FMF > Publications > Periodicals, Reports, and Census Notes > Census Notes and Data > Census Note 6: Boomburbs
Fannie Mae Foundation Census Note 06
(June 2001)*
"Boomburbs": The Emergence of Large,
Fast-Growing Suburban Cities in the United States
Robert E. Lang and Patrick A. Simmons Fannie Mae
Foundation
Introduction
A new type of large, rapidly growing suburban city (or
"Boomburb") emerged in the latter part of the 20th century
along with the Sunbelt and the suburban-dominated metropolis.
When late 19th and early 20th century satellite cities
reached a large scale, they developed as dense urban cores.
But as Boomburbs grow into big "cities," most remain
essentially suburban in character. Just as satellite cities
reflected the dominant urban pattern of their time, Boomburbs
may be the ultimate symbol of the sprawling postwar
metropolitan form.
Boomburbs are defined as places with more than 100,000
residents that are not the largest city in their
metropolitan areas and have maintained double-digit rates of
population growth in recent decades. The United States
currently contains 53 Boomburbs: four top 300,000 in
population, eight surpass 200,000, and 41 exceed 100,000
people. This Census Note follows these important but
seldom recognized places, which accounted for over half (51
percent) of 1990s' growth in cities with between 100,000 and
400,000 residents. Boomburbs now contain a quarter of all
people who live in such places.
While Boomburbs may be found throughout the nation, they
occur mostly in the Southwest, with almost half in California
alone. Many Boomburbs, especially in the West, are products
of master-planned community development and the need to form
large water districts. Even a relatively small metropolis
such as Las Vegas, with its expansive master-planned
communities and desert surroundings, contains two Boomburbs.
By contrast, no big region in the Northeast and Midwest,
except Chicago, has a single Boomburb. Even most large and
rapidly growing Sunbelt metropolitan areas east of the
Mississippi, such as Atlanta, lack Boomburbs. Thus a region
can boom and still wind up without Boomburbs.
The South's suburbs are comprised of mostly small,
fragmented municipalities that capture tiny fractions of
metropolitan population. The different municipal structure in
the east and west Sunbelts has important policy implications.
The East's fragmented municipalities will likely produce more
fragmented responses to regional problems. If, as many now
argue, regional cooperation is becoming more essential to
take on such problems as sprawl, then the South's lack of
Boomburbs may put the region at a disadvantage
Because of their exceptionally fast growth rates, the
Boomburbs face extreme degrees of development-related
problems, such as traffic congestion, strained public
services, and sprawl. However, because of their large size
and their potential to cooperate with other large
municipalities, Boomburbs may prove well-positioned to
participate in comprehensive regional solutions to these
problems
Boomburbs-Bold New Metropolis, or Updated Satellite
Cities?
Boomburbs are fast-growing suburban cities. They typically
develop along the interstate beltways that ring large U.S.
metropolitan areas. At highway exit ramps and major
intersections gather the commercial elements of the new
suburban metropolis: the office parks, big-box retail, and,
most characteristically, strip development. Beyond these
strips lie subdivisions, dominated by large-lot,
single-family homes.
Some may question whether Boomburbs are merely updated
satellite cities. Business, particularly manufacturing, has
been decentralizing for many decades. For example, in a 1915
publication titled Satellite Cities: A Case Study of
Industrial Suburbs, economist Graham Taylor described
an emerging metropolitan pattern in which heavy industry was
rapidly shifting to the suburbs in search of more space and
lower costs. More than 75 years ago, sociologist Ernest
Burgess noted that there was already business growth at
Chicago's edge, which he characterized as being
"centralized-decentralized" in structure (Burgess 1925).
Early 20th century "satellite" and "centralized" suburbs
mimicked big cities, although at slightly lower density and
scale. Satellites had all of the places that defined a city:
a main street shopping area, high-density residential
neighborhoods, and, by the late 19th century, factory
districts (Borchert 1996). In the 1920s, it was even typical
for larger satellite cities in the New York region, such as
Newark, New Jersey, to have a signature art deco office
tower, representing an already decentralizing service
economy.
Boomburbs, by contrast, do not resemble traditional central
cities or, for that matter, older satellites. While Boomburbs
possess most elements found in cities, such as housing,
retailing, entertainment, and offices, they are not typically
patterned in a traditional urban form. Boomburbs almost
always lack, for example, a dense business core. Boomburbs
can thus be seen as distinct from traditional cities-not so
much in their function, but in their low density and loosely
configured spatial structure. Boomburbs are urban in fact,
but not in feel.
However, Boomburbs in regions such as Phoenix, Dallas, and
Las Vegas are similar to their newer and less traditional
Southwestern US central cities. Cities such as Mesa, near
Phoenix, and Arlington, near Dallas, have comparable density
and urban form to their respective core cities-except for
missing a large downtown. Boomburbs in these metropolitan
areas are an extension of the auto-dependent city building
that has dominated the spatial structure of many Sunbelt
metropolitan areas.
The emergence of Boomburbs that resemble their newer central
cities shows that satellites tend to follow the general urban
form of their metropolitan area. In this respect, Boomburbs
are updated satellite cities-provided that they ring newer,
auto-based central cities. They are touchstones of the new
suburban-dominated metropolis.
Urban scholars have been attempting for the past three
decades to characterize the big suburban cities that are
referred to here as Boomburbs. As Sharpe and Wallock(1994)
note:
In the early 1970s, as concern about the inner-city
crisis waned and the decentralization of the metropolis
reached new proportions, "the urbanization of the suburbs"
suddenly became a topic of national interest. The ensuing
flurry of articles and books introduced neologisms such as
"outer city," "satellite sprawl," "new city," "suburban
'city,'" "urban fringe," and "neo city" to describe this
phenomena (p. 4)
Despite years of effort to label the new suburban form,
there remains no single name for it. Instead, as Sharpe and
Wallock note, observers use an inventive array of names
suggesting that planners, developers, journalists, and
academics do not yet understand it. Part of the problem is
that we are bound by a language that hierarchically ranks
living space-urban, suburban, exurban, rural-when the old
ladder-image no longer applies (Lang 1996).
But properly naming the new suburban form is an important
step in better understanding it. As Lewis (1995) argues:
"Language is important. We cannot talk about a phenomena
unless we possess the vocabulary to describe them, and many
observers still cannot agree on what to call this new
amorphous form of urban geography" (p. 61).
Boomburbs, as defined in this analysis, correspond to what
urban historian Robert Fishman (1987, 1990, 1994) refers to
as "Technoburbs." Fishman defines Technoburbs as "a hopeless
jumble of housing, industry, commerce and even agricultural
uses" (Fishman 1987, 190). In his view, today's sprawling
suburban metropolitan areas can no longer be judged by the
standards of the old metropolis. This is due, in part, to the
fact that the new suburban form "lacks any definable borders,
a center or a periphery, or clear distinctions between
residential, industrial and commercial zones" (Fishman 1990,
25).
Yet while large parts-and in many cases the entirety-of
Boomburbs may fit what Robert Lang (2000, 2002) refers to as
"Edgeless Cities," several also contain "Edge Cities"
(Garreau 1991), which represent some of the few metropolitan
focal points that exist outside the urban cores and older
satellite suburbs
Methods
Selecting the Cities
Boomburbs were identified by a two-step process. The first
step identified cities with more than 100,000 people that are
not the largest central city in their metropolitan areas. The
second step screened out places that did not experience
double-digit (10 percent or more) population growth rates in
the ten-year periods between the censuses in which they
appeared since 1950.
The final list includes 53 Boomburbs that had 2000
populations ranging from Mesa, Arizona with nearly 400,000
residents to Westminster, Colorado with just over 100,000.
Altogether, Boomburbs now contain 8,798,765 residents. (The
complete list of Boomburbs is provided in a table and
discussed in the Results section.)
Measuring Population Change
Population data for Boomburbs are from the decennial
censuses of 1950 to 2000. The percentage and numerical change
is calculated for each place. The comparison shows the extent
to which Boomburbs have grown over the past 50 years.
Many Boomburbs did not exist in 1950, so the census
following their date of origin was used as the basis for
measuring their growth. Boomburb growth measurement starts
from the first census in which they had reached the
2,500-population urban place threshold. Thirty-one Boomburbs
had passed the urban threshold by 1950. By 1960, another 12
Boomburbs had crossed this mark, followed by three in 1970,
five in 1980, and two in 1990.
To facilitate comparisons of growth rates across Boomburbs
that do not appear in the same number of postwar censuses, we
calculate an annual equivalent growth rate for all 53 cities.
This annual equivalent growth rate assumes a constant annual
percent increase in the population of each city during the
period for which census observations are available.
To illustrate, Gilbert, Arizona, first exceeded the 2,500
urban threshold in the 1980 census, with a population of
5,717. Over the next two decades, it grew by 410 percent and
276 percent to reach a 2000 population of 109,697. If the
constant annual equivalent growth rate of 16 percent is
applied to Gilbert's 1980 population for 20 years, the same
2000 population of 109,697 is obtained.
Methods Issues
Most Boomburbs are not only more populous than they were
several decades ago, but because of annexations, they are
also physically larger. Data on land area are available for
the 43 Boomburbs that existed in 1960. Between 1960 and 1990,
the average size of these cities increased from 15 square
miles to 50 square miles. Comparisons across time can be
somewhat tricky because the places annexed usually contained
population.
San Bernardino, California illustrates how annexations added
population to some of the Boomburbs. San Bernardino annexed
land in both the 1950s and 1960s. The 1950s annexations added
12,803 people to San Bernardino's 1960 population and the
1960s annexations increased the city's 1970 population by
6,092 people. The problem is that it cannot be determined how
many of these people were there to start with and how many
moved into the annexed parts of San Bernardino after the land
was added to the city.
This issue does not significantly impact most Boomburbs
because their current land area, even if it is considerably
larger than the original town, was often substantially
unoccupied in 1950. Therefore, most of their population
growth is through actual gains rather than annexed
households.
Some late-starting Boomburbs were formed through
combination of existing towns or unincorporated places.
Sometimes this resulted in a large initial population. For
example, Chesapeake, Virginia, was created in 1963 as the
result of a merger between the City of South Norfolk and
Norfolk County (City of Chesapeake, Virginia 2001). The new
city had an estimated population of 78,000 in 1963 and an
enumerated population of 89,580 at the time of its first
decennial census in 1970.
We did not track the pre-Boomburb growth rates for areas
that eventually became parts of Boomburbs. However, it is
safe to assume that most of these places were experiencing
fast growth rates, which in many cases precipitated their
incorporation into an existing Boomburb or their merger to
form a new Boomburb. For example, Fremont, California, was
formed from several unincorporated towns that joined together
in 1956 because the postwar boom was transforming them from
small independent villages into one extended suburban
city.
Results
Population Change
As table 1 shows, all Boomburbs grew quickly over the past
several decades. Some places saw explosive growth. Of the
Boomburbs that had reached the 2,500 urban threshold by 1950,
Dallas's suburb, Irving, grew by a spectacular 7,211 percent.
Henderson, Nevada, and Chandler, Arizona, also showed
impressive gains, growing by 4,714 percent and 4,548 percent,
respectively, in the ensuing five decades. Plano, Texas,
which didn't cross the urban threshold until 1960, exhibited
even more spectacular growth, increasing in size by 5,909
percent in just four decades.
Annualized Average Growth Rates
At almost 9 percent, Phoenix had the fastest annualized
growth rate (AGR), averaged across its Boomburbs, for any
Southwestern metropolitan area. Dallas and Las Vegas also
registered fast average AGRs, with both exceeding 7 percent.
Denver's average AGR followed at 5.6 percent. California
Boomburbs grew slower with AGRs of 5.4 percent in San Diego,
4.5 percent in Los Angeles, and 4.4 percent in San Francisco.
Salt Lake City lagged the region with a 2.1 percent Boomburb
AGR. Outside the Southwest, the four Florida Boomburbs
experienced a 5.6 percent average AGR.
Metropolitan Distribution
Table 2 summarizes Boomburb metropolitan data. Only one
Boomburb, located in the Chicago metropolitan area, exists
outside the South and West. Further, just nine, or 17
percent, of Boomburbs lie outside the Southwestern states
stretching from Texas in the east to California in the west.
Los Angeles, Dallas, and Phoenix alone contain 32, or 60
percent, of Boomburbs. The Southeast, other than South
Florida, contains few Boomburbs. Only one Boomburb with a
population above 200,000 (Hialeah, Florida) exists east of
the Mississippi River. Clearly, Boomburbs are mostly a
western Sunbelt phenomena.
Los Angeles, with 18, has the highest number of Boomburbs
and biggest cumulative Boomburb population. But metropolitan
Los Angeles is so large that its Boomburbs account for less
than one in five residents. However, at nearly 3 million, the
Boomburb total approaches Los Angeles (3.7 million) in
size.
At 42.2 percent, Phoenix has by far the highest percentage
of its metropolitan population living in Boomburbs. Phoenix,
with seven (tied with Dallas), follows Los Angeles in the
number of Boomburbs. The region also contains the second
highest number of residents living in Boomburbs. Phoenix's
1.37 million Boomburb population slightly exceeds that of its
central city.
Boomburb Share of City Growth in the 1990s
Boomburbs total 53 of the 199 US cities that have
population between 100,000 and 400,000. They also account for
about one quarter (25.7 percent) of these cities' total
population. However, they captured fully half of the 1990s
population growth in these cities. Cities in this size class
gained 4.1 million new residents during the 1990s, 2.1
million of whom live in the Boomburbs.
Boomburbs are even more important to population growth
among cities that have between 200,000 and 400,000 residents.
They account for 12 of the 48 cities in this size class and
24 percent of the total population living in these cities as
of 2000. But they grabbed 60 percent of total population
growth in these cities during the 1990s.
Boomburb Share of State Population Growth,
1950s-1990s
By the 1990s, Boomburbs also accounted for a significant
share of their respective state's population growth. Among
states with more than one Boomburb, the shares ranged from
33.6 percent in Arizona to 5.2 percent in Florida. The share
of growth during the 1990s also increased when contrasted
with the 1950s. The share jumped from 8.6 to 33.6 percent in
Arizona and from 9.2 to 16.9 percent in California. In the
other states with multiple Boomburbs, the share of state
population growth increased by 4 percentage points or less
from the 1950s to the 1990s.
Boomburbs versus Traditional Cities
Another way to grasp just how big many Boomburbs have
become is by comparing their current populations with those
of some better-known traditional cities. Mesa, the most
populous Boomburb at 396,375 residents in 2000, is bigger
than such traditional large cities as Minneapolis (382,618),
Miami (362,470), and St. Louis (348,189). Arlington,
Texas-the second biggest Boomburb with 332,969 people-falls
just behind Pittsburgh (334,536) and just ahead of Cincinnati
(331,285). Even such smaller Boomburbs as Chandler, Arizona,
and Henderson, Nevada, with 176,581 and 175,381 residents
respectively, now surpass older mid-sized cities such as
Knoxville, Tennessee (173,890); Providence, Rhode Island
(173, 618); and Worcester, Massachusetts (172,648).
Analysis
While some observers (such as Abbott 1995) have noted the
role large suburban cities play in Sunbelt development, most
focus either on metropolitan areas as a whole or their
central cities. Many urban analysts also assume that Sunbelt
urban growth varies little east and west (Gottdiener 1994).
For example, metropolitan areas such as Atlanta and Phoenix
are described as sharing a similar growth pattern (Brookings
Institution 2000).
But recent research shows that Atlanta and Phoenix have
widely divergent urban forms (Lang 2001). They also vary in
the number of Boomburbs-Atlanta has none, while Phoenix has
seven. Atlanta boomed, but has no Boomburbs; nor do other
fast growing southeast metro areas such as Charlotte and
Nashville.
Phoenix-Land of Boomburbs versus Atlanta-the Fragmented
Metropolis
Metropolitan Phoenix provides a good contrast with Atlanta
and other major metropolitan areas of the South (see table
3). During the 1990s, Phoenix and Atlanta registered the
largest percentage gains among the nation's biggest
metropolitan areas, growing 45.3 percent and 38.9 percent
respectively (US Bureau of the Census 2001).
Phoenix, a region with 3.25 million people, has seven
Boomburbs. The city of Phoenix and its Boomburbs combined
have 2.69 million people and 83 percent of the region's
population (see table 3). To have just eight municipalities
account for so large a share of their metropolitan population
is very unusual (Morrison Institute 2000). Atlanta, by
contrast, has just 18 percent of its population living in the
eight largest cities. All of Atlanta's seven largest suburbs
add up to a far smaller population than Mesa, Phoenix's most
populous Boomburb.
Also note that Atlanta's municipalities are physically
smaller than Phoenix's. Roswell, Atlanta's most populous
suburb, is just 32.6 square miles. Meanwhile, Mesa spreads
over 108 square miles. Gilbert, the physically smallest
Boomburb in the Phoenix metropolitan area, would rank second
in land area and first in population were it a suburb of
Atlanta.
Interestingly, the seven big suburbs of Atlanta and the
seven Boomburbs of Phoenix have similar total density, with
1,579 and 1,687 people per square mile respectively. It
appears that the large size of Phoenix's Boomburbs allow them
to capture so much growth and account for a major share of
the region's population.
Given that Phoenix's largest eight cities contain over
four-fifths of the metropolitan area's residents, regional
action requires only that the leaders of these places work
together. The mayors of Atlanta's big cities could also
cooperate, but it would impact less than a fifth of the
region's residents. Thus, the emergence of Phoenix's
Boomburbs gave it a distinct advantage for regional solutions
over Atlanta, where municipal fragmentation greatly
complicates metropolitan-level action.
Why Are Boomburbs Most Common to the West?
Boomburbs do not happen randomly. Rather, they are mostly a
product of a western Sunbelt development that favors the
establishment of physically large suburban municipalities.
Two factors foster Western Boomburb growth: large
master-planned communities and water districting.
The West is home to enormous master-planned communities
that are located within a single town. These communities
gobble up unincorporated land as they grow. The land and its
new residents are added to municipalities, turning what were
once small towns into Boomburbs. Also, the public lands in
the West that surround big metro areas are often transferred
to developers in very large blocks (Abbott 1993). By
contrast, eastern master-planned community builders must
assemble their land from mostly smaller, privately held
parcels.
Western water districts also play a role in promoting
Boomburbs. The West is mostly dry and places seeking to grow
must organize to access water (Lang 2001). Bigger
incorporated places are better positioned to grab a share of
water supply. This provides an incentive for fragmented
suburbs to join in a large incorporated city.
Key Issues
Homeowners Associations
The master-planned communities that dominate many Boomburbs
are organized into numerous homeowners' associations. These
associations act as small private governments that deliver
services to residents ranging from recreation to trash
collection (Barton and Silverman 1994). Homeowners'
associations may be so common and comprehensive in Boomburbs
that they, to a large extent, take the place of municipal
government (Guterson 1992). The main political dynamic in
Boomburbs is often between city hall and the homeowners'
associations (McKenzie 1994). Homeowners' associations press
city hall to reduce the cost and reach of most municipal
services, such as parks, that they are providing to residents
as part of their association fees.
Class and Race Diversity
In part because of their large size, Boomburbs often
contain a more diverse population than smaller suburbs. While
most are affluent, few are exclusive. Some lower-income
neighborhoods exist within virtually all Boomburbs. Boomburbs
may also attract people of diverse racial and ethnic
background.
California Boomburbs in particular are increasing their
minority population. In a recent study looking at racial
change in the nation's largest cities based on the 2000
census, Berube (2001) found that the top two cities with the
largest percentage loss in non-Hispanic whites were Anaheim
and Riverside, California, which dropped 20.8 and 15.7
percent respectively. Boomburbs in Southern California and
South Florida may also contain a large share of foreign-born
population. In 1990, Santa Ana and Anaheim in northern Orange
County, California had 50.9 and 28.4 percent foreign-born
populations respectively (Hall and Gaquin 1997). Hialeah, a
suburb northwest of Miami, had a whopping 70.4 percent
foreign-born population in the same year.
The foreign-born figure in these three Boomburbs correlates
with (and perhaps causes) a high population density. In 1990,
Santa Ana, Hialeah, and Anaheim respectively maintained
densities of 10,839, 9,792 and 6,014 people per square mile
(Hall and Gaquin 1997). The first two figures (for Santa Ana
and Hialeah) approach the population density in large, older
Northeast cities such as Philadelphia and Boston. Anaheim's
density approaches such older Midwest cities as Cleveland and
St. Louis.
Boomburbs at Build Out
While many Boomburbs have annexed ample land to expand
their populations, others are land-locked and near build out.
The simple fact is that most Boomburbs are horizontal cities
that grow out rather than up. Landlocked Boomburbs, such as
Tempe, Arizona, now have nowhere to go but up. Tempe's number
of new housing permits has dropped to a few dozen, while its
non-landlocked Boomburb neighbors of Chandler and Mesa are
issuing permits by the thousands. Landlocked Boomburbs are at
a crossroads: If they what to keep growing they must change
their land use patterns to accommodate higher-density
development, but their original competitive advantage has
been their greenfield development opportunities.
The infill market remains untested in most Boomburbs. Many
now have the scale and the economic assets that technically
make them central places, but their mostly centerless form
does not offer the type of dense urban environments that
attracts citiphile consumers of infill housing (Danielsen,
Lang, and Fulton 1999). The future of built-out Boomburbs may
depend on the success of urban design movements, such as the
New Urbanism, that introduce more traditional city-like
development into the suburbs.
Authors
Robert E. Lang is Director of Urban and Metropolitan
Research at the Fannie Mae Foundation. He is the author of
the book Edgeless Cities: Exploring the Elusive
Metropolis, scheduled to be published early next year
by The Brookings Institution Press. Patrick A. Simmons is
Director of Housing Demography at the Fannie Mae Foundation.
He is editor of the book Housing Statistics of the United
States, published by Bernan Press. The authors thank
William Frey and Frank Popper for invaluable comments on a
draft of this Census Note. They also thank Rebecca
Sohmer for suggesting the term "Boomburb."
*About the Census Notes Series
The Fannie Mae Foundation's Census Notes series
provides timely analyses of Census 2000 data to stimulate
discussion and further research. Although Census Notes are
reviewed internally and on an informal basis externally, they
have not been subject to the formal process of external peer
review that is commonly used for the Foundation's research
publications. Therefore, they should be viewed as works in
progress and their findings considered preliminary.
Footnotes
1. The emergence of these large suburban cities has recently
come to the attention of the popular press (see El Nasser and
Overberg 1997) 2. Because Boomburbs have different origin
dates, a decision was made to standardize their starting
point based on the first postwar census in which they crossed
the urban place threshold of 2,500 residents. 3. These are
the types of municipalities that David Rusk (1993) refers to
as "elastic" in that they can expand their boundaries to
capture new growth. 4. Interestingly, in a recent study
by Glaeser and Shapiro (2001) looking at the 1990s' growth
rates of places above 100,000, cities identified here as
Boomburbs actually accounted for 3 of the top 5, and 11 of
the top 25 fastest-growing municipalities. 5. All land
area and population density statistics in this section and
table 3 are based on 1990 census data. At the time this
Census Note was prepared, land area data from Census
2000 were not available.
References
Abbott, Carl. 1993. The Metropolitan Frontier: Cities in
the Modern American West. Tucson, AZ: The University of
Arizona Press.
Abbott, Carl. 1995. "Beautiful Downtown Burbank": Changing
Metropolitan Geography in the Modern West. Journal of the
West (July):8-18.
Barton, Stephen E., and Carol J. Silverman, eds. 1994.
Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and
Public Interest. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Berube, Alan. 2001. Racial Change in the Nation's Largest
Cities: Evidence from the 2000 Census. Brookings Institution
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Census Series,
April. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Borchert, James. 1996. Residential City Suburbs: The
Emergence of a New Suburban Type, 1880-1930. Journal of
Urban History 22(3):283-307.
Brookings Institution. 2000. Moving Beyond Sprawl: The
Challenge for Metropolitan Atlanta. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan
Policy.
Burgess, Ernest W. 1925. Urban Community: Selected Papers
from the Proceedings of the American Sociological
Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
City of Chesapeake Virginia. 2001. A Brief History of
Chesapeake. Accessed at http://www.chesapeake.va.us/communty/about/history.html
in May 2001.
Danielsen, Karen A., Robert E. Lang, and William Fulton.
1999. Retracting Suburbia: Smart Growth and the Future of
Housing. Housing Policy Debate 10(3):513-40.
El Nasser, Haya, and Paul Overberg. 1997. Suburban
Communities Spurt to Big-City Status. USA Today,
November 19, p. A4.
Fishman, Robert. 1987. Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and
Fall of Suburbia. New York: Basic Books.
Fishman, Robert. 1990. America's New City: Megalopolis
Unbound. Wilson Quarterly 14(1): 24-45.
Fishman, Robert. 1994. Space, Time and Sprawl.
Architectural Digest 64(3-4):45-47.
Garreau, Joel. 1991. Edge City: Life on the New
Frontier. New York: Doubleday.
Glaeser, Edward, and Jesse M. Shapiro. 2001. City Growth and
the 2000 Census: Which Places Grew and Why. Brookings
Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Census
Series, May. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Gottdiener, Mark. 1994. The New Urban Sociology. New
York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Gutterson, David. 1992. No Place Like Home: On the Manicured
Streets of a Master-Planned Community. Harpers
Magazine, November, pp. 55-64.
Hall, George E., and Deirde A. Gaquin, ed. 1997. County and
City Extra: Annual Metro, City and County Data Book. Lanham,
MD: Bernan Press.
Lang, Robert E. 1996. Labeling America's New Urban Form.
Paper presented to the joint Association of Collegiate
Schools of Planning/Association of European Schools of
Planning meeting, Toronto, Canada (July).
Lang, Robert E. 2000. Office Sprawl: The Evolving Geography
of Business. Brookings Institution Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy. Survey Paper Series, October.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Lang, Robert E. 2001. Open Spaces, Bounded Places: Does The
American West's Arid Landscape Yield Dense Metropolitan
Growth? Submitted to Journal of the American Planning
Association.
Lang, Robert E. 2002. Edgeless Cities: Exploring the
Elusive Metropolis. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press (forthcoming).
Lewis, Pierce F. 1995. The Urban Invasion of Rural America:
The Emergence of the Galactic City. In The Changing
American Countryside: Rural People and Places, ed.
Emery N. Castle, 39-62. Lawrence, KS: University Press of
Kansas.
McKenzie, Evan. 1994. Privatopia: Homeowners Associations
and the Rise of Residential Private Government. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Morrison Institute. 2000. Hits and Misses: Fast Growth
in Metropolitan Phoenix. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State
University, Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
Rusk, David. 1993. Cities Without Suburbs.
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Sharpe, William, and Leonard Wallock. 1994. Bold New City or
Built-Up "Burb?" American Quarterly 46(1):1-30.
Taylor, Graham R. 1915. Satellite Cities: A Case Study of
Industrial Suburbs. New York: Ayer Company.
US Bureau of the Census. 2001. Redistricting Data (P.L.
94-171) Summary file and 1990 Census. Internet release data:
April 2.
|