by Houshmand E. Masoumi
Employment decentralization is one of the factors, which give a good estimation of the rate of urban and suburban sprawl.
Suburban sprawl as an urban form has received attention more than any
other form of development after the World War II. Urban sprawl and
decentralization can be considered from several aspects such as housing,
transportation, social issues, etc.
A factor, which has always been a good indicator of sprawl, is
employment decentralization. The location of jobs shows the attitude of
people and industry about the circumstances of communing and living.
Employment Decentralization in the 1950-1980 Period
Since 1950s, along with the massive migration of the American
affluent, middle-class, and working-class from inner-city to the
periphery, the employment location experienced the same trend. The
industrial centers and employers gradually transferred the jobs to the
suburbs.
As
Logan and
Golden
report manufacturing jobs grew 16 percent in the suburbs from 1958 to
1963, while dropped 6 percent in central cities. Between 1963 and 1977,
the manufacturing jobs of the central cities fell by 700000 in
metropolitan areas, while the same figure in suburbs grew by 1.1
million.
That is also the story for retail and wholesale employment which fell
by 100000, during the aforementioned years. The related suburbs gained
1.8 million jobs.
CBD versus Suburbia
In a book written in 1, the authors note that between the years 1960
and 1980 the two third of the jobs created in American cities were in
suburbs. Also 60 percent of the metropolitan jobs were located outside
the CBD. This transfer of jobs to suburbs caused many empty lots in
central cities and Central Business Districts.
The U.S. national statistics of employment indicate that the
employment location changes in 1950-1980 have been similar to the
spatial development patterns. Of course the relationship between the
outward migration of these years and location of jobs had a reciprocal
relationship. The people’s migration aroused job decentralization and
the suburban employment locations encouraged people to live in suburbs.
However this trend slowed down after 1970s and 1980s and. AT the same
time, a generation of urbanists tried to inform Americans about the
deficiencies of suburban sprawl and also more sustainable urban forms
such as different types of
Neo-Traditional Development. This was while cities tried to change the shape of their downtowns with several revitalization and gentrification plans.
References
- Feagin, J. R. and Parker, R. (1989), “Building the American Cities: the Urban Real Estate Game”, Prentice-Hall.
- Logan, J. R. and Golden, R. M. (1986), “Suburbs and Satellites: Two Decades of Change”, American Sociological Review 51:430-431.
more about urban sprawl:
No comments:
Post a Comment