Governing: Immigrants Establishing Roots in Gateway Cities

An interesting article was released recently in Governing Magazine discussing the role of the foreign born in declining cities. The basic finding is that in some cities a declining or stagnated native-born population is being offset by growth in  foreign-born residents (this is true overall in the state of Massachusetts, for example – net international inmigration outweighs net domestic outmigration). Some cities are making an explicit pitch to international migrants, although it’s unclear how well that’s working.

Population growth isn’t always an important end goal for cities in and of itself, but it’s definitely true that cities that can stabilize population loss and diversify have an additional leg to stand on. This is especially important for the Rust Belt and northern cities that have been continuously hit by deindustrialization.

Louisville and Indianapolis are two examples of cities attracting new international residents to places where they have not traditionally been. As the article states, they’re starting from a very low level, making the percentage gains huge:

Louisville FB and NB

Indy FB and NB

Compare with Boston, which has always had a high percentage of foreign-born residents. It shows 3% and 2% growth in foreign and native-born residents respectively, even though the overall numbers are far higher than either Indy or Louisville:

Boston FB and NB

I poked around in other cities I am familiar with to compare. Most are in line with my expectations – high demand areas like Seattle, San Francisco and Portland are seeing both segments of the population grow, often with the foreign born growing faster. Salem, OR made me double take. The foreign-born population has declined (or possibly remained stagnant given the margin of error) while the native-born has increased. It was one of the only cities I was able to find with this pattern.

Salem FB and NB

I am not familiar enough with Salem to say what caused this decline. It could be that a previous immigration boom to Salem has now ended, or maybe people who originally immigrated there don’t love Salem and tend to then move elsewhere like Portland or California.

Another interesting example is some of the Gateway Cities in Massachusetts we’ve looked at. Although they haven’t experienced the same population declines as an Akron or Cleveland (Cleveland, by the way, along with Flint and Detroit, declined from 2009-2014 in both populations), I suspected that I would find that their continued growth has depended on an influx of the foreign born. That’s definitely true in Springfield:

Springfield FB and NB

I was surprised by the growth in Worcester. I knew that the demographics in the city have changed quickly, but I didn’t expect it to be this stark over the 5 year period:

Worcester FB and NB

An interesting counterpoint is Lowell, where both foreign- and native-born populations are growing.

Lowell FB and NB

I wonder if Lowell’s population growth in both sections is a cause or an effect of their relatively successful economic positioning?

An interesting caveat about the data, which you should play around with: populations are based on those living within the city proper. Normally, a metro area is a better way to look at migration data, because individual city borders tend to be arbitrary. In this case I actually think it’s helpful, because it can capture loss of population whether that population moves to suburbs in the same metro or to another state altogether. When it comes to things like tax rolls, school enrollment, and other bread and butter local government services, the important question is whether someone is here or not, not where they ended up.

Introduction: Visiting the Gateway Cities

What comes to mind when you think about New England? I have to admit that before moving here, my view was almost cartoonish. I expected Massachusetts would be about evenly divided between the high-tech, prosperous Boston metro and idyllic colonial towns and pastureland. As it turns out, that view is very wrong. Although Massachusetts has education rates and income levels that other states drool over, success on some measures obscures the fact that there are huge gaps within and between cities in the Commonwealth.

In Massachusetts ,”Gateway Cities” are some of the places that don’t fit within that binary. Gateway Cities are a legal classification of city developed in the last decade to focus attention on neglected parts of the state. Part policy response and part branding push, the Gateway Cities cover 11 midsized post-industrial Massachusetts cities outside of the Boston metro area (although the number has since expanded to 26, including some high poverty areas right outside Boston).

Gateway Cites

The 11 original Gateway Cities. For some background on “Gateway Cities,” you can read the MassINC/Brookings Institution paper that created the concept.
Source: MassINC

Massachusetts’ prosperous reputation does have some basis in fact. The state generally and Boston in particular post some impressive numbers in almost every metric of economic growth. But the fruits of this prosperity are spread very unevenly. In terms of jobs, personal income, and economic diversity, Gateway Cities have been lagging for decades: in aggregate, the number of private jobs in these cities is the same as it was in 1960. Industrial legacies have acted like a millstone around the neck of growth and economic diversification. Unsurprisingly, they are also the areas that have the largest reputational problems to overcome. At the same time, Gateway Cities contain some of Massachusetts’ richest historical, cultural, and even economic assets, and were each at some time in their history places alive with people, ideas, and trade.

As a series on the blog, I plan to visit the 11 original Gateway Cities in Massachusetts and write about what I see in each. My goal is to provide just a bit of context on each economy, community, and region. I’ll be trying to answer some basic observational questions (What does this city say they want? Are they following through on it? Is it working?) from a skeptical but contextualized viewpoint.

I want to do this for two reasons. First, the current coverage is bad. If you follow the major urbanism or placemaking websites, you know when Boston, San Francisco, or DC wins a major victory or starts an interesting new experiment but no one really knows what’s happening in the struggling communities down the road. The media gap is especially pronounced in these small cities, which usually have a single, nationally-owned news outlet hanging on by the fingertips. The drive to come up with a positive strategy becomes doubly important because without constant forward progress, these places cannot sustain the press’s attention. If reputation matters to economic success, it spells trouble for these places. In the age of the internet, there are no information vacuums – only empty repositories yet to be filled with negativity.

Second, the problems in Gateway Cities get at a timely and fascinating question in economic development: “What economic strategy will help small- to mid-sized cities, especially those with a strong industrial heritage, move forward?” Do they focus on tech? Cultivate a class identity? Plan to shrink? Though big cities are popularly seen as being in resurgence, no one thinks that the way forward is clear for smaller rust-belt cities. Don’t get me wrong, bigger metropolitan areas have huge challenges – they struggle with inequality, gentrification, and suburban retrofitting in ways that smaller cities don’t – but big metros have at last started to get some of the attention they deserve.

By contrast, small-to-mids like the Gateways face a wide array of challenges. They don’t have the same heft to force state and national governments to pay attention. Their problems are controlled by such local circumstances – sometimes as local as a single company – that orthodox economic development strategies aren’t helpful. There’s no Mayor Bloomberg to command headlines or Ed Glaeser to relentlessly champion small cities as a class. Well-meaning leaders in small cities sometimes just try to copy what’s going well in the big cities, rather than try something bold and original that could move the region forward but poses a high risk of failure.

Although I think most Gateways get an unjustified bad wrap, I don’t mean to suggest that what I write will be relentlessly positive. Exposure and growth can come from acknowledging an area’s shortcomings. I hope by personally visiting them I can get across a better understanding of the gap between their rich history and the present, and try to find a little bit of what’s work is left on their path to success.