This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Employment Centres in Greater Cleveland: Evidence of Evolution in a Formerly Monocentric City
William T. Bogart and William C. Ferry Urban Stud 1999 36: 2099 DOI: 10.1080/0042098992566 The online version of this article can be found at: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/36/12/2099
On behalf of:
Urban Studies Journal Limited
Additional services and information for Urban Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/36/12/2099.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Nov 1, 1999 What is This?
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com by guest on December 14, 2011
sagepub. This paper uses US Censu s Bureau data from 1990 to iden tify em ploym en t centres in the ® ve cou n ties surrou nding Clevelan d. Bogart and William C.edu. 1991) and Dallas (Shukla and Waddell. Greg Trandel and an anonymous reviewer also made helpful suggestions. 1997). T his is the sam e framework that is com monly used to analyse interm etropolitan relations (Henderson.Urban Studies. 12. such as in L os Angeles (Giuliano and Sm all. Introduction It is by this tim e well-known that the monocentric city paradigm is no longer adequate to describe urban form . All errors are strictly the responsibility of the authors.com by guest on December 14. USA. F ax: 216-368-5039. Location quotien t analysis is used to identify the specialisat ions of each of the em ploym ent cen tres. 1988). No. Weatherhead School of M anagement. Ferry is at 2585 Kemper Road. 2099± 2110. The authors would like to thank Paul Gottlieb for help in assembling the data and for helpful comments on the w ork. 36. and they agree with Garreau that the phenom enon of suburban employm ent centres is widespread. as form erly non-tradable services (such as William T. E-mail: w tb@po. The resu lts indicate the exten t to wh ich the form er dom in an ce of downtow n Clevelan d h as been erod ed by the grow th of suburban em p loym ent cen tres. Shaker Heights. McMillen and McDonald. the main academic focus has been on identifying employm ent centres outside the central business district in new er cities built around cars. 10900 E uclid A venue. 1999 Em ploym ent Centres in Greater Cleveland: Evidence of Evolution in a Form erly M onocentric City W illiam T. 2011 0042-0980 Print/1360-063X On-line/99/122099-12 Ó 1999 The Editors of Urban Studies . E-mail: w cferry@worldnet. Cleveland. T he difference is that the set of goods and services that are tradable changes. Garreau (1991) argues that the change in urban form represented by the grow th of suburban employm ent centresÐ that he labels ª edge citiesº Ð is widespread. The resu lts illustrate the exten t to wh ich the changes in urban form identi® ed by research ers exam inin g cities such as Los An geles an d Ch icago have becom e the norm for cities throu ghout th e US . October 1998] Su m m ary. 1994. Vol. T he othe r city to be extensively studied is Chicago (McDonald and Prather. William C. thus making it dif® cult to characterise a typical edge city. Ferry [Paper received in ® nal form. Bogart (1998) argues that a useful way of viewing a metropolitan area is as a collection of small open econom ies that specialise and trade with each other. 1991). OH 44106± 7206. Case Western R eserve University. A pt B 1. 1. They ® nd that Ohio edge cities have a range of specialisations. Oh io.cwru. OH 44120. In a popular book. Fax: 216-368-5039.net. Bogart is in the Department of Economics and Centre for Regional E conomic Issues.att. Bingham and Kim ble (1995) use expert opinion to identify edge cities in Ohio and they use cluster analysis on sectoral employm ent to identify different specialisations among the edge cities. USA . Among US metropolitan areas. But the transformation of the urban landscape has not been restricted to these few cities. Downloaded from usj.
60 0. services. four sectors: m anufactu res.67 0. though. these data are evidence of a decentralising trend in employm ent. As recently as 1972.55 0. in which the central business district im ports labour from the surrounding suburbs and exports goods and services.60 0. Geauga and Medina counties.24 0.37 0.93 0. non-residential private elementary schools) becom e tradable. Cleveland em ploym ent as a fraction of M SA em ploym ent. Source: Census Bureau. total employm ent in the nine Cleveland-area employm ent centres (including dow ntow n Cleveland) is found to be about 31 per cent of total employm ent. com pared to Downtow n Los Angeles’ 31. which are produced and consum ed without spillovers within a m unicipa lity. we ® nd that the various employm ent centres have a range of specialisations. Data Description : The Census Transportation P lann ing Package Many de® nitions of employm ent centres ex- Downloaded from usj. 1975) is a special case in which all goods and services are freely tradable with the exception of housing and local public services.48 0. Hamilton.32 Services 0.36 0. A natural question to ask is whether the pattern of decentralisation observed in Cleveland is com parable to that in the other cities that have been studied.sagepub. BOG ART A ND W IL LIA M C . alm ost half of the employm ent in the four sectors show n in the metropolitan area was within the city lim its. 169).73 0.73 0.2100 W ILL IA M T . W e then use location quotien t analysis to identify areas in which various sectors specialise. w holesale trade and retail trade T otal MSA em ploym ent in the four sectors 452. FER RY Table 1.93 0.2 551. In the rem ainder of this paper.5 per cent of total employm ent centre employm ent.70 0.6 per cent of employm ent in the employm ent centres in 1990.41 0. a ® gure com parable to that found in the Los Angeles area by Giuliano and Small (1991. we address this question in detail.4 Y ear 1954 1963 1972 1982 1992 Manufactu res 0. only 28 per cent of metropolitan area employm ent was within the city lim its.49 0. Table 2. In this paper we extend the Giuliano and Small (1991) methodology for identifying employm ent clusters in a natural way to account for the way the data (taken from the Census Transportation Planning Package) are collected.28 Note: M SA (SM SA before 1983) is Cuyahoga .31 W holesale trade 0.4 496.1 459. 2011 . T able 1 illustrates employm ent in the city of Cleveland as a fraction of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA). including 60 per cent of employm ent in the services.41 0.2 514.20 Four sectors com bined 0. p. it is worth introducing our conclusions now. L ake. Dow ntow n Cleveland accounte d for 48. Given that total employm ent in the MSA did not increase by very much over this tim e-period. 1956. and the share of service employm ent had fallen to 31 per cent.com by guest on December 14. By 1992. However.60 0. First. Like Bingham and Kim ble (1995) and Giuliano and Small (1991) .28 Retail trade 0. Our ® ndings echo Bingham and Kim ble (1995) in that the clusters differ substantially from one another.41 0. 2. The Tiebout±Hamilton model (Tiebout. T he monoc entric city model is also a special case.50 0.74 0. 1948±92. as people can live in one place within the metropolitan area and travel to other places to consum e and produce goods and services. Our ® nding of substantial activity outside the central business district is especially striking given that econom ic activity in the Cleveland metropolitan area was until quite recently highly concentrated within the city of Cleveland.
see Hartshorn and Muller. and to end with a manageable num ber suitable for statistical analysis. The TAZs are an employm ent-based analogue to the population-based census tract.) Unfortunately.com by guest on December 14. 2011 . The methodo logy developed by Giuliano and Sm all (1991) involve s identifying TAZ s with dense employm ent. The choice of counties does not adhere to the current metropolitan area bounda ries for Cleveland set by the Census Bureau. com bining adjacent employm ent-dense TAZs into groups. 1995.9 2. or even census tracts. Lorain and Medina counties) in north-east Ohio. which is the regional highw ay plannin g authority that works with the Census Bureau in designing the Census T ransportation Planning Package. T he choices of / and « are clearly crucial to the entire exercise. of which the TAZ data are a part. Bingham and Kim ble (1995) are handicapped in that the ZIP code regions that they use are larger than employm ent centres in som e cases. 167) stated that their choices were based on the desire to match the theoretical concept. Geauga. TAZs are designed to have approxim ately equal trips. Cleveland has a consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) consisting of eight counties. (For exam ples.8 2. (Ashtabula County was added to the Cleveland±L orain PMSA in 1993. W hile census tracts are designed to have approxim ately equal populat ion within their bounda ries. and measuring total employm ent in the groups. T he Cleveland±L orain PMSA consists of the ® ve counties in the study group plus Ashtabula County . Giuliano and Sm all (1991. They identi® ed 32 employm ent centres in Downloaded from usj. 3. The TAZ data used for this study cover a ® ve-county area (Cuyahog a. TAZs are com posed of census block groups. to be able to analyze com muting to subcenters. while the TAZ data are from 1990. allowing us to examine employm ent centres at a geographical level below that of cities. ZIP codes. Geograph ical units in the ® ve-coun ty study area G eograph ic unit of analysis Cities and tow nships (minor civil division s) Z IP codes Census tracts T ransport ation analysis zones Average area (sq ml) 11. Table 2 dem onstrates for the ® ve-county study area the relative difference in sizes of potential units of geographic al analysis. while the Akron PMSA includes Portage and Sum mit Counties. 1992. Bingham and Kim ble.sagepub. This is the area served by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Adm inistration.E MP LO YM EN T CE NTR ES IN CLE VE LA ND 2101 Table 2.5 21. ist in the literature. we use the term `Greater Cleveland’ to denote the ® ve-county study area.0 Num ber in study area 174 92 692 1003 Source: A uthors’ calculati ons from Census Bureau Data.) T o avoid confusion with these well-known de® nitions of the metropolitan area. p. The algorithm used by Giuliano and Sm all is outlined in T able 3. W e follow Giuliano and Sm all (1991) in using the Transportation Analysis Z one (TAZ) calculated by the US Census Bureau as the unit of analysis. M ethodology: Cluster Location Quotien ts Analysis and An employm ent centre is an area with both a high density and a high quantity of employment. The CMSA consists of two prim ary metropoli tan statistical areas (PMSA). The table clearly illustrates the high level of detail afforded by the use of the T AZ data. L ike census tracts. there are only a few sources of data on detailed intrametropolitan employm ent. Lake.
T he natural wider econom y with which to com pare the employm ent centres is that of the US as a whole. However. W e follow Giuliano and Sm all in using a minim um employm ent n of 10 000 due to the im portance of the gross quantity of interactions in de® ning a centre. 1973). The location quotien t is the sectoral percentage of employm ent in a smaller geographical area divided by the same-sector percentage for the entire area. Because of this. we have chosen to com pare the employm ent centres with the Greater Cleveland study area. The approach we use is to calculate location quotie nts of the subcentres relative to the ® ve-county study area. 4. we use a low er employm ent density / of 5000 per square mile. (Giuliano and Sm all used 10 000 employee s per square mile in Los Angeles County and 7000 employees per square mile in surroun ding counties. Choose density and employm ent m inim a. it is helpful to have a way of sum marising employm ent characteristics in each centre.2102 W ILL IA M T . Downloaded from usj. use slightly different sectoral de® nitions from those of the available data for the entire US. All T AZ s identi® ed in step 2 that are adjacent are com bined. FER RY Table 3. G roups of TA Zs or single T AZ s that have total em ploym ent equallin g or exceedin g x are consider ed `em ploym ent centres’ . T hese are referred to as / and x respectiv ely.) 1 W e modify the Giuliano and Sm all algorithm in order to com pensate for quirks in the bounda ries of TAZ s. This process continu ed so long as the employm ent density for the entire group of TAZ s was greater than 5000. This could lead incorrectly to om itting som e TAZs from consideration despite their integral connection to an employm ent centre (Ferry. BOG ART A ND W IL LIA M C .com by guest on December 14. Identify ing employm ent centres: Giuliano and Sm all (1991) 1. 2. their Los Angeles study area. Identify all T AZ s that equal or exceed employm ent density / . this approach should be robust. Gross em ploym ent for the m ultiple-T AZ groups and for the single-T AZ groups identi® ed in step 2 are totalled. Knight. The TAZ data. T AZ bounda ries often run down the middle of roads. then areas with relatively high employm ent in a sector (a location quotient greater than 1) presum ably export that sector’ s output to other parts of the econom y. 2011 . we extend his approach to intram etropolitan specialisation in production. 2 In order to com pare the employm ent cen- tres with each othe r. leading us to expect to ® nd fewer centres in Cleveland. This method has the bene® t of extending the centre’ s geogra phy to include adjacent neighbourho ods whose employm ent is related to that of the centre but which also include extensive residential areas. 1980. or about 8 employees per acre. though. This method describes the specialisation of the smaller geography as com pared to that of the wider econom y. Because Greater Cleveland is a dive rse econom y that does not differ substantially from that of the US in terms of sectoral employm ent com position. dividin g areas with large employm ent that are on either side of the road. McDonald (1992) argues for the use of location quotien ts to analyse the specialisation and trade of metropolitan areas. 3. The algorithm used is detailed in Table 4. provid es a detailed example). Our modi® cation was to add adjacent T AZs with employm ent densities of less than 5000 to prospective centres. 1997. If consum ption of goods and services in each sub-centre is propor tional to the wider geography’ s sectoral employm ent com position .sagepub. The gross employm ent in our study area is less than that in their study area (984 967 as opposed to 4 650 000). For example. An alternative interpretation of the location quotient is that it reveals inform ation about trade patterns (Isserman. with the densest T AZs being added ® rst.
3. the Aurora and Solon Road centre is an example of wholesale trade located on (formerly) inexpensive land at the (form er) periphery of the metropolitan area.sagepub. p. our 5th-largest centre would rank 19th. and a wide range of cultural organisations. Airport/ NASA includes Cleveland Hopkins Inter- national Airport.117/ Brookp ark is a centre of manufacturing activity in western Cuyahog a County. we characterise the size distribu tion of employm ent centres using a Pareto distribu tionÐ in other words. a centre for retail food activity.com by guest on December 14. T wo of the centres are historic downtow ns. estimating a regression relating the log of the rank of the centre in terms of employm ent and the log of employm ent in the centre.91 The estimated coef® cient on ln(em ploym ent) Downloaded from usj. The regression results are as follow s (standard errors in parentheses): ln (rank) 5 10. After adding TAZs that were adjacent to the prospective centres while keeping the centre density above 5000 per square mile. som e of which consisted of a single TAZ . Identify all T AZ s that equal or exceed employm ent density / . Our smallest centre would be 29th in total employm ent among their 32 (Giuliano and Sm all. Choose density and employm ent m inim a.989) (0. All T AZ s identi® ed in step 2 that are adjacent are com bined.E MP LO YM EN T CE NTR ES IN CLE VE LA ND 2103 Table 4. Finally. 4. W . 2011 . including the Cleveland Orchestra and Cleveland Art Museum . while the Route 2/SOM Center Road area is a centre of manufacturing activity in eastern Cuyahoga County and western Lake County. 4.098) Adjusted R 2 5 0. while the othe r seven are not. 2. Results: Employm ent Centres in Greater Cleveland The data included 143 T AZs with an employm ent density of at least 5000 per square mile.896 ln (employment) (0.48 square miles. tw o large food-p rocessing com panies. 5. there were 9 employm ent centres with total employm ent of at least 10 000. and their location is illustrated in Figure 1. and our largest centre would rank 3rd. Com bining adjacent T AZs with an employm ent density of at least 5000 per square mile resulted in 42 prospective centres. Identify ing employm ent centres: ® nal approach 1. as well as being hom e to Stouffer’ s and Seaway.147Ð 0. the size distribu tion of employm ent found in the centres is com parable to theirs. T hese centres are described in Tables 5 and 6. Like Giuliano and Small. the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals. The 9 centres vary in size from 2. One of the major employers in this centre is the large credit-card issuer MBNA. 168). Gross em ploym ent for the m ultiple-T AZ groups form ed in step 4 and for the single-T A Z groups identi® ed in step 2 are totalled. T hese are referred to as / and n respectiv ely. University Circle is the hom e of Case Western Reserve University. 1991. NASA L ewis Research Center and a variety of related aerospace manufacturing and service activities. Table 1.22 square miles to 8. M etro/ W estside is the hom e of Metro General Hospital (the large county public hospital) and the W estside Market. Although our criteria are not precisely those found in Giuliano and Sm all. our 2nd largest centre would rank 8th. Cleveland and Elyria. Groups of T AZ s or single TA Zs that have total em ploym ent equalling or exceedin g x are consider ed `em ploym ent centres’ . and in employm ent from a minim um of 12 152 to a maxim um of 147 798. TA Zs that are adjacent to the TA Z groups identi® ed in step 3 are com bined to the groups in order of decreasin g density so long as the em ploym ent density for the entire T AZ group rem ains greater than or equal to / . Chagrin/I-271 is a classic (if we may use the word) edge city. and is identi® ed as such in Garreau’ s book.
15 4. Mining Health.83 2. Brookpar k E lyria E astlake. W oodm ere. FER RY Table 5. Brookpar k Cleveland . so the familiar rank±size rule is a reasonable approxim ation of the size distribution of the employm ent centres.65 2. Farm s.117/Brookpar k E lyria Downtow n Route 2/S OM Center Road A urora and Solon Roads L and area (sq m l) 8. Giuliano and Small also obtain this result for Los Angeles. Source: Data from Census Bureau. insuranc e and real estate. Public adm inistrati on Durable m anufactu ring Durable m anufactu ring. FIRE .23 3.117/Brookpar k E lyria Downtow n Route 2/SO M Center Road Aurora and Solon Roads 5 011 5 113 14 650 14 476 5 086 5 476 13 455 12 152 Note: FIRE is an abbrevia tion for Finance. based on the location quotien t analysis described above.48 4. E ast Clevelan d Cleveland Beachw ood. T ransport . Non-dura ble manufactu ring. T ransport . BOG ART A ND W IL LIA M C . P rofession al services.41 2. Public adm inistrati on Durable m anufactu ring. Fisheries Durable m anufactu ring. Producer services.22 Municipal ities Cleveland Cleveland . and we are left with the intrigu ing question of whether the result obtains more generally. W illoughb y S olon is not statistically signi® cantly different from 2 1. 1990 Name of em ploym ent centre Cleveland Downtow n E mploym ent per square mile 17 437 Gross em ploym ent 147 798 Specialisa tions Professio nal services.com by guest on December 14. W arrensvi lle T ownship Cleveland . Consum er services Durable m anufactu ring. distance from dow ntow n Cleveland and municipal com position of em ploym ent centres Distance from dow ntow n Cleveland 0 5 2 11 9 7 23 17 15 E m ploym ent cluster Cleveland D ow ntow n U niversity Circle M etro/W estside Chagrin/ I-271 A irport/ N ASA W .sagepub. E ducation Health FIRE. methodol ogy describe d in the text.92 2.25 3. Land area. 2011 . P arm a.2104 W ILL IA M T . E m ploym ent centres in greater Cleveland . Table 6. Public adm inistrati on. W holesale Universit y Circle Metro/W estside Chagrin/ I-271 Airport/ NA SA 10 123 5 259 5 915 5 336 41 991 22 402 19 082 18 197 W . Forests. Comm unicatio n and public utilities. (A com plete list of location quotien ts is Downloaded from usj. T he specialisations of the employm ent centres are listed in Table 5.
and Aurora and Solon Roads (and possibly Downtow n Elyria as well).E MP LO YM EN T CE NTR ES IN CLE VE LA ND 2105 F igu re 1. as both are county seats with the associated government activity. Downtow n Cleveland also has the expected heavy concentration of employm ent in FIRE and services. 2011 .) The listed specialisations include all of the location quotien ts greater than 1. Chagrin/I-271 is the most clear bene® ciary of location at the intersection of interstate highw ays and major roads. The clearest example of these problems in the Cleveland area is Chagrin Boule vard Downloaded from usj. In other words. Note that all of the manufacturing centres are smaller than all of the other centres. However. the other ® ve span as many as three municipal bounda ries. These centres. T he third type of centre is the manufacturing centre. W . each of these industries has employm ent that is at least 40 per cent higher than would be the case if the centre re¯ ected the ® ve-county employm ent mix. Route 2/SOM Center Road. and Chagrin/ I-271. Em ploym ent centres in Greater Cleveland . Public adm inistration is im portant in both these centres. These centres include University Circle.117/ Brookp ark. The second type of centre is dom inated by service provision. Four of the nine centres are entirely within one municipa lity. given in the Appendi x. As discussed in Garreau (1991) . 3 The industries are listed in decreasing order of total employm ent in the centre to give som e indication of the dom inant focus of the centre. 1990.sagepub.4. The ® rst type of centre is the fam iliar dow ntow n. the absence of a single government responsible for an entire centre can lead to co-ordination problems. Metro/W estside. with the exception of Aurora and Solon Roads.com by guest on December 14. W e can roughly sort the nine centres into three different types. represented by Cleveland and Elyria. including Airport/NASA. while the othe r two centres include major hospitals. are places that have had heavy concentrations of manufacturing for many years.
10.com by guest on December 14. 1996 Distance from public square (Cleveland city centre) (m iles) 13.50 Intersec tion SO M Center Rd/May® eld Rd Richm ond Rd/Chagrin Blvd M LK Blvd/ Cedar Glen O ntario St/Carnegie A ve I-271 Ram p W /Chagrin Blvd M LK Blvd/ Euclid Ave Chagrin Blvd/W arrensvi lle Center Rd Solon Road/SO M Center Rd W ilson M ills Rd/Richm ond Rd L ocation Four m iles from Chagrin/ I-271 Chagrin/ I-271 Universit y Circle Cleveland D ow ntow n Chagrin/ I-271 Universit y Circle One m ile from Chagrin/ I-271 Aurora and Solon Roads Five m iles to Chagrin/ I-271 and Universit y Circle.25 10.6 25.50 4.3 27. and real estate (FIRE ) P roducer services Consum er services Recreatio n H ealth E ducation O ther professi onal S ervices P ublic adm inistrati on Greater Cleveland em ploym ent 984 967 10 2 48 65 165 40 26 865 837 899 308 221 228 567 E mploym ent in centres 304 203 1 1 13 18 50 15 10 293 710 427 381 224 040 704 51 767 155 852 64 880 45 22 12 98 72 66 33 631 785 132 364 467 010 821 14 968 28 389 25 661 14 4 2 37 18 29 15 541 694 990 948 488 376 760 Source: A uthors’ calculati ons using data from Census Bureau.50 4.sagepub.5 44. the quality and width both decrease.50 10. Ten busiest intersect ions in Cuyahoga County.50 15. Fisheries M ining Construct ion N on-dura ble m anufactu ring D urable manufactu ring. Table 8.3 28.25 8.25 0. BOG ART A ND W IL LIA M C .25 10.2 39. 6 m iles to Route 2/S OM Center Rd Chagrin/ I-271 Chagrin Blvd/Park East Source: Neff (1996).6 31.2106 W ILL IA M T .5 46.9 20.9 60. T he im portance of the employm ent centres in the local econom y is dem onstrated in Table 7. T ransport Com m unication and public utilities W holesale Retail F inance.6 24. As the road crosses into W oodm ere.1 30.5 28.4 37. In Beachwood.6 38. FER RY Table 7. which show s total employm ent by Downloaded from usj. E mploym ent by sector in greater Clevelan d Centre employm ent/ Greater Cleveland em ploym ent (percent age) 30. while the stopligh ts are unsynch ronised. insuranc e. dram atically increasing congestion levels. Chagrin Boulevard is a well-maintained fourlane road with a centre (turnin g) lane.4 40.9 11.50 in the Chagrin/I-271 centre. 2011 . Forests.9 18.6 S ector A ll sectors F arm s.
Downloaded from usj. T he nine centres account for almost one-third (30. p. For example. health. 4 Com parison (1995) with Bingham and Kimble Bingham and Kim ble (1995) use expert opinion to identify edge cities in Ohio. the central location of employm ent in these sectors accords with the predictions of standard urban location models. North Olm sted. sector in the centres as a fraction of total employm ent in Greater Cleveland. they focus only on areas that had not seen signi® cant developm ent before the 1960s. Solon. Rockside. The mapping from their edge cities to our employm ent clusters is given in Table 9. com munication and public utilities.sagepub. W illough by. accounting for only 18. the centres account for over 31 per cent of employm ent in mining. The other intersections are either within the suburba n employm ent centres identi® ed using data from 1990 or near them . Mentor. W ith the exception of mining. 265): Chagrin. T able 2. p. A slightly different way of illustrating the im portance of the employm ent centres is by considering the amount of traf® c ¯ ow ing to and from them . and only three of them (those in downtow n Cleveland and University Circle) are within the Cleveland city lim its. Especially in the case of services. transport. These employm ent centres are not the main centres of retail employm entÐ for exam ple. Table 8 lists the 10 busiest intersections in Cuyahog a County in 1996. 2011 . professional services and public adm inistration. Edge cities and em ploym ent centres E dge cities (identi® ed by Bingham and Kim ble) Beachw ood Chagrin M entor North O lmsted Rockside Solon W estlake W illoughb y E m ploym ent centres (identi® ed in this paper) Chagrin/ I-271 Chagrin/ I-271 N ot identi® ed using our m ethodolo gy. W e describe their location and refer the reader to Figure 1. producer services. Beachwood. University Circle. Westlake. 265).E MP LO YM EN T CE NTR ES IN CLE VE LA ND 2107 Table 9. the exporting is accomplished by people travelling to the ® rm’ s location. The Mentor. All four of the employm ent centres just mentioned were scenes of considerable employm ent before the 1960s. Only one of these intersections is in the Cleveland downtow n.2 per cent of area employm ent. a visit to a hospital represents an export of health services. However. At the intersect ion of I-77 and I-480 (see Figure 1) A urora and S olon Roads N ot identi® ed using our m ethodolo gy. On I-90 in w estern Cuyahoga County (see F igure 1) Route 2/SOM Center Road Source: Authors’ calculati ons.com by guest on December 14. so that the `expert opinion’ used by Bingham and Kim ble is likely to have re¯ ected this post-census growth. FIRE . Metro/W estside and Elyria Downtow n) from Bingham and Kim ble’ s analysis re¯ ects their use of Garreau’ s de® nition of edge citiesÐ in particular.9 per cent) of total employm ent in the ® vecounty area. Bingham and Kim ble (1995. They identify eight in the Cleveland area (Table 2. North Olm sted and Rockside edge cities have been quickly grow ing since 1990. East of Route 2/ SO M Center betw een Route 2 and I-90 (see Figure 1) A irport/ N ASA N ot identi® ed using our m ethodolo gy. but their relative im portance varies greatly by sector. Several of their edge cities are not identi® ed using our methodology. The absence of four of our employm ent centres (Cleveland Downtow n.
in: E . (1992) Assessing the developm ent status of m etropoli tan areas. p. 259± 272. B. 205±211. B OGAR T . T. 86±121. H AR TS HOR N . 201±218. 155±184. of the eight Cleveland-area edge cities. (1995) Industr ial com position of edge cities and dow ntow ns. FER RY Bingham and Kim ble use employm ent data at the ZIP code level to identify specialisations of the edge cities. pp. (1980) Estim ating export activity in a regional econom y: a theoreti cal and em pirical analysis of alternati ve methods. V . one is social service. J. U rban Studies . Concluding Rem arks In this paper. J. 31. 12. H E NDE RSON . and none is wholesale. (1991) E dge City: Life on the New F rontier . P. pp. W . T he perhaps surprisin g specialis ation of dow ntow n Cleveland in m ining is explaine d by the presence of a large salt m ine at the shore of L ake Erie. Downloaded from usj. (1988) Urban D evelopm ent: Theory. (1973) Employm ent E xpansion and M etropolit an T rade . pp. one is retail. pp. We encourage urban researchers interested in the US to m ove beyond `the usual suspects’ Ð New York. J. across the Cuyaho ga River from the central business district. T . T hus it is possible for a centre to have a density consider ably in excess of / and for tw o centres to border each other. 147±158. and K IM BL E . (1992) T he suburba n dow ntow n and urban econom ic developm ent today. M. Senior honors thesis. F ER RY . (1991) Subcenter s in the L os Angeles region. Ferry (1997) provide s details about the effects of changing the param eters used to identify em ploym ent clusters. F or exam ple. A. It also probabl y represents som e m isclassi® cation of em ploym ent at m ining com pany headqua rters as m ining employm ent instead of service em ploym ent. (1998) The E conom ics of Cities and Suburbs . E conom ic Developm ent Q uarterly . we have shown how a readily available source of data can be applied to understanding the relationships among various parts of a metropolitan area. They ® nd that. in: E . O. Fact. pp. M C D ON ALD . and P RAT HER . Case W estern Reserve U niversity . M ILL S and J. Their precise ® gures are not strictly com parable to our ® ndings in Table 5 about em ploym ent specialisation. Houston and AtlantaÐ to a broader look at the range of m etropolitan areas in the country. C. NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. 163±182. They. NJ: Center for U rban Policy Research. 9. Dallas. A . the SO M Center Road/May® eld Road intersect ion is the location of the relativel y new headqua rters (about 1 m illion sq ft of of® ce space) of Progressi ve Insuranc e Com pany. one is personal service. ® nd a variety of specialisations including a large amount of manufacturing. (1975) Z oning and property taxation in a system of local governm ents. M C D ON ALD . and M UL LER . 5. W . but their general conclusions are similar. 2011 . K. M C D O NAL D (Eds) Sources of M etropolit an G row th . (1997) E mploym ent centers in G reater Cleveland . They do not provide inform ation on the specialisation of each edge city. pp. N ew York: Oxford U niversity Press. V. N ew York: Praeger Press. but they do sum marise their results at the metropolitan area level (Table 5. A . and Illusion . too. R egional Science and Urban E conom ics . New Brunsw ick. 3.com by guest on December 14. (1994) Suburbanem ploym ent centres: the case of Chicago. Notes 1.2108 W ILL IA M T . This approach is applicable to every metropolitan area. 268). N ew Y ork: Doubleda y. P. 21. G IU LIAN O . tw o are producer service. U pper Saddle River. J. Los Angeles. Urban Studies . three are manufacturing. G . 5. H AM IL TO N . pp. References B INGH AM . R. Internatio nal R egional Science Review . We only add `® rst-level ’ adjacent T AZs. K NIGHT . An interesting extension of this work would be to look at how the centres and their specialisations evolve over tim e (even at the 10-year intervals available from the US Census).sagepub. R. E conom ics D epartm ent. BOG ART A ND W IL LIA M C . I SSERM A N . and S MA LL . Chicago. M ILL S and J. NJ: P rentice H all. M C D ON AL D (Eds) Sources of M etropolit an G row th . D . G AR RE AU . D . and we are curious as to whether the qualitative ® ndings reported here are robust across a range of metropolitan areas. T here has been continu ed grow th near som e of the centres identi® ed in 1990. 4. 2. New Brunsw ick. and we do not com bine centres that becom e adjacent after TA Zs are added. The qualitat ive results presented in this paper are robust to variation s in the precise speci® cation of the em ploym ent centres.
21. and W AD DEL L . V. J. (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. R egional Science and Urban E conom ics . (1996) Traf® c intersecti on volum es . S H UKL A . T . 37. (1991) Firm loca- tion and land use in discrete space: a study of the spatial structur e of Dallas±Fort W orth. Downloaded from usj. Journal of Political Econom y . 2011 . 64. Journal of R egional Science . N EF F . pp.sagepub. P. C. T IEBO UT . Clevelan d: Cuyahoga County E ngineer. (1997) A nonparam etric analysis of em ploym ent density in a polycent ric city. 225±253. pp. J. 416±424. D.E MP LO YM EN T CE NTR ES IN CLE VE LA ND 2109 M C M ILL EN . and M C D ONA LD . pp.com by guest on December 14. 591±612.
37 0.60 0.25 0.30 0.61 0.26 1.37 0.44 0.56 0. FER RY Downloaded from usj.27 0.40 0.90 0.07 2.34 1.71 0.50 0.41 2.09 0.50 0.69 0.12 0.22 0.13 0.84 0.67 1.13 1. insurance.29 0.87 0.52 1.16 0.39 0.35 1.37 0.48 0.41 0.81 Cleveland downtow n University Circle M etro/ W estside Chagrin/ I-271 Airport N ASA W .63 1.95 1.55 0.72 0. 117/ Brookpark E lyria dow ntow n Route 2/SO M Center Road 1.34 0. BOG ART A ND W IL LIA M C .94 0.65 0. Fisheries Mining Construction Non-durable m anufacturing Durable m anufacturing Transport Com m unication and public utilities Wholesale Retail Finance.83 1.60 0.05 0.56 0. Forests.64 0.15 Source: A uthors’ calculations using data from Census Bureau.76 0.52 0.17 0.08 0.23 0.01 0.86 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.99 0.83 2.67 0.76 1.60 0.29 0.50 1.25 0.77 0.14 0.93 3.54 0.55 0.52 1.17 Aurora and Solon Roads 0.22 1.60 2.16 0.11 0.93 0.48 2.06 2.91 1.55 1.12 0. .53 1.41 0.37 1.sagepub.30 0.40 are in italics.30 0.15 0.89 0.45 0.28 1.77 0. L ocation Quotients for E m ploym ent Centres Sector 0.97 2.02 1.02 0.00 0.68 0.60 0.87 0.56 0.21 3.40 0.39 1.86 1.25 0.40 0.02 0.75 1.14 0.32 4.65 0.17 W ILL IA M T .2110 Appendix Table A1.88 1.81 1.54 0.91 0.44 0.89 0.73 0.86 0.19 1. L ocation quotients greater than or equal to 1.39 0. and real estate (FIRE Producer services Consum er services Recreation Health Education Other professional services Public administration 0.99 1.77 0.22 0.89 0. 2011 Farm s.73 0.00 1.44 0.63 0.48 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.61 2.90 1.70 0.55 1.47 0.com by guest on December 14.63 0.05 0.54 0.36 0.92 0.60 0.78 1.40 2.97 1.15 0.90 1.84 0.