Publications

The image of blighted central-city neighborhoods surrounded by white, affluent suburbs is one that continues to dominate the literature on urban poverty and community development. While this image has merit, recent changes in the composition and spatial structure of U.S. metropolitan areas suggest that it is also overly simplistic. The structure of metropolitan areas has become increasingly complex, defying most generalizations across U.S. metropolitan areas and defying simple dichotomous central city-suburban characterizations as well. Metropolitan areas are diverse. They differ with respect to population and employment dynamics, ethnic and racial composition, the extent of central-city decline and the concentration of poverty, their levels of employment growth, and the locations where that growth takes place. When almost 50 percent of the poor live in the suburbs, it is no longer acceptable to simply contrast poor, central-city neighborhoods with their more affluent suburbs. Although poverty is still concentrated in central-city neighborhoods, it is also increasingly a suburban problem, particularly in older, inner-ring suburbs. Nor are central cities necessarily synonymous with blight. New York and San Francisco are very prosperous inner cities, and revitalized urban neighborhoods can be found in metropolitan areas across the country. As diverse as metropolitan areas are, however, in one way they are all similar: all are dispersing. The outward movement of both people and employment from the city center is one seemingly universal feature of metropolitan areas. "Sprawl," as this phenomenon has been termed, has taken the blame for urban decline. Critics of urban sprawl have long argued that it exacerbates social inequities and increases the spatial isolation of the poor (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 2000). The data, however, do not support these conclusions. It is the underlying factors that accompany urban growth-and not sprawl itself-that have contributed to urban decline and spatial inequities. And while equity arguments have helped buttress efforts to slow sprawl, efforts to curtail sprawl have not necessarily led to greater equity; measures designed to stem decentralization have done little to improve the economic opportunities of low-income families and their communities. To address the underlying problems facing the urban poor, community economic developers must go beyond simple, uniform explanations for poverty and address some of the more subtle dynamics that perpetuate economic inequality. These include the lack of affordable housing, racial discrimination, spatial isolation, and the absence of adequate transportation. Moreover, community developers must recognize that metropolitan diversity requires the consideration of local context in developing effective programs and policies.