What Do We Mean by Demographics?

What Do We Mean by Demographics?

Demographics provide a description for a contextual analysis of a population. The size and composition of a population are important factors in many aspects of planning. Demographics is a powerful determinant of human service needs, consumer preferences and labor force characteristics.

“How do we measure up?” is a question that can be answered by understanding changes in overall population totals and also more specific changes in population age, race, ethnicity, gender, family structure, and income. The associations of demographics with other factors are complex and important, particularly in regional metro centers. For example:

• The aging “Baby Boomers” are part of a population moving from suburban to urban areas, and creating a demand for luxury apartments.
• Younger populations are more ethnically diverse and like to live in places with available recreational and cultural activities.
• The 18 to 34 year old demographic was found to have the highest percentage of entrepreneurs compared to older age groups.¹
• Racial and ethnic diversity is intrinsically connected to maintaining urban density “fueling a visible, though uneven and incomplete, resurgence of American cities…”²

This report defines the “Chattanooga Region” as Hamilton County. At the heart of the region is Chattanooga, -- a mid-size city -- a class of cities with a population between 100,000 and 300,000 residents. Nationally, there are more midsize cities, with more residents, than either large cities (with a population of 300,000 to 1 million) or supersize cities (with a population of 1 million or more). Between 1980 and 1990 Chattanooga became one of only 18 U.S. cities with a population of 100,000 or more to rebound from a decade of decline and increase population in the 1990s. It was the only city that lost more than 10% of its population in the 1980s to do so.

Post 2000 census data³ indicated that growth in population and industry was evident in many mid-size cities at a time when large cities were experiencing stagnant growth or declines. This phenomenon was evident in the shifting demographics of the nation from larger, higher cost locations such as Boston and Los Angeles, to lower cost mid-size city locations. However, all mid-size cities may not be equally positioned to seize upon these new developments. The advantages of a location are also dependent on a capacity to create places where people want to live and increase opportunities in growth industries such as health services, business services, social services, engineering, and management.⁴

Defining the Chattanooga Region

There are seven cities and three towns in Hamilton County. More than half of Hamilton County’s total population (Census 2000—51%) lived in the City of Chattanooga. The next highest percentage of the population total (28%) lived in the county’s unincorporated areas. Of the seven cities and three towns in Hamilton County, the City of Chattanooga is more than seven times larger than the second highest populated place (City of East Ridge—20,768). In most cases, incorporated places in the county increased in size from 1990 to 2000 due to annexations of unincorporated county areas.

Throughout the report, it is important to note the different units of geography that are used for reporting and illustrating data. A comprehensive regional analysis must utilize various sources of data and different data sources are identified in different geographic units. There are 7 levels of geography in the Chattanooga Regional analysis:

• Chattanooga TN—GA Metropolitan Statistical Area (6 counties 2 states)
• Hamilton County
• Municipalities (Chattanooga, Collegedale, East Ridge, Lookout Mountain, Red Bank, Signal Mountain, Soddy Daisy)
• County Census Divisions (9 units)
• Survey Areas (9 units)
• Zip Code Areas (30 units)
• Neighborhoods (36 units)

Metropolitan Statistical Area, County and City

The largest unit in this report is the Chattanooga TN—GA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is the basis for compiling occupational data and includes six counties in two states with a total population of 476,531. Hamilton County is the next largest geographic unit used in this report for data collected at the county level. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports employment by industry at the county level. The City of Chattanooga is the unit of geography that is used for data collected by city sources.

County Zip Codes and SOCRR Survey Zip Code Regions

Hamilton County is also sub-divided by postal zip code areas- 30 geographic units that are often used to describe health and human service data. The SOCRR survey was compiled by zip code locations. In this case zip code areas were combined, dividing the county into nine (9) regions.

Census-Based boundaries: Census Civil Divisions and Neighborhoods

Census data boundaries provide two types of geographic units used in this report. From 1990 to 2000, the Hamilton County census civil division (CCD) maintained the same geographic boundaries.

However, caution in necessary: CCDs are a county subdivision that is a relatively permanent statistical area established cooperatively by the Census Bureau and state and local government authorities and used for presenting decennial census statistics in those states that do not have well-defined and stable minor civil divisions. CCD names can be the same as the names of incorporated places, but the geographic boundaries are very different. This is the case with “Chattanooga,” “Signal Mountain,” “East Ridge,” and “Lookout Mountain.” Wherever references are made to CCD locations, the CCD acronym will accompany the name and reference a geographic unit that is distance from municipal boundaries.

Thirty-six neighborhood boundaries cover the entire county. Boundaries were created through existing neighborhood locations and reconstructed to conform to census tract boundaries. In this way, neighborhood data at the address level was aggregated to allow it to be associated with census data at the census tract level.

Survey boundaries, based on zip code areas, and neighborhood boundaries, based on census tract areas, were often very different. The geographic differences are evident in Map 8. But the general overlap between the two are provided in Table 3, where the first column lists neighborhoods and the second column lists the corresponding survey regions within the neighborhoods.

Regional Demographics: County and County Census Divisions (CCD)

Population, Age, Race and Ethnicity: Changes from 1990 to 2000 Compared to all other county census divisions, the Chattanooga CCD had the highest population, a total of 202,042 residents in 2000. Soddy Daisy CCD had the next highest population with 18,387 residents. From 1990 to 2000, the Chattanooga CCD had only a modest population increase (+5.4%) while total county population growth was +7.8%. Five less populated areas of the county experienced growth at more than double – and in one case more than 7 times – the growth rate of the Chattanooga CCD (Snow Hill CCD—+37.7%, Soddy Daisy CCD—+22.0%, Ooltewah CCD—+21.3%, Sale Creek CCD—+18.6%, and Signal Mountain CCD—+11.4%). At the same time, two CCD locations decreased in population from 1990 to 2000 -- East Ridge (-3.7%) and Lookout Mountain (-0.7%).

Age: Nearly half of all Hamilton County residents were below age 35, with 23.2% in the under 18 age category and 23.1% in the “18 to 34” category. East Ridge CCD had the lowest percentage of residents under 18 years old (19.3%) and at the same time this location had the highest percentage of those ages 65 and older (19.9%). Middle Valley CCD had the highest proportion of those under 18 years old (27.0%) and the lowest percentage of those 65 years and older (8.4%). Nearly one-fourth (46,268) of the residents of Chattanooga CCD was in the demographic of the “entrepreneurial” age group (18 to 34—24.1%). The highest concentration was in Ooltewah CCD, where 26.2% were between the ages of 18 and 34.

Race and Ethnicity⁵Most of Hamilton County residents were classified as white in both the 1990 census (79.6%) and the 2000 census (75.6%).⁶ In 2000, the next highest category was African-American⁷ (20%) followed by “other” (2.7%), and Hispanic (1.7%). Hamilton County had become somewhat more diverse by 2000, with the non-white population increasing in eight of the nine CCDs. The Chattanooga CCD had a 5.2% decrease in the white population (from 70.6% in 1990 to 65.4% in 2000). In the Chattanooga CCD, nearly 3 out of 10 residents were African-American (29.7%-- Census 2000), representing a percentage of the population that was much higher than all other CCDs in the county. The next highest percentage of African-Americans was in East Ridge CCD (3.9%).

Ooltewah CCD, a location with the third highest growth rate from 1990 to 2000 had the greatest increase in diversity between the two census years measured by the percentage decrease in the white population (1990—95.0% compared to 2000—89.2%). By 2000, Ooltewah CCD also had the highest percentage of Latino residents (5.3%).⁸

Households, Families and Children: From 1990 to 2000, Hamilton County households increased from 111,380 to 124,515 (+13,135). In the same time period, the share of households classified as family households⁹ decreased from 71.0% to 67.7%-- a decrease that was the result of the changing demographics in all nine CCDs. According to the 2000 census, East Ridge CCD had the lowest percentage of family households 61.6%. Snow Hill CCD and Middle Valley CCD had the highest percentages of family households (84.0% and 83.7% respectively).

Of those families with children (families with own children under 18), the percent married with children declined in the county and also in each of the nine CCDs from 1990 to 2000. At the same time, single parent families increased county-wide, from 8.1% to 8.7% of all households. In addition, there were increases in single parent families in most CCD regions with the highest percent increase in East Ridge CCD (+1.5%) and decreases in Lookout Mountain CCD (-0.8%), Ooltewah CCD (-0.1%), and Sale Creek CCD (-0.2%).

In 2000, Snow Hill CCD and Middle Valley CCD had the highest percentages of married families with children (35.5% and 34.8% respectively). Chattanooga CCD, with the second lowest percentage of married families with children (17.6%) had the highest proportion of single parent families with children (10.2%).

A Region of Change: Migration, In-migration and Immigration

A certain percentage of an area’s local population is always in transition, moving from one location to another. Migration generally refers to a move that crosses a county line. Migrating populations can come from the same state, out of state or from outside of the nation. This is distinct from “residential mobility,” where residents move from one location to another within the same county. Migration is determined by the census based on a five-year interval, where the same residential location for five years indicates “permanence.” Census 2000 statistics indicated that from within the United States different patterns of growth were emerging, where domestic migrants or those moving from within the United States were moving to suburbs in the Southeastern and Western regions of the nation.¹⁰ At the same time immigrants from outside of the United States were moving to inner cities and suburbs, resulting in increased diversity in counties throughout the United States.

The issue of migration has some interesting factors that are related to changes in any region and also indicate the quality of changes. Those places with increased diversity are generally considered to be areas of growth, places where people can find jobs. For the young and the educated, a migration of this population to inner cities is associated with dynamic cultural activity and revitalization in those places. According to Current Population Survey data, about 5.6% of all Americans with a college degree move either from county to county or state to state annually. Interstate movers are more likely to be younger than older. Among adults 25 and older, 44.5% of movers were between 25 and 34 years old.¹¹ According to recent census data, the southeastern states were particularly affected by the reverse migration of Blacks, a population that shifted to the industrial North and Midwest during the 1940s and returned to the Southeast in significant numbers by the 1980s.¹²

Census data for 2000 indicated that a majority of Hamilton County residents (83%) lived in the county for at least five years. A much smaller percentage (7.9%) moved to the county from a different state in the South. Over 4000 (4372—1.5%) moved to the county from outside the United States in the five year period.

Among respondents to the 2006 county-wide survey, most indicated living in the county for more than five years, with 14.2% indicating they lived in the county for less than five years. On average, those surveyed lived in the county for 29.3 years. One in ten respondents moved to the county within the last year.

When asked if a move from the Chattanooga area was likely in the next three years, 79% indicated that a move was not at all likely (59%) or not too likely (20%).

Using Electric Power Board Service Data to Estimate Population Change

One way of tracking in-migration is to look at new applications for utility service. Electric Power Board (EPB) data offers insights into changing demographics based on new requests for services (2001 to 2005). This source indicates that over a 5-year period, new county residents migrated from all 50 states. Each year, more than 2000 households with out-of-state residents sought service. Of those moving to the county from out-of-state, a large proportion were in the 18 to 34 year old age group.

Changes in the Foreign-Born Population Indicate New Growth Trends

The foreign born population, or those who immigrate to the United States, tripled between 1970 (9.6 million) and 2000 (31.1 million; US Census). Most are immigrants from Mexico and Asia and they go to places that are “hot” job markets, where construction and service jobs are increasing. Many new and unskilled immigrants obtain low-wage jobs; therefore these populations tend to locate in high poverty (40% or more) neighborhoods.¹³

Among the 13 states with the greatest foreign-born growth rates five, including Tennessee, were clustered in the Southeast. The remaining four were North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky.¹⁴

The Latino Population

By definition, the 2000 Census identifies the Latino¹⁵ population as those individuals descended from the countries of Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic, and also countries in Central and South America. In Hamilton County (2000 census), 5,329 individuals were of Latino descent of which more than half (53.0%) were native to the United States. Of those who were born outside of the United States (foreign born), 674 (12.6%) were naturalized citizens.

Typically, the migration of this population occurs in “waves,” where the first wave is usually the adult male, who establishes a job and residence, intending to eventually bring his family into the country. Opportunity is often found in low-wage sectors and mobility can be limited by language skills. This population is entrepreneurial, developing small businesses where clusters of Latino immigrants live.¹⁶

Between 1990 and 2000, the City of Chattanooga’s Latino population tripled accounting for 75% of the growth in overall population. Between 2002 and 2006, the number of Latino children in Hamilton County public schools doubled. Based on EEO data, the number of Latinos employed in the Chattanooga region increased by 75% between 1999 and 2003.¹⁷

Mid-Size Cities

“How do we compare?” is a question that can be answered only by comparing the City of Chattanooga and Hamilton County to other similar places throughout the nation. For this purpose, 13 additional mid-size cities and their respective counties were selected to provide benchmark data to determine the Chattanooga region’s relative position. Cities and counties were selected based on two factors—city population totals that were similar to the city of Chattanooga and city locations that indicated they were major metro centers in their respective counties. The cities and their respective counties were located in western, mid-western, northeastern and southeastern regions of the country.

Comparisons of totals between 1990 and 2000 indicated that twelve of the fourteen cities, including Chattanooga, increased in population, and in two cities the increases were more than or nearly 50%. Fayetteville North Carolina had the greatest percentage increase (+59.6%), followed by Boise Idaho with a population change of 47.9%. Chattanooga’s total population change (2.0%) was comparable to Allentown Pennsylvania (1.5%) and ranked 11th in growth. Based on rank order, Hamilton County’s growth was 12th highest of the 14 counties (+7.8%) in the ten-year period.

The Chattanooga Region and Population Density Changes

Cities are defined by relatively high levels of population density. The concentration of people is what allows cities to become a locus of culture and business activity that would not otherwise exist.

Sprawl describes a metro area that is “spreading out” and “thinning.” Defined as “the process in which the spread of development across the landscape far outpaces population growth,”¹⁸ there are costs to sprawl that are social, economic and environmental. Increased geographic segregation by race and income can lead to social distress among groups. The geographic dispersion of industry across greater distances can compromise the competitive advantages of industry clusters. And changes in density resulting in suburban development can result in road congestion and pollution as commute times increase. Finally, decreases in inner city densities are also associated with a region that is “fragmented” by many local governments and lacking flexible governance.¹⁹

In contrast to the thinning metropolis, there are more recent indications of an influx of residents to inner cities seeking “characteristics that older cities can offer: homes in a variety of price ranges and sizes, with interesting architectural character and relatively low property taxes, in diverse and amenity-rich neighborhoods.” The City of Chattanooga appears to be one of the cities that is reversing population decline, particularly in the downtown area. After a decline of 24.8% in the 1980s, a population increase of 7.4% in the 1990s has led some to characterize downtown Chattanooga as “on the edge of takeoff.”²⁰ However, the fact remains, that the City of Chattanooga has the 12th lowest population density among the nation’s 200 most populous cities.²¹

Map 12 is a graphic description of changes in population density, where populations are less concentrated in the city core and more dispersed beyond city boundaries from 1990 to 2000.

Changes in Mid-Size City Boundaries and Population Density: 1990 to 2000

In 13 out of 14 mid-size cities, including Chattanooga, geographic size increased between 1990 and 2000. Changes in boundaries ranged from the lowest in Ann Arbor MI (+1.1 square miles) to the highest in Winston-Salem NC (+ 37.7 square miles). This contributed to decreases in population density in half (seven out of fourteen) of the cities. Of the 14 mid-size cities, Chattanooga had the third highest city area increase from 1990 to 2000 with an annexation of 16.8 additional square miles. Combined with the increase in city area, Chattanooga’s modest population growth (2%) resulted in an 11.9% overall decrease in population density persons per square mile (-136.9) –third among benchmark cities.

Characteristics of the Populations

Age: While the overall population growth in Chattanooga was a modest 2.0% (11th out of the 14 benchmark cities) Chattanooga residents aged 35 to 64 grew at 6 times that rate. Those in younger age groups declined in both absolute numbers and in total population share. Although EPB data suggest 18 to 34 years olds are moving to Hamilton County from out-of-state from 2001 to 2005, the 1990 and 2000 census indicated a decline in this population: those 18 to 34 years old declined by 7.3%--from 41,639 to 38,592. By comparison, ten other mid-size cities had faster growing 18 to 34 year old populations.

Race and Ethnicity: Changes in city boundaries, where population increases can be attributed to increases in geographic size, can complicate any analysis of population distributions by race and ethnicity. However, the evidence does indicate that in most cases, the mid-size cities are more diverse than the counties they lie within, as measured by the percentage of white populations. However, the difference between city-wide and county-wide percentages indicate that regional diversity is more concentrated in Chattanooga than most of the remaining mid-size cities. With 59% of the population classified as “white” in Chattanooga vs. 76% in Hamilton County the 17% difference is exceeded only by Allentown/Lehigh Pennsylvania.

Percentages of African American population are highest in southern mid-size cities (Columbia South Carolina—46%, Fayetteville North Carolina—42%, Chattanooga Tennessee and Winston-Salem North Carolina—each 36%, and Huntsville Alabama—30%). Conversely, Latino populations in 2000 are predominately located in cities in the northern (Allentown Pennsylvania—24%) and western states (Reno Nevada—19% and Salem Oregon—15%). Table 17 provides overall county statistics.

Households Families and Children: Twelve of the fourteen cities had increases in households from 1990 to 2000, with Allentown Pennsylvania and Lansing Michigan the only two cities that experienced declines (-1.2% and -2.7% respectively). The greatest percentage increases occurred in those mid-size cities with the greatest increases in population --Fayetteville North Carolina—+63.4% and Boise Idaho—+46.6%. Chattanooga’s households increased at half the rate of Hamilton County’s (+5.6% vs. 11.8%).

Children in the Household: Among the 14 cities, the percentages of households with children ranged from 23.2% (Ann Arbor Michigan) to 32.7% (Salem Oregon): Chattanooga was next to last at 25.6%. Among 14 benchmark counties, Hamilton County had the lowest percentage of households with children – 29.4% -- roughly one quarter less than in Fayetteville, North Carolina. In both city and county statistics, percentages of households with children that were headed by single parent ranged from 5.3% (Ann Arbor Michigan) to 13.7% (Lansing Michigan) and from 7.1% (Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County Michigan) to12.1% (Fayetteville/Cumberland County North Carolina): Chattanooga and Hamilton County were ranked 8th and 11th respectively.

Mid-size Cities and Counties: Migration, In-migration and Immigration

A mobile population (moved into the county less than five years ago) was most evident at the city level for Ann Arbor Michigan, with only 56.4% of the population having lived in the city 5 years prior to 2000. At county level, Washtenaw (Lansing Michigan) and Cumberland (Fayetteville North Carolina) have the lowest percentages of residential permanence with 65.8% and 67.6% indicating that they lived in the same county five years ago. By comparison, both Chattanooga and Hamilton County ranked third in permanence (82.8% and 83.0% respectively).

Compared to all other counties in 2000, Hamilton County had the highest percentage of residents born in the United States (97.0%). Foreign-born residents represented only 3.0% of the total population—the lowest percentage of all other mid-size city county regions. More than one-third (34.4%) of Hamilton County residents living in the county were born out-of-state, most in another state in the south.

Neighborhood by Neighborhood Analysis

Within Hamilton County there are significant differences in age, race and ethnicity, and family structure by neighborhood location.

Age: Age statistics generated from the 2000 census by neighborhood indicated that Amnicola/East Chattanooga (32.0%) had the highest concentration of children under 18, followed by South Chattanooga (28.0%), and Ridgedale/Oak Grove/Clifton Hills (27.9%), all City of Chattanooga areas. North Chattanooga/Hill City/UTC had the highest concentration of 18 to 34 year olds (46.8%).

Many of the low density areas were neighborhoods with more than 40% of residents between 35 and 64 led by Northgate/Big Ridge (49.2%) and Westview/Mountain Shadows (48.1%). More than one-fifth (22.2%) of the Signal Mountain population was 65 years or older. Lupton/Norcross and Downtown were the Chattanooga neighborhoods with the highest percentages in the oldest age group (19.6% and 19.1% respectively).

Race and Ethnicity: Overall census data indicated that in 2000 more 90% of African-Americans in Hamilton County lived in the City of Chattanooga. African Americans were more concentrated in Chattanooga than any other major racial or ethnic group. Neighborhoods with the highest percentages of African American residents were Glenwood/Eastdale (86.2%), Aminicola/East Chattanooga (75.9%), Bushtown/Highland Park (75.3%), and Downtown (71.0%).

Those of Latino/a ethnicity had highest representation in Ridgedale/Oak Grove/Clifton Hills (7.1%), an urban neighborhood, and also in suburban Apison.

Households and Family Type: Households with children under 18 years old had highest percentages in low-density neighborhood areas in Hamilton County. More than 40 percent of households in Dallas Bay/Lakesite (41.6%), Middle Valley (41.3%) and Harrison (40.9%) had children under the age 18. Conversely, the lowest percentages were in urban neighborhoods (North Chattanooga/Hill City/UTC—17.0%, Downtown—9.0%, and Mountain Creek/Moccasin Bend—19.4%).

While families with children under 18 had higher percentages in suburban neighborhoods, single parents with children under 18 were concentrated in urban neighborhoods. Nearly one-fourth (23.7%) of all households in Amnicola/East Chattanooga were single parents with children under 18. The next highest percentage was in Glenwood/Eastdale (21.4%).

Endnotes

1. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Summary Report 2001 by Paul D. Reynolds, S. Michael Camp, William D. Bygrave, Erkko Autio, Michael Hay. Published online by Global Entrepreneurship Consortium, April 2002. Accessed July 2006 (http://www.gemconsortium.org).

2. “Why the Next Governor Needs an Urban Agenda” presented December 16, 2005 to Brookings Council convened in New York City by Bruce Katz, Vice President and Director, Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institution.

3. Post-census data can refer to any method of data collection that is subsequent to a decennial census year. In this case the phrase refers to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program which publishes total resident population estimates and demographic components of change (births, deaths, and migration) each year.

4. “These four industries together are expected to produce half the new jobs in the economy by 2006.” In “Future Job Growth Will Benefit Educated Workers Most,” (1999) by Karen S. Hamrick in [Rural Conditions and Trends,] Vol 9, No 3, pp. 11-16

5. There are two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. The federal government considers race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race. In this report, where race is reported, those of Hispanic or Latino origin are excluded from all other race classifications. Those reported as white, African-American of other do not include those indicating Hispanic or Latino origin.

6. Comparisons of race and ethnicity between the two census years are limited due to different classification methods. Additional information is available on the www.census.gov website.

7. The term used to describe the census category is “Black or African American.” For purposes of this report “African American” will be used to describe this census race category.

8. In this case the table statistics reflected those reporting “White alone” and “African-American alone” excluding those indicating Hispanic ethnicity.

9. A family includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her family. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder’s family in census tabulations. Thus, the number of family households is equal to the number of families, but family households may include more members than do families. A household can contain only one family for purposes of census tabulations. Not all households contain families since a household may comprise a group of unrelated people or one person living alone (United States Census glossary).

10. Chapter by William Frey in Redefining Urban and Suburban America by Alan Berube, Bruce Katz & Robert Lang, editors. (Washington DC: Brookings Institution 2005), titled “Metropolitan Magnets for International and Domestic Migrants” pp. 25-26.

11. In “What makes mid-size cities grow?,” a series of speeches at the Chattanooga Rotary Club, the Downtown Kiwanis Club and a presentation at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, CRC by Community Research Council President and CEO, David Eichenthal (2005). The presentation outlined the research on what makes mid-size U.S. cities grow and what it may mean for Chattanooga’s future.

12. Chapter by William Frey in Redefining Urban and Suburban America titled “The New Great Migration: Black Americans Return To the South, 1965-2000” pp. 87-110.

13. In “the Rise of the New Immigrant Gateways: Historical Flows, Recent Resettlement Trends” by Audrey Singer, pp.41-86. Chapter in Redefining Urban and Suburban America by Alan Berube, Bruce Katz & Robert Lang, editors. (Washington DC: Brookings Institution 2005).

14. Audrey Singer, p. 48.

15. Hispanic or Latino is defined as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.”

16. CRC Latino roundtable, July 2006.

17. David Eichenthal, “What makes mid-size cities grow?”

18. William Fulton, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen and Alicia Harrison, “Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.”, Brookings Institution, 2001.

19. In case studies of three cities in Upstate New York (Kathryn Foster, University of Buffalo.)

20. Eugene L. Birch, “Who Lives Downtown?” Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, November 2005.

21. David Eichenthal, “Sprawl in the Chattanooga Region,” Community Research Council, June 21, 2006.