Abstract
Urban spatial structure evolution, when using employment as the proxy, can be explained by the change of employment distribution. In this study, we measure the 361 US metro areas (metros) by employment shares, in five submetro sections (i.e., main-center, sub-centers, non-center clusters, non-cluster urban areas, and rural areas), and explore the spatial patterns of submetro growths. We use recognized methods to delimit urban and rural areas, identify employment centers with relative thresholds, and categorize the metros into three (i.e., small, midsize, and large) categories. Then we use descriptive statistics to determine the dynamics of employment growth in the five submetro sections. The results suggest that metros’ spatial structures and growth patterns vary greatly across different size categories. We found that (1) small metros tend to have growth in the main-center or non-cluster urban areas; (2) midsize metros may be in the critical period of forming sub-centers, which also may be an effective way to curb urban expansion into rural areas; and, (3) the five submetro growths in large metros tend to be positively associated with one another, except for the main-center.
Highlights
The United States (US) went through three major stages of urban spatial structure evolution.In the 1840s, the American dream indicated spreading construction to the suburbs [1]
This paper investigates the dynamics of employment growth in five submetro sections that include four implicit ones in the literature and the non-center clusters
Different employment clusters in a metro may change in different directions [7], in this study we look at the average effect of each submetro section, e.g., the sum of all sub-centers as a submetro section
Summary
The United States (US) went through three major stages of urban spatial structure evolution. In the 1840s, the American dream indicated spreading construction to the suburbs [1]. In the 1950s, the suburban movement began as many urban residents moved to the suburbs, encouraged by affordable automobiles and government subsidies [2]. Between the late 1950s and early 1970s, many states (e.g., Kentucky, Oregon) established urban growth boundaries (UGB) to curb urban expansion [3]. According to a survey in 1991, roughly a quarter of cities used UGBs to limit urban growth areas [4]. From the American dream, suburban movement to UGBs, urban policies swung back and forth to adjust to the urban spatial structure. Some policies may have positive impacts on some regions, while having negative impacts on the others
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
