Where jobs are concentrating

and why it matters to

cities and regions

June 2019

Chad Shearer
Jennifer S. Vey
Joanne Kim
Contents
Introduction 4

The importance of density 6

An economic driver 7

A civic enabler 7

A promoter of environmental and physical health 8

Sources and methods 9

About the data 9

Measuring job density 10

Calculating expected trends 12

Findings 14

1. Overall job density within metro areas increased from 2004 to 15

2015, driven primarily by four metro areas .....

2. Only half of large metro areas experienced an increase in job 16

density, while the others sprawled ..........

3. Jobs in dense metro areas grew far denser than expected, while 18
most metro areas fell short of their potential job density increase ..........

4. Most sectors of the economy saw large but not widespread 21

increases in job density ..........

5. Core urban counties experienced large increases in job density, 24

while suburban counties saw more modest gains ..........

Case studies 27

Indianapolis 28

Baltimore 31

Conclusion 34

References 35

Endnotes 39

Acknowledgments 44
 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Introduction

T he relationship between place and economy

is constantly evolving, and continually
shaping the growth, development, and decay
towns—struggle to keep pace.1 These same
“winner take all” trends are playing out within
many regions, with some areas experiencing
of our communities. Indeed, from the rise of dramatic new growth while others remain
industrial cities during the 19th century to the stagnant or in decline.
spread of auto-centric suburbs during the 20th,
this changing relationship helped produce the The prevailing narrative is that city cores and
varied patterns of concentration, dispersion, and other urban enclaves are “back,” propelled by the
racial and economic segregation that still largely growing desire of educated workers for transit
characterize our cities, towns, and regions today. access, walkability, and dense constellations
of services and amenities. Numerous studies
These patterns are not static, however. As in the support what observation and anecdote already
past, new ideas and innovations are fostering tell us: that innovative companies are increasingly
the creation of products and services that eschewing sprawling suburban office parks
increase productivity, improve our health and the in favor of mixed-use downtowns, waterfront
environment, and raise overall standards of living. areas, and innovation districts where research
But today’s digital economy is also benefiting institutions, advanced industry firms, and
some industries, workers, and communities over entrepreneurs cluster and connect.2 Research
others. by Chris Leinberger and his colleagues has
demonstrated a pent-up demand for walkable,
In the first place, the digital economy is rewarding amenity-rich concentrations in suburban areas,
large global centers that are attracting innovative too, finding that office, retail, and housing rents
companies and educated workers, while many are significantly higher and growing faster in
older industrial cities and Heartland areas— many of these areas than those in more auto-
particularly small and mid-sized cities and rural dependent areas.3

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 4

Introduction

“These findings suggest a need for leaders to embrace policies and

investment strategies that advance more concentrated growth patterns,
while also supporting transformative placemaking solutions that help such
dense places become vibrant communities where businesses and workers
thrive.”

But we also know that preferences for urbanism density not only promotes economic and social
are not universal, nor are the revitalization benefits but also addresses urgent fiscal and
benefits such preferences generate equally environmental challenges facing many U.S. cities
shared. Indeed, suburban sprawl—and and metropolitan regions today.
the associated problems of fiscal waste,
environmental degradation, and spatial mismatch Hence this report, which aims to help leaders
between workers and jobs—remains pervasive. understand how, and how much, changing
At the same time, many of the areas that are demands for place are influencing the clustering
dense with businesses and jobs are falling short of jobs both across and within metropolitan
of their potential. Some—like the “edge” and areas. The findings suggest a need for them to
“edgeless” cities described by Joel Garreau and embrace policies and investment strategies that
Robert Lang—have wide streets, large setbacks, advance more concentrated growth patterns,
surface parking, and other design elements while also supporting transformative placemaking
that stifle walkability, transit efficiency, and solutions that help such dense places become
human interaction.4 Others may be suffering vibrant communities where businesses and
from decades of disinvestment and decline, with workers thrive.
human capital, physical, and economic assets
that are undervalued by both the private and The report proceeds by first exploring density’s
public sectors. Meanwhile, rapidly rising rents important role in the economic growth, civic
in some very strong market areas threaten the health and participation, and environmental
ability of existing businesses and residents to sustainability of metropolitan areas. It then
remain in—and help shape the trajectory of—the defines the methods used to explore job density
communities they helped to build. trends in metropolitan America before describing
how they played out over the period from 2004
These trends are providing an urgency, and to 2015, a decade of dramatic economic change.
an opportunity, for local and regional leaders To this end, it traces the shifting distribution of
nationwide to embrace and advance new jobs in America’s large metro areas during this
approaches for supporting concentrations of time, examines the influence of various industry
economic activity that produce better outcomes sectors on those patterns, and explores the
for more people in more places. Strengthened different types of communities within regions
by policies that encourage investment in existing where the clustering of employment increased
development areas rather than low density or declined. In doing so, this analysis provides
locales and greenfield sites, such concentrations greater insight into how the relationship between
do not equate to economically dynamic place and economy continues to evolve, and what
communities—but they seem increasingly this might mean for cities and regions seeking to
requisite for creating them. When coupled harness these trends to drive more equitable and
with good design and programming driven by sustainable economic growth in the digital age.
the vision and values of local stakeholders,

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 5

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The importance of density

N umerous studies and analyses have

demonstrated the important role that
density plays in fostering economic growth, social
investments in placemaking may yield few if any
benefits at all. Indeed, a relatively compact but
poorly designed neighborhood can discourage
capital and civic engagement, and healthier, social interaction, make walking dangerous, and
more sustainable communities. Density, of worsen traffic congestion and localized pollution.
course, is not the sole factor that leads to these Nonetheless, mounting evidence—only some
outcomes. A wide range of other market and of which is referenced here—reveals that the
policy factors impact each. And density absent of benefits of density are sizable and significant.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 6

The importance of density

An economic driver Density also therefore encourages workers and

firms to learn knowledge and skills from each
Density helps drive economic growth by enabling other and to collaborate on the creation of new
more frequent and productive interactions ideas and technologies. Numerous studies have
among firms and workers. It encourages more found that research and development labs and
sharing and trading among firms, better matching technology-intensive firms tend to locate close
of workers to firms, and faster learning—helping to one another, perhaps because the face-to-face
to lower costs, increase industrial diversity, spur interaction that innovation requires is easier in
innovation, and ultimately raise the productivity denser areas.11 Research by Gerald Carlino and
of local firms and workers.5 others has found that across metro areas, the
per capita output of patents increases by 22%
Density increases firms’ proximity to one another, for every 100% increase in job density. The
permitting them to share more inputs and more same study found that the effects of density on
easily trade their products and services. In denser innovative activity are greater than the effects
areas, more intermediate inputs are more readily of metro areas’ total population or employment,
available.6 Similar firms will have access to larger implying that a metro area’s density matters
pools of specialized labor and suppliers. Proximity more than its overall size when it comes to
also helps lower the cost of transporting goods creativity and inventiveness.12
and providing services, leading to more trade.
For example, research by Stuart Rosenthal and A civic enabler
William Strange found that firms purchase more
from local suppliers in areas where employees Density improves local governance and public
in the same industry are more geographically sector effectiveness by strengthening social
concentrated.7 Density also demands that similar capital, thus promoting civic participation and
firms compete with one another to offer the best reducing fiscal stress.
products and services in their local market, or to
differentiate their products or services through Density increases social capital by increasing
specialization. As a result, density leads to more the proximity of individuals to one another,
competitive and diverse local markets. making them more likely to engage in community
activities that address public concerns. Studies
Density also enables more frequent and effective have found that density increases the frequency
matching of workers and firms. In denser areas, of people’s spontaneous social interactions,
there are more job opportunities within a given perhaps through the use of the shared public
distance of a worker, making it more likely that spaces density creates.13 People in denser
people find more—and more attractive—job localities are also more active in civic institutions,
opportunities more often.8 In this way, density including through more frequent voting and
plays a particularly important role in the contact with municipal officials.14 This increased
employment and upward mobility of low-income civic participation enhances social capital
people, enabling them to more easily find work directly and can heighten one’s feeling of social
and become financially independent compared to connection.15 For example, a psychologist found
counterparts in less-dense areas.9 The increased that residents of Greenbelt, Maryland, a densely-
job mobility that density permits also increases developed town, tend to have a higher sense
personal and firm productivity by improving the of community than the residents in nearby
quality of worker-firm matches and by fostering Hyattsville, Maryland, a low-density town, despite
knowledge spillovers as workers move between the demographic similarities of the two towns.16
firms.10

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 7

The importance of density

Density also improves governance by easing fiscal metro areas tend to experience lower levels
pressures on municipalities and improving the of air pollution.23 Denser urban development
quality of local services. Extensive studies on the also tends to consume less land, preserving
costs of different types of development patterns wetlands, forests, and open spaces that help
have found that denser and more compact control flooding, purify wastewater, and regulate
development can reduce the fiscal burden climate.24
of providing and maintaining infrastructure
and public services while improving revenue Density promotes better human health outcomes
streams.17 More concentrated economic activity for some of the same reasons it is better for
encourages more intensive use of existing the environment. Because densely developed
infrastructure such as transit, roads, and water places are better at mitigating air pollution, they
lines and sewer lines, and also lowers the fixed tend to better for people with cardiovascular
and variable costs of new infrastructure and or respiratory illnesses.25 Density also creates
public services when they are required.18 In fact, safer development patterns that promote more
research has found that denser development everyday physical activity than sprawling car-
is associated with 38% less upfront cost for centric development patterns. Living in a denser
infrastructure than low-density sprawl on place can encourage people to spend more
average.19 Furthermore, police and ambulance time walking, bicycling, jogging, and running—
response times are not only faster in high- activities that lower the risks of obesity, high
density towns compared to low-density areas, blood pressure, and diabetes.26 People in denser
but also cheaper, shaving costs by about 10% on areas also tend to have lower risk of dying in a
average.20 car crash than those living or working in more
sprawling areas due to reduced driving and lower
A promoter of environmental and speed limits.27
physical health
***
Finally, more concentrated land use is vital to
combatting the consumption of land and burning Many policymakers and practitioners have
of fossil fuels associated with climate change, recognized and embraced density’s role in
while yielding concomitant benefits to humans’ shaping dynamic and inclusive communities.
overall health and wellbeing. For decades, planners, community development
groups, and other place-focused organizations
Density mitigates the harmful environmental have promoted policies and practices that foster
impacts of economic activity by conserving more concentrated patterns of economic and
energy, reducing air pollution, and preserving residential development. Yet for all their positive
the ecosystem and natural resources.21 Densely impacts, the findings here indicate that cities and
developed neighborhoods tend to consume regions could be doing more to advance such
less energy than low-density neighborhoods patterns—while doubling down on placemaking
because people travel less by car, reducing investments that can transform dense areas into
demand for fuel, and live and work in larger, more social, sustainable places that spur creativity, job
energy efficient buildings.22 As a result, denser creation, and widespread prosperity.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 8

 Phoenix, Arizona
Sources and methods

T o better understand the changing role of

density during the first wave of the digital
revolution, this report tracks trends in the spatial
This analysis uses LODES block group-level work
location data for the years 2004 to 2015.31 LODES
block group-level data are more accurate than
concentration of jobs in large U.S. metropolitan LODES block-level data and more geographically
areas from 2004 to 2015. It builds on the works of precise than Census tract-level data.32 The LODES
other scholars who have examined the proximity block-group level data are continuous, complete,
of jobs to the urban core and uses similar data and comprehensive for most U.S. states and areas
and concepts.28 But this report also departs from for the post-2003 period, with some exceptions
these earlier works in its focus on job density noted below. The authors supplement the LODES
rather than proximity. Using sensitive measures data with similar data from a related Census
of density and counterfactual analysis, this report Bureau data program called Quarterly Workforce
describes recent trends in the density of most Indicators (QWI) for parts of this analysis.33
private-sector wage-and-salary jobs among and
within 94 of the nation’s 100 largest metro areas Coverage and exclusions
and the local and sectoral dynamics behind the
trends. Together, these 94 metro areas contained LODES’s geographic and jobs coverage is
66% of the nation’s private-sector jobs in 2015. comparable to most major federal employment
data sources. The LODES data cover all civilian
About the data wage-and-salary employment covered by
unemployment insurance in every industry
The U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer- sector. (LODES reports data for sectors defined
Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination at the two-digit NAICS level).34 LODES excludes
Employment Statistics program (or LODES) is the self-employment and some types of contract,
primary source of local-area employment data informal, and “gig” employment. Altogether,
in this analysis.29 The Census Bureau creates this means LODES covers 96% of all U.S.
the public-use LEHD data by combining state- employment.35
supplied administrative records on workers and
employers with census and survey data.30 The LODES data are unavailable or unreliable for
LODES component of LEHD provides annual some sectors, jurisdictions, and time periods,
employment data linking home and work however. The Census Bureau depends on states’
locations at the Census block level for most U.S. participation in the LEHD program to produce
states for the years 2002 through 2015. (Census LEHD-related data products, including LODES.
has not yet released LODES data for more recent The District of Columbia and Massachusetts
years.) did not join the LEHD program until 2010.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 9

Sources and methods

Additionally, in some cases the Census Bureau of jobs in metro areas. Perceived density is
has incomplete data or cannot determine different from the standard measure of density.
the location of jobs for multi-establishment Standard job density is calculated by dividing
firms.36 This issue is especially prevalent in the total number of jobs by the total land area
the government, public administration, and of a metro area, revealing the average amount
administrative services sectors and for the entire of land around each job. Perceived job density
state of Wisconsin.37 instead measures the job density of the place in
which the average job is located, revealing the
Due to these data limitations, this analysis average number of jobs in the vicinity of each job.
covers only private, non-administrative Therefore, perceived job density provides a better
sectors of the economy for areas outside of approximation of how dense a metro area feels
the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and and how compactly its jobs are concentrated.
Wisconsin. This means the analysis excludes six
of the nation’s largest 100 metropolitan areas: To see how these two measures can lead to
Boston; Madison, Wis.; Milwaukee; Springfield, different indications of job density in a metro
Mass.; Washington; and Worcester, Mass. area, consider the three examples in Figure
Additionally, the Massachusetts portion of the 1. Each of these hypothetical metro areas is
Providence, R.I. metro area and the Wisconsin nine square miles and each contains nine jobs.
portions of the Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul Therefore, all three have the same standard
metro areas are excluded from the analysis. job density of one job per square mile. Jobs
are concentrated differently in each example,
Measuring job density however. In the first example, jobs are spread
evenly, giving this metro area the same standard
All the findings on job density in the report and perceived job density. In the second example,
refer to the weighted or “perceived” density some parts of the metro area contain more

Figure 1. Perceived job density indicates the number of jobs around a typical job
Three examples of standard versus perceived job density in a metro area

1 mi
1 mi

Low perceived density Medium perceived density High perceived density

Standard density: 1 job/mi2 Standard density: 1 job/mi2 Standard density: 1 job/mi2
Perceived density: 1 job/mi2 Perceived density: 2.3 jobs/mi2 Perceived density: 9 jobs/mi2

Source: The Brookings Institution

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 10

Sources and methods

Sidebar 1: Job density levels in large U.S. metropolitan areas

Metro areas’ perceived density tends to be quite a bit greater than their standard density, and
better reflects the concentration of their jobs across space. Taken together, the 94 metro areas
in this study had a perceived density of 25,994 jobs per square mile in 2015, which is 147 times
greater than their collective standard density of 177 jobs per square mile. Among individual metro
areas, this ratio was largest in Boise, Idaho, where perceived density of 4,743 jobs per square mile
was nearly 240 times greater than its standard density of 20 jobs per square mile. The ratio was
lowest in Cape Coral, Fla., where perceived density of 1,694 jobs per square mile was only about
six-and-a-half times greater than its standard density of 262 jobs per square mile. These ratios
indicate that the mountainous Boise metro area covers a lot of land but that its jobs are relatively
concentrated, whereas Cape Coral’s jobs are spread more evenly across its land area.

Comparing metro areas’ perceived density also reveals more about the relative concentration of
their jobs than standard density does. For example, Figure 2 shows that the New York metro area
has a standard density of 1,103 jobs per square mile—the highest of any metro area and about 7%
greater than the metro area with the next highest standard density: Los Angeles. However, New
York’s perceived density of 138,541 jobs per square mile is almost 700% greater than Los Angeles
metro area’s perceived density of 17,386 jobs per square mile. This difference in perceived density
is a truer reflection of how jobs are concentrated in each of these metro areas: New York’s jobs
are highly concentrated. The Los Angeles has a similar number of jobs per square mile as New
York, but its jobs are more spread out across its land area. Similarly, San Francisco and Miami have
similar standard job densities, but San Francisco’s perceived job density is 600% greater than
Figure
Miami’s. 3

Figure 2. Every metro area’s perceived density is greater than its standard density
Standard versus perceived density of large metro areas, 2015

160,000
New York, N.Y.
140,000

120,000
Jobs per square mile
Perceived density

100,000

80,000
San Francisco, Calif.
60,000 Chicago, Ill.

40,000 All 94
metro areas
Los Angeles, Calif.
20,000 Miami, Fla.

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Standard density
Jobs per square mile

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 11

Sources and methods

jobs than others, which makes its perceived job Calculating expected trends
density greater than its standard job density. In
the third example, all the jobs are concentrated This report explores whether metro areas’ job
in just one part of the metro area, giving it a density is increasing or decreasing, by how much,
perceived job density nine-times greater than its and why. A metro area’s job density can change
standard job density. because of job growth, changes in the distribution
of its jobs across sectors, and because of
In this analysis, perceived job density is measured shifts in the distribution of sectors’ jobs across
for all the Census block groups in each metro space. Among the reasons why job density can
area using the LODES jobs data described above change, shifts in the distribution of jobs across
and the authors’ calculations of block-group land space are most interesting because they reveal
area.38 The perceived job density of a metro where economic activity is gravitating: toward
area is found by (1) calculating the standard job more- or less-dense parts of a metro area. Local
density of each block group, (2) weighting the policymakers have considerable influence on
block group by its share of the metro area’s jobs, these spatial shifts and should have an interest in
(3) multiplying each block group’s standard job ensuring that spatial shifts increase density given
density by its job weight, and (4) summing the its inherent benefits.39
weighted job density of all block areas in the
metro area. The same formula can be used to find We can measure spatial shifts in the distribution
the perceived job density of any given industry of jobs across a metro area and analyze their
sector or sub-area (e.g., a county). A similar effects on its job density by comparing the
formula will yield the sector’s contribution to a “actual” trend in job density to a counterfactual
metro area’s total perceived job density. In the or “expected” trend. The actual trend in job
findings that follow, the perceived job density density refers to observed changes in a metro
of metropolitan America—that is, all 94 metro area’s perceived job density.40 The expected
areas together—is found by weighting each block trend refers to how a metro area’s job density
group’s job density with its share of total jobs would have changed if job growth in each
in all 94 metro areas’ jobs (instead of its share industry sector had been distributed according
of its metro area’s jobs) and then summing the to each block group’s starting share of the metro
weighted job density of all block groups. This area’s jobs in that sector.41 In other words, the
same approach is used to find the collective expected change reveals how a metro area’s job
perceived density of other groups of metro areas. density would have changed due to job growth

“Perceived density is different from the standard measure of density.

Standard job density is calculated by dividing the total number of jobs by the
total land area of a metro area, revealing the average amount of land around
each job. Perceived job density instead measures the job density of the place
in which the average job is located, revealing the average number of jobs in
the vicinity of each job.”

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 12

Sources and methods

alone, independent of shifts in the distribution of altogether for an overall job growth rate of 78%.
jobs across space. If these new manufacturing and services jobs
were distributed across Metropolis X according to
To see how a comparison of expected and actual each subarea’s share of total jobs in each sector
job density trends can reveal the effects of spatial in year one, Metropolis X could have expected to
shifts in the distribution of jobs, consider the see its perceived job density increase by 66%. In
example in Figure 3. This hypothetical metro area the example, however, new jobs are actually more
called Metropolis X started off with five jobs in concentrated than expected: New manufacturing
the manufacturing sector and four jobs in the jobs located in just two subareas instead of
services sector for a total of nine jobs in year one. five and new services jobs located in just one
From year one to year two, Metropolis X doubled subarea instead of two. As a result, Metropolis
its number of manufacturing jobs and added X’s perceived job density actually increased by
50% more services jobs, adding seven new jobs 115%.42

Figure 3. Comparing expected and actual trends reveals why job density has changed
An example of expected and actual changes in job density in a metro area

Existing service job New service job Existing manufacturing job New manufacturing job

1 mi
1 mi

Yr1. Actual job concentration Yr2. Expected job concentration Yr2. Actual job concentration
Standard density: 1 job/mi2 Standard density: 1.78 jobs/mi2 Standard density: 1.78 jobs/mi2
Perceived density: 2.33 jobs/mi2 Perceived density: 3.88 jobs/mi2 Perceived density: 5 jobs/mi2

Source: The Brookings Institution

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 13

 Raleigh, North Carolina
Findings

T his analysis reveals that jobs in metropolitan

America grew both up and out from 2004 to
2015. It shows a large and greater-than-expected
and dense metro areas. In fact, overall increases
in job density occurred in just under half of
the metro areas studied. The story is complex,
increase in the density of jobs in metropolitan however: Indeed, our look within metros revealed
America as a whole, which strongly suggests that that almost every large metro area exhibited
the overall demand for density has risen. It also both job densification and job sprawl across
finds that this increase was driven in large part its counties, yielding a polycentric pattern of
by a select group of industry sectors in the core development not described in previous studies.
urban counties of a small set of especially large

“Our look within metros revealed that almost every large metro area
exhibited both job densification and job sprawl across its counties, yielding a
polycentric pattern of development not described in previous studies.”

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 14

Findings

1. Overall job density within metro Suburban and exurban areas then shed their jobs
areas increased from 2004 to 2015, faster than denser urban areas over the course
driven primarily by four metro areas of the Great Recession from 2007 to 2009, which
caused the average job density of the largest
A worker in the average job in metropolitan metro areas to increase more than 10% over
America would perceive the area around her those two years. Job density increased steadily
place of work to have many more jobs in 2015 over the course of the economic recovery from
than in 2004. In fact, the job density of the 2009 to 2015 as denser urban areas added jobs
94 large metropolitan areas increased from faster than their less-dense counterparts.
an average of 20,068 jobs per square mile in
2004 to 25,994 jobs per square mile in 2015—an These overall job density trends are heavily
increase of 5,926 jobs per square mile, or nearly influenced by just a few of the nation’s largest
30%. This increase in job density outpaced and densest metro areas, however. The metro
overall job growth during this period, indicating areas of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and
that not only did most metro areas have more Seattle account for almost 90% of the increase
jobs in 2015 than in 2004 but also that jobs in job density seen among all 94 large metro
became more concentrated in denser parts of areas from 2004 to 2015. The outsized influence
metro areas. of these four metro areas stems from their size,
density, and growth. Together, they comprise
Figure 4 shows that job density among all 94 about 20% of private, non-administrative jobs in
metro areas taken together increased modestly in metropolitan America and a slightly larger share
the early part of this period (from 2004 through of its job growth during this period. Their job
2007) as low-density suburban and exurban density increased from an average of 65,813 to
areas added jobs faster than denser urban areas. 92,000 jobs per square mile, or by 40%.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Metropolitan America’s job density increased due to trends in extremely
dense metro areas
Change in the job density of large metro areas since 2004

Large metro areas (94) Extremely dense metro areas (4) All other large metro areas (90)
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 15

Findings

Job density trends in the rest of metropolitan to 2015, trends varied greatly among individual
America were more modest on average. Excluding metro areas. Only 48 of 94 large metro areas
these four extremely dense metro areas, the posted increases in job density, but most of
other 90 large metro areas saw a collective those gains were fairly large. Fourteen (14)
increase in job density of about 9%, building from metro areas posted increases in job density
an average of 8,917 jobs per square mile in 2004 that exceeded the 94-metro area average, led
to 9,735 jobs per square mile in 2015. However, by San Francisco, Honolulu, Oxnard, Calif., San
these metro areas also show considerable Jose, Calif., Charlotte, N.C., Albany, N.Y., New
variation in the direction and extent of changes York, and Nashville.43 Another 20 metro areas
in job density during this period, as the following saw job density increases of 10 to 30%, including
findings show. large metro areas such as Seattle, Philadelphia,
Chicago, and Atlanta as well as smaller metro
2. Only half of large metro areas areas such as Greenville, S.C., Boise, Idaho, and
experienced an increase in job Richmond, Va.
density, while the others sprawled
In the other 46 metro areas, most declines in
Despite the notable increase in job density in job density were relatively modest: 20 metro
metropolitan America as a whole from 2004 areas saw declines of less than 10% and another

Figure 5. Faster-growing metro areas tended to see larger increases in job density
Change in job density across 94 of the nation’s largest metro areas, 2004 to 2015

Increase
> 30%
10% - 30%
0% - 10%
Decrease
0% - 10%
10% - 30%
> 30%

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 16

Findings

Figure 6. Faster job growth was associated with larger increases in job density
Figure 6 between change in jobs and job density among 94 large metro areas from
Relationship
2004 to 2015

Average Metro areas

60%

50%
Change in number of jobs

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Change in perceived job density

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

13 saw declines of 10% to 20%. However, six while slower job growth was associated with job
metro areas saw declines ranging from 30% to sprawl.
54%: Scranton, Pa., Cape Coral, Fla., New Haven,
Conn., Rochester, N.Y., Sacramento, Calif., and There are notable exceptions to these trends,
Youngstown, Ohio. however. For example, Cape Coral increased its
number of private, non-administrative jobs by
Metro areas that achieved faster job growth 24% from 2004 to 2015—the 10th fastest rate
tended to see larger increases in perceived job of job growth of these 94 metro areas during
density. This would not necessarily be assumed: this period—but its job density actually declined
While job growth would naturally lead to an 31% as new and existing jobs spread out to
increase in standard density (more jobs, same less-dense and undeveloped parts of the metro
land area) it would not necessarily increase area. Cleveland, on the other hand, saw a 2%
perceived density if, for instance, new jobs locate decline, on net, in its number of private, non-
in low-density areas. But in fact, of the 36 metros administrative jobs but a 30% increase in its job
that saw above-average job growth, 28 (78%) density because its health care jobs became more
also saw their perceived job density increase. concentrated in already-dense parts of the metro
On the other hand, 38 (66%) of the 58 metro area. Similarly, Oxnard, Calif. saw job growth of
areas that saw below-average job growth saw just 6% but increased its job density by 51% due
job density decline. In short, faster job growth in large part to the increasing concentration of its
was associated with increasing job concentration manufacturing and wholesale jobs.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 17

Findings

3. Jobs in dense metro areas grew This gap between expected and actual job
far denser than expected, while density trends began to grow after the Great
most metro areas fell short of their Recession began in late 2007. Up until 2007,
potential job density increase jobs in metropolitan America had been growing
denser but slightly less-dense-than-expected
Across metropolitan America as a whole, job because the nation’s pre-recession boom
density increased more from 2004 to 2015 disproportionately favored less-dense suburban
than job growth alone would have predicted. If and exurban parts of metro areas. But these
each metro area’s annual job growth had been less-dense parts then shed jobs faster than the
distributed according to the spatial distribution rest of metropolitan America over the course of
of its jobs in the prior year for the whole of the recession from 2007 to 2009. Meanwhile,
this period, metropolitan America could have denser urban areas were more resilient, retaining
expected its job density to increase 18% from or even adding more jobs. This shift in the
2004 to 2015, as shown in Figure 7. Instead, balance of the distribution of jobs from less-
metropolitan America actually saw an increase in dense to denser parts of metro areas created
job density of 30%—an increase that is more than a gap between expected and actual job density
50% greater-than-expected. That metropolitan trends starting in 2008 that grew even larger in
America’s actual job density trends outpaced 2009. As the economic recovery set in and less-
those expected from job growth alone indicates dense suburban areas began to add jobs in 2010,
that job growth disproportionately favored that gap shrank slightly. But once the nation’s
already-dense parts of metro areas during this economic expansion strengthened in 2013, job
period.

Figure
Figure 7
7. Metropolitan America’s job density increased more than its job growth trends
would predict
Expected versus actual change in job density of large metro areas since 2004
Expected Actual
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 18

Findings

“Across metropolitan America as a whole, job density increased more

from 2004 to 2015 than job growth alone would have predicted. If each
metro area’s annual job growth had been distributed according to the
spatial distribution of its jobs in the prior year for the whole of this period,
metropolitan America could have expected its job density to increase 18%
from 2004 to 2015, as shown in Figure 7.”

density again increased more than job growth In the other 75 large metro areas, actual changes
alone would predict and continued to grow in job density fell short of expected changes,
through at least 2015. suggesting new jobs generally spread to less-
dense parts of these regions. For example,
Once again, though, these trends were influenced private, non-administrative jobs in Tucson,
by a relatively small group of metro areas. Ariz. and Grand Rapids, Mich. grew by 2%
Indeed, only 19 of 94 large metro areas posted and 6%, respectively. Yet if these modest job
actual increases in job density that were greater gains had accrued in proportion to where jobs
than those expected from job growth alone, as were already located in each metro area, each
shown in Figure 8. Some of these 19 metro areas could have expected to see increases in job
are the nation’s largest and densest metro areas, density of 12%. Instead, new and existing jobs
such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and migrated to less dense parts of each metro area,
Seattle, which had an outsized impact on both which lowered Tucson’s job density by 25%
expected and actual change in job density. Job and Grand Rapid’s by 28%. Other metro areas
growth in the downtowns and central urban such as Austin, Charlotte, and Provo, Utah saw
counties of these metro areas accounted for faster-than-average job growth but still saw job
almost all their greater-than-expected increases density increase less than expected as their jobs
in job density, patterns that will be further spread out. In Austin, for example, private, non-
explored in the following findings. These 19 administrative jobs grew by 55%. If these new
metro areas also include smaller and less-dense jobs had accrued according to where Austin’s
but relatively fast-growing metro areas, such as existing jobs were located, Austin could have
Nashville, Indianapolis, and Las Vegas. expected its job density to increase 54%. Instead,
Austin’s job density increased just 40%.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 19

Findings

Figure 8 large metro areas’ job density increased less than their job growth
Figure 8. Most
would predict
Expected versus actual change in job density, 2004 to 2015

Expected Actual Less-than-expected Greater-than-expected

San Francisco, Calif.
Urban Honolulu, Hawaii
Oxnard, Calif.
San Jose, Calif.
Charlotte, N.C.
Albany, N.Y.
New York, N.Y.
Nashville, Tenn.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Austin, Texas
Fresno, Calif.
Las Vegas, Nev.
Provo, Utah
Columbus, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
All 94 large metro areas
Seattle, Wash.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Greenville, S.C.
Portland, Ore.
Boise City, Idaho
Chicago, Ill.
Richmond, Va.
Atlanta, Ga.
Hartford, Conn.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Tampa, Fla.
Houston, Texas
Los Angeles, Calif.
Raleigh, N.C.
Miami, Fla.
Denver, Colo.
Harrisburg, Pa.
Ogden, Utah
Minneapolis, Minn.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Spokane, Wash.
San Antonio, Texas
Salt Lake City, Utah
Orlando, Fla.
Allentown, Pa.
Bakersfield, Calif.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Charleston, S.C.
Detroit, Mich
Dallas, Texas
Greensboro, N.C.
McAllen, Texas
Virginia Beach, Va.
Deltona, Fla.
Augusta, Ga.
Omaha, Neb.
Phoenix, Ariz.
Kansas City, Mo.
Lakeland, Fla.
Baltimore, Md.
Riverside, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
Louisville, Ky.
Memphis, Tenn.
Baton Rouge, La.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Providence, R.I.
Tulsa, Okla.
Bridgeport, Conn.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
St. Louis, Mo.
Palm Bay, Fla.
Dayton, Ohio
Jackson, Miss.
Knoxville, Tenn.
Buffalo, N.Y.
El Paso, Texas
Columbia, S.C.
North Port, Fla.
Birmingham, Ala.
Des Moines, Iowa
Little Rock, Ark.
Syracuse, N.Y.
Toledo, Ohio
New Orleans, La.
Winston, N.C.
Wichita, Kan.
Albuquerque, N.M.
Akron, Ohio
Tucson, Ariz.
Chattanooga, Tenn.
Grand Rapids, Mich
Stockton, Calif.
Scranton, Pa.
Cape Coral, Fla.
New Haven, Conn.
Rochester, N.Y.
Sacramento, Calif.
Youngstown, Ohio

-60.0% -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 20

 Findings

4. Most sectors of the economy saw driven by a rather narrow set of metro areas,
large but not widespread increases as shown in Figure 11. For example, jobs in the
in job density knowledge-intensive information sector saw a
60% increase in density across all 94 metros
The growth and changing distribution of jobs in taken together, but this was driven largely by the
individual industry sectors played a significant increasing concentration of information jobs in
role in the job density trends in metropolitan the especially large and dense metro areas of
America as a whole and in individual metro San Francisco, New York, and Seattle. Indeed,
areas. In the 94 metro areas as a whole, density the information sector’s job density increased
around the average job increased from 2004 to in just 33 (35%) of metro areas, a group which
2015 in every sector except manufacturing and also included fast-growing tech hot spots such
logistics. Moreover, most sectors’ job density as Austin, Greenville, S.C., Indianapolis, and
increased by more than would be expected from Nashville, Tenn. Moreover, in almost all these
job growth alone, as shown in Figure 10. These metro areas those increases were greater-than-
large and greater-than-expected increases in job expected, indicating that in the metro areas
density indicate that new jobs in most sectors where the information sector is adding jobs, it is
disproportionately located in denser areas during disproportionately adding them to already-dense
this period, which could suggest an increasing parts of the metro area. Retail is another sector
preference for density throughout most of the where greater-than-expected increases in density
economy. across all metro areas taken together were in fact
driven by increases in only a few individual metro
In most sectors, the job density increases seen areas, such as New York, Seattle, and Honolulu.
across metropolitan America as a whole were

Figure 9. The job density of most sectors increased more than their growth alone would
predict
Figure 10
Expected versus actual change in job density around jobs by sector, 2004 to 2015
Expected Actual
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
re
l

al

sp il

te

es

le

rs

s
ta

en

ce

ic
ta

lit

nc

rin
io

tio

tio
on

sa

ca

te
ta

iti
To

st
at

ita
Re

vi

na
uc

ca

tu
ar
le
es

til
si

gi
th
er
rm

in

ho
es

Fi

ac
qu
U

u
tr

Lo
al
al

ta

ls

Ed
fo

Ho
ns

of

uf
ad
He
Re

er

ca
In

Pr
Co

an
He
nt

Lo

M
/e
ts
Ar

Note: Agriculture and mining are not shown due to their small number of jobs but count toward the total.
Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 21

Sidebar 2. Job density of major industry sectors in
metropolitan America

So how dense had these sectors grown by 2015? As shown in Figure 9, sectors that provide or
depend on advanced businesses services, such as financial services, information, professional
services, and corporate headquarters, were the densest sectors in 2015. These sectors, along
with the education sector, all employ larger numbers of highly educated workers. In this analysis,
a sector’s level of job density is determined by two factors: The first is the spatial concentration
of jobs in that sector, and the second is the nearby concentrations of other sectors’ jobs. These
advanced business service sectors have high job density not only because jobs in each sector are
highly concentrated together, but also because they tend to locate close to lots of jobs in other
sectors. For example, information jobs by themselves had a density of 19,529 jobs per square mile in
2015, but the perceived density around information jobs was 69,497 jobs per square mile including
co-located jobs in other sectors. In other words, information jobs are themselves responsible for
just 28% of their perceived job density. Corporate headquarters jobs are responsible for just 16% of
job density in that sector.

In contrast, sectors that tend to cater to consumers, or that consist of facilities that need large
tracts of land, tend to have lower job densities. For example, the health care, local services,
hospitality, and retail sectors have among the lowest job densities, in part because these sectors
locate closer to households in less-dense neighborhoods and suburbs. Like the denser sectors
discussed above, much of these sectors’ perceived density comes not from their own jobs but from
nearby jobs in other sectors, with the exception of health care. Health care jobs are responsible
for nearly 60% of that sector’s job density, indicating that health care jobs—at hospitals or large
health complexes, for example—represent the majority of the jobs in the areas where they are
located. Wholesale, logistics, and manufacturing jobs have lower job densities because they tend
to comprise large one-story facilities such as warehouses, airports, and factories that often require
lots of land and separation from other land uses.

Figure 10. Jobs in advanced services sectors are located in the densest parts of metro
areas on average
Figure
Job 9 by sector in 2015
density

80,000

70,000

60,000
Jobs per squaremile

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
l

n
ce

rs

es

te

es

ho y

le

il

s
Ho are
ta

na

en

ic
ta
lit

rin
io

io

tio
sa
te

ta
iti

c
an
To

st
io
at

at

ita

Co Re
nm

vi

uc

tu
ar

le
en l es
il

gi
n

er
m

uc

th
Ut

sp
es
Fi

ac
qu

tr

Lo
ai
r

ls

al
a
Ed
fo

ns
of

rt

uf
ad

Re

He
ca
te
In

Pr

an
He

Lo

M
s/ t
Ar

Note: Agriculture and mining are not shown due to their small number of jobs but count toward the total.
Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 22

Findings

Notably, a few sectors did post job density the food service and hotel industries. These
increases across about half of individual metro trends appear to confirm findings by the
areas. The density around jobs in the arts International Downtown Association and others
and entertainment sector rose in 56 of 94 that concentration and proximity are playing an
large metro areas (60%). The density around important role in the location decisions of firms
corporate headquarters jobs rose in 50 (53%) in these sectors.45 Additionally, health care, real
of large metro areas.44 Additionally, half of estate, construction, finance, and education all
large metro areas also saw increases in the saw increasing job density in close to half of large
density of jobs in hospitality, which comprises metro areas.

Figure 11. Most sectors’ job density increases were driven by a minority of metro areas
Figure 11 metro areas that saw an increase in job density by sector from 2004 to 2015
Share of large

Total
Arts/entertainment
Headquarters
Real estate
Health care
Hospitality
Construction
Finance
Education
Utilities
Professional
Wholesale
Retail
Information
Local services
Logistics
Manufacturing

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Note: Agriculture and mining are not shown due to their small number of jobs but count toward the total.
Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 23

Findings

5. Core urban counties experienced saw increases in job density of 13% and 1%,
large increases in job density, while respectively. Exurban counties collectively saw
suburban counties saw more modest job density decline by 18%. Actual job trends fell
gains short of expected trends in these suburban and
exurban counties, suggesting that job growth in
Job density trends not only varied among suburban and exurban counties spread out to
individual metro areas, but also within them. The less-dense parts of these areas.
highly urbanized “core” counties within individual
metro areas tended to see much larger increases Once again, these job densification trends do not
in job density from 2004 to 2015 than less- play out the same way in every metro area. For
urbanized—and, typically, less-dense—suburban instance, although core urban counties posted a
or exurban counties.46 As with the preceding large increase in job density when all large metro
findings, increases in job density in individual areas are taken together, only 73% of large metro
counties were not widespread, suggesting, areas that contain core urban counties saw the
again, that many of metropolitan America’s job job density of those counties increase during the
densification trends during this period were study period, as shown in Figure 13.49 Only about
driven in large part by a small set of metro areas. half of metro areas that host suburban counties
saw job density increase in those counties
Within metropolitan America as a whole, core while just 21% of metro areas saw job density
urban counties—defined as counties where at increase in their exurban counties. In short, the
least 95% of residents lived in an urbanized area direction and extent of job density trends varied
in 2000—collectively saw job density increase greatly within metro areas and among similarly
from an average of 35,388 jobs per square mile urbanized counties across metro areas.
in 2004 to 41,879 jobs per square mile in 2015, or
by 35% (Figure 12). These core urban counties’ This analysis therefore reveals a more nuanced
increase in job density was considerably greater- pattern of job growth in metro areas than
than-expected, suggesting that job growth in previous job sprawl studies have found. From
these core counties tended to concentrate in 2004 to 2015, jobs in most large metro areas
already-dense areas—including downtowns—within both densified and sprawled: Almost every metro
them. This aligns with findings by Smart Growth area in this study had at least one county where
America and others that growing numbers of jobs grew denser and almost every metro area
business leaders are starting, expanding, or also had at least one county in which job density
moving their firms to downtown locations in declined. Moreover, the pattern of job growth
order to attract and retain educated workers, to within different counties in the same metro
be closer to their customers, and to collaborate area mattered just as much—if not more—to a
with other firms and institutions.47 Christopher metro area’s overall job density trends than the
Leinberger, Michael Rodriguez, Tracy Loh and distribution of its job growth between core urban
others, have also documented the rapid rise of counties, peripheral suburban, and exurban
dense and walkable communities in these areas.48 counties.

Meanwhile, less-urbanized counties posted more

modest increases in job density. Mature suburban
counties and emerging suburban counties

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 24

 Findings

Figure 12. Metropolitan America’s more-urbanized counties posted larger increases in

job density
Figure 12
Expected versus actual change in job density by county urbanization rate from 2004 to 2015

Expected Actual

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%
Total Core urban Mature suburban Emerging suburban Exurban counties
counties counties counties (Less than 25%
(95 to 100% (75% to 95% (25 to 75% urbanized)
urbanized) urbanized) urbanized)

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

Figure 13
Figure 13. Job density trends varied even among similar types of counties in large
metro areas
Share of metro areas that saw an increase in job density from 2004 to 2015

Total

Core urban counties

Mature suburban counties

Emerging suburban counties

Exurban counties

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 25

Findings

Sidebar 3. Metropolitan America’s job density trends in more recent years

Job density appears to have continued to rise in metropolitan America in more recent years, as
shown in Figure 14. Although historical employment data for Census block groups are available
only through 2015, county-level job growth trends suggest that job density increased more than 4
percent across all 94 metro areas taken together from 2015 to 2018.50 Although the four especially
large and extremely dense metro areas of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle continued
to fuel a large part of these increases, job density actually increased at a faster rate among the
other 90 metro areas. Furthermore, increases in more recent years appear far more pervasive
than in earlier years: Eighty-seven (87) of 94 metro areas (or 93%) would have seen an increase in
job density from 2015 to 2018 based on their county-level job growth trends. Core urban counties
were again responsible for much of the overall rise in metropolitan America’s job density, although
job growth in suburban and exurban counties outpaced job growth in urban counties during this
period.

Figure 14
Figure 14. County-level job growth trends suggest job density has continued to rise
Projected job density trends for more recent years

Large metro areas (94) Extremely dense metro areas (4) All other large metro areas (90)
Projected

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics and Census
Quarterly Workforce Indicators

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 26

 Indianapolis, Indiana
Case studies

T hese findings reveal considerable differences

in job density trends between metro areas
from 2004 to 2015. Not only are some metro
always necessarily good, and declines are not
always bad. Metro Indianapolis saw among the
largest increases in job density of large metro
areas far denser than others, but the direction, areas from 2004 to 2015, in which job losses
extent, and forces behind their job density trends in its manufacturing sector played a large part.
vary greatly. Metro Baltimore’s job density declined as its job
growth spread from its downtown and along its
The following case studies of the Indianapolis waterfront to former industrial neighborhoods
and Baltimore metro areas demonstrate where investment and jobs had been scarce. The
how contrasting characteristics can animate case studies suggest that each metro area faces
job density trends in different metro areas. distinct circumstances and opportunities for
Additionally, these case studies reveal that transformative placemaking.
gains in overall metropolitan job density are not

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 27

Case studies

Indianapolis Most of Indianapolis’s increase in job density

was driven by the unexpected concentration
The Indianapolis metro area’s job density of jobs in several industry sectors. During the
increased substantially during the study period. immediate aftermath of the Great Recession,
This rapid rise would have hardly been expected especially fast job growth in the health care
based on its starting distribution of jobs and its and hospitality sectors occurred in or near
overall pace of job growth. In 2004, Indianapolis’s Indianapolis’s downtown. Indianapolis’s fast-
job density of 5,075 jobs per square mile ranked growing professional services sector also
50th out of the 94 large U.S. metro areas in disproportionately concentrated its new jobs in
this analysis. From 2004 to 2015, its job density the metro area’s downtown, which contributed
increased by a stunning 42%, to 7,181 jobs per to the increasing density of jobs in this sector
square mile—the 33rd highest out of 94 metro (Figure 16). New jobs at corporate headquarters,
areas. This was a far greater increase in the too, located in the downtown and other already-
metro area’s job density than would be expected. dense parts of Indianapolis.
If the jobs Indianapolis gained during this period
had spread according to the starting distribution Job losses in manufacturing also played
of jobs each year, job density would have a role in the steep increase in job density,
increased by about 13% (Figure 15). however. Like most metro areas, Indianapolis

Figure 15. Indianapolis increased its job density more than its job growth alone would
predict
Figure
Change in15Indianopolis’s job density since 2004

Expected Actual
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 28

 Case studies

Figure 16. Most of Indianapolis’s sectors increased their job density substantially
Figure 16
Change in job density of Indianapolis by sector, 2004 to 2015

Expected Actual

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%
l

al

rs

te

s
s

il

le
re
ta

en
ce

tie
ic

ta
lit
nc
rin

io

io

tio
on

sa
te

ta

ca
To

st
at

at
ita

Re
m
vi
na

ili
uc
tu

ar

le
es
si

gi
er

uc

rm
th

in

Ut
sp

ho
es

Fi
ac

qu

tr
Lo
al

ta
ls

al

Ed

fo
Ho

ns
of

W
uf

ad

Re

He

er
ca

In
Pr

Co
an

He

nt
Lo
M

/e
ts
Ar

Note: Agriculture and mining are not shown due to their small number of jobs but count toward the total.
Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

shed manufacturing jobs during and after share of job growth from 2004 to 2015 was
the recession. The metro area sustained a in line with its share of jobs, its job growth
disproportionate share of its manufacturing job disproportionately concentrated in the downtown
losses in less-dense parts of the metro area, and other dense parts of the county. This
which effectively increased the density of the increased its job density by 46%, accounting for
manufacturing jobs that remained in parts of the 97% of the region’s increase in job density during
metro area that were already dense. this period. The rest of the increase came from
the metro area’s two mature suburban counties,
Job growth patterns in Marion County played Hamilton—driven by the densification of jobs
a major role in the metro area’s densification in the city of Carmel—and Johnson. Together,
during this period. The county is Indianapolis’s these two mature suburban counties increased
only core urban county and hosts about their job density by 32%. Job density declined in
two-thirds of the metro area’s private, non- Indianapolis’s emerging suburban and exurban
administrative jobs. Although Marion County’s counties.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 29

Case studies

Figure 17. Indianapolis’s largest job density increases were in its downtown and nearby
suburbs

Hamilton Hamilton
County County
Carmel
Carmel

Hendricks Hendricks
County Marion County Marion County
County

Downtown Downtown
s s
ile ile
m m
3 3

s
s

ile
ile

m
m

10
10

Johnson Johnson
County County

Extremely high density (more than 30,000 jobs per sq mi) Increase of more than 1,000 jobs per sq mi
Very high density (7,000 to 30,000 jobs per sq mi) Increase of 250 to 1,000 jobs per sq mi
High density (1,500 to 7,000 jobs per sq mi) Increase of 0 to 250 jobs per sq mi
Moderate density (400 to 1,500 jobs per sq mi) Decrease of 0 to 100 jobs per sq mi
Low density (100 to 400 jobs per sq mi) Decrease of 100 to 600 jobs per sq mi
Very low density (less than 100 jobs per sq mi) Decrease of more than 600 jobs per sq mi
Parks Parks

Figure 17A. In 2004, Indianapolis’s densest Figure 17B. Indianapolis’s largest increases in
areas were its downtown and the areas just density from 2004 to 2015 were in and around
north and southwest of downtown. There its downtown. Other areas that saw increases
were some pockets of high job density along in job density included the southern part of
the Indianapolis Beltway (I-465), such as the Hamilton County around the city of Carmel and
northern part of Marion County and the city the eastern portion of Hendricks County. The
of Carmel in the southwestern part of the largest decreases in density are actually just
Hamilton County. outside the downtown area, especially in West
Indianapolis.

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 30

Case studies

Baltimore this period. Hospitality and professional services

each would have increased their job density from
The Baltimore metro area saw its job density 2004 to 2015 had their job growth accumulated
decline slightly from 2004 to 2015. In 2004 where jobs in these sectors were already located,
Baltimore’s job density of 12,524 jobs per square particularly in the city’s downtown. Instead, jobs
mile ranked 13th highest out of the 94 large U.S. in these sectors spread out around Baltimore’s
metro areas in this analysis. From 2004 to 2015, Inner Harbor and further east and south along its
Baltimore’s job density declined by about 1%, to long waterfront. As a result, the density of jobs
12,397 jobs per square mile—dropping its rank to in each sector declined, as shown in Figure 19.
16th. The metro area’s job growth from 2004 to The density of information jobs declined, counter
2015 was a few percentage points less than the to expectations, due to job losses in this sector
large metro area average and, if spread according and because the distribution of information jobs
to the region’s starting distribution of jobs, would shifted from denser parts of the metro area to
have increased job density by 17%, as shown in less-dense parts, such as Seton Business Park,
Figure 18. Jessup, and Milford Mill.

Several major sectors shifted the distribution of Other sectors posted changes in job density
their jobs to less-dense parts of Baltimore during that are notable for either their size or role in
Baltimore’s overall job density trends. Health

Figure 18. Baltimore’s job density declined slightly despite an expected increase
Figure
Change 18
in Baltimore’s perceived job density since 2004

Expected Actual

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 31

 Case studies

care jobs grew denser during this period, Baltimore’s changing job density from 2004 to
thanks in large part to the growth of health care 2015 is different from most other large metro
institutions in Baltimore’s urban core, such as areas in two ways. First, the density of its core
Johns Hopkins Hospital. However, the education urban area, Baltimore City, declined and was the
sector—Baltimore’s densest sector in 2004—saw largest contributor to the decline seen across
its density decline despite an expected increase, the metro area overall.51 Second, Baltimore City’s
as private schools and colleges in less-dense declining job density was not driven purely by the
suburban areas added jobs faster than those in recession or by job losses. Instead, the declines
the core. These trends also heavily influenced the are a result of job growth spreading out from
metro area’s overall job density trends. Baltimore’s highly dense downtown to less-dense
adjacent districts along its waterfront during the
Great Recession and early years of the economic
recovery.

Figure 19. Most of Baltimore’s industry sectors saw their job density decline
Figure
Change 19
in job density of Baltimore by sector, 2004 to 2015

Expected Actual

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%
re
l

il

Ho tics

te

ho s

le

al

n
ta

en

tie

ce

r
ta

lit

nc

rin
tio

io

io
sa

on
ca

te
ta
To

at

at
ita
Re
m

vi

na
ili
uc

tu
ar

le
es

si
gi
th

er

rm

uc
in

Ut

sp

es

Fi

ac
qu
tr

Lo
al

al
ta

ls

Ed
fo
ns

of
W

uf
ad
He

Re
er

ca

In

Pr
Co

an
He
nt

Lo

M
/e
ts
Ar

Note: Agriculture and mining are not shown due to their small number of jobs but count toward the total.
Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 32

Case studies

Figure 20. Baltimore’s jobs spread along its waterfront and to its north and southwest
suburbs

Baltimore County Baltimore County

Hunt Valley Hunt Valley

Towson Towson
Howard Howard
County Baltimore City County Baltimore City

Downtown Downtown

iles iles
3m 3m

les les
mi mi
10 10
Anne Arundel Anne Arundel
County County

Extremely high density (more than 30,000 jobs per sq mi) Increase of more than 1,000 jobs per sq mi
Very high density (7,000 to 30,000 jobs per sq mi) Increase of 250 to 1,000 jobs per sq mi
High density (1,500 to 7,000 jobs per sq mi) Increase of 0 to 250 jobs per sq mi
Moderate density (400 to 1,500 jobs per sq mi) Decrease of 0 to 100 jobs per sq mi
Low density (100 to 400 jobs per sq mi) Decrease of 100 to 600 jobs per sq mi
Very low density (less than 100 jobs per sq mi) Decrease of more than 600 jobs per sq mi
Parks Parks

Figure 20A. Baltimore’s extremely dense Figure 20B. Harbor East and the waterfront
areas, as of 2004, were its downtown and the areas in the city of Baltimore have seen some
areas just east of downtown, where the Johns of the metro’s largest increases in job density
Hopkins University School of Medicine and from 2004 to 2015. However, areas just west
hospital complex is located. There were some and north of Downtown Baltimore have seen
pockets of high job density along the Baltimore some of the metro area’s greatest decreases in
Outer Beltway (I-695), such as the suburb of density. Other areas that saw large increases in
Towson, the county seat of Baltimore County, density were the areas along I-95 to the south
and areas around the suburb of Columbia in the and around BWI airport as well as the suburb
southeastern part of the Howard County. of Hunt Valley, north of Towson, in Baltimore
County.
Source: Brookings analysis of Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 33

 Chicago, Illinois
Conclusion

T he digital revolution is transforming what

people and businesses need and want from
the communities where they live and work. This
a means to increase productivity and economic
growth, improve social and environmental
outcomes, increase civic engagement, and reduce
transformation has advantaged hyper-connected municipalities’ fiscal liabilities. When coupled with
economic hubs within global cities at the same investments in people and the public realm, dense
time it has put other places at risk of becoming places can become inclusive communities where
further marginalized, or in some cases obsolete— firms and workers flourish.
threatening to exacerbate long-standing
economic and social divides. Local and regional So where do we go from here?
leaders have an opportunity to harness new
trends and demands in ways that produce more Moving forward, researchers and policymakers
widespread economic and social benefits. But need to be far more attentive to the strategies
first, leaders need a clear-eyed understanding of and policies that are shaping their communities,
how those demands are changing the distribution the ways in which they align with the changing
of economic activity, and why. needs of economic actors, and how they can be
reformed and reimagined to work better and
This report sheds light on shifts in the density of harder for more people and places. If density is
jobs—one measure of economic activity—within as increasingly important as it seems—to workers,
and among America’s large metro areas. By businesses, and the broader economy—why have
analyzing job density rather than jobs’ proximity so few places succeeded in promoting it? What
to the core, we have been able to provide a is the nature of firms that increasingly prize
nuanced look at not just where jobs are locating concentration? What are the attributes of the
but also how they are concentrating—not only in places where they are choosing to locate—or not—
downtown or other central city communities, but and how should this influence future policy and
also in suburban and exurban areas. investment decisions?

In all, this report provides evidence that, on Exploring such questions can begin to tell us
the whole, jobs in metropolitan America— whether the design and development of our
and particularly jobs in certain sectors—are communities are keeping pace with the changing
densifying. But it also shows that individual needs of firms and workers, help us better
metro areas could be doing far more to prioritize understand the positive outcomes that smarter
and support such trends by investing in existing growth can yield, and point to the kinds of
areas of concentrated development. This transformative placemaking efforts that can help
represents a missed opportunity: Density offers to achieve them.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 34

 References

Abel, Jaison R., Ishita Dey, Todd M. Gabe. quality of local inventive activity?” Brookings-
“Productivity and the density of human capital.” Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs. 65-123. 2009.
Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 52, No. 4 562- Carr, Jered B. and Antonio Tavares. “City size
586. 2012. and political participation in local government:
Reassessing the contingent effects of residential
Abowd, John, Bryce Stephens, Lars Vilhuber, location decisions within urban regions.” Urban
Fredrik Andersson, Kevin McKinney, Marc Roemer, Affairs Review, Vol. 50(2) 269-302. 2014.
and Simon Woodcock. “The LEHD infrastructure
files and the creation of the Quarterly Workforce Ciccone, Antonio and Robert Hall. “Productivity
Indicators.” U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Program and the density of economic activity.” The
TP-2006-01. 2005. https://lehd.ces.census.gov/ American Economic Review, 86(1): 54-70. 1996.
doc/technical_paper/tp-2006-01.pdf. Cicognani, Elvira, Davide Mazzoni, Cinzia
Albanesi, and Bruna Zani. “Sense of community
Allard, Scott and Sheldon Danziger. “Proximity and empowerment among young people:
and opportunity: How residence and race affect Understanding pathways from civic participation
the employment of welfare recipients.” Housing to social well-being.” International Society for
Policy Debate, 13(4). 2002. Third-Sector Research, 26:24-44. 2015.

Andersson, Martin and Per Thulin. “Does Cortright, Joe. “Surging city center job growth.”
spatial employment density spur inter-firm job City Observatory. February 2015. http://
switching?” Annuls of Regional Science, 51: 245- cityobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/
272. 2013. Surging-City-Center-Jobs.pdf.

Benfield, F. Kaid, Matthew Raimi, and Donald D. Cox, Daniel A. and Ryan Streeter. “The
T. Chen. Once there were greenfields: How urban importance of place: Neighborhood amenities
sprawl is undermining America’s environment, as a source of social connection and trust.”
economy, and social fabric. New York: Natural American Enterprise Institute. 2019. http://www.
Resources Defense Council, 1999. aei.org/publication/the-importance-of-place-
neighborhood-amenities-as-a-source-of-social-
Burchell, Robert W. “Economic and fiscal costs connection-and-trust/.
(and benefits) of sprawl.” The Urban Lawyer,
29(2): 159-181. 1997. Di, Qian, Yan Wang, Antonella Zanobetti, Yun
Wang, Petros Koutrakis, Christine Choirat,
Burchell, Robert W., George Lowenstein, William Francesca Dominici, and Joel D. Schwartz,
R. Dolphin, Catherine C. Galley, Anthony Downs, “Air pollution and mortality in the Medicare
Samuel Seskin, Katherine Gray Still, and Terry population.” The New England Journal of
Moore. Cost of sprawl—2000. Transit Cooperative Medicine. 2017.
Research Program Report 74. Washington:
National Academy Press, 2002. Duranton, Gilles and Diego Puga. “Micro-
foundations of urban agglomeration economies.”
Buzard, Kristy, Gerald Carlino, Robert Hunt, Jake In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics,
Carr, and Tony Smith. “The agglomeration of Volume 4. Edited by J.V. Henderson and J.F.
American R&D labs.” Journal of Urban Economics, Thisse. Elsevier. 2004.
101: 14-26. 2017.
Ellison, Glenn, Edward Glaeser, and William Kerr.
Carlino, Gerald, Robert Hunt, Gilles Duranton, and “What causes industry agglomeration? Evidence
Bruce Weinberg. “What explains the quantity and from coagglomeration patterns.” American
Economic Review, 100(3). 2010.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 35

Ewing, Reid, Gail Meakins, Shima Hamidi, and Glaeser, Edward and Jesse Shapiro. “Is there a
Arthur Nelson. “Relationship between urban new urbanism? The growth of U.S. cities in the
sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and 1990s.” National Bureau of Economic Research
morbidity—Update and refinement.” Health and Working Paper 8357. 2001.
Place, 26: 118-126. 2014.
Gargiulo, Vittorio, Adelle Sateriano, Rossanna
Ewing, Reid, Rolf Pendall, and Don Chen. Di Bartolomei, and Luca Salvati. “Urban sprawl
“Measuring sprawl and its impact.” Smart and the environment.” Geography, Environment,
Growth America. 2002. https://www. Sustainability, 5(4): 46-62. 2012.
smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/
MeasuringSprawl.PDF. Garreau, Joel. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier.
New York: Anchor Books, 1991.
Farber, Steven and Xiao Li. “Urban sprawl and
social interaction potential: An empirical analysis Hamidi, Shima, Ahoura Zandiatashbar, and
of large metropolitan regions in the United Ahmad Bonakdar. “The relationship between
States.” Journal of Transport Geography, 31: 267- regional compactness and regional innovation
277. 2013. capacity (RIC): Empirical evidence from a national
study.” Technological Forecasting & Social
Florida, Richard. “Startup city: The urban shift Change, 142 394-402. 2019.
in venture capital and high technology.” Martin
Prosperity Institute. 2014. http://martinprosperity. Helsley, Robert and William Strange. “Innovation
org/media/Startup-City.pdf. and input sharing.” Journal of Urban Economics,
51: 25-45. 2002.
Frank, Lawrence D., Brian Stone Jr., and William
Bachman. “Linking land use with household Immergluck, Daniel. “Job proximity and the
vehicle emissions in the Central Puget Sound: urban employment problem: Do suitable nearby
methodological framework and findings.” jobs improve neighborhood employment rates?”
Transportation Research Part D 5 173-196. 2000. Urban Studies, 35(1), 2-23. 1998.

Frumkin, Howard, Lawrence Frank, and Richard Katz, Bruce and Julie Wagner. “The rise of
Jackson. Urban sprawl and public health: innovation districts: A new geography of
designing, planning, and building for healthy innovation in America.” Brookings Institution.
communities. Washington: Island Press, 2004. 2014.

Garcia, Erika, Kiros T. Berhane, and Talat Islam. Kneebone, Elizabeth. “Job sprawl revisited:
“Association of change in air quality with incident The changing geography of metropolitan
asthma in children in California, 1993-2014.” employment.” Brookings Institution. 2009.
JAMA, 321(19):1906-1915. 2019.
Kneebone, Elizabeth. “Job sprawl stalls: The
Glaeser, Edward and Matthew Kahn. Great Recession and metropolitan employment
“Decentralized employment and the location.” Brookings Institution. 2013.
transformation of the American city.” Brookings-
Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs. 2001. Kneebone, Elizabeth and Natalie Holmes. “The
growing distance between people and jobs.”
Glaeser, Edward, Jed Kolko, and Albert Saiz. Brookings Institution. 2015.
“Consumer city.” Journal of Economic Geography,
1(1): 27-50. 2001.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 36

Knudson, Brian, Richard Florida, Kevin Stolarick, Muro, Mark, Jacob Whiton, Robert Maxim, and
and Gary Gates. “Density and creativity in U.S. Ross DeVol. “State of the Heartland: Factbook
regions.” Annals of the Association of American 2018.” Brookings. 2018.
Geographers, 98(2): 461-478. 2008.
Newman, Peter W. G. and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy.
Lang, Robert. Edgeless cities: Exploring the “Gasoline consumption and cities.” Journal of
elusive metropolis. Washington: Brookings the American Planning Association, 55(1): 24-38.
Institution Press, 2003. 1989.

Leinberger, Christopher and Mariela Alfonzo. Nichols, Brice G. and Kara M. Kockelman. “Life-
“Walk this way: The economic promise of cycle energy implications of different residential
walkable places in metropolitan Washington, D.C.” settings: recognizing buildings, travel, and public
Brookings Institution. 2012. infrastructure.” Energy Policy, Vol. 68 232-242.
2014.
Leinberger, Christopher and Michael Rodriguez.
“Foot traffic ahead: Ranking walkable urbanism in Parrotta, Pierpaolo and Dario Pozzoli. “The effect
american’s largest metros, 2016.” Smart Growth of learning by hiring on productivity.” The RAND
America. 2016. Journal of Economics, Vol. 43 No. 1 167-185. 2012.
Raphael, Steven and Michael Stoll. “Job sprawl
Levy, Paul and Lauren Gilchrist. “Downtown and the suburbanization of poverty.” Brookings
rebirth: documenting the live-work dynamic in Institution. 2010.
21st Century U.S. cities.” International Downtown
Association. 2014. Rosenthal, Stuart and William Strange. “Evidence
on the nature and sources of agglomeration
Loh, Tracy Hadden and Christopher B. Leinberger. economies.” In Handbook of Regional and Urban
“The WalkUp WakeUp Call: Dallas-Fort Worth.” Economics, Volume 4. Edited by J.V. Henderson
The George Washington University. 2019. and J.F. Thisse. Elsevier. 2004.

Manduca, Robert. “The US Census Longitudinal Samet, Jonathan M. Francesca Dominici, Frank C.
Employer-Household Dynamics datasets.” Region, Curriero, Ivan Coursac, and Scott L. Zeger. “Fine
5: R5-R12. 2018. particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S.
Cities, 1987-1994.” The New England Journal of
McKinney, Kevin, Andrew Green, Lars Vilhuber, Medicine. 2000.
John Abowd. “Total error and variability
measures with integrated disclosure limitation for Smart Growth America. “Building better budgets:
Quarterly Workforce Indicators and LEHD Origin A national examination of the fiscal benefits
Destination Employment Statistics in OnThe of smart growth development.” 2013. https://
Map.” Cornell Labor Dynamics Institute 46. 2017. smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/building-
better-budgets-a-national-examination-of-the-
Malizia, Emil and Yasuyuki Motoyama. “Vibrant fiscal-benefits-of-smart-growth-development/.
centers as locations for high-growth firms: and Smart Growth America. “Core values: Why
analysis of thirty U.S. metropolitan areas.” The American companies are moving downtown.”
Professional Geographer, 71(1): 15-28. 2019. 2015. https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/
legacy/documents/core-values.pdf.
Muro, Mark and Jacob Whiton. “Geographic
gaps are widening while U.S. economic growth
increases.” Brookings. 2018.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 37

Stone, Brian. “Urban sprawl and air quality Vilhuber, Lars and Kevin McKinney. “LEHD
in large US cities.” Journal of Environmental infrastructure files in the Census RDC: Overview.”
Management, 86: 688-698. 2008. U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies
14-26. 2014. https://www2.census.gov/ces/
Thompson, David. “Suburban sprawl: Exposing wp/2014/CES-WP-14-26.pdf.
hidden costs, identifying innovations.”
Sustainable Prosperity. 2013. Weichenthal, Scott, Ryan Kulka, Aimee Dubeau,
U.S. Census Bureau. Quarterly Workforce Christina Martin, and Daniel Wang. “Traffic-
Indicators (1990-2017). Washington, DC: U.S. related air pollution and acute changes in heart
Census Bureau, Longitudinal-Employer Household rate variability and respiratory function in urban
Dynamics Program. 2019. (Accessed at: https:// cyclists.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 2011.
lehd.ces.census.gov/data/#qwi).
Wessel, Nate, Steven Farber, and Michael Widener.
U.S. Census Bureau. LEHD Origin-Destination “Are workers attracted to social interaction
Employment Statistics data (2002-2015). opportunities? A study of face-to-face contact
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, opportunities by occupation and industry.” The
Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Professional Geographer, 71(1), 83-95. 2018.
Program. 2019. (Accessed at: https://lehd.ces. Wyche, Brad. “The fiscal impact of sprawl in
census.gov/data/lodes/LODES7/). South Carolina.” Business and Economic Review.
2007.
Vey, Jennifer. “Why we need to invest in
transformative placemaking.” Brookings
Institution. 2018.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 38

 Endnotes

1. Mark Muro and Jacob Whiton, “Geographic 6. Antonio Ciccone and Robert Hall, “Productivity
gaps are widening while U.S. economic growth and the density of economic activity” (1996);
increases,” Brookings (2018); Mark Muro and Robert Helsley and William Strange, “Innovation
others, “State of the Heartland: Factbook 2018,” and input sharing,” Journal of Urban Economics
Brookings (2018). (2002).

2. See, for example: Bruce Katz and Julie 7. Stuart Rosenthal and William Strange,
Wagner. “The rise of innovation districts: A new “Evidence on the nature and sources of
geography of innovation in America,” Brookings agglomeration economies” (2004).
(2014); Richard Florida, “Startup city: The urban
shift in venture capital and high technology,” 8. Gilles Duranton and Diego Puga, “Micro-
Martin Prosperity Institute (2014); Smart foundations of urban agglomeration economies”
Growth America, “Core values: Why American (2004); Martin Andersson and Per Thulin, “Does
companies are moving downtown” (2015); Joe spatial employment density spur inter-firm job
Cortright, “Surging city center job growth,” City switching?” Annuls of Regional Science 51 (2013).
Observatory (2015).
9. Daniel Immergluck, “Job proximity and the
3. Christopher Leinberger and Michael Rodriguez, urban employment problem: Do suitable nearby
“Foot traffic ahead: Ranking walkable urbanism jobs improve neighborhood employment rates?”
in America’s largest metros, 2016,” Smart Growth Urban Studies 35 (1998); Scott Allard and
America (2016). Sheldon Danziger, “Proximity and opportunity:
How residence and race affect the employment
4. Joel Garreau, Edge City: Life on the New of welfare recipients,” Housing Policy Debate
Frontier, Anchor Books (1991); Robert Lang, (2002).
Edgeless cities: Exploring the elusive metropolis,
Brookings (2003). 10. Martin Andersson and Per Thulin, “Does
spatial employment density spur inter-firm job
5. Gilles Duranton and Diego Puga, “Micro- switching?” (2013); Pierpaolo Parrotta and Dario
foundations of urban agglomeration economies,” Pozzoli, “The effect of learning by hiring on
Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics productivity,” The RAND Journal of Economics
(2004); Antonio Ciccone and Robert Hall, (2012).
“Productivity and the density of economic
activity,” The American Economic Review 86 11. Kristy Buzard and others, “The agglomeration
(1996); Stuart Rosenthal and William Strange, of American R&D labs,” Journal of Urban
“Evidence on the nature and sources of Economics (2017); Brian Knudson and others,
agglomeration economies” (2004); Gerald Carlino “Density and creativity in U.S. regions,” Annals of
and others, “What explains the quantity and the Association of American Geographers (2008);
quality of local inventive activity?” Brookings- Emil Malizia and Yasuyuki Motoyama, “Vibrant
Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs (2009); centers as locations for high-growth firms: and
Jaison R. Abel and others, “Productivity and the analysis of thirty U.S. metropolitan areas,” The
density of human capital,” Journal of Regional Professional Geographer (2019); Gerald Carlino
Science (2012); Shima Hamidi and others, “The and others, “What explains the quantity and
relationship between regional compactness and quality of local inventive activity?” (2009); Nate
regional innovation capacity: Empirical evidence Wessel and others, “Are workers attracted to
from a national study,” Technological Forecasting social interaction opportunities? A study of face-
& Social Change (2019). to-face contact opportunities by occupation and
industry.” The Professional Geographer (2018).

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 39

12. Gerald Carlino and others, “What explains the 18. David Thompson, “Suburban sprawl” (2013).
quantity and quality of local inventive activity?”
(2009). 19. Smart Growth America, “Building better
budgets” (2013).
13. Kaid Benfield and others, Once there were
greenfields: How urban sprawl is undermining 20. Brad Wyche, “The Fiscal Impact of Sprawl in
America’s environment, economy, and social South Carolina” (2007); Smart Growth America,
fabric, New York: Natural Resources Defense “Building better budgets” (2013).
Council (1999); Howard Frumkin, Lawrence
Frank, and Richard Jackson, Urban sprawl 21. The environmental benefits and needs of
and public health: designing, planning, and high-density development are well documented
building for healthy communities (2004); Steven by many scholars. See, for example: Kaid Benfield
Farber and Xiao Li, “Urban sprawl and social and others, Once there were greenfields (1999);
interaction potential: An empirical analysis of Katherine Eshel, “Compact development is a
large metropolitan regions in the United States,” greener way for American cities to grow,” Frontier
Journal of Transport Geography (2013); Daniel Group (2017); Richard Florida, “Why bigger cities
A. Cox and Ryan Streeter, “The importance of are greener,” CityLab (2012).
place: neighborhood amenities as a source of
social connection and trust,” American Enterprise 22. Brice G. Nichols and Kara M. Kockelman,
Institute (2019). “Life-cycle energy implications of different
residential settings: recognizing buildings, travel,
14. Jered B. Carr and Antonio Tavares, “City size and public infrastructure,” Energy Policy (2014);
and political participation in local government: Peter W. G. Newman and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy,
Reassessing the contingent effects of residential “Gasoline consumption and cities,” Journal of the
location decisions within urban regions,” Urban American Planning Association (1989).
Affairs Review, Vol. 50(2) 269-302 (2014).
23. Lawrence D. Frank and others, “Linking land
15. Elvira Cicognani and others, “Sense of use with household vehicle emissions in the
community and empowerment among young Central Puget Sound: methodological framework
people: Understanding pathways from civic and findings,” Transportation Research Part D
participation to social well-being,” International 5 (2000); Vittorio Gargiulo and others, “Urban
Society for Third-Sector Research (2015). sprawl and the environment,” Geography,
Environment, Sustainability (2012); Brian Stone,
16. Howard Frumkin, Lawrence Frank, and Richard “Urban sprawl and air quality in large US cities,”
Jackson, Urban sprawl and public health (2004). Journal of Environmental Management (2008).

17. Robert Burchell, “Economic and fiscal costs of 24. Kaid Benfield and others, Once there were
sprawl,” The Urban Lawyer (1997); Brad Wyche, greenfields (1999); Vittorio Gargiulo and others,
“The fiscal impact of sprawl in South Carolina,” “Urban sprawl and the environment” (2012).
Business and Economic Review (2007); Smart
Growth America, “Building better budgets: A 25. Jonathan M. Samet and others, “Fine
national examination of the fiscal benefits of particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S.
smart growth development” (2013); Robert cities, 1987-1994,” The New England Journal
W. Burchell and others, Cost of sprawl—2000 of Medicine (2000); Scott Weichenthal and
(2002); David Thompson, “Suburban sprawl: others, “Traffic-related air pollution and acute
Exposing hidden costs, identifying innovations,” changes in heart rate variability and respiratory
Sustainable Prosperity (2013). function in urban cyclists,” Environmental

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 40

Health Perspectives (2011); Qian Di and others, 31. The LODES data are reported for 2010 Census
“Air pollution and mortality in the Medicare block level for all years. Data are summarized
population,” The New England Journal of at the Census block-group level from block-level
Medicine (2017); Erika Garcia and others, estimates.
“Association of change in air quality with incident
asthma in children in California, 1993-2014,” 32. Kevin McKinney and others, “Total error and
JAMA (2019). variability measures with integrated disclosure
limitation for Quarterly Workforce Indicators and
26. Peter James and others, “Urban sprawl, LEHD Origin Destination Employment Statistics
physical activity, and body mass index: Nurses’ in OnTheMap,” Cornell Labor Dynamics Institute
health study and nurses’ health study 2,” (2017).
American Journal of Public Health (2013);
Reid Ewing and others, “Relationship between 33. QWI data are available for download at:
urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/.
morbidity – Update and refinement,” Health and
Place 26 (2014). 34. For an explanation and lookup of NAICS
industry codes, visit: https://www.census.gov/eos/
27. Reid Ewing and others, “Measuring sprawl www/naics/.
and its impact,” Smart Growth America (2002);
Reid Ewing and others, “Relationship between 35. Robert Manduca, “The US Census
urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
morbidity—Update and refinement” (2014). datasets,” Region (2018).

28. 28. See, for example: Edward Glaeser and 36. The accuracy of employment location data
Matthew Kahn, “Decentralized employment for multi-establishment firms depends in part on
and the transformation of the American city,” the quality of data the Census Bureau receives
Brookings- Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs from states and the data methods used year to
(2001); Edward Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro, “Is year and Census Bureau researchers’ methods for
there a new urbanism? The growth of U.S. cities assembling these data for publication. See: John
in the 1990s,” National Bureau of Economic Abowd and others, “The LEHD infrastructure
Research Working Paper 8357 (2001); Steven files and the creation of the Quarterly Workforce
Raphael and Michael Stoll, “Job sprawl and Indicators” (2005); Kevin McKinney and others,
the suburbanization of poverty,” Brookings “Total error and variability measures with
(2010); Elizabeth Kneebone, “Job sprawl stalls,” integrated disclosure limitation for Quarterly
Brookings (2013); Joe Cortright, “Surging city Workforce Indicators and LEHD Origin Destination
center job growth” (2015); Daniel Hertz, “City Employment Statistics in OnThe Map” (2017);
center job growth continues strength; suburbs Robert Manduca, “The US Census Longitudinal
rebounding from recession,” City Observatory Employer-Household Dynamics datasets” (2018).
(2016).
37. Authors’ analysis of LODES data. Robert
29. The (LODES) database is available for Manduca and Daniel Hertz have previously
download at: https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/. documented similar issues. See: Robert Manduca,
“The US Census Longitudinal Employer-
Household Dynamics datasets” (2018); Daniel
30. Lars Vilhuber and Kevin McKinney, “LEHD Hertz, “City center job growth continues
infrastructure files in the Census RDC: Overview.” strength” (2016).
U.S. Census Bureau (2014).

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 41

38. Metro areas are defined using the Office the rate of job growth is 78% and perceived
of Management and Budget’s September 2018 job density actually increases by 115%. This
metropolitan statistical area delineations. The is possible because Metropolis X’s new jobs
metro area definitions are the same for all years concentrated in a smaller number of already-
of the analysis. To find the land area of each dense subareas. It is also possible for perceived
block group, the authors started with Census density to decline despite job growth, however. If
Bureau TIGER/Line and ESRI shapefiles for block Metropolis’s seven new jobs had located evenly
groups, counties, hydrology, and other features. across its least-dense subareas, including those
Using geographic information system (GIS) that contained no jobs in year one, its perceived
software, the authors removed hydrology from job density would have actually declined by over
block groups’ shape and then recalculated block 8% as new jobs spread out.
groups’ land area.
43. As noted in Finding 1, metro areas that host
39. See: Edward Glaeser and Matthew a large number of jobs at greater densities, such
Kahn, “Decentralized employment and the as New York or San Francisco, have an outsized
transformation of the American city” (2001); impact on the average trends, which is how it is
Jennifer Vey, “Why we need to invest in possible for so few metro areas to outperform the
transformative placemaking,” Brookings (2018). weighted average of all 94 metro areas.

40. In this analysis, all observed changes in 44. The prevalence of increases in the density
perceived job density are due solely to job of health care and education jobs stems in part
growth or decline in individual block groups. An from the fixed, urban footprint of many the large
advantage of using analyzing block groups as institutions that comprise these sectors and their
the unit of analysis is that their area does not especially fast job growth during this period. TK
change. The LODES data are reported for 2010 Yet increases in the perceived density of jobs in
Census block groups for all years, even those these sectors also fell short of what we would
prior to 2010. Therefore, block groups’ land area have expected from their job growth alone,
is constant over the entire period of analysis. indicating that jobs in these sectors are spreading
out to less dense parts of metro areas. This could
41. These expected trends are calculated using a be due to the faster growth or emergence of
shift-share technique in which the rate of change new health care facilities in suburban or exurban
in the number of jobs in a block group are held to areas where hospitals and schools have room to
the equivalent rate of change for the metro area spread out or may not be as proximate to jobs in
in each year. In a dynamic shift-share analysis, other sectors.
changes in metro area job levels are measured
over each year rather than across all years in 45. See: Paul Levy and Lauren Gilchrist,
the period of analysis, making these findings less “Downtown rebirth: documenting the live-work
sensitive to the choice of start and end years. The dynamic in 21st Century U.S. cities,” International
analysis is done using two-digit NAICS sectors, Downtown Association (2014); Bruce Katz and
which is the most granular disaggregation of Julie Wagner. “The rise of innovation districts”
employment by industry available from LODES. (2014); Richard Florida, “Startup city” (2014);
Smart Growth America, “Core values” (2015);
42. Note that the rate of change in the number J.B. Wogan, “Why companies are moving back
of jobs and the rate of change in standard job downtown,” Governing (2016).
density will always match. However, the rate of
change in perceived job density can be greater or 46. Finding 5 uses a county typology developed
less than the rate of job growth. In this example, by Brookings expert Bill Frey that has been

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 42

used in many research studies by the Brookings 50. This analysis uses the same shift-share
Metropolitan Policy Program. Counties in metro technique described above to project job growth
areas are assigned a type according to the share and trends at the block-group level for the
of their population that lives in urban areas, years 2016, 2017, and 2018. We use QWI data
which are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. on county-level job growth by sector and apply
each sector’s annual job growth rate in each
47. Smart Growth America, “Core values” (2015). county to counties’ constituent block-groups.
This assumes that job growth has not shifted to
48. Christopher Leinberger and Michael block-groups within counties where that sector
Rodriguez, “Foot traffic ahead” (2016); Tracy did not have jobs in 2015, and that job growth
Hadden Loh and Christopher B. Leinberger, “The rates were consistent across block groups within
WalkUp WakeUp Call: Dallas-Fort Worth,” The each county. These projected job density trends
George Washington University (2019). are therefore speculative and certainly vary from
actual trends.
49. Not every metro area has each type of
county listed above, nor do they have them in 51. Baltimore City is an independent city that
the same number. For example, of the New York is not in the territory of any county. The U.S.
metro area’s 23 counties, 16 are “core urban” Census Bureau uses counties as its base unit for
counties where more than 95% of the county’s presentation of statistical information, and treats
population lives in an urbanized area, and just independent cities as county equivalents for
one is an “exurban” county: Pike County, Penn. In those purposes.
contrast, the Phoenix metro area comprises just
two counties, Maricopa and Pinal, and neither
qualifies as a core urban county; Maricopa is
a “mature suburban” county and Pinal is an
“emerging suburban” county.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 43

 Acknowledgments

The Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings would like to thank the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass
Foundation for its generous support of this analysis, and the Metropolitan Council, a network of
business, civic, and philanthropic leaders that provides both financial and intellectual support for the
Program.

The authors would like to thank the following colleagues for providing valuable insights and critiques
on early versions of the analysis and report: Alan Berube; Amy Liu, Adie Tomer, Joe Cortright, Elissa
Gertler, Tracy Loh, Christopher Leinberger, Nate Storing, the leadership and staff of the Project for
Public Spaces and the National Main Street Center, and members of the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass
Center on Transformative Placemaking advisory committee. The authors are grateful to Hanna Love
and Kaitlyn Lundy for their excellent research support and assistance. The authors would also like
to thank the following colleagues for valuable support in producing the report and contributing to
outreach efforts: Julia Kraeger, David Lanham, Alec Friedhoff, Carly P. Anderson, Rachel Barker, Rowan
Bishop, and Caroline Corona. Thanks to Luisa Zottis for layout and design.

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy
solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to
provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and
recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect
the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars. Brookings is committed to quality,
independence, and impact in all of its work. Activities supported by its donors reflect this commitment.

Image credits

All photos courtesy of Shutterstock.

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 44

 About

About the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings

The Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings delivers research and solutions to help metropolitan
leaders build an advanced economy that works for all. To learn more, visit brookings.edu/metro.

About the Bass Center for Transformative Placemaking

The Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Center for Transformative Placemaking aims to inspire public, private,
and civic sector leaders to make transformative place investments that generate widespread social
and economic benefits. To learn more, visit brookings.edu/basscenter.

For more information

Jennifer S. Vey
Senior Fellow and Director of the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Center on Transformative Placemaking
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings
[email protected]

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 45

ANNE T. AND ROBERT M. BASS CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PLACEMAKING 46