Tag Archives: exurbs

The Washington, D.C. exurb that attracts politicians

Posted on by

American suburbs are supposed to provide a respite from the big city. One small town outside Washington, D.C. provides that for politicians:

Photo by Ian Caballero on Pexels.com

Set in Virginia’s rolling countryside an hour west of Washington, Middleburg has one traffic light and roughly 750 residents, a majority of whom voted for Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The town is known for horseback riding and hunting, fences made of stacked stone and long winding driveways leading to multimillion-dollar homes…

At any given time, an array of dignitaries — senators, congressional leaders, diplomats — can be spotted window shopping on Washington Street, Middleburg’s main commercial corridor, where decorative lawn jockeys stand sentry outside a few businesses. The well-heeled can also be found at the Salamander Resort, next door to Wolver Hill, where suites go for as much as $1,100 a night.

Over the years, at least four presidents have owned homes or visited the town, including Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan and Obama. The Kennedys built a home in Middleburg in the early 1960s, a 167-acre estate they called Wexford that Jackie Kennedy sold after the president’s death, though shestill visited after leaving the White House to ride horses with her children. Elizabeth Taylor and her husband Sen. John Warner lived in Middleburg until their divorce. Robert Duvall resided on a 360-acre farm in the area for several decades until his death earlier this year. In April, Queen Camilla visited a horse farm in town during King Charles III’s trip to the United States.h

Middleburg is a small town at the edge of Loudon County, once a sparsely populated county. In 1960, Loudon County had 24,549 residents, in 1990 it had 86,129 residents, and in 2020 it had 420,959 residents. In other words, Middleburg might have been “the country” at some point but now is part of a large and growing metropolitan region.

This puts pressure on communities like Middleburg. Can they keep a way of life or local character that has been present for a long time? When developers come with proposals, what is the response of local officials and residents? The suggestion here is that the small town might be threatened by Vice President, of a locally disliked party, rents in the community. As long as he does not bring more development and residents, the small town can probably wait him out.

Let’s hear more about what it is like to live in one of the booming exurbs in the United States

Posted on by

Where are some of the fastest growing communities in the United States?

Photo by Yelena HeyTam on Pexels.com

The latest Census Bureau data show that some of the fastest-growing cities are often sitting in the distant orbit of a larger city and centered on booming master-planned communities.

By absolute numbers and percentages, these communities highlighted by the Wall Street Journal have grown quite a bit since 2020.

But what is it like to experience that rapid growth? It could be new and exciting. Change, development, construction. Increased status. A sense that something is happening here.

It could also mean new features that change day-to-day life in negative ways. Traffic. Less open space. More people around. Do these newcomers care about the community like we do? That’s a lot of people to add in a short time and earlier residents might have liked their previous experience.

At some point, the rapid growth of these communities will slow. That could bring its own issues; are the glory days past? Why is a community a little further out now getting all the attention? How do we pay for maintaining the infrastructure and the established quality of life?

If suburban patterns continue in the United States, these exurbs could be established suburbs in a few decades with the rapid growth happening in a place further out from the big city.

If the exurbs are way beyond the basketball three-point line, where are downtown and the suburbs?

Posted on by

With more NBA action taking place beyond the three point line, this description likened it to the exurbs:

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

This is some wild stuff happening between the circles. Minnesota’s Jaden McDaniels is guarding Steph Curry nose-to-nose more than 40 feet from the basket, no space between them, two guys sharing a shirt. The other eight players on the court might as well be in another galaxy; this dance in the exurbs is its own game. The player who has the ball is somewhere behind McDaniels, far outside his sphere of interest. His mandate appears settled: He will go where Curry goes, and he will turn his attention to the ball if, and only if, he sees it in Curry’s hands.

The idea invoked is that the dribbling is taking place on the outskirts of a region. Forty feet out is a long way from the basketball and closer to the half-court line than the hoop.

But continue the spatial analogy. One issue is that some announcers say a three-point shot is from “downtown.” From Hunter S. Thompson:

My grudge against Brent Musburger has been smoking on a personal back burner for many years — since the early 1980s in fact, when Brent was covering the NBA Finals for CBS-TV, and it involves the word “downtown.”

That is when Musburger changed the language of sports forever when he kept repeating this ignorant notion that any basketball player firing off a long 3-point shot is shooting from “downtown.” (Celtics announcer Johnny Most might have coined the “downtown” trademark in the 1960s, but it was Musburger who beat it to death.)..

Downtown is where you score — not somewhere out in the wilderness, where people are far apart & not much happens. You don’t fire a long jump shot from Downtown, you fire it into Downtown. The Real definition of “Taking it downtown” is to suddenly drive to the basket & into a cluster of 7-footers who seem to have you sealed out — like Iverson launching himself at Robinson & Duncan & dunking it over them. To think Otherwise would be to think like a Baseball Writer, or like Brent Musburger.

Thompson did not like the term and he points out that it makes more sense to say downtown is right where the basket is. If downtown is at the center of the city and the region, why would taking a three-pointer be from downtown?

If the basketball court is likened to American geographic categories, how about downtown is under the basket, the city is the paint, the suburbs span between the paint to just outside the three-point line, the exurbs are between the normal three-point shots and the half-court line, and rural areas are in the backcourt. That is probably too many categories but it more accurately applies categories Americans use.

The reasons Americans move to exurbs – including economic opportunities

Posted on by

An overview of some booming American exurbs explains why they are growing:

Photo by Ruslan Burlaka on Pexels.com

Exurbs are areas typically located 40 to 60 miles from city centers and are often appealing to families seeking more space, affordable homes and a quieter way of life.

The trend has transformed once-sleepy rural towns into thriving cultural communities with booming populations and housing markets…

The COVID-19 pandemic has played a significant role in the shift to the exurbs, with many people now able to make a living from home thanks to an increase in remote work opportunities. 

This means they are no longer tied to big hubs where offices are based.  

Skyrocketing housing costs in major cities have also pushed many families to seek more affordable and spacious alternatives.

Finding affordable housing is a significant issue across American metropolitan areas. The thought often goes that the further one moves out from the center the more house a buyer can get. (This can ignore the pockets of cheaper housing that do often exist closer to the center of regions but the assumption is those who want these cheaper homes also want a particular kind of suburban community or way of life.)

But there is another component to the growth of exurbs and the suburban fringe. There are jobs and other economic opportunities on the edge of regions. Commuting to the big city is arduous from these far-out locations. The article above hints at the possibilities of working from home but numerous exurbs grew before this. Where are people working?

They are often working at companies and organizations in the suburbs. If I live 60 miles outside the big city, I may commute to a job 45 miles from the big city. Those edge cities spread throughout regions can provide thousands of good jobs accessible to those living in the exurbs. Or the new growth generates jobs and opportunities in the exurbs. Yes, some people can work from home but these are particular kinds of jobs and new growth leads to medical jobs, service jobs, and jobs in other industries that also find it attractive to locate in exurbs.

In other words, you cannot have the cheaper housing of the exurbs without also having jobs and opportunities in and near the exurbs.

Exurbs, suburbs, and the Trump campaign

Posted on by

Can Donald Trump attract enough exurban and suburban voters?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

But a POLITICO analysis shows there’s also a significant bloc of voters who did not want Trump in more exurban, red-leaning counties — the kinds of places that were skeptical of Trump in the 2016 GOP primary and, while largely voting for him in the 2016 and 2020 general elections, have remained somewhat resistant to his takeover of the Republican Party…

They’re farther away from urban areas. They’re less densely populated, and they have fewer voters with college degrees. These places — which include North Carolina’s Republican-leaning exurbs, and conservative but less Trump-inclined counties several hours north of Michigan’s major cities — still vote predominantly for Republicans, both at the presidential and local levels. In 2016, when both parties held contested primaries, the Republican voters in these counties backed candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) over Trump, and in the general election they voted for Trump at lower rates than the deep-red rural areas.

Republicans are banking on the fact that partisanship usually wins out. This is far from the first contentious primary to leave bruised egos and hurt feelings, and usually the vast majority of voters come home to their party’s presidential nominee eventually. By Election Day, voters tend to return to their partisan camps.

The middle to outer suburbs have been a primary battleground in recent election cycles. Voters in big cities and suburbs close to big cities tend to vote Democratic and voters in rural areas and exurbs tend to vote Republican.

The analysis above seems to hinge on whether exurban voters are enthusiastic for Trump or not. Perhaps the more interesting question is whether some exburban areas are becoming more suburban. As suburban populations grow and more educated and wealthier voters move in, does this shift voting away from Republicans? Particularly in the South and West, metropolitan regions continue to expand and this could change voting patterns.

Getting the categories right in continued urban/rural-plus-suburbs-and-exurbs-in-the-middle divide

Posted on by

Numerous outlets have commented on the continued presence of an urban/rural divide in 2020 voting. Here is another example:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Rather than flipping more Obama-Trump counties, Biden instead exceeded previous Democratic win margins in Wisconsin’s two biggest cities, Milwaukee and Madison.

That pattern extended to Michigan and other battleground states, with Biden building upon Democrats’ dominance in urban and suburban jurisdictions but Trump leaving most of exurban and rural America awash in red.

The urban-rural divide illustrates the pronounced polarization evident in preliminary 2020 election results. The split underscores fundamental disagreements among Americans about how to control the coronavirus pandemic or whether to even try; how to revitalize the economy and restore jobs; how to combat climate change or whether it is an emergency at all; and the roles of morality, empathy and the rule of law in the body politic.

Four thoughts in reaction to this.

  1. The urban/rural divide is described in an interesting way above: it is cities and suburbs for Democrats and exurbs and rural areas for Republicans. This matches the patterns of this and recent elections. However, is separating the suburbs and exurbs worthwhile? Here is where county level analysis may not be fine-grained enough to see the patterns. Another way to put it might be this: there is a gradient in voting by party as the distance from the big city increases. Does it shade over to Republicans only in exurbs – which are suburbs on the outer edges? Is the 50/50 split a little before exurbs? A concentric circles approach could help though there still could be pockets that break with the overall pattern.
  2. Suburbs might just be too broad of a term to be useful in such analysis. The exurb/suburb split it one way to put it. Might it help to also think of different types of suburbs (wealthier bedroom communities, ethnoburbs/majority-minority communities, working-class suburbs, industrial suburbs, etc.)?
  3. Explaining the differences as urban/rural has a nice short ring to it and it fits the data. Introducing more categories in the middle is interesting to campaigns, pundits, and researchers but is harder to quickly describe. Perhaps the urban/suburban versus exurban/rural divide?
  4. Is the urban/rural divide one of the most fundamental aspects of polarization? Or, is it a symptom? In this story, the divide leads off the discussion of polarization on a number of fronts. But, what leads to these spatial patterns in the first place? While the geography is helpful to think about, are the real issues behind the urban/rural divide about race/ethnicity and class? Given residential segregation patterns in the United States, using the spatial patterns as an explanation covers up a lot of important social forces that led to those patterns in the first place.

Patterns in racial/ethnic change in Chicago area counties 2010-2018

Posted on by

Recently released Census data at the county level shows the shift toward larger non-white populations in the Chicago area:

The Chicago Tribune article also points out a few of the notable patterns:

The six suburban counties gained a total of 14,857 non-Hispanic black residents from 2010 to 2018, most of them in Will and DuPage, the new census data shows.

Cook County, meanwhile, lost 75,081 black residents over the same time period. Black residents’ share of the county population decreased the most of any racial group in the last eight years…

In each of the six suburbs surrounding Cook, non-white Asian residents grew by at least 13% since 2010. DuPage County grew by the most people, with an increase of 21,960 Asian residents in that time.

I’ll throw in three more patterns I see in the table:

  1. The further out counties, the more exurban locations (Kendall and McHenry Counties) have much higher proportions of white residents. It will be interesting to see how these change in the coming decades. Not only are those locations farther from Chicago, they also have fewer historic industrial suburbs (like Joliet in Will County and Elgin in Kane County) that attracted more non-white residents.
  2. In all of the six counties, Hispanics account for larger proportions of the overall population than black residents. Whether this translates into political representation or status within the region is debatable.
  3. The Asian population is more concentrated as a proportion in some counties – DuPage, Cook, and Lake – compared to others.

American exurbs continue to grow

Posted on by

Joel Kotkin points out that despite claims to the contrary, the exurbs are growing:

We first noticed a takeoff in suburban growth in 2013, following a stall-out in the Great Recession. This year research from Brookings confirms that peripheral communities — the newly minted suburbs of the 1990s and early 2000s — are growing more rapidly than denser, inner ring areas.

Peripheral, recent suburbs accounted for roughly 43% of all U.S. residences in 2010. Between July 2013 and July 2014, core urban communities lost a net 363,000 people overall, Brookings demographer Bill Frey reports, as migration increased to suburban and exurban counties. The biggest growth was in exurban areas, or the “suburbiest” places on the periphery…

Far from being doomed, exurbia is turning into something very different from the homogeneous and boring places portrayed in media accounts. For one thing exurbs are becoming increasingly ethnically diverse. In the decade that ended in 2010 the percentage of suburbanites living in “traditional” largely white suburbs fell from 51% to 39%.  According to a 2014 University of Minnesota report, in the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, 44% of residents live in racially and ethnically diverse suburbs, defined as between 20% and 60% non-white.

And how about the seniors, a group that pundits consistently claim to be heading back to the city? In reality, according to an analysis of Census data, as seniors age they’re increasingly unlikely to move, but if they do, they tend to move out of urban cores as they reach their 60s, and to less congested, often more affordable areas out in the periphery. Seniors are seven times more likely to buy a suburban house than move to a more urban location. A National Association of Realtors survey found that the vast majority of buyers over 65 looked in suburban areas, followed by rural locales.

This article throws out a lot of reasons why they might want to do this: wanting to own a single-family home, wanting more space (both in the home and in the community), feeling part of a smaller community, sending their kids to good schools, having communities with low crime, and accessing plenty of available jobs. Put another way, the exurbs have downsides but enough Americans consistently seem to want to live on the metropolitan fringe.

At the end, Kotkin suggests that planners and others need to own up to this reality: cities cannot provide these desirable traits. I wonder if that is the case; is the answer that it is either dense inner cities or sprawling exurbs? I think many cities and closer suburbs would want to be able to claim the positives cited above. And there are likely many pockets where this is possible even if not all residents of major cities have these advantages. But, instead of trying to suggest that all people should get used to dense city life or exurban life, why not look for more ways to enhance opportunities throughout an entire region? Perhaps it is a problem of government layers as every community looks out for their own interests first. Or perhaps this is still impossible in a country where race and social class matter tremendously for the kinds of places where people live. Rather than suggest Americans want to live in a certain kind of setting, we need solutions to issues in a variety of communities throughout metropolitan regions (and beyond).

“New McMansions and Disappearing Jobs: A Tale of Two Rural Americas”

Posted on by

Here is a brief summary of two trends in rural America: growing exurbs (which can include McMansions) yet a decline in jobs.

On the positive side of rural, Teresa Wiltz writes for Stateline, the very useful news and analysis source of the Pew Charitable Trusts, that “new census data show that for the first time since 2010, the outermost suburban counties are growing faster than urban counties and close-in suburbs.” The demographic change that Wiltz describes is the increase of 146,000 in new exurban residents attributable to domestic migration. The “vibe” of these exurbs, she writes, “is decidedly rural Americana.”

Why are the exurbs growing? Wiltz cites multiple potential reasons for this turnaround, including people moving to the exurbs for jobs (she cites Joel Kotkin, the well-known author, who believes that suburbanization is the likely route to growth around the world, to point out that “the vast majority of jobs aren’t in the cities”) and for “bigger and more affordable homes in a more wide-open space.”…

Some of the exurban growth might be attributable to the economic revival, but Bill Bishop reports in the Daily Yonder that, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, job growth in rural America stopped pretty abruptly in 2014. Between January 2014 and January 2015, rural counties lost 331,000 jobs while metropolitan counties gained 3.1 million jobs. Job losses almost always correlate with workforce and population losses; the rural workforce dropped 557,000 during 2014, which almost assuredly means that rural counties lost population as well.

It may be that these contrasting stories describe an in-migration by people who can choose to live wherever they want and an outmigration of people who have to go where there are jobs. Those in-migrants pose tough challenges for rural areas. Wiltz, for example, mentions in her piece seeing McMansions, farmhouses, mobile homes, and designer outlet stores together in the exurban area 40 miles north of Atlanta. That kind of mix of land uses can constitute a planner’s nightmare and a challenging issue for citizens groups trying to determine how residential development and open space and farmland preservation should be balanced.

There are a few confounding issues at play here:

1. This article mixes the ideas of exurbs and rural areas. The exurbs are between suburbs and the rural areas but what exactly does this mean? It is hard to know. Is 40 miles from Atlanta the suburbs or a rural area or exurbs? Exurbs often means the suburban fringe.

2. Having a rural “vibe” is also a vague idea. I assume this means big lots and smaller communities. But, a good number of Americans say they would prefer to live in “small towns” and these exurban areas may offer just that.

3. If the last paragraph is correct, the people building and/or buying McMansions in the exurbs are the same people driving the higher ends of the housing market in suburbs and cities. As the bottom end of the housing market continues to struggle, those with money can afford to move further out from the city and into big homes.

Census: 600,000 megacommuters in the US

Posted on by

New data from the Census shows there are around 600,000 megacommuters in the United States:

About 600,000 Americans are megacommuters who work at least 50 miles from home and take at least 90 minutes to get there, with the biggest concentration in California, the U.S. Census Bureau said on Tuesday.

The agency said the percentage of Americans who traveled at least 90 minutes to work daily has inched higher in the last two decades even as the number of people who work from home has soared by 45 percent.

The average one-way daily U.S. commute is 25.5 minutes, and one in four commuters leave their home counties for work, the Census Bureau said, based on its annual American Community Survey…

Three-quarters of megacommuters are male, and they are more likely to be married, older, make a higher salary and have a spouse who does not work. They also are likely to leave for work before 6 a.m., according to the study.

This is still a very small segment of the workforce, less than 1 percent according to the article, but still quite interesting. My first thought at seeing the megacommuter figures is that many of these workers live on the metropolitan fringe or in exurbs. This could be because they need to find a cheaper house (especially if they have a spouse who does not work?) or because they value a little more space.