Neighborhood Life Cycles and Social Status PDF

Neighborhood Life Cycles and Social Status
Author(s): Avery M. Guest

Source: Economic Geography, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jul., 1974), pp. 228-243
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/142861
Accessed: 09-07-2018 18:12 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic Geography
This content downloaded from 81.110.183.20 on Mon, 09 Jul 2018 18:12:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE CYCLES AND SOCIAL STATUS*
AVERY M. GUEST
University of Washington
have had
In recent years, a body of urban more time to evolve. In a re-
re-
search [18; 9; 10] has attempted
centtoexposition
re- of this view, Schnore1
argues [18, p. 20] that the elite flee to
late the growth patterns of metropolitan
the higher
areas to the spatial distribution of outskirts because of a desire for the
and lower status persons, as indicated more spacious outskirts and possession
by the average status of central of the
cities
money-power to seize the land.
compared with their suburban rings The movement
and outward is particularly
by the relationship between facilitateddistance by improvements in trans-
from the central business district and portation speed and design such as the
status of census tracts. This research has
automobile. Schnore sees the genesis of
clearly indicated that older metropolitanhis view in the well-known Burgess [3]
areas are most apt to have higher subur-hypothesis of urban growth.
ban than central city status and have The evolutionary perspective has been
distance from the CBD covarying posi- most formalized at the neighborhood
tively with census tract status. Age of level by the economists Hoover and Ver-
metropolitan areas has been melasurednon [13, pp. 183-98] who suggest that
several ways, including the census yearneighborhoods follow a series of stages,
that the central city reached 50,000 generally marked by progressive de-
population [18; 9] and the amount ofcreases in social status, except perhaps
metropolitan population growth in vari-for the early period of development
ous historical-transportation periods such
when there is a transition from relatively
as the electric streetcar era and the auto-
low density, rural uses, to higher but
mobile era [10]. Most of this research still light density urban uses. Hoover and
has been cross-sectional as opposed toVernon's view suggests that neighbor-
longitudinal in design. hoods in cities should differ in status by
These studies have been interpreted 1 Schnore's position on the nature of an
by Schnore [18; 16] as indicative of a evolutionary pattern for neighborhoods in cities
current "evolutionary" or life cycle pat- has not been entirely consistent or clear. In the
tern of metropolitan development, incited references, he suggests a universal tend-
which central, older sections of metro- ency for all cities. Elsewhere, however,
Schnore [17, pp. 212-17] suggests that evolu-
politan areas decline in status over time.tion may occur on a large basis only in older
Older metropolitan areas, it is alleged, cities. Here, the congestion and deterioration
have lower status in their central dis- of the older city drive higher status persons
to the outskirts. In newer places, with less con-
tricts at one point in time because they
gested and deteriorated centers, there may be
little impetus for higher status persons to desert
* This research has been supported by grants
from the University of Wisconsin Institute the
for city center. It is implicit in Schnore's dis-
Research in Poverty and from the Dartmouth cussion that he does not expect the newer cen-
ters to ever have the composition and deteriora-
College Urban Studies Program. The following
provided helpful comments on previous ver- tion which was found in the older centers.
Schnore's second, non-evolutionary view, seems
sions of this paper: Lowell L. Hargens, Charles
Hirschman, Samuel H. Preston, and Jamesmore J. compatible with the view I present short-
Zuiches. The following Wisconsin and Dart- ly as my own. And in a previous article [10
in this journal, I have interpreted Schnore's
mouth students worked ably as research assist-
view as essentially non-evolutionary, or at leas
ants: Russell Adams, Harry Falls, Jr., Wendy
Friedman, and L. Alan Shepard. only partially evolutionary.
NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE CYCLES AND SOCIAL STATUS 229
their approximate period of housing pared the absolute average status of

construction and that all neighborhoods, central cities and suburbs over time. In
except the very newest, should decline a study of 17 large metropolitan areas,
in status over time. The neighborhood he found that central cities and their
cycle theory is emphasized in Hoover suburban rings were increasingly dis-
and Vernon's explanation of the relative- similar in social status between 1950 and
ly low status of some central communi- 1960, regardless of whether occupational
ties in the New York area, but it was or educational status was compared. But
never tested on a longitudinal basis. the increasing dissimilarity was primarily
The evolutionary thesis has also been due to the increasing absolute average
important in some recent governmental status of the suburban ring, while the
policy statements. For instance, the U.S. central cities were generally remaining
Commission on Population Growth and constant in average status, or even in-
the American Future recently described creasing slightly.
the "first problem of U.S. metropolitan Farley also found that suburban com-
areas" as the declining social status of munities within the suburban rings had
central cities. The commission noted the remained amazingly constant in the rela-
problem as tive status of one suburb to another, be-
tween 1920 and 1960, and 1940 and 1960.
racial and economic separation-blacks
and poor in the inner city, whites and the His finding raised the interesting ques-
better off in the suburbs. While job tion of how suburban average absolute
opportunities have been moving to the status can be increasing while most
suburbs, the disadvantaged remain locked suburbs "persisted" in their status. While
in declining areas of the central city. he did not deal with this question, it is
These areas have many of the same possible that the increasing suburban
characteristics of the depopulating rural
ring status was due to the development
areas: a population with low skills and of new suburbs which were not included
inadequate education, deteriorating and
abandoned housing, poor public facilities. in his study.
Conditions are aggravated by selective Only one study has actually traced
outmigration. Those who can, leave. changes in neighborhood social status
Those unable to cope with the problems
patterns for a large number of neighbor-
of social and economic isolation remain
hoods, which had been characterized by
[25, p. 32].
their approximate period of building up.2
In this paper, I study changesIn in a study of occupational status for Los
neighborhood social status over 13 met-
Angeles central city tracts from 1940 to
ropolitan areas and thereby subject 1960,
the Butler and Barclay [2] found that
evolutionary hypothesis to a more direct
tracts built up before 1940 had declined
investigation than has been done to slightly,
this on the average, in the propor-
point. The evolutionary thesis deserves
tion of male white collar workers, while
attention for two reasons. First, very few
tracts built up in the 1940, 1950, and
longitudinal studies of neighborhood
2 There are other studies which purport to be
status have been conducted, and the tests
cur-of the life cycle notion in relationship to
rent longitudinal evidence is by nostatus, but they either focus on single
social
neighborhoods or are cross-sectional in nature.
means supportive of the thesis. Second,
For instance, Slesinger [19] traced the social
the assumptions upon which the theory
status of a central Milwaukee neighborhood
are based may be incorrect, or at for
least
approximately 100 years and found little
change in status since 1920. Birch [1] com-
need some modifying. I turn to each
issue in turn. pared the status of New Haven tracts in 1960
when they were characterized by their approxi-
To my knowledge, Farley [7] is mate
theperiod of building up, and found that
only researcher who has actually com-
neighborhood age was related to status.
230 ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY
later decades, respectively, had shown housing around the CBD presumably
large and relatively equivalent gains in accounted for the declining value of the
status over the 20-year period. This study city's inner neighborhoods to high status
could hardly be considered definitive, persons. Yet, I indicated, recent develop-
however, given the short time span, the ments in transportation such as the truck,
analysis of only one central city, and the the automobile, and the freeway have
inability to characterize census tracts as removed much of the impetus for the
built up in various decades before 1940. older competitive processes, making it
Other longitudinal studies of neighbor- questionable whether land use changes
hood social status concentrate on the re- are occurring in a manner consistent
lationship between distance from the with the evolutionary theory.3
CBD and social status. These studies My view may be considered more
presumably shed some light on thenegative
life than positive, in that I have
cycle notion since older neighborhoods
not attempted to specify how neighbor-
are generally located close to thehoods
CBD.are changing in population and
In a study of eight American central land use characteristics, but rather have
cities between 1940 and 1960, Haggerty criticized the older evolutionary view-
[12] compared the average educational point. It should be emphasized that some
status of census tracts in three distance "evolution" in neighborhood social status
zones from the CBD with the average
is possible, even likely; I simply ques-
educational status of the city. He argued
tion its importance.
that the data suggested a clear tendency
for declining status of most central zones METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
relative to the others, but the data did
not seem at all persuasive for three of A thorough test of the life cycle notion
in regards to neighborhood social status
the cities, and ambiguous interpretations
of the data are possible for some of thewould focus on several metropolitan
other five places. areas, and each area's neighborhoods
In my own study [101 of the relation-would be characterized by the period
ship between distance from the CBD and when it built up, at regular intervals
the educational status of census tracts since the metropolis was founded. Each
group or age cohort of neighborhood
in 37 metropolitan areas, I found a slight
would then be followed for long time
positive relationship in both 1950 and
1960, and the relationship was slightlyThe neighborhood life cycle of social status
or the evolutionary pattern may occur for rea-
greater in 1960. However, the change
sons other than the competition for central
was very slight. land, although this reason has generally been
Why, on theoretical grounds, may
emphasized. For instance, in the classical per-
questions be raised about the validityspective,
of deterioration of housing occurs around
the CBD because property owners are holding
a life cycle scheme for urban neighbor-
their property for sale to the expanding busi-
hoods? I have suggested in two recentnesses; the house itself has little value and is
articles [10; 11] on the population den-
therefore allowed to deteriorate. Deterioration
sity and social status structures of Ameri-
may also occur, nevertheless, in the area around
can cities that the evolutionary view theis CBD because no use, business or residen-
tial, desires the land. In the first case, housing
primarily based on the false notion that
deteriorated because of its intense value for
central land uses in the city are rapidly
other use; in the second case, it deteriorates
changing, due to the competition for
because of its low value to any use. The sec-
centrality around the CBD. From this
ond perspective is suggested by Greer [81. In
the following analysis we do not determine why
evolutionary perspective, the expansion
the life cycle occurs, and thus even our modest
of business and industry from the CBD,
evidence for its existence does not indicate
the increasing congestion around the
that it occurs because of compettiion for land
center, and the growth of deteriorated
around the CBD.
periods in order to determine whether results for the total population of tracts
neighborhoods were indeed passing and also for tracts with less than 250
through a life cycle of social status. Fur- Negroes as of 1970 ("white" tracts).
thermore, by using such a procedure, Changes in neighborhood social status
one could compare different age cohorts may be heavily confounded with changes
at the same number of years after build- in racial status, since it is well-known
ing up to determine whether they were that the black population is lower in
following the same life cycle patterns. status than the white population and
Such a test cannot be carried out many central cities are showing rapid
thoroughly, however, given existing gains
pub-in the proportion black among the
lished census data. Census tract data on population.
social status of individuals have only
been collected since 1940, thus limiting CLEVELAND PATTERNS
the interval of observation. Furthermore,
census tract boundaries have frequentlyPrevious analyses of the relationship
been changed for metropolitan areas-
between neighborhood life cycle stage
and population characteristics such as
making difficult many longitudinal com-
parisons. And most metropolitan areas socioeconomic status have generally
had only their older, centrally located categorized neighborhoods or census
areas included in the tract boundaries tracts as built up by the date at which
for the 1940 and 1950 censuses. Finally,they reached a density of two dwellings
actual data are rarely available on whenper acre [2; 6]. In a previously reported
census tracts or neighborhoods reached study [11] of Cleveland and its inner
certain dwelling densities. A substitutesuburbs, I used a dwelling unit density
source, census reports of households of ontwo structures per acre. "Structures"
when their units were constructed, is refers to physical buildings and may in-
valuable, but also has its problems. Theclude several households or dwellings.
data are subject to error of recall, and For my purposes, there are two possi-
ble sources of information to categorize
they are generally not reported in a form
so that neighborhoods may be character- Cleveland metropolitan area census
ized as built up in individual decades, tracts by their period of building up.
One source is a real property inventory
in the early twentieth and late nineteenth
centuries. of Cleveland and the surrounding Cuya-
hoga County in 1934 [15] and contains
Given these problems, I test the notion
data on years in which structures were
of an evolutionary cycle of social status
for urban neighborhoods in two ways. built, so that census tracts may be cate-
First, I trace changes in census tract gorized into the following groups on the
social status for the Cleveland, Ohio, basis of when they reached two struc-
tures per acre: pre-1885, by 1895, by
metropolitan area from 1940 to 1970; sec-
ond, I determine changes in tract social1905, by 1915, by 1925, by 1935, and
status for urban neighborhoods in after 12 1935. Since a large number of tracts
other metropolitan areas between 1960 were built up after 1935, it would be
and 1970. Cleveland, an old industrial helpful to know when, for the mid-point
metropolis, has comparable census data of ten-year intervals, those tracts were
for most of the metropolitan area for a up, until the present time. Unfortu-
built
relatively long time period and also real
nately, the other principal source of data,
property inventory data which make pos- the U.S. census, provides a description
sible an age characterization of census of the numbers of dwelling units, not
tracts for several decades. In the analysis,
structures, only for the ten-year periods
ending in zero. There is, thus, no exact
I shall control for the racial composition
of tracts by looking separately at the way of determining when the post-1935
tracts reached a density of two structures sons 14 years and over. Furthermore,
per acre for 1945, 1955, 1965, and later. farm owners were not included in the
To further subdivide the tracts built managerial group in 1970, while they
were in previous censuses. This should
up after 1935, I used census tract reports
to determine in which census decade the have little effect, however, on the gen-
tracts had reached two dwellings per eral results, since there are few farmers
acre. I then prorated the increase in thein the urbanized area.
numbers of dwelling units equally over The analysis is restricted to all census
the years in the previous decade to de-tracts in Cuyahoga County, except tracts
termine whether the tract had reached with large institutionalized populations
a density of two dwellings per acre by or almost no population by 1970 (pre-
the mid-point of the decade. Since al- venting census disclosure of social status
most all of the tracts built up after 1935
characteristics). A few census tracts were
were initially constructed as areas of combined to make them comparable. By
single-unit housing, the effects of usinginvestigating Cuyahoga County, the
a dwelling as opposed to structure cut- analysis does not include all of the Cleve-
off for being built up are not great. land Urbanized Area (UA) nor the
While this categorization of censusStandard Metropolitan Statistical Area
tracts may be criticized for its hetero- (SMSA), but Cuyahoga County has had
geneous nature, the use of real propertythe bulk of the UA and SMSA popula-
tions
data alone would leave me with a very since 1940.
large category of tracts built up over a As Tables 1 (for all tracts) and 2 (for
long period since 1935, and the use of white tracts) show, the basic social status
dwelling density counts would restrict structure of Cleveland's older cohorts
me to an analysis of areas built up in
was generally determined by 1940. At
recent years. Another possible data that point, there was a relatively clear
source is the 1950 census of housing [21]tendency for social status of tracts to de-
which reports data on year of construc- crease with period of development, at
tion for housing dwellings; however, the least for the cohorts of tracts built up by
pre-1920 period would comprise two1935. And this basic pattern has not
large categories, pre-1900 and 1900-1920.changed noticeably in the ensuing thirty
Two measures of social status will be years.
drawn from census tract reports [20; 21; Since 1940, regardless of whether the
22; 23]: the proportion of labor force total or white cohorts are observed, the
males in white collar occupations,pre-1935 and cohorts have generally gained
the proportion of all persons, 25 years in absolute educational status, while the
and over, who have graduated from relativehigh status of one cohort to another
school. In some ways, the occupational has remained relatively constant. One's
status measure is preferable sinceinterpretation
its of this finding should be
mean value over tracts has not risen dur- tempered by the recognition that rapid
ing the period of observation, unlike the gains in overall educational status for the
educational measure. By using the occu- American population would make diffi-
pational measure, one is less likely to cult absolute declines in status, even for
confound secular trends for the whole the older cohorts. In respect to occupa-
society with actual changes in neighbor- tional status, there have generally been
hood composition. The occupational some decreases in occupational status for
measure does have some problems, how- the cohorts of the total tracts, although
ever. In the 1970 published censusthese
re- have not been particularly selec-
tive of any pre-1935 age cohort. When
ports, white collar workers were reported
for persons 16 years and over, whileoneinlooks at changes in occupational stat-
previous reports, the data refer to us
per-for "white tracts," however, there has
TABLE 1
MEAN STATUS OF COHORTS,

CLEVELAND SMSA, ALL CENSUS TRACTS
Percent Percent
White Collar Workers High School Graduates
Year Built Up
(Number of Cases in
Parentheses) 1940 1950 1960 1970 1940 1950 1960 1970
1885 26.4 22.2 22.5 23.6 14.3 21.0 22.2 24.6

(20)
1895 18.7 18.5 17.8 19.2 11.6 20.1 19.3 22.9
(29)
1905 26.2 24.2 19.3 19.7 18.3 26.5 23.3 28.4
(40)
1915 41.5 37.3 31.6 29.4 31.2 39.6 36.2 41.8
(37)
1925 44.0 43.1 40.7 35.2 32.2 41.8 40.1 49.1
(42)
1935 50.6 49.7 47.7 44.0 38.4 46.8 46.7 56.0
(32)
1945 48.0 49.4 47.7 45.9 38.0 47.0 46.5 55.3
(15)
1955 44.4 48.0 48.8 44.6 35.1 47.6 49.2 56.6
(22)
1965 42.1 46.2 49.1 47.4 34.8 48.0 51.0 63.5
(11)
Post-1965 42.8 45.3 50.6 52.9 34.5 50.5 56.1 66.8
(55)
Total 38.4 38.0 87.0 35.9 28.7 39.1 39.2 46.6
(301)
TABLE 2
MEAN STATUS OF COHORTS,

CLEVELAND SMSA, WHITE TRACTS
Percent Percent
White Collar Workers High School Graduates
Year Built Up
(Number of Cases in
Parentheses) 1940 1950 1960 1970 1940 1950 1960 1970
1885 26.5 22.5 23.1 22.5 13.6 21.2 23.4 24.5
(15)
1895 19.8 20.6 20.3 22.6 10.7 20.8 19.3 22.7
(16)
1905 24.8 25.8 23.5 23.8 16.0 25.9 23.8 30.9
(19)
1915 38.0 37.5 35.2 34.5 28.0 38.1 37.0 45.6
(16)
1925 53.3 51.6 48.9 43.2 38.5 47.3 45.6 55.0
(20)
1935 54.9 54.4 53.5 50.0 42.1 50.9 50.7 60.0
(22)
1945 42.2 44.5 44.3 41.8 32.4 43.2 42.7 50.8
(10)
1955 46.7 50.4 51.0 47.5 37.0 49.4 50.4 58.5
(20)
1965 44.5 48.2 49.9 48.0 36.2 49.3 50.5 59.4
(8)
Post-1965 43.7 46.9 52.0 54.5 35.5 51.9 57.8 68.0
(49)
Total 40.6 41.7 42.3 41.5 30.4 41.9 43.1 51.0
(195)
been little change over time in the pro- tion, it is impossible to determine
portion of white collar workers, suggest- whether very old and very young cohorts
ing that racial change has been heavily are following the same patterns of social
confounded with life cycle changes. This status change.4 It is possible, however,
is particularly true of the very oldest to make some limited comparisons, in
cohorts. this case, for occupational status among
The major changes in Cleveland's the "white" tracts. As Figure 1 shows,
socioeconomic structure have involved for cohorts which can be observed at
five years and 25 years after building
cohorts built up after 1935. The cohorts
of 1945, 1955, and 1965 gradually up,in-there is no clear trend in status over
time. For cohorts which can be observed
creased their social status during their
periods of building up in the 1940s atand
45 years after building up, there are
1950s, and then leveled off or decreased
significant differences in level of status.
in status during the 1960s. Finally, As
theFigure 1 shows, the cohort of 1925
cohorts of tracts not built up by 1965 in-
achieved the highest status 45 years after
creased in status throughout the period.
building up, followed, respectively, by
What can be concluded about the the cohorts of 1915, 1905, and 1895.
validity of the life cycle notion? Without
From data for longer time periods,
the data at hand, it would appear it is that
impossible to determine why these
strong decreases in absolute social patterns
status differ. Nevertheless, the data
have not been characteristic of older are consistent with a view that the in-
Cleveland cohorts, particularly troduction
for of the automobile had a pro-
"white" tracts. Rather, once built found
up, impact on the speed with which
older cohorts have retained their basic
tracts passed through the life cycle of
socioeconomic structure in relationship
social status. This is, tracts built up be-
to each other. Changes in social status
4 Evidence, albeit crude, that Cleveland
have been most characteristic of cohorts
neighborhoods did clearly "evolve" in socio-
in the period of building up. These co-
economic status before 1940 can be determined
horts have generally registered moderate by comparing the socioeconomic status of
increases in social status while buildingCleveland political wards in 1890 with tracts
in approximately the same geographic area in
up, and then have given some evidence 1940. A special 1890 report of the census [24]
of slight decreases in social status oncereported general descriptions of 40 wards, pri-
they mature. In short, these results domarily within the older, central part of the
central city. Included in the description was
not particularly support a life cycle con-
cept which argues that older neighbor-a categorization of tracts by their rough socio-
economic status: poverty areas (8 wards) of
hoods undergo clear declines in absolutethe "poor," "tenements," or "prostitutes"; work-
status over time, although some absoluteing class areas (18 wards) of "people of mod-
est
declines have certainly occurred. It is means"; middle class areas of "comfortable-
ness" (10 wards); and areas of "wealthy
possible, nevertheless, to suggest that the
people" (4 wards). Since tract and ward bound-
life cycle notion is supported in terms ofaries were not the same (wards were general-
an increasing dissimilarity in status be- ly larger than tracts), it is impossible to exactly
tween older and newer cohorts. But this match areas in 1890 and 1940. I did find,
increasing dissimilarity primarily stemsnevertheless, that the 1940 tracts or combined
tracts in the four "wealthy" areas were all be-
from changes in the absolute status of
low the mean socioeconomic status for our 301
the newest cohorts.
metropolitan tracts in 1940. Furthermore, there
Using the cohort approach, one can was only a very weak tendency for low status
determine changes in the overall natureareas in 1890 to still be relatively low in status
of the urban settlement pattern by com-in 1940. That is, there was only a slight tend-
ency for status in 1890 to be related to status
paring cohorts of different ages at the in 1940. The evolution of Cleveland's neigh-
same number of years after building up.borhoods before the introduction of rapid trans-
Due to the short time span of observa- portation is also suggested by Chapman [4].
NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE CYCLES AND SOCIAL STATUS
60
1935
50
c)
t.
o 40
1915
A 5 years after build up

3Q
C 0 25 years after build up
20 I
I1 4; vr,onre nfrftr
._ 9- 1 _ - J _ %JI .j %I IVI AU II %Ull/
hi,ilrl iin
20
1885
1895 -
CF-
I 1
I · 1 I
1940 1950 1960 1970

Year of Observation
Fig. 1. Mean status of cohorts, Cleveland SMSA, white tracts.
fore the development of the automobile lowing cohorts on the basis of when they
(particularly the cohorts of 1905 andreached a dwelling density of two units
1895) evolved in very different ways per acre: pre-1940, 1940-50, 1950-60,
from those after the automobile's intro- 1960-70, and post-1970. If census tracts
duction, which began seriously in the
had not built up by 1960, according to
the 1960 census, the 1970 census was
1920s and rapidly increased in impor-
tance. It is noteworthy that all the co- used to determine whether building up
horts, except for 1915, observed 5 or 25 occurred in the intervening decade or
years after build up were settled after later. My method of categorizing cohorts
the introduction of the auto. in this section is not exactly the same as
reported earlier, although the general
GENERAL VALIDITY strategy is the same. As Tables 3 and 4
show, the method led to a disproportion-
Is the life cycle notion generally valid
ate number of tracts in the pre-1940 and
for American metropolitan areas? This post-1970 categories. The number of
is an important question since period of
post-1970 tracts suggests that the dwell-
growth of development for metropolitan ing density cut-off may be too high, how-
areas has had an impact on the spatial ever, it is retained for purposes of com-
distribution of socioeconomic groups. parison with previous studies.
The life cycle notion may work differ- For the total tracts in each SMSA,
ently in "newer" as opposed to "older" Table 3 shows that the average 1960
places such as Cleveland. We next test status of the pre-1940 cohort fell below
the SMSA mean in all places except Se-
the validity of the life cycle notion for
12 SMSAs as defined in 1960, by com- attle, indicating that the oldest cohort is
paring tract occupational status in 1960 indeed relatively low in status. However,
and 1970. We focus on two questions. the pattern is less clear when the aver-
First, is there a general tendency for ages of status of cohorts built up after
neighborhood social status to increase 1940 are compared, for there is no dis-
with recency of development? That is, cernible
is pattern of increase or decrease
there evidence on a cross-sectional basis in status with cohort age. On the aver-
that tract social status has declined as age, the 1960-1970 cohort had the high-
tracts have aged? Second, is there a tend-est average status, but the 1940-1950
ency over time for the social status cohort
of had, on the average, the second
older tracts to decline, and for the status
highest status. It is possible, of course,
of new tracts, particularly those build- that patterns will be closer to the hypoth-
ing up, to increase? esized pattern when newer cohorts have
Contrary to previous research on these completed building up. The evidence on
change in status between 1960 and 1970
places, the analysis is restricted to tracts
which lie in the urbanized area bound- will support this, yet, the pattern in 1960
aries, in order to eliminate tracts which
is hardly suggestive of a strong cross-
are primarily agricultural or not closely
sectional validity for the life cycle notion
connected with the settled urban area. in a sample of SMSAs.
In most metropolitan areas, a few tractsThe efficacy of the life cycle or evolu-
had to be combined to make them com- tionary model may also be evaluated by
parable over the 1960 decade. the use of dummy variables in the anal-
To determine the age or period ofysis [5]. One may conceive of all the
building up of census tracts, I used data variance in socioeconomic status as a
reported in the 1960 and 1970 census complete function of the age of the
tracts reports on the age of dwellings, sus tracts, or little of the variance in
as reported by respondents. It is possible status may be attributable to life cycle
to categorize census tracts into the fol- age. To determine which view is correct,
TABLE 3
MEAN PERCENT WHITE COLLAR BY TOTAL COHORTS, 12 SMSAS, 1960-1970
Year Built Up Akron Atlanta Birmingham Boston

(Number of cases
in parantheses) 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970
Pre-1940 24.9 24.4 29.5 27.5 29.4 27.7 38.9 43.3

(43) (42) (36) (270)
1950 48.0 41.2 46.0 40.9 36.4 33.6 51.9 49.9
(6) (15) (9) (5)
1960 40.1 39.4 39.4 32.5 39.5 37.4 50.3 50.0
(6) (17) (6) (11)
1970 84.0 81.2 64.2 56.0 45.5 46.2 45.3 47.1
(2) (15) (2) (12)
Post-1970 36.5 40.6 52.7 54.0 30.9 32.4 52.5 55.9
(30) (92) (35) (100)
Total 33.4 33.5 45.4 44.3 31.8 31.2 43.0 46.9
(87) (179) (88) (398)
R12 .357 .393 .161 .259 .028 .033 .117 .099
R22 - .845 - .753 - .862 - .790
R32 - .883 - .794 - .869 - .793
Notes: R12 -- variance explained in status by dummy variables for cohorts

R22 = variance explained in 1970 status by 1960 status
R32 -- variance explained in 1970 status by 1960 status and dummy variables for cohorts
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Year Built Up Rochester

(Number of cases
Denver Flint Ft. Wayne New Haven
in parantheses) 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970
Pre-1940 40.2 39.1 26.8 19.8 37.2 33.8 40.0 40.8 33.0 29.5
(40) (25) (15) (27) (78)
1950 49.8 45.2 42.0 41.1 46.6 41.2 42.1 42.8 69.6 70.0
(20) (7) (5) (2) (4)
1960 51.0 47.5 28.8 24.3 48.8 43.9 32.7 31.6 50.3 51.1
(29) (4) (6) (2) (9)
1970 65.8 66.4 14.7 14.6 45.3 39.3 39.0 42.0 42.2 48.1
(12) (1) (5) (5) (2)
Post-1970 47.1 46.9 25.0 25.2 43.9 41.5 51.0 51.7 49.1 51.9
(37) (28) (14) (19) (40)
Total 48.0 46.3 27.6 24.6 42.8 39.0 43.5 44.4 40.3 39.1
(138) (65) (45) (55) (133)
R12 .116 .128 .157 .213 .100 .062 .102 .128 .325 .443
R22 - .747 - .612 - .770 - .842 - .857
R32 - .757 - .679 - .777 - .848 - .891
TABLE 4
MEAN PERCENT WHITE COLLAR BY "WHITE" COHORTS, 12 SMSAS, 1960-1970
Year Built Up Akron Atlanta Birmingham Boston

(Number of cases
in parantheses) 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970
Pre-1940 30.3 31.9 52.9 41.9 46.3 45.3 41.5 46.2

(20) (13) (9) (210)
1950 43.7 41.0 71.5 63.0 40.8 36.2 51.9 49.9
(4) (6) (2) (5)
1960 40.1 39.4 48.8 43.7 46.4 36.4 50.3 50.0
(6) (8) (1) (11)
1970 84.0 81.2 70.3 59.2 77.6 74.5 46.4 48.8
(2) (3) (1) (11)
Post-1970 36.5 40.6 61.7 64.7 51.5 50.3 53.1 56.5
(27) (49) (12) (98)
Total 36.9 38.9 60.0 58.5 49.4 47.8 45.5 49.5
(59) (79) (25) (335)
R12 .307 .294 .068 .200 .056 .079 .091 .072
R22 - .875 - .750 - .828 - .829

R32 - .889 - .841 - .834 - .833
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Year Built Up Denver Flint Ft, Wayne New Haven Roches

(Number of cases
in parantheses) 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 19
Pre-1940 42.7 42.3 31.8 29.8 43.6 42.2 45.0 46.9 36.5 3
(31) (10) (9) (12) (4
1950 47.5 44.8 40.4 46.5 46.6 41.2 40.5 38.0 69.6 70
(17) (6) (5) (1) (4
1960 52.7 48.7 21.7 19.9 53.7 49.4 32.7 31.6 50.3 51.
(28) (1) (5) (2) (
1970 67.5 70.3 14.7 14.6 45.6 41.0 42.8 42.9 42.2 48.1
(11) (1) (4) (3) (2
Post-1970 49.3 47.9 25.2 25.6 46.2 44.2 54.5 54.9 49.2 51
(35) (24) (12) (15) (39)
Total 49.8 48.1 29.5 29.3 46.6 43.6 48.2 48.9 43.9 43
(122) (42) (35) (33) (103) (
R12 .129 .128 .406 .309 .063 .037 .147 .243 .256 .313
R22 - .766 - .800 - .724 - .810 - .84
R32 - .773 .807 - .735 - .840 - .884
five independent, dichotomous, dummy in status. The dominant trend seems to

variables are defined (one for each age
be a relative stability of status over the
cohort); and each census tract is coded
decade, with some changes in the ex-
as 1 (falls in a specific age cohort) or 0 pected direction.
(does not fall in a specific age cohort) The average pattern, nevertheless,
for each of the five independent varia-masks some different trends over the
bles. The age dummy variables may then metropolitan areas. For instance, Boston
and New Haven, two of the oldest met-
be run together in a multiple regression
ropolitan areas, indicate hardly any
equation to determine the amount of
variance in social status which they pre-trend at all. The very oldest cohorts in
dict. Since the five variables completelythese metropolitan areas are actually
determine the system, only four can be gaining in status, possibly as a result of
run in the multiple regression equation, the extensive renewal in both places.
but the results do not depend on whichTwo southern metropolitan areas, Atlan-
four. ta and Charlotte, are suffering rapid
As Table 3 shows, the average ex- losses of status in some older cohorts.
plained variance by the dummy variable On the whole, it is difficult to make any
model tends to be low. In only 3 of the strong statements about why the pattern
12 places did the dummy variables ex- of change appears stronger in some
plain more than 20 percent of the vari- places than in others.
ance. That is, most of the variance in The importance of life cycle status in
tract social status is not explained by determining changes in census tract so-
their age or period of development. cial status may be evaluated in a more
The efficacy of the life cycle model is formal statistical way by turning once
even less clear when "white" tracts are again to a dummy variable analysis. The
examined. As Table 4 shows, the differ- dominant theme of Tables 3 and 4 is the
entiation of the pre-1940 cohort from persistence
the of status over the decade.
One might, therefore, ask how much
newer tracts is reduced sharply, indicat-
ing that much of the tendency for more
the variance in 1970 status can be ex-
oldest tracts to be low in status is due to plained by the five, age dummy varia-
the fact that they are disproportionatelybles, once 1960 status has explained all
occupied by blacks, who are lower inthe variance it could. That is, how much
status on the whole than whites. In six additional variance in status is explained
of the 12 SMSAs, the mean status of once the we know the effect of 1960 status.
pre-1940 "white" cohort is actually aboveAs Tables 3 and 4 show, the 1960 status
the mean status of the total sample of
typically explained more than 75 percent
tracts. As was true of the total samples,of the variance in 1970 status. On the
the newer cohorts, those built up after whole, the addition of the life cycle, co-
hort dummy variables added very little
1940, show little trend of status with age.
We now turn to the issue of whether explanation to the 1970 status. For in
cohorts are selectively gaining or losing
stance, in the total sample of 12 metro-
in status over the 1960 decade. Tables
politan areas, the life cycle dummies
3 and 4 show the average increaseadded
or at least seven percent variance in
decrease in status for cohorts of tracts,
only two metropolitan areas, and at least
by SMSA. Regardless of whether three the percent variance was added in only
total or white tracts are investigated,four
the metropolitan areas.
tracts not built up by 1970 gained, on
the average, slightly in status while the SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
older cohorts lost slightly in status. The
average trend, however, is not strong; Overall, our results seem to suggest
the older cohorts are not rapidly losing
that the evolutionary or life cycle pattern
of neighborhood social status is possibly to neighborhood social status. Neither

real but generally unimportant. Therelife cycle status nor distance is strongly
is some evidence of neighborhood evolu-related to neighborhood social status. It
tion, as older neighborhoods are gen-would, therefore, appear that efforts at
erally declining in status and new neigh- explaining the socioeconomic composi-
borhoods are gaining in status, but the tion of the metropolis should center in
results hardly suggest a major and im- the future more on other theoretical-
portant trend in metropolitan areas. I methodological approaches. While the-
would not argue that declines in social ories explaining the socioeconomic struc-
status of older neighborhoods are "the ture of the city on the basis of metropoli-
first problem" of metropolitan areas, if tan age, history, population growth, or
alone for the reason that the average competition for centrality have some
declines are not great. validity, it seems fair to also say that they
Our results for Cleveland suggest that are highly incomplete. Much more at-
neighborhoods did pass rapidly through tention is now needed toward the exist-
a life cycle of social status at an earlier ence of status sectors and nuclei in the
time point, and that previous pattern city, particularly as suggested by Hoyt
would seem to be the primary factor [14].
producing the current tendency for so- LITERATURE CITED
cial status to be low in the older neigh- 1. Birch, D. L. "Toward a Stage Theory of
borhoods and relatively high in the new Urban Growth," Journal of the American
neighborhoods. Based on the Cleveland Institute of Planners, 37 (1971), pp. 78-87.
results, I would particularly caution 2. Butler, E. W. and W. J. Barclay. "A Longi-
tudinal Examination of Models of Urban
against interpreting cross-sectional rela-
Spatial Differentiation: A Case-Study of
tionships between the age of metropoli- Los Angeles," Research Previews of the
tan areas and the location of social status Institute for Research in Social Science,
groups as indicative of some universal University of North Carolina, 14 (1967),
evolutionary tendency for metropolitan pp. 2-25.
areas. In fact, what happened in older3. Burgess, E. W. "The Growth of the City:
An Introduction to a Research Project,"
metropolitan areas at one point in time Publications of the American Sociological
may not be happening to the same de- Society, 18 (1924), pp. 85-97.
gree in newer metropolitan areas at the 4. Chapman, E. H. Cleveland: Village to
same stage of their growth or develop- Metropolis. Cleveland: Western Reserve
ment. University Press, 1964.
Finally, we have shown that controls 5. Cohen, J. "Multiple Regression as a Gen-
for the racial status of census tracts clear- eral Data-Analytic System," Psychological
Bulletin, 70 (1968), pp. 426-43.
ly affect conclusions about the validity
6. Duncan, B., G. Sabagh and M. Van Arsdol,
of the life cycle notion. The movement Jr. "Patterns of City Growth," American
of blacks (who differ in status from
Journal of Sociology, 67 (1962), pp. 418-
29.
whites) into American cities has strongly
affected the status character of older 7. Farley, R. "Suburban Persistence," Ameri-
American neighborhoods. While these can Sociological Review, 29 (1964), pp.
38-47.
older neighborhoods may be going 8. Greer, S. Urban Renewal and American
through a life cycle of social status, it is Cities: The Dilemma of Democratic Inter-
more from racial factors than other varia- vention. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill
bles suggested by the evolutionary per- Co., Inc., 1966.
spective. 9. Guest, A. M. "Retesting the Burgess
Hypothesis: The Location of White Collar
In general, this research on the life
Workers," American Journal of Sociology,
cycle notion seems relatively consistent 76 (1971), pp. 1094-108.
with previous research [9; 10] on the 10. Guest, A. M. "Urban History, Population
relationship of distance from the CBD Densities, and Higher Status Residential
Location," Economic Geography, 4819. Slesinger, D. P. "Occupational and Land

(1972), pp. 375-87. Use Changes in a Selected Central City
11. Guest, A. M. "Urban Growth and Popula- Area of Milwaukee, Wisconsin," Land Eco-
tion Densities," Demography, 10 (1973), nomics, 48 (1972), pp. 290-97.
pp. 53-69. 20. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of
12. Haggerty, L. J. "Another Look at the Bur- Population, 1940. Census Tract Statistics.
gess Hypothesis: Time as an Important No. 14. Washington: U.S. Government
Variable," American Journal of Sociology, Printing Office, 1942.
76 (1971), pp. 1084-93. 21. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of
13. Hoover, E. M. and R. Vernon. Anatomy Population, 1950. Vol. III. Census Tract
of a Metropolis. Garden City, New York: Statistics. Chapter 12. Washington: U.S.
Anchor Books, 1962. Government Printing Office, 1952.
22. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Censuses
14. Hoyt, H. The Structure of Growth of Resi-
dential Neighborhoods in American Cities. of Population and Housing: 1960. Census
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Tracts. Final Report. PHC(1)-28. Wash-
Office, 1939. ington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1962.
15. Real Property Inventory of Metropolitan
Cleveland. Standard of Living in the 23. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of
Cleveland Metropolitan District as De- Population and Housing: 1970. Cens
picted by the Federal Real Property In- Tracts. Final Report. PHC(1)-45. Clev
ventory. Cleveland, 1935. land, Ohio, SMSA. Washington: U.S.
16. Schnore, L. F. "On the Spatial Structure Government Printing Office, 1972.
of Cities in the Two Americas," pp. 347- 24. U.S. Census Office. U.S. Census of Pop
98, in P. M. Hauser and L. F. Schnore tion: 1890. Report on Vital and Soci
(eds.), The Study of Urbanization. New Statistics of the United States. Part II.
York: John Wiley, 1965. Vital Statistics. Washington: U.S. Gover
17. Schnore, L. F. The Urban Scene. New ment Printing Office, 1896.
York: Free Press, 1965. 25. U.S. Commission on Population Growt
18. Schnore, L. F. Class and Race in Cities and and the American Future. Population an
Suburbs. Chicago: Markham Publishing the American Future. Washington: U.S
Company, 1972. Government Printing Office, 1972.

Neighborhood Life Cycles and Social Status PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Neighborhood Life Cycles and Social Status PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Neighborhood Life Cycles and Social Status

Author(s): Avery M. Guest

their approximate period of housing pared the absolute average status of

MEAN STATUS OF COHORTS,

1885 26.4 22.2 22.5 23.6 14.3 21.0 22.2 24.6

MEAN STATUS OF COHORTS,

A 5 years after build up

1940 1950 1960 1970

Fig. 1. Mean status of cohorts, Cleveland SMSA, white tracts.

MEAN PERCENT WHITE COLLAR BY TOTAL COHORTS, 12 SMSAS, 1960-1970

Year Built Up Akron Atlanta Birmingham Boston

Pre-1940 24.9 24.4 29.5 27.5 29.4 27.7 38.9 43.3

R22 - .845 - .753 - .862 - .790

R32 - .883 - .794 - .869 - .793

Notes: R12 -- variance explained in status by dummy variables for cohorts

Year Built Up Rochester

R22 - .747 - .612 - .770 - .842 - .857

R32 - .757 - .679 - .777 - .848 - .891

MEAN PERCENT WHITE COLLAR BY "WHITE" COHORTS, 12 SMSAS, 1960-1970

Year Built Up Akron Atlanta Birmingham Boston

Pre-1940 30.3 31.9 52.9 41.9 46.3 45.3 41.5 46.2

R22 - .875 - .750 - .828 - .829

Year Built Up Denver Flint Ft, Wayne New Haven Roches

R22 - .766 - .800 - .724 - .810 - .84

R32 - .773 .807 - .735 - .840 - .884

five independent, dichotomous, dummy in status. The dominant trend seems to

of neighborhood social status is possibly to neighborhood social status. Neither

Location," Economic Geography, 4819. Slesinger, D. P. "Occupational and Land

Anda mungkin juga menyukai