Cities without Suburbs: A Census 2010 Perspective

by David Rusk

Rusk updates his classic with data and analyses of the 2010 Census. Cities without Suburbs , first published in 1993, has influenced analysis of America's cities by city planners, scholars, and citizens alike. David Rusk, the former mayor of Albuquerque, argues that America must end the isolation of the central city from the suburbs if it is to solve its urban problems. Rusk’s analysis, extending back to 1950, covers all metropolitan areas in the United States but focuses on the 137 largest metro areas and their principal central cities. He finds that cities that were trapped within old boundaries during the age of sprawl have suffered severe racial segregation and the emergence of an urban underclass; but cities with annexation powers―termed "elastic" by Rusk―have shared in area-wide development. The fourth edition updates Rusk’s argument using the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey. It provides new material on the difference between population trends and household trends, the impact of Hispanic immigration, and the potential for city-county consolidation. The fourth edition also brings added emphasis to “elasticity mimics”―a variety of intergovernmental policies that can provide some of the benefits of regional consolidation efforts in situations where annexation and consolidation are impossible.

Genres: Cities, Urban Planning, Nonfiction, Urban Studies, Urbanism, Academic

178 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1993

Reviews

[Ted · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Rusk’s “Cities Without Suburbs: A Census 2010 Perspective” he divides the book into three sections: Lessons from Urban America, Characteristics of Metropolitan Areas, and Strategies for Stretching Cities followed by a conclusion section. Each section is fairly lengthy clocking in at roughly 50+ pages. This edition provided the reader an update with statistics from the past decades, as well as during the beginning 2000s. Rusk first wrote “Cities Without Suburbs” in the early 1990s with new editions coming out post-Census with updated commentary and statistic information.

The big takeaway, one that my past classmates and I used for one of my classes when I was getting my Masters in Public Administration, was the difference between elastic and inelastic cities. While I don’t want to go into extreme detail of all of Rusk’s points, essentially elastic cities are exactly what they sound like: growing in populace and size, taking less from the suburbs and contributing more to the metropolitan area as a whole. These cities are often found in the Western and Southern United States. Inelastic cities are, again generally, cities with fixed borders, population and job losses (or slower gains than elastic cities) and the suburbs take more from the central city areas than they get back (in the workforce, taxes, etc.) These cities are often in the “Rust Belt” or the Midwest and Northeastern United States.

In the ending, Rusk offers some policy prescriptions for municipalities, counties and/or states to enact to make them regional powers instead of these distinct classes of cities. While utopian, these policy solutions could help some issues that all communities face, but often these solutions are proposed in a vacuum or using case studies that are not universally adaptable. This book is geared toward anyone who wants to know about geography and population patterns in the United States, along with those interested in the social sciences. This book does have a lot of figures, tables, and graphs, and Rusk does an excellent job explaining the importance of them and why they illustrate his thesis.

[Colleen Rodgers · Rating 4 out of 5]

definitely interesting but didn’t rock my world as much as carmageddon!!

[Hannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating analysis of urban planning with a focus on city elasticity and racial & economic de-segregation.

“What is missing from current debate over urban policy is any willingness to attack the urban problem as a matter of racial and economic segregation. Liberals appeal for large-scale federal aid for social welfare and economic development programs in the inner cities. This is the Big Buck Strategy. Conservatives talk about inner city enterprise zones, public housing "perestroika," and "empowerment." This is the Big Bootstrap Strategy.

“At heart, Big Buckers and Big Bootstrappers are selling the same idea: quarantine "them" in inner-city ghettos and barrios away from "us" and help "them" build from within-with money or moral incentives. Both ideological camps believe that separate can be made equal, or at least equal enough to be tolerable.

“‘Separate but equal’ cannot work. It has never worked. Ghettos and barrios create and perpetuate an urban underclass. Bad communities defeat good programs. Successful clients of social programs typically move away. As a result, in inner cities, individual success does not translate into community success. Life in ghettos and barrios gets worse. Even with flourishing down-towns, inner cities decline. Inner-city neighborhoods deteriorate as places to raise families. With shrinking tax bases, city budgets are unable to meet rising social needs.”

[DW Rowlands · Rating 3 out of 5]

The basic idea that metro-area governments would help prevent the rich from escaping their financial responsibilities to their metro areas by moving to the cities is basically reasonable. However, I'm not sure I entirely buy that Rusk's statistics proved his point, and I'm certainly unconvinced by his assumption that suburban sprawl is a good thing, and the only problem is that central city governments don't control the resulting suburbs.

[Austin Outhavong · Rating 4 out of 5]

1. the real city is the total metropolitan area-city and suburb
2. most of america's blacks, hispanics, and asians live in urban areas
3. since ww2, all urban growth has been low-density, suburban sytle.
4. for a city's population to grow, the city must be "elastic"
5. almost all metro areas have grown
6. some central cities have grown; others have shrunk
7. low-density cities can grow through in-fill; high-density cities cannot
8. elastic cities expand their city limits; inelastic cities do not
9. when a city stops growing, it starts shrinking
10. elastic cities "capture" suburban growth; inelastic cities "contribute" to suburban growth
11. bad state laws can hobble cities
12. neighbors can trap cities
13. old cities are complacent; young cities are ambitious
14. racial prejudice has shpaed growth patters
15. inelastic areas are more segregated than elastic areas
16. inelastic ares that segregate blacks segregate hispanics
17. city-suburb income gaps are more of a problem than overall income levels in metro areas.
18. fragmented local government fosters segregation; unified local governmetn promotes integration
19. dispersed and fragemnted public education is more segregated than centralized and unified fpublic education.
20. the global economny sets the rules; but local areas can decide how to play the game
21. the smaller the income gap between city and suburb, the greate the economic progress for the whole metropolitan community.
22. poverty is more concerntrated in inelastic cities than in elastic cites
23. elastic cities have better bond ratings than ineleastic cities
24. reguilding inner cities from within has not happened.

[Russell Fox · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book probably deserves a better rating than I gave it; Rusk's arguments on behalf of city-county consolidation make sense on paper, and he marshals a good deal of evidence to support what he has to say about the importance of flipping those urban political structures which he sees as preventing the sort of redistribution, racial integration, and job creation policies that cities need. And I learned a fair amount from some of his observations, or at least they prompted some serious questions--about county governments, about whether exclusionary policies are more common in smaller, "little box" jurisdictions, etc.--that I'll be thinking about for a while. Ultimately, though, it is those questions which troubled me about the book: Rusk's arguments don't deal with some of the real democratic and normative elements of urban life and governance which his aim to seek "elasticity" above all (that is, room to grow, move around money, etc., within city boundaries) necessarily brings up. Who is empowered by consolidation? Is the sort of business growth policies which city-county consolidation supposedly makes more easy actually the sort of policies that cities should seek? Every city? Or maybe only cities of a particular size and location? Anyway, these and many other countries really get me thinking and doubting, so much so that the helpful data that Rusk provides didn't, in the end, allow me to appreciate the book as much as perhaps I should have.

[Doron · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely ruffles your feathers if nothing else.

[Shira and Ari Evergreen]

mentioned in "no more suburbs" (upski)

[Mjackman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find Rusk a bit didactic and academic, but his points are all well-made. After reading James Howard Kuntsler, Rusk seems all the drier.