IS MIGRATION REVIVING DISTRESSED CITIES? (GENTRIFICATION, DISPLACEMENT, URBAN REVITALIZATION

Will gentrifying neighborhoods proliferate? Will more upper-income Americans choose to live in distressed cities? Would such developments benefit both cities and their poorer residents? Since residential decisions of upper-income movers will determine whether distressed cities revive, this dissertation analyzes available data on trends in migration to and from central cities over the past two decades to evaluate the implications of gentrification for the United States and for individual distressed cities. The results show that migration has recently improved for some distressed cities, but it remains quite unfavorable for most. This research also provides a basis for monitoring and understanding future migration.;Whether past trends of outmigration from cities and population and income losses therein continued or reversed during the 1970s is examined at three geographic levels. During the 1970s, central cities as a whole became slightly more attractive to migrants, as net outmigration slowed from earlier levels. Notably, the proportions of young college graduates and professionals migrating to and staying within cities increased, implying that at least some cities attracted more higher-status movers.;Did distressed cities benefit? Trends between 1955 and 1980 for 40 large metropolitan areas (SMSAs) with 27 distressed cities also show migration to cities improving after 1970. Between 1955-60 and 1965-70 the proportion of movers selecting cities had fallen in almost all these SMSAs, but between 1970 and 1980, it increased in more than half. Nevertheless, city selection of upper-income white movers still dropped sharply during the 1970s in most distressed cities, as the flight of upper-income movers continued or accelerated. Nor did the few migration improvements found raise city median incomes.;Why did city selection increase at all? Unfortunately, national results imply that net outmigration mainly slowed because of the maturing baby boom, not greater preferences for cities. Regression analysis of differences among SMSAs shows that, when selection increased, advanced services employment and relative housing bargains were also significant. Yet because migration improvements were significantly deterred by past selective upper-income outmigration, further decline is likely.;These findings suggest that very few distressed cities will revive. Nor would revival necessarily help poor residents. Mapping 1970-80 changes within 10 distressed cities showed that when "gentrification" of lower-income tracts occurred, poor residents often shifted differentially from gentrifying tracts into new, more distant, concentrations of poverty.