"Edge"or "edgless" cities? Urban spatial structure in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000*

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper presents a descriptive analysis of spatial trends in six U.S. metropolitan areas. The results show that generalized job dispersion was a more common spatial process than subcentering during the 1980s and 1990s when jobs continued to decentralize from the metropolitan core to the suburbs. Three distinctive patterns of spatial development were found. Job dispersion was predominant in Portland and Philadelphia, whereas the polycentricity of Los Angeles and San Francisco was further reinforced. New York and Boston with large and long-established CBDs were less prone to decentralization. Each metro seems to have developed a unique pattern of decentralization in light of their histories and circumstances, which has limited the growth of commuting times.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)479-515
Number of pages37
JournalJournal of Regional Science
Volume47
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

decentralization
metropolitan area
agglomeration area
commuting
suburb
history
trend
city
analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Development
  • Environmental Science (miscellaneous)

Cite this

"Edge"or "edgless" cities? Urban spatial structure in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000*. / Lee, Bumsoo.

In: Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 47, No. 3, 01.08.2007, p. 479-515.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{34db082019094a638d9779fec95b5586,
title = "{"}Edge{"}or {"}edgless{"} cities? Urban spatial structure in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000*",
abstract = "This paper presents a descriptive analysis of spatial trends in six U.S. metropolitan areas. The results show that generalized job dispersion was a more common spatial process than subcentering during the 1980s and 1990s when jobs continued to decentralize from the metropolitan core to the suburbs. Three distinctive patterns of spatial development were found. Job dispersion was predominant in Portland and Philadelphia, whereas the polycentricity of Los Angeles and San Francisco was further reinforced. New York and Boston with large and long-established CBDs were less prone to decentralization. Each metro seems to have developed a unique pattern of decentralization in light of their histories and circumstances, which has limited the growth of commuting times.",
author = "Bumsoo Lee",
year = "2007",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9787.2007.00517.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "479--515",
journal = "Journal of Regional Science",
issn = "0022-4146",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - "Edge"or "edgless" cities? Urban spatial structure in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000*

AU - Lee, Bumsoo

PY - 2007/8/1

Y1 - 2007/8/1

N2 - This paper presents a descriptive analysis of spatial trends in six U.S. metropolitan areas. The results show that generalized job dispersion was a more common spatial process than subcentering during the 1980s and 1990s when jobs continued to decentralize from the metropolitan core to the suburbs. Three distinctive patterns of spatial development were found. Job dispersion was predominant in Portland and Philadelphia, whereas the polycentricity of Los Angeles and San Francisco was further reinforced. New York and Boston with large and long-established CBDs were less prone to decentralization. Each metro seems to have developed a unique pattern of decentralization in light of their histories and circumstances, which has limited the growth of commuting times.

AB - This paper presents a descriptive analysis of spatial trends in six U.S. metropolitan areas. The results show that generalized job dispersion was a more common spatial process than subcentering during the 1980s and 1990s when jobs continued to decentralize from the metropolitan core to the suburbs. Three distinctive patterns of spatial development were found. Job dispersion was predominant in Portland and Philadelphia, whereas the polycentricity of Los Angeles and San Francisco was further reinforced. New York and Boston with large and long-established CBDs were less prone to decentralization. Each metro seems to have developed a unique pattern of decentralization in light of their histories and circumstances, which has limited the growth of commuting times.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34447274749&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34447274749&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2007.00517.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2007.00517.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:34447274749

VL - 47

SP - 479

EP - 515

JO - Journal of Regional Science

JF - Journal of Regional Science

SN - 0022-4146

IS - 3

ER -