Reasons for Moves Out Of and Into Large Cities

Goodman, John L.

doi:10.1080/01944367908976984

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in Table 3, city buyers who were concerned about the quality of Cincinnati public schools were not more likely than others to move. Our findings are actually in conformance with most empirical research on the subject, which has shown the quality of public services, including the public schools, having little impact on outmigration decisions (Goodman 1978(Goodman , 1979Tuchfarber et al 1980;Varady 1983). Such evaluations are more likely to influence the choice of where to move (Varady 1988).…”

Section: Determinants Of Moving Planssupporting

confidence: 88%

The Impact of City/Suburban Location on Moving Plans: A Cincinnati Study

Varady

1989

Growth and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to improve the ability of central-city policymakers to retain middle-income families, this paper tests for the importance of city/suburban location as well as other background characteristics in explaining variations in moving plans. Stepwise discriminant analysis is applied to a mailed questionnaire sample of 1,738 households who purchased homes in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio, during the first half of 1986. The city buyers' greater propensity to move reflected compositional effects, with younger households purchasing modest homes. Contrary to what was expected, recent city buyers with urban tastes didnot have strong attachments to their location. The implications of these and other results to stem outmigration flows are discussed. HE CONTINUED OUTMIGRATION OF MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIEST from central cities undermines the fiscal viability of those cities and increases the level of racial and social class segregation in the public schools. Policymakers seeking to develop programs to attract and hold middle-income families in the central city are hindered by the lack of knowledge about the causes of mobility decisions of metropolitan homebuyers during the 1980s. As Kendig (1984) notes, the motives of these families for purchasing, and possibly for moving, are likely to bedissimilar to the motives of those who arrived earlier, when housing market conditions were different. Analysis of the determinants of mobility of this recently arrived group can inform policymakers of the attachments and motives of those who are currently choosing central city locations.The present paper responds to Kendig's call for research by attempting to answer two questions. Firstly, to what extent are differences in mobility propensity between recent city and suburban buyers attributable to (a) variations in the types of David P. Varady is a professor in the School of Planning at the University of Cincinnati. He wishes to state that this research was made possible by grants from the

show abstract

Section: Determinants Of Moving Planssupporting

confidence: 88%

The Impact of City/Suburban Location on Moving Plans: A Cincinnati Study

Varady

1989

Growth and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A higher proportion of metropolitan jobs were in the suburbs in this period, so it is possible that black suburbanization was a response to the difficulty of outbound commuting. The meager evidence on this subject, however, suggests that blacks suburbanized for more traditional reasons, such as increasing incomes and the desire to purchase homes in areas with better environments (Frey, 1984;Goodman, 1979;Kain, 1993;Marshall, 1979). Indeed, the rule of thumb, according to Zax and Kain (1991), is that "most workers ordinarily move in order to lengthen commutes and quit in order to shorten them" (p. 1, italics added).…”

Section: The Process Of Black Suburbanizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neighborhood Development in the Metropolitan Economy: A Policy Review

Gottlieb

1997

Journal of Urban Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces policymakers and scholars to several issues in the development of city neighborhoods and their residents. It constructs a literature review around a tree diagram ofproblems and solutions, arguing that this is a more useful way to organize information than the social science questions that typically interest academics. Following this structured overview, I make the following arguments about space and scale in neighborhood policy: ( 1 ) Even if we adopt an individualistic model of economic behavior, we do not necessarily need to choose "people" over "place. " (2) The rationale for the development of neighborhood export jobs remains weak. However, we may be able to identib a "preferred policy scale" for job development and placement connections. This is defined as the scale at which the problem of spatial mismatch is not solved at the expense of broader economic development considerations, and vice versa. The research agenda underlying this simple idea would require more sophisticated and policy-relevant work on commuting patterns and on the interaction behavior and other competitive advantages of firms situated in intra-metropolitan space.As the downtowns of America's historically distressed cities spring back to life, there has been renewed interest in neighborhoods that are outside of downtown but still within the city. Interest in these neighborhoods is, of course, as old as urban policy itself. What is new is the willingness of private sector elites (those traditionally concerned with the central

show abstract

“…Those considered most influential are evaluated here. Of the six studies evaluated, the three by George and Eunice Grier (19771, Franklin James (1977), and John L. Goodman (1979) relied on citywide or nationwide data and involved all occupancy types; each of the remaining three by Timothy Pattison (1977), Dennis E. Gale (1979), and Daphne Spain/ Shirley B. Laska (1 979) involved a survey of owner-occupants who had recently purchased residential property having a small number of units located in revitalizing neighborhoods (see Table 1). For the latter subset, only owner-occupants were chosen for the survey, probably because they were more readily identifiable from official records and presumably had made a greater and more permanent financial commitment to the city and neighborhood into which they had moved in comparison to renters.…”

Section: Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Back-To-The-City Movement Revisited

Zavarella

1987

Journal of Urban Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mounting evidence of residential neighborhood revitalization in the early to mid-1970s and impressions that such acriviry was based on a back-to-the-city movement promoted optimism about thefuture of ciries. However, studies conducted during the late 1970s to evaluate this phenomenon questioned its existence. This not only had a chilling effect on the belief in the renaissance of cities, but also undermined concern about the major liability that had become associated with the back-to-thecity movement: residentiul displacement. An evaluation of these studies indicates that their findings and concluswns about the buck-to-the-city movement were not justifid The results of this study show that many home buyers are moving into cities from non-city areas. It also shows that this migration causes considerable displacement problems. This article is organized into two sections. The first presents a background for the buck-to-the-city movement including an evaluation of the previous studies. The second describes a study of two neighborhoods undergoing revitalization in the city of Hartford Connecticut, which attempts to address the questions raised about the previous studies and presents its findings. BACKGROUNDThe roots of the back-to-the-city movement are found in a variety of economic, social, and demographic trends. Several factors combined to increase housing demand and costs, and to render the less costly, existing in-city housing an attractive alternative to the more expensive new construction in the suburbs (Clay, 1979). In addition, rapid increases in energy and transportation costs and a shift in the employment patterns within cities from manufacturing to office jobs served to further stimulate professionals and other white-collar workers to seek in-city living (Black, 1978).In the mid-1970s, the effects of these demographic and socioeconomic forces became evident. In selected urban neighborhoods, middle-income people, through privatemarket rehabilitation, sought to upgrade and renovate existing housing stock. It was during this time that neighborhood revitalization became an increasingly attractive prospect among those seeking an urban lifestyle. Indeed, many social commentators believed a widespread trend might be emerging in the nation's cities. Thus, the term

show abstract

Reasons for Moves Out Of and Into Large Cities

Cited by 14 publications

References 7 publications

The Impact of City/Suburban Location on Moving Plans: A Cincinnati Study

The Impact of City/Suburban Location on Moving Plans: A Cincinnati Study

Neighborhood Development in the Metropolitan Economy: A Policy Review

The Back-To-The-City Movement Revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About