Targeting the suburban urbanites: Marketing central‐city housing

Danielsen, Karen A.; Lang, Robert E.; Hughes, James W.

doi:10.1080/10511482.1997.9521260

Cited by 48 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Elected of® cials who, in the 1960s, might have criticised immigrants and non-traditional living arrangements, now consciously market the city' s diverse opportunities for cultural consumption (Lang et al, 1997). They also welcome the employment offered by new culture industries and expanding cultural institutionsÐ as part of the at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on September 3, 2014 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from cities' new comparative advantage in thè symbolic economy' .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and Standardisation in Spaces of Consumption

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and Standardisation in Spaces of Consumption

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Social scientists can also increase the categorical resolution of their social area analyses (Bell and Newby 1976;Johnston 1976;Murdie 1976;Hamm 1982;Grove and Burch 1997) through the novel application of market research data and methods (Holbrook 1995;Lang et al 1997;Weiss 2000). This can improve the characterization of social groups, building from indices of population density, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status to more complex characterizations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can improve the characterization of social groups, building from indices of population density, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status to more complex characterizations. For instance, the Claritas, Inc., PRIZM (Potential Rating Index for Zipcode Markets) categorization system uses factor analysis and U.S. Census data about housing, household education, income, occupation, race=ancestry, and family composition to classify urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods into categorical group measures (Lang et al 1997;Claritas 1999). The PRIZM categorization system has three levels of resolution: 5, 15, or 62 categories.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data and Methods Comparing Social Structure and Vegetation Structure of Urban Neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland

Grove

Cadenasso

Burch

et al. 2006

Society & Natural Resources

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances in remote sensing and the adoption of geographic information systems (GIS) have greatly increased the availability of high-resolution spatial and attribute data for examining the relationship between social and vegetation structure in urban areas. There are several motivations for understanding this relationship. First, the United States has experienced a significant increase in the extent of urbanized land. Second, urban foresters increasingly recognize their need for data about urban forestry types, owners and property regimes, and associated social goods, benefits, and services. Third, previous research has focused primarily on the distribution of vegetation cover or diversity. However, little is known about (1) whether vegetation structure varies among urban neighborhoods and (2) whether the motivations, pathways, and capacities for vegetation management vary among households and communities. In this article, we describe novel data and methods from Baltimore, MD, and the Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) to address these two questions.

show abstract

“…The issue then becomes, How are certain household types drawn to the city from the suburbs? As Lang, Hughes, and Danielsen (1997) argued, it may take a marketing approach to accomplish the task. To do this, we first need to know the preferences of households that have recently moved to central cities from suburban areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing city and Suburban Movers: Evidence from the American housing survey

Sanchez

Dawkins

2001

Housing Policy Debate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A significant amount of research has concentrated on the process of urban decentralization. Resulting patterns of urban development have far-reaching effects on land use, transportation, regional fiscal structure, public services and facilities, economic development, and social equity. Because planning policies are being developed to attempt to revitalize the urban core, it is important to know which households may be deciding to relocate to the central cities and why.A discriminant analysis is used to explore the similarities and differences among movers to central cities and suburban locations drawn from metropolitan samples of the 1989 through 1991 American Housing Survey. The analysis compares the reasons for relocation, demographic differences, and metropolitan characteristics between central-city-tosuburb movers and suburb-to-central-city movers. The results indicate that these two groups are very similar in some respects and that some metropolitan-area characteristics may play a role in urban residential decentralization patterns.

show abstract

Targeting the suburban urbanites: Marketing central‐city housing

Cited by 48 publications

References 16 publications

Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and Standardisation in Spaces of Consumption

Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and Standardisation in Spaces of Consumption

Data and Methods Comparing Social Structure and Vegetation Structure of Urban Neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland

Distinguishing city and Suburban Movers: Evidence from the American housing survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About