St. Paul and Milwaukee have not yet begun to face the serious urban problems that characterized other older urban centers. . In conclusion, due to the large numbers of variables effecting a growth cycle, its present use is best limited to descriptive studies. There exists, however, great potential for using a stage theory of growth in pOpu- lation projection if additional research along the line of David Birch's worklz can be conducted. Such research would involve tracing the path of particular neighbor- hoods through a growth cycle in order to measure time durations between stages. From this point research lzDavid L. Birch, "Toward a Stage Theory of Urban Growth". 103 would have to be done into the factors affecting the time duration of particular stages in the cycle. Re- search on growth cycles could also involve considera- tion of variations between urbanized areas or types of urbanized areas all of which would involve a con- siderable research effort. There is, however, great potential for reward from such research in understanding and projecting intra-urban migration patterns. in“ APPENDIX 105 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR CENSUS TRACTS lg. A ten year loss in population of 3%»was chosen as a lower limit for stable or actively centralizing areas because it corresponds closely to the situation that would occur in a stable residential area due to the nationwide decline in population per residential unit that occurred in urban areas in both the 1950's and 1960's. g5. An area with 15%»of its housing stock constructed in the previous ten years was chosen as a lower limit for classification as an actively centralizing area because such an area roughly approximates one with a level of new residential construction that would normally result in a significant population gain. An exception to this 13% limit for new construction was made for areas without signs of overcrowding that gained 10%ror more population in the previous ten years but did not have 15% of its units listed as new. The reason for this exception is based on the fact that some forms of resi- dential construction such as college boarding houses and other group housing structures are not counted as housing units by the Census Bureau. jg. An area with 10%>or more of its housing units occu- pied by 1.01 or more persons per room was chosen as a limit for classification as experiencing significant overcrowding because it was felt, based on past trends, that such a percentage of units with 1.01 or more persons per room has great potential for population loss due to uncrowding of residential units. . An area with a median family income of 30%'or more elow the national median income for urban areas was chosen for a rough approximation of an area in which a large proportion of the population would not have suffi- iiengiincome to afford a reasonable choice in residential oca on. 106 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract NoI 91g§_, No, Class. N9, 91ggg, N9, Class. Bronx 78 #A 197 AA 257 41 Borough-50's 79 9A 193 4A 261 1A 83 4A 199 4A 265 51 4 #A 85 4A 201 4A 264 51 5 4A 87 4A 202 41 255 41 11 4A 89 3A 209 4A 266 51 15 4A 91 3A 205 1A 267 41 17 3A 92 41 206.1 4A 269 11 20 1A 97 4A 207 4A 271 11 23 3A 98 4A 208 4A 273 4A 25 #A 99 4A 210 4A 277 11 27.0 4A 115.0 9A 211 4A 279 1A 27.1 4A 115.1 41 212 4A 281 11 28 4A 119 31 213.0 41 285 11 31 4A 121 41 215.1 41 285 31 33 4A 125 4A 214 1A 287 41 35 9A 125 3A 215 4A 239 #1 37 3A 12? 4A 216 4A 291 1A 39 9A 129 3A 217.0 4A 293 1A 40-1 2A 131 3A 213.1 AA 295 1A 41 #A 133 4A 21 4A 297 11 #2 13 155 41 219 4A 299 11 #3 3A 157 41 220 4A 300 31 #4 13 139 3A 221 4A 301 11 #6 13 141 11 223 11 , 507 11 47 13 143 3A 224 4A 521 11 48 4A 144 13 225 41 323 11 49 3A 145 1A 227.0 4A 524 51 50 4A 147 4A 22 .1 4A 528 11 52 3A 149 31 22 11 329 11 Sh 4A 151 41 229.0 41 330 11 56 11 153 51 229.1 11 332 11 57 2A 155 4A 230 41 335 11 59 2A 157 9A 231 3A 338 41 5A 159 4A 233 4A 540 41 62 1A 161 11 ‘235 11 342 11 64 11 165 3A 236 4A 34? 1A 65 13 167 3A 237 9A 551 1A 66 4A 169 4A 239 1A 557 51 6 1A 173 41 240 41 359 41 6 1A 175 4A 241 AA 361 41 69 1A 177 11 213 41 363 41 70 9A 1 9 4A 295 #A 565 41 71 4A 1 1 41 247 11 567 41 72 9A 183 2A 248 1A 359.0 4A 73 9A 189 3A 251 4A 359,1 41 75 3A 193 1A 255 4A 371 11 77 3A 195 4A 255 4A 572 51 107 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Clags. No, Class. NoI Class. No, Class. 373 3A 13 11 70 1 374 1A 20 3A 71 t: 128 :1 375.0 3A 21 13 72 41 141 41 375.1 3A 22 4A 74 41 142 4A 376 4A 23 1B 75 41 143 41 377 4A 25 41 76 41 145 41 378 4A 27 11 7 41 147 41 379 3A 29.0 4A 7 41 149 41 380 4A 29.1 4A 80 41 151 41 581 4A 30 ZA 82 4A 153 4A 383 4A 31 1A 84 4A 155 3A 385 4A 32 11 85 41 156 11 387 4A 33 3A 88 41 123 4A 389 4A 34 4A 90 41 1 41 390 4A 35 3A 92 41 159 31 391 4A 36 11 95 41 160 41 392 31 37 41 94 41 161 31 393 4A 38 11 96 41 162 11 394 1A 39 3A 98 41 163 3A 396 4A 40 ZA 100 41 165 21 397 4A 41 3A 101 41 167 4A 399 4A 42 21 102 41 169 41 401 4A 43 3A 10 41 171 41 403 4A 44 21 10 4A 173 41 405 4A 45 3A 110 41 176 11 407 21 46 21 112 41 178 41 408 4A 47 4A 115 41 1g9 51 411 3A 49 4A 114 41 1 1 51 413 41 so 41 11 41 182 41 415 2A 51 4A 11 41 183 31 419 4A 52.0 IA 120 41_ 185.0 41 421 41 52.1 11 121 41 185.1 41 423 4A 54 4A 122 51 187 4A 425 4A 55 4A 123 41 189 41 429.0 4A 56.0 11 124 41 190 4A 429.1 3A 56.1 11 125 41 191 41 431 4A 57 4A 127 31 193 41 58 4A 128.0 41 194 41 Brooklyn 59 #A 128.1 4A 195 4A Borough-50's 60 4A 129.0 SA 196 #A 62 4A 129.1 31 197 4A 1 4A 63 4A 130 41 199 51 2 4A 64 4A 151 41 201 51 3.0 2A 65 4A 133 4A 203 4A 5 2A 66 4A 135 41 205 4A 7 4A 67 4A 136 41 207 51 9 4A 68 4A 137 41 210 41 11 4A 69 4A 158 41 212 41 108 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEH YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract NoI Class. No, Class. No, Class. NoI Class. 213 41 271.0 41 335 21 411 51 214 41 271.1 41 557 41 412 41 215 4A 272 41 339 31 413 31 217 4A 273 4A 541 51 414.0 11 219 EA 275 4A 545 1B 414.1 41 220 4A 276 4A 345 4A 415 4A 221 4A 277 41 347 41 41 41 222 4A 278 3A 549 41 41 21 223 4A 2 9 31 351 41 419 41 224 41 2 0 31 353 41 421 41 225 4A 281 34 354 41 422 41 226 4A 282 11 355 4A 423 3A 227 4A 283 13 356 41 424 41 228 4A 284 4A 357 4A 425 4A 229 38 285.0 1B 359 41 425 41 230 48 285.1 1B 351 41 42 41 231 4A 286 41 562 41 42 41 232 4A 287 31 363 41 429 41 233 41 288 41 364 41 430 41 234 4A 289 3A 365.0 41 431 4A 235 4A 290 4A 365. 31 432 41 236 4A 291 4A 566 41 433 41 237 31 292 41 367 41 434 41 238 3A 293 4A 369 41 435 41 239 3A 294 11 371 41 436 41 240 4A 295 4A 373 3A 4%g 4A 241 41 296 41 374 11 4 41 243 41 297 41 375 31 439 41 245 4A 298 4A 377 31 440 41 247 3A 299 13 379 41 441 41 248 4A 300 BA 381 1B 443 41 249 4A 301 4A 382 11 444 41 251 4A 303 3A 383 4A 445 4A 252 4A 307 3A 385 4A 446 4A 253 3A 309 41 586 11 447 41 255 4A 311 13 587 51 448 11 25 4A 313 4A 389 3A 453 4A 2 4A 315 3A 391 455 4A 259.0 4A 317.0 31 592 11 456 4A 259-1 48 317.1 21 393 41 458 11 261 3A 319 4A 395 31 460 21 263 31 521 41 597 51 462.0 11 264 4A 323 4A 399 21 465 1B 265 4A 325 4A 401 31 469 4A 267 4A 327 4A 403 31 472 41 268 4A 329 4A 405 4A 473 4A 269 4A 331 4A 406 4A 475 4A 270 41 333 21 409 41 477 41 109 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, Class. No, Clgs. No. C1as . NoI Class. 4g8 4A 529 4A 606 11 890 4A 4 0 4A 530 4A 608 11 892 41 481 4A 531 3A 610 4A 894 41 482 IA 532 41 652 11 896 41 483 4A 533 41 642 41 898 41 484 4A 534 4A 760 41 900 41 486 4A 535 4A 762 4A 902 3A 487 3B 536 4A 764 11 904 18 488 4A 537 4A 766 11 906 1B 489 IA 538 4A 770 21 908 3B 490 4A 539 4A 772 41 910 1B 491 14 540 4A 772 11 912 18 492 4A 542 41 7g 11 91 18 493 4A 544 4A 7 2 11 91 41 494 4A 545 3A 786 4A 918 3A 495 4A 546 4A 790 4A 920 31 496 4A 547 3A 792 41 922 11 497 4A 549 4A 794 41 938 41 498 11 550 4A 796 41 972 11 500 11 551 3A 798 41 974 11 501 4A 552 4A 800 21 1078 11 502.0 41 553 4A 802 41 1102 11 502.1 4A 554 4A 804 41 1106 11 503 4A 555 4A 806 41 1110 11 504 2A 556 11 810 11 1112 11 505 4A 557 4A 81 41 111 11 506 4A 559 4A 81 41 112 41 507 4A 560 4A 820 41 1128 41 508 4A 563 4A 822 41 1150 41 509 4A 565 4A 824 41 1152 41 510 4A 567 4A 826 4A 1134 3A 511 4A 569 4A 828 41 1156 41 512 28 570 11 850 11 1158 41 513 4A 571 4A 856 11 1140 41 514 1A 572 1A 860 41 1152 41 515 4A 573 4A 862 41 1154 4A 516 21 575 4A 866 4A 1156 3A 517 4A 577 4A 868 41 1160 41 518 14 579 4A 870 41 1190 18 519 4A 580 4A 872 11 1194 4A 520 4A 582 4A 874 11 1196 18 522 4A 588 1A 87 11 1200 18 523 4A 589 4A 878 41 1208 18 524 24 591 4A 880 11 1210 18 525 4A 592 4A 882 11 1214 18 526 4A 593 41 88 41 1220 1B 527 38 596 11 88 41 528 4A 600 11 888 41 110 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Class. No, Class. NoI Class. L 9.1.5.135.- Manhattan 59 11 109 1 Borough-50's 60 4A 110 a: 1;? gfi 61 21 111 41 160 41 2 4A 62 4A 112 4A 161 4A 6 4A 63 11 113 4A 162 51 8 4A 64 4A 114 4A 163 31 10.0 11 65 4A 115 4A 164 18 10.1 41 66 4A 116 4A 165 3A 12 4A 67 4A 117 4A 166 4A 13 4A 68 4A 118 41 167 41 14 4A 70 4A 119 4A 168 41 15 18 71 4A 120 4A 169 51 16 4A 72 4A 121 4A 170 41 18 SA 73 4A 122 4A 171 51 20 4A 74 2A 123 4A 172 4A 21 4A 75 3A 124 4A 173 51 22 4A 76 4A 125 4A 174 4A 24 51 77 4A 126 4A 175 4A 25 13 78 4A 127 4A 177 33 26 4A 79 2A 128 4A 178 41 27 13 80 4A 129 4A 179 4A 28 4A 81 4A 130 21 180 41 29 3A 82 11 131 4A 181 4A 30 4A 83 4A 132 4A 182 31 31 13 84 4A 133 4A 183 51 32 4A 85 4A 134 4A 184 41 34 4A 86 1A 135 4A 185 4A 36 4A 87 4A 136 18 186 13 38 4A 88 4A 137 4A 187 3A 39 4A 89 3A 138 4A 190 41 40 4A 90 4A 139 4A 191 51 41 4A 91 4A 140 4A 192 13 42 13 92 4A 141 2A 193 3A 43 4A 93 4A 142 21 194 13 44 4A 94 4A 144 4A 195 2A 45 4A 95 4A 145 4A 196 3A 47 4A 96 4A 146 4A 197.0 4A 48 4A 97 4A 14 44 197.1 3A 49 4A 98 4A 1 4A 198 3A 50 4A 99 4A 149 4A 199 3A 51 4A 100 41 150 11 200 41 52 4A 101 4A 151 3A 201 21 53 3A 102 4A 152 11 201.1 41 54 4A 103 4A 153 4A 202 41 55 1A 104 4A 154 41 205 31 56 4A 106.0 11 155 4A 204 41 57 1A 106.1 11 156 4A 205 31 58 4A 108 4A 157 4A 206 4A CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA Tract No. 207.0 20 .1 20 209.0 209.1 210 211 212 213.0 213.1 214 215 216 217.0 281 219 220 221.0 221.1 222 223 224 225 226 Tract Tract Tract 212221 121... 212221 121.. 4A 255 4A 65 4A 261 4A 69 3A 263 4A 71 13 265 4A 73 3A 267 31 75 3A 269 4A 77 3A 271 41 9 3A 273 2A 1 4A 275 4A 83 4A 277 4A 87 3A 279 3A 103 3A 281 21 105 4A 283 3A 113 4A 285 4A 115 4A 287 4A 154 4A 289 11 135 3A 291 41 138 4A 293 4A 140 4A 295 4A 147 4A 297 4A 149 4A 303 4A 151 4A 307 3A 153 4A 309 11 155 3A 157 4A 159 48 Queens 161 3A Borough-5033 163 4A 169 4A 7 4A 1 9 4A 19 4A 1 1 4A 25 4A 183 51 27 4A 185 4A 29 4A 189 3A 31 4A 197 4A 35 4A 21 4A 39 4A 21 4A 41 4A 220 22 2; :2 220-1 232 4A 47 11 2 3 5 4A 49 4A 258 IA 51 4A 240 11 53 11 247 4A 55 4A 249 4A 57 4A 251 4A 59 4A 252 4A 61 4A 255 4A 63 4A 257 111 Tract Tract Class. NoII ii:2258Ei§§§§§§EiifiiEgfiifiigfiii§§tififigiEifiififiiiifi Tract 259 260 261 263 267 269 271 273 275 277 353 (CONT.) Tract Class. 1B fiitiiifi 112 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract 121... 912221 121... 212221 121... 912221 191... 212221 585 41 1227 11 64 13 155 51 587 41 1127—1 11 65 41 157 51 589 41 1547 21 66 51 161 51 591 21 1567 11 67 4A 165 41 679 11 1463 IA 68 11 167 41 683 11 1467 11 69 13 169 41 687 4A 70 3A 173 3A 693 11 Richmond 71 41 175 51 697 11 Borough-50's 72 51 177 3A 711 11 75 41 179 51 713 1A 3 4A 74 IA 181 51 713-1 11 7 4A 75 4A 183 11 717 1A 77 4A 189 4A 719 11 Bronx 78 11 193 51 721 11 Borough-60's 79 1B 195 41 725 41 83 51 197 41 737 41 11 3A 85 4A 198 4A 739 1A 17 4A 86 11 199 41 741 11 20 11 87 41 201 51 743 11 25 1B 88 11 202 41 745 11 25 4A 89 3A 204 3A 757 11 27.1 31 92 41 205 51 769 41 27.2 41 97 21 206.2 41 769-1 41 28 1A 99 31 208 11 773 4A 31 31 115.1 11 210 41 773-1 4A 33 3A 115.2 51 211 51 775 2A 35 13 119 51 212 41 779 11 36 11 121.1 51 215.1 41 779-2 21 37 41 121.2 31 215.2 51 797 11 39 3A 123 4A 214 3A 851 11 40.1 11 125 41 215.1 51 855 11 41 1B 127.1 51 215.2 51 855 11 43 41 127.2 41 216.1 41 857 11 42 41 129.1 41 216.2 41 859 11 4 11 129.2 41 217.1 51 861 11 47 4A 151 41 217.2 41 865 11 48 51 155 1B 218 51 865 4A 49 4A 135 4A 219 21 871 1B 50 51 157 51 220 41 889 11 52 51 159 4A 221 41 991 1A 54 3A 141 3A 223 4A 997-1 11 56 11 143 41 224.1 41 1047 11 57 21 144 51 224.2 41 1147 11 59.1 41 145 13 225 41 1159 11 59.2 4A 147 1B 227.1 21 1161 11 6O 41 149 41 227.2 41 1165 11 61 11 151 41 227.5 41 1175 11 62 11 153 4A 228 21 113 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Class. No. C ass. NoI Class. No, Class. 229.1 11 324 41 399.2 41 27 51 229.2 41 528 11 401 4A 29.01 41 250 21 529 41 403.1 41 29.02 41 251 4A 330 11 403.2 41 30 21 255.1 21 552 11 405 21 51 41 233.2 21 333 4A 406 11 32 4A 235.1 21 556 11 407.1 41 55 41 255.2 21 558 41 40g.2 21 54 21 236 21 339 11 40 3A 35 4A 237.1 4A 340 4A 409 11 36 4A 257.2 41 341 11 411 21 57 51 239 4A 342 21 413 1A 38 4A 240 4A 343 11 415 4A 39 4A 241 51 545 11 418 21 4o 21 243 1A 341 4A 419 4A 41 4A 245 3A 351 11 420 21 42 4A 247 1A 359 3A 421 2A 43 4A 248 11 361 41 422 21 45 41 251 3A 363 3A 423 4A 46 21 253 2A 365 1 3A 425 44 fig 4A 255 4A 365.2 3A 429.1 4A 21 256 11 367 31 429.2 4A 49 4A 257 4A 369 1 3A 432 4A 50 4A 261 41 569.2 1B 449.1 11 51.1 41 265 21 571 41 449.2 21 52.1 11 265 4A 372 11 451.1 44 52.2 21 266.1 11 575 51 451.2 21 54 41 266.2 11 574 41 458 11 55 41 267 4A 375.1 31 462.1 11 56.1 11 269 21 575.2 51 462.2 11 56.2 11 271 1 44 375.3 31 57 4A 273 11 376 21 Brooklyn 58 41 277 21 57 51 Borough-60's 59 41 279 11 37 11 60 4A 281 4A 379 4A 1 IA 62 4A 283 4A 380 11 2 4A 63 41 285 11 581 41 3.01 21 64 41 286 4A 383 4A 5 4A 65 4A 287 IA 385 3A 7 4A 66 11 289 11 386 21 9 11 67 41 293 1A 387 3A 11 4A 68 21 295 1A 389 4A 13 4A 69 4A 296 11 591 51 18 51 70 41 297 1A 392 4A 20 4A 71 4A 300 11 393 3A 21 4A 72 4A 301 2A 394 4A 22 3A 74 3A 307 1A 397 4A 23 4A 75 3A 323 1A 399.1 21 25 4A 76 3A 114 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Class. No: Class. No, Clggs. No, Class. 7 4A 151 4A 223 3A 284 4A 7 3A 153 3A 224 21 285.1 41 8O 31 155 4A 225 41 285.2 51 82 51 156 21, 226 51 286 21 84 41 157 21 227 41 287 13 85 41 158 21 228 51 288 41 88 4A 159 4A 229 4A 289 4A 90 51 160 4A 250 41 290 11 92 21 161 41 251 41 291 41 94 4A 162 4A 232 4A 292 4A 96 21 163 3A 233 13 293 4A 98 3A 164 4A 234 21 294 11 100 4A 165 2A 235 3A 295 3A 101 4A 167 41 256 21 296 41 102 21 169 31 25 41 297 51 104 21 171 21 2 11 298 41 108 21 173 4A 239 4A 299 4A 110 21 176 41 240 21 500 11 112 41 178 41 241 51 501 41 114 4A 179 4A 243 3A 302 1A 117 41 181 4A 245 51 505 118 4A 182 21 247 41 504 11 120 41 185 51 248 21 506 11 121 41 185.1 51 249 51 507 41 122 41 185.2 51 251 41 508 11 123 31 187 4A 252 4A 309 4A 124 4A 190 4A 253 4A 311 4A 125 4A 191 4A 255 4A 313 3A 127 41 195 11 257 13 514 11 128.1 11 194 41 258 21 515 1 128.2 41 195 41 259.1 41 517.1 51 129.1 41 196 41 259.2 13 517.2 51 129.2 41 197 4A 261 31 519 51 130 4A 199 4A 263 4A 320 4A 151 41 201 51 264 4A 321 41 133 4A 203 4A 265 4A 323 3A 155 41 205 51 271.2 41 325 11 156 41 207 51 272 41 526 41 13 3A 210 4A 273 4A 327 3A 1 4A 212 4A 275 3A 328 4A 139 2A 213 3A 276 4A 329 4A 140 4A 214 4A 277 3A 330 4A 141 4A 215 3A 278 11 331 4A 142 4A 217 3A 279 4A 333 3A 143 4A 219 31 280 4A 335 3A 145 4A 220 41 281 4A 336 4A 147 4A 221 51 282 11 557 51 149 51 222 4A 285 51 559 51 115 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No. Class. No, Class. NoI Class. N0, Clas . 540 4A 401 3A 456 1 1 341 3A 403 3A 458 5 8 i1 342 4A 405 31 460.1 11 520 11 343 3A 406 41 460.2 41 345 3A 409 31 462.1 11 523 41 ii iii: 347 4A 411 31 465 41 11 348.1 41 412 4A 472 21 23% 1B 348-2 4A 413 3A 473 41 526 11 349 3A 414.1 28 477 4A 527 3A 350 IA 414.2 4A 478 4A 528 4A 351 3A 415 3A 480 4A 529 41 352 13 416 24 481 4A 530 24 353 3A 417 3A 482 11 551 51 354 IA 418 4A 483 41 532 4A 355 3A 419 3A 484 11 533 51 356 11 420 4A 486 4A 534 21 357 3A 421 31 487 4A 535 31 359 3A 422 4A 488 11 535 41 360.2 4A 424 2A 490 11 538 11 361 3A 425 4A 491 41 559 41 562 4A 426 4A 492 11 540 41 363 4A 427 3A 493 4A 542 21 364 IA 428 4A 494 IA 544 34 365.1 1A 429 4A 495 4A 545 14 365.2 4A 430 4A 496 4A 546 366 18 431 3A 497 4A 547 367 3A 432 21 498 21 549 369 3A 433 3A 499 21 550 371 4A 434 BA 500 4A 551 373 3A 435 3A 501 41 552 374 1A 436 4A 502 . 1 24 553 375 4A 437 4A 502.2 11 554 377 3A 438 4A 503 41 555 379 3A 459 381 4A 440 382 4A 441 383 51 412 385 31 443 \nnuv >4>=> 19893 own$' \NFHH bwn>> tfitfifl} ardox N p. 29 00 N >, \J'I O\ KN 38 3A 444 21 509 41 385 M 445 21 510 21 233 389 4A 446 4A 511 1B 567 391 4A 447 2A 512 569 392 11 448 393 3A 450 395 3A 452 397 3A 455 399 3A 12:; 2 EEEE § 1:21:91: i titttttztfitgrttggtgttgt 6; .P N :p U! 1.; fl 53 \n 116 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, g;g§_. N0. Clas . No, Class. No, Class. 578 21 820 11 1110 41 25 41 579 4A 822 41 1118 51 26.1 11 580 11 824 41 1120 51 26.2 41 582 4A 826 21 1122 51 27 11 584 11 828 21 1124 51 28 13 586 11 850 41 1126 51 29 51 588 11 856 21 1128 51 50.1 41 589 21 858 41 1150 51 50.2 51 590 ZA 860 41 1152 51 52 11 591 4A 862 21 1154 41 54 11 592 2A 864 21 1156 41 56.1 41 593 2A 866 41 1138 41 36.2 41 594.1 41 868 21 1140 41 58 41 596 4A 870 41 1148 41 40 41 600 11 872 21 1150 41 41 51 606 11 874.1 11 1152 51 42 11 608 IA 874.2 4A 1154 4A 43 41 610.1 41 876 41 1156 41 44 41 610-2 IA 878 4A 1158 3A 45 3A 622 11 880 41 1160 4A 47 3A 632 IA 882 11 1162 51 48 11 642 21 884 51 1164 3A 49 ZA 736 4A 886 51 1166 51 50 11 738 4A 888 21 1168 51 51 11 760 4A 890 51 1194 51 52 11 762 21 892 41 1196 31 53 4A 764 4A 894 51 1210 41 54 11 766 21 896 51 1214 41 55.1 11 770 4A 898 51 55.2 41 772 24 900 51 Manhattan 56 4A 774 3A 902 41 Borough-60's 57 11 776 11 904 41 58 41 782 4A 906 41 2.01 41 59 11 786 11 908 13 2.02 11 60 41 788 21 910 41 6 13 61 11 790 21 912 13 8 51 65 21 792 3A 914 41 10.1 41 64 11 794 3A 916 41 10.2 51 65 41 796 21 918 41 12 41 66 41 98 2A 920 4A 13 4A 67 4A 00 3A 922 11 14.1 11 68 11 802 21 928 11 14.2 41 69 11 804 41 958 41 16 31 70 11 806 4A 982 41 18 41 71 11 810 21 1054 41 20 41 72 11 814 21 1078 11 22.1 11 73 41 816 4A 1102 11 22.2 41 74 21 818 11 1106 41 24 41 75 21 117 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No. 0123.8. N_.__o _____Class- __..._.No 9.1.2.82. 12.... 9.1322- 76 51 124 11 167 41 210 11 77 21 125 4A 168 41 211 41 78 11 126 11 169 41 212 11 79 1A 12 4A 170 11 215.1 41 8o 21 12 11 171 41 215.2 41 81 4A 129 41 172.1 41 214 11 82 41 150 41 172.2 41 216 4A 83 4A 151 41 175 41 217 41 84 3A 152 11 174.1 13 217.1 41 86 IA 133 41 174.2 41 21g.2 4A 87 4A 134 1A 175 4A 21 4A 88 11 155 41 177 41 219 11 89 4A 136 11 178 41 220 4A 90 11 137 4A 179 41 221.1 44 91 4A 158 11 180 41 221.2 41 92 41 159 11 181 41 222 41 93 11 140 21 182 41 225 41 94 4A 142 21 183 4A 224 4A 95 41 144.1 11 184 13 225 51 96 41 144.2 11 185 11 226 4A 97 11 145 4A 186 41 227.1 41 98 IA 146.1 41 187 41 227.2 41 99 41 146.2 11 188 41 228 41 100 4A 147 4A 189 41 229 4A 101 41 148.1 11 190 41 230 4A 102 41 148.2 41 191 41 231.1 41 103 4A 149 41 192 41 251.2 41 104 4A 150.1 41 195 41 252 41 106.1 21 150.2 11 194 41 255 41 106.2 11 151 4A 195 41 254 41 108 11 152 11 196 41 255.1 41 109 21 153 41 197.1 13 235.2 31 110 1A 154 41 197.2 41 236 11 111 4A 155 11 198 41 237 31 112.1 41 156.1 41 199 41 239 31 112.2 11 156.2 41 200 41 241 21 112.5 11 157 41 201.1 41 245.1 41 115 41 158.1 41 201.2 41 245.2 13 114.1 41 158.2 41 202 41 245 4A 114.2 IA 159 4A 203 4A 247 21 115 41 160.1 21 204 41 249 41 116 41 160.2 41 205 41 251 41 11 4A 161 41 206 41 255 41 11 11 162 13 207.1 41 255 41 119 4A 163 41 207.2 41 261 51 120 11 164 4A 208 41 263 11 121 41 165 41 209.1 41 265 4A 122 4A 166 41 209.2 41 267 21 118 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NM YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Clas . No, Class. No, Class. No, 91555. 269 4A 79 3A 252 21 471 11 271 4A 81 41 253 21 472 11 273 4A 83 4A 257 11 473 11 275 2A 87 4A 259 11 478 51 277 3A 95 4A 260 51 481 11 279 4A 105 3A 261 4A 483 1A 281 21 105 2A 265 11 485 2A 285 11 111 21 265 11 492 4A 285 4A 115 31 267 11 500 21 287 41 115 41 269 31 535 4A 289 4A 119 11 271 31 539 4A 291 51 152 41 275 3A 545 4A 293 4A 134 21 275 4A 547 21 295 4A 156 41 277 4A 549 2A 297 4A 138 11 278 11 551 2A 505 4A 140 21 279 4A 553 ZA 507 41 141 3A 281 4A 555 41 309 4A 143 4A 283 4A 557 4A 145 21 285 4A 559 41 Queens 147 21 287 4A 579 4A Borough-60's 149 21 289 41 l 51 151 21 291 11 585 51 7 4A 153 21 295 21 5 4A 19 4A 155 21 309.2 11 587 21 22 11 157 41 554. 11 589 4A 25 4A 159 ZA 339 4A 591 21 27 41 161 21 551 41 593 2A 29 4A 163 4A 375 31 641.1 41 31 4A 169 21 581 31 679 3A 43 4A 179 21 401 51 685 11 45 4A 181 21 407 51 687 21 47 3A 183 4A 409 51 695 21 49 21 185 4A 437 11 695 4A 51 4A 189 11 445 11 697.1 11 53 4A 197 41 446.1 11 711 11 55 4A 214 21 446.2 11 715.1 11 57 3A 216 11 454 11 715.2 11 59 24 220.1 11 455 11 717 11 61 21 220.2 21 457 11 719 21 62 11 252 21 458 21 721 41 63 41 235 21 439 11 737 2A 65 4A 256 41 460 11 739 1A 67 11 258 11 462 11 741 21 69 3A 240 4A 463 3A 743 4A 71 51 245 11 464 11 745 11 73 1A 247 11 466 11 747 11 75 14 249 IA 467 11 757 11 77 41 251 11 459 11 769.1 41 119 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN NEW YORK URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract N9, Clasg. 769.2 44 773 4A 775 1A 779.1 44 333-2 1 779.5 3A 1‘ 797 11 n 845 1A i ” 851 11 853 11 855 11 857 11 , 4 859 41 4* 861 21 32 863 11 865 11 871 4A 889 11 991 21 997.2 11 1157 11 1159 11 1161 11 1165 11 1175 21 1227.1 4A 1227.2 31 1285 11 1291.1 41 1347 24 1465 21 1467 21 Richmond Borough-60's 3 4A 7 11 29 11 33 1A 39 1A 40 11 Tract Tract No. Class. N2: Class. Los.1ngelea City-1950‘s 1882 11 2079 11 1891 11 2081 11 1892 11 2082 11 1895 11 2083 21 1899 11 2081 11 1901 11 2085 11 1902 41 2086 21 1903 11 2087 11 1901 11 2088 11 1905 11 2089 11 1906 11 2091 11 1907 11 2092 11 1908 11 2093 11 1909 11 2091 #1 1911 11 2095 11 1912 11 2096 11 1911 4A 2097 11 1915 11 2098 11 1916 11 2111 11 1917 #1 2112 21 1918 11 2113 21 1923 11 2111 11 1921 11 2115 21 1925 11 211 11 1926 11 211 11 1927 11 2119 11 1959 21 2121 11 1975 21 2122 11 1976 31 2123 11 2031 1A 2121 21 2011 4A 2125 11 2015 41 2126 11 2051 31 2129 21 2061 11 2132 21 2062 11 2133 31 2063 41 2131 11 2061 11 2111 11 2065 #1 2115 11 2072 4A 2118 11 2073 41 2119 11 2071 #1 2151 11 2075 4A 216 11 2076 41 216 11 2077 41 2181 11 2078 11 2201 11 120 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN L03 ANGELES URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9. 91252, N9, Class. 2202 11 6013 11 2211 31 2212 21 Pasadena 221} 21 City-1950's ET} 2215 31 3.! 221 31 1619 11 i ' 221 21 1622 11 2219 31 1636 11 2211 11 2212 11 West Hollywood .3 2213 31 Unincorporated g 2244 #1 1950's :1 2215 #1 2216 11 7001 11 22 7 11 7002 11 22 11 7003 11 2361 11 7005 11 2562 11 2652 11 S . Pasadena 2653 11 City-1950's 2655 11 2656 11 1806 11 2657 11 2673 11 Los Angeles 267 11 City-1960's 269 11 2699 11 1232 11 1241.1 11 Beverly Hills 1212.2 11 City-1950's 1219.1 11 1251 11 7008 11 1251 11 7009 11 1255 11 7010 21 1131 21 1132 11 Glendale 1436.1 11 City-1950's 1gg6.2 11 l 2.2 21 3020 11 1891 11 3022 21 1892 21 1895 11 Inglewood 189g.2 11 City-1950's 189 11 , 1399 11 6006 11 1901 11 121 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN LOS ANGELES URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract .2.__N 9111..111_9.1;a§s.121_212_51.11._9.11§1. 1902 11 207 41 2164 11 2656 11 1903-1 1A 207 31 2166 M 2657 11 1903.2 M 2079 41 2167 11 2671 11 1904 M 2081 41 2181 11 2672 11 1905 1A 2082 31 2182 11 2673 11 1906 M 2083 31 2188 11 2671.1 11 190 3A 2084 13 2189 21 2674.2 11 190 M 2085 11 2202 21 2675.1 11 1909 1A 2086 11 2211 31 2675.2 11 1911 1A 208 11 2212 31 2679 11 1912.1 11 203 41 2213 11 2691 11 1912.2 M 2089 31 2214.1 11 2696 11 1913 IA 2091 31 2214.2 1B 2698 41 1914 11 2092 31 2215.1 11 2699.1 11 1915 IA 2093 31 2215.2 13 2699.2 11 1916.1 11 2094 31 2216.1 41 2701 11 1916.2 21 2095 13 2216.2 M 2702 11 191 11 2095 41 2217.1 31 2717.1 11 191 1A 209 41 221 .2 31 2717.2 11 1919.1 11 209 31 221 13 2718 11 1921 2A 2111 11 2219 113 2722 11 1923 2A 2112 21 2221 31 2723.2 11 1921+ 2A 2113 11 2222 23 2761 11 1925 1A 2114 11 2241 31 2772 11 1926 1A 2115 11 2242 113 1927 1A 2117 11 2243 31 West Hollywood 19#h 1A 2118 11 2244 ZB Unincorporated 1915 1A 2119 11 2245 31 1960's 1953 1A 2121 11 2246 31 1957 SA 2122 31 2247 13 7001 11 1959 1A 2123 21 2261 31 7002 11 1975 3A 2124 11 2262 31 7003 11 1976 3A 2125 11 2311 31 7004 11 1977 1A 2126 11 2312 213 7005 11 2044 SA 2129 11 2317 23 20#5.1 3A 2131 11 2313 21 Alhombra 2051 3A 2132 31 2349 11 City-1960's 2061 31 2133 11 2352.2 11 2062 M 2134 11 2361 3A 4803 11 2063 M 2144 41 2362.1 11 2061 M 2145 41 2362.2 11 Beverly Hills 2065 3A 2146 11 2364 11 City-1960's 2071 M 2147 21 26111.1 11 2072 31 2148 21 2643.1 11 7008 11 2073 M 2149 11 2651 11 7009 . 1 21 2074 M 2151 M 2652 11 7009.2 11 2075 M 2162 11 2653.2 11 7010 21 2076 M 2163 M 2655 1A CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN L03 ANGELES URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Class. N9, Class. Burbank City-1960's 3107 11 3116 11 3118 11 Culver City 1960's 7030 11 Glendale City-1960's 3012.1 11 3018 #A 3019 11 3020 11 3021.1 11 3022 11 3023 11 3024 11 3025 11 Hawthorne City-1960's 6021.1 41 6021.2 41 6024.1 11 Hunting Park City-1960's 5326 11 5331 IA Inglewood City-1960's 6006 21 6007.1 11 6009.2 11 6010 11 6011 11 6012.1 11 6013 11 6011.1 11 6019 11 Pasadena City-1960's 4619 41 4620 13 4622 11 4623 11 1635 IA 4636 11 Santa Monica City-1960's 7018.1 #1 3. Pasadena City-1960's #806 11 E 123 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CHICAGO URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract NoI C;as . No, Class. No, Class. N9, Class. Chicago City-1950's 1 41 58 21 103 41 187 21 2 21 59 4A 104 3A 188 4A 3 41 60 4A 105 41 189 41 51 AA 61 4A 106 41 190 41 53 41 62 21 107 41 192 41 9 21 63 4A 108 41 227 41 10 11 64 21 109 41 228 41 11 11 65 41 110 41 229 41 18 41 66 21 111 41 231 41 19 4A 67 41 112 41 232 41 20 41 68 4A 113 41 233 41 21-z 11 69 11 114 41 234 41 22 41 70 11 115 4A 235 4A 23 4A 71 4A 116 41 23 4A 24 41 72 4A 117 4A 2 41 26 4A. 73 4A 118 3A 239 4A 2 4A 71 4A 119 41 240 2A 2 4A 75 4A 121 AA 241 4A 29 4A 76 1A 122 AA 242 1A 30 M 7 21 123 M 243 M 31 41 7 11 124 4A 241 11 32 41 79 11 125 11 245 21 33 21 80 4A 126 4A 246 41 31 41 81 4A 127 13 247 4A 35 4A 82 4A 128 4A 248 41 36 AA 83 IA 129 1A 250 4A 37 21 84 21 130 41 252 41 38 4A 85 4A 131 4A 253 1A 39 11 86 41 132 11 254 21 40 4A 8 41 133 3A 255 41 41 M 8 M 134 M 256 M 42 4A 89 4A 135 4A 25 3A 13 4A 90 4A 136 4A 2 41 44 4A 91 11 137 4A 259 3A 15 4A 92 4A 162 41 260 41 46 4A 93 41 163 4A 261 4A 47 1A 94 41 164 AA 262 4A 49-2 2A 95 4A 165 21 263 #1 51 4A 96 41 166 21 261 4A 52 21 9 41 167 41 265 21 53 #1 9 4A 182 21 266 41 54 4A 99 11 183 41 267 3A 55 21 100 41 184 41 272 41 56 21 101 41 185 41 273 41 57 41 102 41 186 41 274 21 124 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CHICAGO URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N0I Class. No, Class. No, C1333. No, Class. 275 M 343 211 408 M 472 3A 276 M 345 21 410-2 41 fig 3 31 277 4A 346 41 412 41 3.3 21 280 M 347 M 413 31 437 31 281 3A 348-Z 41 414 41 488 41 282 3A 349--Z 4A 415 4A 489 4A 283 BA 350 4A 416 4A 495 3A 284 3A 351 4A 417 4A 496 3A 285 2A 352 3A 418 4A 497 41 286 M 353-Z M 419 M 499 31 287 4A 354 3A 420 31 500 31 288 M 355 M 421-2 M 501 M 289 M 357 3A 422 41 502 41 290 4A 358 3A 42 Z 44 505 4A 291 4A 359 4A 42 3A 508 4A 292 4A 360 41 429 4A 509 4A 293 4A 361 4A 431-Z 41 510 4A 294 4A 362 4A 432 4A 511 41 295 41 363-2 31 434-2 18 514 41 296 4A 364 3A 435 4A 515 4A 398 3A 365 M 436 M 516 21 299 4A 366 3A 438-Z 4A 51? 4A 300 M 367 3A 440 M 519-3 41 301 4A 368 4A 441 4A 520 41 302 4A 369 4A 442-Z 4A 521 13 303 4A 370 3A 445 31 522 41 304 4A 371 3A 446 31 525 4A 305-Z 4A 372 4A 447 3A 524 4A 306 4A 373 4A 448 4A 527-Z 4A 307 4A 375-2 3A 449 3A 532--z 4A 308 4A 376-3 4A 4504 3A 539-Z 41 309 3A 37 -Z 41 450B 3A 541-z 41 310 4A 37 -Z 1B 451 31 542 1B 311 4A 379 4A 452 3A 543 4A 312 M 380 3A 453 3A 544 M 313 4A 381 4A 54 31 545 4A 314 4A 382 1B 455 3A 546 4A 315 4A 383 3A 457 31 54 4A 316 4A 384-Z 4A 459 4A 4A 317 4A 389-Z 4A 460 31 549 41 318-2 41 390-Z 4A 461 3A 550 4A 320 M 391 31 46 3 31 551 4A 334 M 392 M 466 3A 552 41 335 4A 395 3A 46 31 553 41 338 4A 399-Z 4A 46 31 55 -Z 41 339 4A 401-Z 4A 469-Z SA 55 4A 340 4A 403 4A 470 3A 557 4A 341 4A 407 4A 471 4A 558 41 125 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CHICAGO URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract EQ;__. Elééfiw £2;__. glééén £2;__. glééén E21.— §l§§§m 559 4A 616 31 Chicago 408 21 560 4A 617 4A City-1960's 409 21 561 4A 619 4A 410 21 562 41 620-2 41 101 41 501 21 569-Z 4A 621-2 4A 102 21 502 21 573 4A 623 4A 103 11 503 21 574 4A 624 4A 104 11 504 41 575 4A 625 4A 105 11 505 41 576 4A 626 3A 106 11 506 41 577 4A 627 3A 10 11 507 4A 578 4A 628 3A 10 21 508 41. 579 4A 629 3A 109 21 509 4A 580 4A 630 3A 201 11 510 4A 581 4A 631 3A 203 11 511 4A 582 M 632 3A 204 11 512 41 583 4A 633 3A 205 21 513 4A 584 4A 634 4A 206 4A 514 4A 585 4A 635 4A 20 21 515 41 586 4A 636 41 20 21 601 41 587 4A 637 4A 209 41 602 41 588 4A 638 4A 301 11 603 4A 589 4A 6 9 4A 302 41 604 21 590 4A 7 2 4A 303 11 605 11 591 M 783 M 304 21 606 M 592 4A 785-2 4A 305 21 688 41 593 3A 787 4A 306 11 6 11 594 3A 790 4A 307 11 609 1A 595 3A 791 4A 308 41 610 31 596 3A 792 4A 309 21 611 41 597 3A 798 4A 310 41 612 21 598 3A 876 3A 311 21 613 41 599 11 87 3A 312 41 614 41 600 4A 87 4A 313 11 615 4A 601 4A 879 4A 314 11 616 4A 602 4A 880 31 315 13 61 3A 603 4A 885 3A 316 41 61 4A 604 4A 886 4A 317 41 619 11 605 4A 895 4A 318 21 620 4A 606 4A 898 3A 319 21 621 4A 6 4A 320 41 622 41 60 31 Oak Park 321 31 623 41 609 3A City-1950's 401 21 624 4A 610 3A 402 21 625 4A 611 4A 0PV133 21 403 21 626 4A 612 M OPV135 21 404 21 62 M 613-Z 4A 03v136 4A 405 4A 62 41 614 4A 0PV137 11 406 21 629 4A 615 3A 0PV138 41 407 21 630 4A 126 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CHICAGO URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, 913;. N9, 0;”5. £9, 2155;. No, Class. 631 M 1408 21 2305 41 2520 21 632 1A 1603 11 2306 11 2521 31 633 IA 1604 41 2309 31 2522 31 634 4A 1605 41 2310 31 2601 13 701 4A 1606 21 2315 31 2602 31 702 4A 160 41 2316 31 2603 31 703 41 160 41 231 31 2604 31 704 4A 1609 41 231 41 2605 3A 705 4A 1610 41 2401 41 2606 31 706 41 1611 21 2402 3A 260 31 707 4A 1613 41 2403 41 260 31 708 4A 2101 21 2404 41 2701 41 709 3A 2102 41 2405 4A 2702 41 710 4A 2103 21 2406 31 2703 41 711 4A 2105 41 240 3A 2704 41 712 4A 2106 41 240 3A 2705 4A 713 4A 2107 41 2409 3A 2706 3A 714 M 2108 41 2410 31 270 41 715 M 2109 41 2411 31 270 M 716 M 2201 41 2412 M 2709 M 717 M 2202 41 2413 M 2710 M 718 M 2203 31 2414 M 2711 M 719 41 2204 41 2415 41 2712 41 20 3A 2205 21 2416 41 2713 41 01 1A 2206 41 241 41 2714 41 802 1A 2207 41 241 4A 2715 41 803 4A 2210 31 2419 4A 2716 4A 804 3A 2211 41 2420 41 2313 31 305 13 2212 31 2421 41 2.1 41 808 4A 2213 21 2422 41 2g19 41 809 41 2214 41 2423 4A 2 01 41 810 41 2215 41 2424 4A 2802 41 811 41 2216 41 2425 4A 2803 41 812 41 221 41 2426 31 2804 41 813 1A 221 41 242 41 2805 1B 814 1A 2219 41 242 41 2806 4A 815 41 2220 41 2429 M 280 M 816 4A 2221 41 2430 4A 280 41 81 4A 2222 41 2431 4A 2809 4A 81 41 2223 31 2432 4A 2810 4A 819 41 2224 31 2433 4A 2811 41 1303 M 2225 41 2434 41 2812 41 1305 2A 2226 31 2435 4A 2813 4A 1401 21 222 41 2436 M 2814 M 1402 4A 222 21 2514 41 2815 4A 1403 41 2301 31 251 4A 2816 4A 1406 41 2302 31 251 31 2817 M 1407 4A 2 3o 3 31 2 519 31 2818 4A 127 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CHICAGO URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No. Class. No, Class. No. Class. No, Class. 2819 M 3003 31 3512 M 4104 41 2822 4A 3005 3A 3513 4A 4105 4A 2823 41 3007 31 3514 M 4106 41 2824 4A 3008 3A 3515 3A 410 4A 2825 14 3009 3A 3601 M 410 M 2826 1B 3010 31 3602 18 4109 21 2827 41 3011 31 3603 41 4110 41 2828 31 3012 31 3604 18 4111 11 2829 41 3101 41 3605 M 4112 M 2830 M 3102 M 3 01 M 4114 M 2831 41 3103 31 01 41 4201 41 2832 4A 3104 3A 3802 4A 4202 4A 2833 M 3105 3A 3803 M 4203 M 2834 M 3106 31 3804 M 4204 M 2835 4A 310 3A 3805 13 4205 4A 2836 41 310 41 3806 13 4206 41 2837 41 3109 41 380 M 420 M 2838 18 3110 41 380 M 420 41 2839 M 3112 3A 3809 M 4209 M 2840 M 3113 41 3810 13 4210 41 2841 41 3114 41 3811 41 4211 41 2842 M 3201 11 3812 M 4212 41 2843 4A 3202 4A 3813 4A 4301 1A 2902 4A 3204 4A 3814 4A 4302 2A 2903 4A 3205 4A 3815 4A 4303 4A 2904 M 3206 M 3816 1B 4305 1A 2905 M 3301 M 3817 13 4306 2A 2906 M 3302 18 3818 M 4307 11 2907 4A. 3303 4A 3819 4A 4308 21 2908 M 3304 M 3820 M 4309 21 2909 4A 3305 4A 3901 4A 4311 IA 2910 4A 3401 4A 3902 4A 4313 21 2911 4A 3402 4A 3903 4A 4314 IA 2912 M 3403 M 3904 M 4401 11 2913 4A 3404 4A 3905 4A 4402 4A 2914 41 3405 11 3906 M 08 11 2915 M 3406 M 3907 M 001 M 2916 4A 3501 11 4001 4A 6002 4A 2917 4A 3502 4A 4002 18 6003 4A 2918 M 3503 M 4003 M 6004 41 2919 M 3504 M 4004 M 6005 M 2920 41 3505 31 4005 M 6006 M 2921 M 3506 41 4006 M 600 M 2922 M 350 41 400 M 600 41 2923 M 350 M 400 113 6009 M 2924 41 3509 31 4101 M 6010 21 3001 31 3510 41 4102 M 6011 41 3002 41 3511 41 4103 M 6012 41 128 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CHICAGO URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, Class. N9, Class. 6013 31 Bsnwyn 6014 City-1960's 6102 31 6103 31 8149 31 6104 3A 6105 Elmwood Park City-1960's 6111 8107 11 fil 6112 6113 6114 6119 6808 6809 6812 6813 6901 6902 6903 6904 6905 6906 6909 6911 6912 7105 7106 Eggififiifiigfigiiifiiiifii Evanston City-1960's 8102 21 Oak Park City-1960's 8123 IA 8125 21 8126 21 8127 IA 8128 11 Cicero City-1960's 8133 21 129 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN PHILADELPHIA URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Class. No, Class. No, Class. Philadelphia Philadelphia City-1950's City-1960's 7A 4A 2 41 239 11 7c 41 3 11 240 21 81 11 4 11 241 41 8B 41 6 18 268 11 8C 11 7 41 8D 41 8 11 9A 4A 9 11 98 41 10 11 101 41 11 41 108 41 12 41 13A 4A 14 4A 13B 41 77 4A 141 41 78 21 14B 41 79 21 151 4A 86 21 158 11 87 21 15E 4A 88 41 208 41 89 41 20D 41 90 41 211 21 91 41 24A 11 92 4A 24F 41 110 41 241 41 120 11 24J 41 121 11 271 41 122 11 27B 41 125 21 27c 41 126 41 27D 41 127 41 321 41 131 41 320 4A 132 4A 32D 31 133 4A 370 3A 134 4A 38C 11 139 4A 461 41 140 41 461 41 141 41 471 4A 145 41 47B 41 147 4A 470 4A 152 4A 59D IA 153 4A 59E 41 154 4A 59F 2A 201 4A 590 11 20 41 20 11 2§g 21 2 21 130 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN DETROIT URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, Clags. NoI Class. No, C;as . Detroit City-1950's 1 4A 545 4A 163 3A 2 4A 546 4A 165 21 18 4A 551 41 167 3A 22 4A 757 4A 175 3A 23 4A 758 11 178 11 24 41 774 4A 181 2A 25 4A 779 41 182 21 27 4A 183 21 28 1B Highland Park 184 21 29 41 City-1950's 187 4A 30 4A 189 31 31 4A 904 4A 502 4A 32 4A 905 4A 503 41 33 4A 909 4A 505 4A 34 4A 912 41 506 21 35 4A 507 11 67 4A Detroit 508 4A 151 4A City-1960's 509 11 152 4A 527 4A 153 3A 1 41 529 41 151 2A 2 4A 530 4A 163 4A 4 4A 531 4A 165 4A 7 4A 533 4A 178 4A 16 4A 542 4A 180 3A 1 4A 544 4A 181 4A 1 4A 545 41 183 21 22 41 546 41 185 4A 23 4A 547 4A 187 4A 24 41 551 41 189 4A 25 4A 757 4A 504 4A 27 41 758 11 505 4A 28 4A 759 4A 506 4A 29 4A 507 4A 30 41 Highland Park 508 4A 31 41 City-1960's 509 4A 32 41 528 4A 33 41 904 21 529 13 35 4A 905 4A 530 4A 40 4A 909 3A 531 4A 43 41 911 41 532 4A 67 4A 912 4A 533 flfi 151 41 913 41 41 4A 41 4A 4A 131 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN SAN FRANCISCO URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract NoI Class. No, Class. No, Class. No, Class. San Francisco Berkley 152 4A City-1950's City-1950's 153 41 154 4A 11 11 J15 41 8838 11 155 41 12 41 J16 41 8830 41 157 11 A3 21 J17 41 8851 41 158 41 14 21 J18 21 88581 11 159 11 15 41 J20 21 88588 11 160 11 16 3A 12 41 88580 11 161 41 17 31 K3 41 162 4A 18 41 K4 41 San Francisco 163 41 A9 41 K6 41 City-1960's 164 4A 110 21 L51 41 165 41 111 41 N1 41 101 11 166 31 112 41 N2 41 102 21 167 4A 113 41 N3 21 103 21 168 41 114 4A NE 21 10 21 169 4A 115 41 N 41 10 3A 171 4A 116 41 N9 41 107 3A 176 4A 117 41 N10 21 108 3A 177 4A 118 4A 109 21 178 41 119 41 Oakland 110 31 180 31 120 41 City-1950's 111 21 201 41 121 4A 112 11 202 31 122 21 OK12 41 113 31 203 21 A23 41 0113 41 114 31 20 11 B1 41 0K17B 41 115 41 20 21 B2 41 01181 41 116 11 20 21 B3 41 OKl8B 41 11 31 20 31 84 41 0K19 4A 11 4A 209 3A B5 41 0K20 41 119 21 210 21 B6 41 0K23 41 120 21 231 41 B7 41 0K24 41 121 41 301 11 B9 4A 0K26 11 122 21 302 11 B10 41 0K27 41 123 41 401 21 J1 41 0128 41 124 11 402 11 J2 4A 0K29 41 125 41 J3 4A 0130 11 126 Oakland J4 11 0131 11 127 21 City-1960's J6 4A 0K32 11 128 21 J7 4A 0K331 11 129 41 4011 41 J8 41 01338 11 130 41 4013 41 J9 41 131 11 402 41 J10 4A Alameda 132 3A #02 4A J11 4A City-1950's 133 31 4027 41 J12 41 134 31 4028 41 J13 4A 1114 21 135 11 4029 41 J14 4A 151 4A 4030 2A 132 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN SAN FRANCISCO URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract No, Class. 4031 4A 4033 4A 4034 1A 4035 IA 4036 11 40%g 11 4O 21 4039 IA 4040 11 4041 11 4052 11 4053 11 4054 1A 4055 11 4056 4A 4057 4A 4060 4A 4062 1B 4072 11 Alameda City-1960's 4279 11 4280 11 4284 11 2285 11 Berkley City—1960's 4224 11 4225 4A 4227 11 4228 4A 4229 13 4235 13 4236 IA 4237 EA 133 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN BOSTON URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, Glass. NO, Class. No, Class. No, Class. Boston Brookline City-1950's City-1950's A1 1A 12 21 T1 18 101 41 AZ 41 13 21 T2 41 N02 41 13 4A 141 11 T31 41 N03 41 A4 41 148 41 T38 41 N04 41 AS 4A 15 41 T41 41 N05 41 16 4A L1 41 T43 21 NC6 4A 81 41 L2 41 T51 41 N08 41 82 41 L3 41 15B 41 N09 4A B3 4A L4 41 T6 41 N010 11 B4 41 L5 41 T71 41 BSA 41 L6 41 T58 41 Cambridge BBB 4A M1 41 T 1 11 City-1950's Cl 41 12 41 T88 41 02 4A M3 41 T9 21 M01 41 C3 4A M4 41 T10 21 M02 41 D1 4A N1 41 U1 41 M03 41 D2 41 N2 41 U2 41 M04 41 D3 4A N3 41 U3 41 M05 41 D4 4A N4 41 U4 41 M06 41 E1 41 01 41 U5 41 M07 11 E? #A 02 41 U61 41 M68 41 Fl #A 03 41 U68 41 M09 41 F2 4A ()4 41 V1 4.1 M010 1+A F3 4A P11 41 V2 31 M011 4A F4 4A PlB 41 V3 41 M012 41 F5 41 p10 41 V41 21 M013 41 F6 AA P2 41 V4B 4A M614 41 G1 4A p3 41 V5 41 M015 4A 62 4A p4 41 v6 41 M016 21 GB 4A P5 41 w2 41 M017 41 G4 41 pg 41 W31 11 M018 41 11 4A 01 41 11 41 M019 41 H2 41 02 41 141 41 M020 21 H3 41 Q3 41 X48 21 M021 41 H4 4A Q4 41 X51 11 M025 2A 11 4A 05 41 158 41 12 #A R1 41 X50 41 Somerville 13 #A R2 41 X61 41 City-1950's I4 13 R3 41 12 41 J1 4A 31 18 Y3A 41 “039 4A J2 41 32 41 Y3B 11 M041 3A J3 4A» 33 41, Y58 41. .1042 41 J4 11A 54, 4.1 YSC 4A M0113 [+8 J5 M s 5 41 M045 4A K1 4A 56 41 134 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN BOSTON URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Ng. 213. NJ... 9129.- ..9..." 9.1529.- .9..." £135.- Chelsea 505 41 815 41 Brookline ' cum-1950's 505 it: 315 41 City-1960's 50 1 41 SC 41 508 4A 81 41 4001 2A 50 4A 509 AA 819 41 4002 ZA 507 31 510 11 820 4A 4003 21 511 4A 821 4A 4004 11 Revere 512 4A 901 31 #005 1A City-1950's 601 21 902 41 4006 11 602 4A 903 4A 400% 21 3012 41 603 4A 904 4A #00 1A 604 2A 905 41 4009 1A Boston 605 -4A 906 41 4010 31 Cityb1960'c 606 4A 41 45 388 21 Camrbridge # 21 41 909 41 City-1960's 5 4A 609 4A 910 4A 6 IA 610 4A 911 21 3521 41 g 21 611 4A 912 21 3522 4A 1A 612 U 913 41 3523 4A 101 11 613 4A 914 41 3524 41 102 41 614 4A 915 11 3525 21 103 13 701 11 916 4A 3526 4A 104 11 702 41 91 41 3 41 105 4A 703 4A 91 4A 352 4A 106 41 704 41 919 31 3529 21 10 1A 705 41 920 21 3530 IA 10 4A 706 4A 921 41 3531- 1A 201 2A 783 4A 922 21 3532 4A 20?- ZA 7 41 923 41 3533 4A 203 11 709 41 924 41 3534 4A 301 41 710 4A 1001 31 3535 4A 302 41 711 41 1002 11 3536 4A 303 4A 8012 4A 1003 31 35%; 4A 304 41 1 41 1004 41 35 4A 305 4A 802 41 1005 21 3539 IA 401 41 803 4A 1006 21 3540 4A 402 41 804 4A 1011 21 3541 IA 403 4A 805 4A 1101 41 3545 4A 404 4A 806 41 1102 11 33% 41 405 41 807 4A 1202 21 3 11 406 4A 808 41 1203 41 3549 11 $3 41 809 4A 1204 41 #A .810 4A 1205 41 Chelsea 501 41 811 4A 1206 21 City-1960's 502 4A 812 41 1207 11 ~ 503 4A 813 13 1601 41 504 41 814 41 1602 11 135 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN BOSTON URBANIZED AREA (CONT.) Tract Tract £21... 91215, 1604 4A 1605 41 1606 21 Revere City-1960's 1707 4A Somerville City-1960's 3501 4A 3502 4A 3509 2A 3511 4A 3512 M 3513 2A 3514 4A 41 136 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN WASHINGTON D. C. URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract E2;__. Eiééép 32h... glééén 32;... Qiééé- £21... 9i§§§c Washington City-1950's 5 11 74.2 11 35 IA 74.4 1B 6 2A 71.3 11 36 4A 74.5 11 7 1A 75 11 37 #A 75.1 11 10 1A 76.2 11 38 3A 75.2 11 12 1A 76.3 4A 39 1A 76.1 11 13 1A 77.1 21 40 2A 76.2 11 27 1A 7g.3 11 #1 4A 76.3 21 28 21 7 .1 IE #2.1 #A 77.1 31 30 #A 88.1 31 12.2 21 77.3 11 36 3A 89 3A 13 #A 77.5 11 37 3A #4 3A 7g.6 11 38 4A Arlington #5 3A 7 .1 1B 39 4A County-1950's fig 4A 88.1 31 40 4A .2 #A 89.1 41 11 4A 16 11 49.1 41 89.2 31 #2 1A 1% 1A 19.2 #A 91.2 3A 43 4A 1 41 4A 92 21 #9 4A 20 41 51 4A 95.01 11 50 4A 29 11 52.1 41 51.1 #A 30 21 52.2 #A Arlington 52.1 44 32 1A 53.1 9A County-1960's 52.2 4A 38 AA 53.2 #A 53.1 #A 54.1 hA' 1014 41 53.2 4A Washington 59.2 #A 1015 11 54.1 #A City-1960's 55 4A 1016 41 51.2 11 56 IA 101 11 55 4A 1 4A 57.1 11 101 1A 56 4A 2 21 38.2 4A 1020 4A 57.1 4A 3 4A 4A 1022 11 5 .2 1A 1 4A 59 4A 1025 11 11 5 21 60.1 11 1026 11 59 4A 6 4A 61 11 1027 11 60 41 g 11 62 11 1028 11 61 4A 11 63.1 11 1029 11 62 4A 10.2 #A 65 4A 1030 21 63 #A 12 21 66 #A 1031 11 65 11 13 11 71 13 1032 11 66 4A 22.2 41 72 4A 1035 11 72 1A 25.2 4A 73.2 3A 1036 11 73.2 21 27.1 11 73.3 11 1038 41 73.3 1A 2 .2 4A 73.4 1A 73.4 1A 2 31 73.6 11 73.5 1A 29 41 73.7 11 73.6 IA 30 4A 71.1 #A 73.? 2A 31 1A 74.2 1A 137 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CLEVELAND URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Cleveland E. Cleveland City-1950's City-1950's A3 4A E08 4A 02 AA- E310 41 C3 AA 3% 21 19°99) it - 9 's 01 11 y G2 #8 LW-6 11 G3 41 Lw-18 41 G6 4A 3 a: Shaker €88. City-19 '8 G9 4A H6 4A SH-l 11 H7 4A H8 4A Cleveland H9 1A City-1960's I5 4A I6 AA 1011 11 17 4A 1012 41 I9 #A 1013 11 J3 4A 1032 1A L3 3A 1033 41 L4 3A 1036 41 L5 3A 1037 13 L7 4A 1042 41 L8 31 1043 31 L9 11 1076 41 M1 4A 1078 4A M2 #A 10 9 41 M? #A 10 5 1A M8 1A 1086 41 N4 4A 108 1A N5 4A 108 41 P6 3A 1089 41 R6 3A 1093 41 R8 1A 109 AA R9 4A 109 1A 51 #A 1099 4A 85 IA 1112 4A 1113 21 Cleveland Hts.1111 41 City-1950's 1123 11 1124 4A CHll 1A 1125 41 Tract Tract Ng. C1as . N9, §;§§_. Tract Tract NoI Class. 1126 112 112 1129 1131 1132 1134 1143 1144 1127 11 1 1165 1166 1169 1186 118 118 1189 1191 1195 Cleveland Hts. City-1960's gfififiiiggfiififiifiifiififiifit 1411 21 E. Cleveland City-1960's 1505 1A 1506 21 1508 11 1509 21 1510 21 Lakewood City-1960's 1606 11 1618 41 Shaker Hts. City-1960's 1831 41 138 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN ST. LOUIS URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No. Class. No, Class. No, 01958. No, Class. St. Louis City-1950's 53 51 220 41 1053 4A 1213 41 12A 4A 233 4A 1054 4A 1214 41 12B 41 251 51 1055 41 1224 41 12D 41 258 41 1121 41 1232 41 171 4A 250 4A 1122 4A 1234 41 173 41 25D 41 1124 41 1251 11 17C 41 261 41 1171 41 1252 41 17D 41 26B 41 1172 41 1253 41 191 41 26C 41 1173 41 1254 11 19B 41 1184 11 1262 41 19C 41 St. Louis 1191 41 1263 41 211 41 City-1960's 1192 41 210 13 1193 41 21D 41 1051 21 1211 41 22B 41 1052 31 1212 41 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN PITTSBURGH URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Class. No. Class. No, Clasg. NoI Class. Pittsburgh City-1950's 3G #1 8H 41 401 4A 805 41 3H 41 110 21 403 11 806 41 4A 4A 11F 4A 404 4A 80 41 4D 11 11L 41 405 21 80 41 4E 41 14B 11 406 4A 1101 41 SF 4A ZZA 41 503 4A 1103 21 50 41 22B 41 504 4A 1104 41 SJ 41 22H 41 505 4A 1105 AA 7A 11 22I 4A 507 21 110 41 7B 41 23B 41 701 11 110 4A 70 4A 702 4A 1402 41 7D 41 Pittsburgh 703 41 1407 41 7E 41 City-1960's 704 41 2201 4A 7F 41 705 4A 2202 41 7G 11 101 18 706 21 2204 41 73 4A 102 4A 707 4A 2205 41 8c 41 201 41 08 4A 2302 41 8F 41 302 11 01 41 86 4A 304 41 805 41 139 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN MINNEAPOLISqST. PAUL URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No. Class. No, Class. NoI Class. Minneapolis City-1950's M34 41 SP55 4A 91 11 M56 41 SP56 41 92 11 M37 41 SP58 41 M38 41 SP59 41 St. Paul M39 41 City-1960's M42 41 Minneapolis M43 41 City-1960's 304 11 M44 41 30 IA M45 41 36 4A 32 41 M461 41 37 11 356 #1 M463 41 38 11 537 41 M47 41 59 4A 539 41 M49 11 43 4A 340 41 M52 41 44 4A 342 IA M53 41 45 41 555 41 M54 41 46.1 41 556 41 M55 41 46.2 41 358 41 M56 41 47 4A 359 41 Mgg #1 48 4A 361 41 M 41 49 3A M59 41 52 41 M60 41 53 41 M66 41 54 41 M67 41 55 11 M68 41 56 4A M69 41 23 41 M70 41 41 M71 41 59 41 M7 41 60 41 M7 41 61 41 M80 41 62 41 M81 41 6 11 M83 41 6 21 M92 11 67 11 68 11 St. Paul 69 4A City-1950's 70 11 71 4A SP5? 41 77 #1 SP59 4A 8 41 SP40 41 0 AA SP41 41 81 21 SP42 41 , 82 4A SP4} 41 85 #1 SP54 41 85 21 140 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN HOUSTON URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract N2: 61888. NQ‘ 618.33. Houston City-1950's 25 4A 405 11 26 4A 407 11 31 41 420 11 32 4A 39 41 41 41 671 11 Houston City-1960's 121 41 124 41 125 4A 316 11 403 11 404 21 Tract Tract CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN BALTIMORE URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract EL. .CJEL' 3.9.1.... ___61353- .2...“ 91% . Baltimore Baltimore City-1950's City—1960's 4-1 41 302 3A 1703 41 4-2 41 401 11 2711 11 5-2 13 402 41 11-1 41 501 41 11-2 41 605 41 11-3 4A 1101 11 12-1 11 1102 41 12-2 11 1201 11 12-4 41 1202 11 12-5 41 1205 41 12-6 4A 1206 41 13-1 21 1301 13 13-2 31 1302 41 14-1 41 1401 41 12-2 4A 1402 4A 1 -1 4A 1601 31 :0 ‘II‘ 1_» ‘ 141 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN DALLAS URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, 913;, No, Class. No, Class. Dallas Dallas City-1950's City-1960's GA 11 4.2 11 28 41 7A 11 5 11 29 - 13 133 4A 6.1 11 31.1 11 14 1A 6.2 11 32.1 41 151 11 7 .1 41 32 .2 41 153 IA 7.2 11 33 41 18 4A 9 11 34 13 20 41 13.2 13 35 13 21 4A 14 11 4 11 221 41 15.1 41 2% 13 223 41 15.2 41 11 311 4A 16 4A 69 11 313 4A 18 11 71.1 41 32 4A 20 11 78.3 11 23 3A 21 41 79.1 11 41 22.1 41 711 11 22.2 41 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN MILWAUKEE URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No: Class . No , Class . No a Class . Milwaukee City-1950's 1 4A 25 4A 114 4A 2 4A 42 4A 116 41 3 4A 43 4A 132 4A 4 4A 44 4A 135 11 5 4A 72 4A 136 11 6 4A 137 4A 7 41 Milwaukee 139 41 9 4A City-1960's 141 41 11 4A 142 41 16 4A 42 11 143 41 1 4A 7 IA 144 4A 1 4A 77 IA 147 4A 19 41 108 11 148 41 20 4A 109 11 149 41 21 41 110 11 150 41 23 41 111 41 151 41 4A 4A 4A 113 142 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN SEATTLE URBANIZED 1331 Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, Class. No, Class. NoI Class. No, Class. Seattle City-1950's D6 41 M5 41 71 4A 92 41 G6 11 01 41 72 41 H2 11 02 41 73 41 H3 41 74 1A Kl 41 Seattle 75 41 K2 41 City-1960's 76 41 K3 41 79 41 L1 41 47 4A 80 41 L2 41 49 11 81 41 L3 41 23 18 82 41 L4 41 11 83 41 L5 41 61 11 84 41 M1 41 65 4A 85 44 M2 41 66 4A 86 41 M3 41 67 IA 90 41 M4 41 70 11 91 41 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN MIAMI URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Class. No: Class. No. Class. Miami City-1950's 2 1B 13 28 1B #5 #A a; 1B 31 1B Miami 52.2 1B 32 1B City-1960's 6 1A 5 13 67.1 11 374 3A 13 1A 67.2 11 37B 31 27.1 11 52 2A 2g.2 11 Miami Beach 53 13 2 4A City-1960's 67 11 30 1 11 1 41 41.1 11 Miami Beach 34 41 41.2 11 City-1960's 36.1 31 42 1B 36.2 31 43 IB 42 13 37.1 41 44 1B 43 13 37.2 44 45 1B 44 13 45 IA 143 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN SAN DIEGO URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9. 915§_. N9, Class. No, Class. San Die o San Die 0 City-19 's City-1960's B3 4A 3 1A 59 3A K45 11 4 11 6o 11 K46 4A 7 1A 66 4A K51 4A 9 13 68 11 _ 152 41 13 11 “1 L53 3A 45 13 ’1 L5 4A 46 3A " M 4A 47 4A M57 4A 52 4A M59 4A 53 4A l M60 21 52 41 — N66 41 5 41 ,1 N6 44 57 44 N6 44 59 3A CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN ATLANTA URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Class. No, Class. No, Q;g§_, No. Class. Atlanta Ci ty-l9 50 vs D2 21 F87 1B 22 41 83,2 13 F4 44 F91 14 25 4A 84 11 311 4A 2 41 87.1 13 F12 41 Atlanta 2 41 91 11 F13 4A City-1960's 29 4A 9 11 F14 4A 30 4A 9 11 F15 41 g 41 33 41 202 41 F18 4A 4A 35 41 £58 21 10 fig 3; fig DeKalb C _ 0 F21 4A 12 41 42 41 ounty 1960 8 F2 44 13 4A 43 44 224.02 11 F2 4A 14 4A 44 4A F30 4A 15 4A 45 4A F33 4A 16 4A 46 4A F35 4A 1 4A 48 4A F45 4A 1 4A 55.2 4A F46 3A 19 4A 56 41 F48 4A 20 4A 67 4A F55B 1B 21 4A 76.1 11 144 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN CINCINNATI URBANIZED 1331 Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, Class. No, ‘g1§§_, N9, Class. Cincinnati Cincinnati City-1950's City-1960's 1 4A 1 4A 35 4A 2 4A 2 1A 36 4A 3 44 3.01 41 37 4A 4 4A 3.02 41 39 4A 5 4A 4 4A 42 1A 6 4A 5 4A 50 14 7 4A 6 4A 66 4A 8 41 g 41 67 4A 9 4A 4A 68 4A 10 4A 9 4A 69 4A 11 4A 10 4A 71 2A 12 4A 11 4A 72 1A 14 4A 12 4A 85 IA 15 4A 13 41 86.1 44 16 3A 14 4A 90 4A 17 4A 15 4A 91 4A 19 41 16 4A 93 IA 20 4A 1 4A 100 11 22 31 1 41 23 3A 19 4A 24 31 20 21 25 3A 21 4A 28 4A 22 3A 31 4A 23 4A 33 4A 24 4A 34 4A 25 4A 35 4A 26 4A 36 4A 2 4A 37 4A 2 4A 22 41 29 11 6 3A 30 4A 67 3A 32 4A 68 3A 33 3A 91 4A 34 4A 145 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN KANSAS CITY URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, Clas . No, Class. N9, Class. No, Class. Kansas City Kansas City City-1950's City-1960's 3 13 47 4A 3 4A 41 4A 11 4A 48 4A 10 4A 42 4A 12 4A 49 4A 11 4A 43 4A 13 4A 50 4A 12 4A 44 4A 14 4A 51 4A 13 4A 47 4A 15 4A 52 4A 14 4A 43 4A 16 4A 53 4A 15 4A 49 4A 17 4A 65 4A 16 4A 50 4A 18 4A 66 4A 17 4A 51 4A 25 4A 6 4A 18 4A 52 4A 2 4A 6 4A 25 4A 53 4A 2 A 4A 69 4A 26 4A 65 4A 283 4A 73 11 28.1 4A 66 4A 31 41 28.2 44 fig 4A 32 4A 29 4A 4A 33 4A 31 3A 69 4A 42 4A 32 4A 71 4A 43 4A 38 4A 73 4A 44 4A 40 4A 74 4A CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN BUFFALO URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, 912.3..- NoI Class . No, Class . Buffalo Buffalo City-1950's City-1960's 13 44 13.1 4A 67.1 44 12 44 13.2 44 25.2 44 6 A 41 14.1 4A 41 66B 44 14.2 44 71.1 44 fig 41 25.1 41 71.2 41 4A 65.2 21 72.1 4A 71 44 66.1 4A 72.2 4A 72 13 66.2 44 146 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN DENVER URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract No, Class. Noll Clas . N9, Class. Denver Denver City-1950's City-1960's 16 41 17.1 41 32.1 11 171 41 17.2 41 32.2 11 17B 41 20 41 37.1 11 20 41 24.1 44 37.2 11 241 41 24.2 41 37.3 11 25 4A 25 44 43.1 1A 261 44 26.1 4A 263 41 26.2 4A 271 41 27.1 21 27B 41 27.2 11 27C 41 2g.3 11 311 41 2 .1 11 313 41 28.2 11 321 21 28.3 11 323 21 31.2 41 CENTRALIZED TRACTS IN SAN JOSE URBANIZED AREA Tract Tract Tract Tract N9, Class. No, Olga. San Jose San Jose City-1950's City-1960's None 5007 21 5008 4A 5009 1B 5010 13 5016 11 5019 11 5021.2 11 5022 11 5037.1 1A Santa Clara City-1960's 5052.2 11 5053.3 11 147 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY CITED PUBLICATIONS Birch, David L. "Toward a Stage Theory of Urban Growth", Journal of the Ameri an Insti ute g; Planners, Vol. 37'Ufiarc5, 9 . 73-37. Blumenfeld, Hans. "The Tidal Wave of Metropolitan Ex- pansion", J urnal of the American Institute 9; Planners, 01. 20 Wi—nter‘T‘T, 954 , 3-14. Hawley Amos. The Changigg‘ShaEe‘Q£_Mg§;opglitan America: ’ Deconcentration6 inge 2 Q. lencoe, lino s: 1"“1F"""I§3 . ree ress, Hoover Edgar M. and Vernon Raymond. Anatogfi of‘g ' Metro 011s. Cambridgé, Mass.: amar Ui'iversity ress, 9 9. Schnore, Leo F. and Klaf Vivian. "Suburbanization in the Sixites: 1 Breliminary Analysis", Land Economics Vol. 48 (February, 1972), 23-33. United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. United States Census 2£,Pogu1ation: 1259, Census Tractg. United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. United States Census 2; Pogulation: 1260, Census Tracts. United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. United States Census 9; Population: 1220, Census Tracts. 148 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONT.) RELATED PUBLICATIONS Adams, John S. gDirectioaal Bias in Intra-Ufiban Migra- tion" conomic eograpgz 01. 45 o. 4 ctober 1960): 3:52:23: ' ' Alonso, William. "The System of Intermetropolitan Pop- ulation Flows", The Commission on Po ulation Growth and the 15331 an ture'RE ear h e orts EEIted 5y ST-H} HazIe. V01. 5. WasEIngton E. C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. Borchert John R. "American Metropolitan Evolution", ggogfiaghical Review Vo1. 57, No. 3 (July, 1967), Bourne, Larry 3. "Location Factors in the Redevelopment 3 1822188", Land Economics Vol. 45 (May, 1969), .119 93. Bourne Larry 5. Internal Structure 2; the C t Reading ' on S a e and EivIronment. New lork: ior Uiivers ty Press, 1971. Brodsky, Harold. "Residential Land and Improvement Values in a Central City" Land Economics Vbl. 46 (Aug., 1970), 229-247t"’ Brown, Lawrence 1. and Holmes John. "Intra—Urban Migrant Life Lines: A Spatiai View", Demography, Vol. 8 (1971), 103-122. Burgess, Ernest W. "The Growth of the City". Egg C; x. Edited by Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. Mckenzie. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1925. Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr. "Selected Theories of Urban Growth and Structure", Journal f t 9 American Institute 91 Pl e s, 701. 35 €79 ., 9 9 Greenberg, 1. and Boswell, Thomas D. "Neighborhood Deterioration as a Factor in Intra-Urban Mi- gration: 1 Case Study in New York City" Professional Geo ra her, Vol. 24 (Feb., 1972), 149 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONT.) Hoyt, Homer. The Str ctu e gag Growth,g_ Residential NeighWh-Hds 1; eric-an—T—ities. Washington, . .: overnment Prm mg Office, 1939. Leven, Charles L. "Changing Sizes, Forms, and Functions of Urban Areas", The Commission on Population Growth and the American ture esearch Reports 1 e 3523.1. Nazis. Vol.5. WasHingEon, C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. Morrison, Peter 1."Popu1ation Movement and the Shape of Urban Growth: Implications for Public Policy", The Commission on Po ulation Research Re orts ted By S. H.-Hazie. ol. 5. Washington, D C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. Ross, H. L. "Reasons for Moves to and from a Central City Area”, Social Forces Vol. 40 (1962) 261-263. Sabagh, George. "Some Detriments of IntraaMetropolitan Residential Mobility: Conceptual Considerations", Social Fozges Vol. 48 (Sept., 1969), 88-98. Schnore, Leo F. "Metropolitan Growth and Decentralization", eri Jggrgu of Sociology Vol. 63 (1957), Simmons, James W. "Changing Residence in the City: 1 Review of Intra-urban Mobilit ;% a hical Review Vol. 58 (October, 1968 Tunnard, Christopher and Reed, Henry H. American ngline The Growth fi%g_Form of Our9 C t es and Towns. ’ ew YorE: to BoEEs, Webber, Melvin M. "The Urban Place and the Non Place Urban Realm". Ex lorationsi to Urban Structures. Edited by Melvin e er. la e1 hia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 19 7. White, Harrison 0. "Multipliers Vacancy Chains, and Fillering in Housing", Jo rnal of the American Institute 9;, luggage o . (REESE: W, Winsborough, H. H. "City Growth and City St ucture", Journal of Regional Science Vol.4 19 Q). MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBR I III II HIIIIIIIIIIES 13 03012 5263 I JLII