The Changing Demographics of Chapel Hill, 1990-Today

Presentation to the Chapel Hill Alliance for a Livable Town

(CHALT)

July 22, 2015Chapel Hill, North Carolina

John QuinternoSouth by North Strategies, Ltd.

This presentation is copyright © 2015 by South by North Strategies, Ltd. All rights reserved.

Exercise: A Growing Chapel Hill

How many people did Chapel Hill net from 1990 to 2010? The town’s population grew by 18,514 individuals, rising

to 57,233 from 38,719; this translates into a population gain of 47.8 percent.

How many households did the town net over this span? The number of households rose by 6,695, rising to 20,564

from 13,780; this translates into a gain of 48.6 percent. Family households accounted for 51.1 percent of the total

in 2010, up from 49.1 percent in 1990.

How many housing units did the town net over

this time? The number of housing units rose by 7,388, rising to

22,254 from 14,866; this translates into a gain of 49.7 percent.

The owner-occupied share rose to 47.6 percent from 40.6 percent.

2

Presentation Objectives

Clarify economic growth and economic development. Imprecise terminology is a regular cause of confusion in

public life.

Explore certain local demographic trends (1990-2010). Despite “slow growth” policies, the town has grown a great

deal.

Provide information needed to interpret claims about projected growth trends. Fuzzy future thinking fosters short-term policies.

Brainstorm some ways in which a return to development thinking could influence responses to future trends. “Back to the Future” as a source of ideas going forward?

3

Defining Economic Growth

Economic growth is “simple quantitative increase” in a variable like total output, income, or employment. The basic idea is to maximize the aggregate level of a

variable.

Since the 1930s, state and local governments actively have encouraged economic growth for two stated reasons: To boost the number of jobs in a community, directly and

indirectly To expand the tax base needed to finance area

improvements

Economic growth often is depicted in zero-sum terms. A community can have economic growth OR

environmental sustainability but not both; similarly, a community can have economic growth OR high labor standards, but not both.

Equity often is portrayed as antithetical to economic growth.

4

Defining Economic Development

Economic development looks beyond quantitative increases to “a qualitative increase in collective well-being.” Economic growth aims to increase economic output by

mobilizing resources and using them more efficiently. Economic development focuses on changing the output

mix by using local resources to perform different kinds of work.

Regional progress may be conceptualized as the

result of interactions among local resources (land, labor, capital) and local capacities (social, political, organizational).

Most state and local “economic development” agencies are misnamed; they really are “economic growth” agencies. A rule of thumb is the view that “any job is a good job.”

5

Theories of Economic Development (“Growth”)

Economic development is a theory in search of a practice. Modern practice began as an applied reply to Southern

poverty. The practice has had three waves: “Buffalo Hunt”

(‘40s-’70s), deindustrialization (‘70s-’90s), industrial incubation (‘90s-present).

The lack of theory has caused a bias toward “deal making.” The goal is to promote economic growth rather than

development.

The focus on deals has shaped contemporary practice. Common features include the idea of regional competition

for economic activity; a belief that competition is won on the basis of low production costs; a negotiating stance that favors firms over communities; an acceptance of the “buying” economic activities; and a willingness to subsidize private enterprise.

6

Theoretical Aspects of Economic Development

Goal Unit Source of Change

Theoretical Lens

Policy Response

Economic Base

Growth Macro Exogenous DisequilibriumSupport export

activities

Locatio

n

Attraction Growth Micro Exogenous EquilibriumPackage &

“sell” low costs

Central Place

Growth Macro Exogenous EquilibriumStrengthen ties

in urban hierarchy

Growth Pole

Growth MicroExogenous & endogenous

DisequilibriumNurture pole & regional ties

Cumulative Causation

Growth MicroExogenous & endogenous

DisequilibriumSteer growth to struggling area

Innovation

Entrepre-neurship

Development

Micro Endogenous DisequilibriumDirect aid & environment

Creativity Growth Micro Endogenous Disequilibrium “Creativity”

Production

Product Cycle

Growth & Developme

ntMeso

Exogenous & endogenous

Equilibrium & disequilibrium

Tech innovation

ClusterGrowth &

Development

MesoExogenous & endogenous

Equilibrium & disequilibrium

Nurture clusters

So, Does This Resonate with You?

Have You Seen Examples of These Dynamics?

What Responses to Growth Claims Work?

How Would a Developmental Narrative Look?

8

Population Growth in the Triangle

9

Population Growth in Triangle Cities

10

Chapel Hill Population Growth in Context

From 1990 to 2010, the town gained 18,514 people, or 926 people per year. Net migration (domestic & international) was key driver.

The town accounted for 46.3 percent of the county’s growth and 2.9 percent of the Triangle’s growth. Despite prominent name, the town is a small part of the

region.

On an annualized basis, the town grew at 2 percent/year. The county rate was 1.8 percent; the region’s rate was 3.1

percent.

The number of households grew by 6,695, or 335 per year. Smaller number is because people tend to live together.

11

Projected Growth, 2010-2030

For the Triangle:

Projected net gain of 563,000 people (41 percent in total)

Wake County as the growth magnet: 71 percent of the projected growth

Orange County projection: 1.2 percent/year, for a gain of 34,493 persons

6.1 percent of regional growth in Orange County

For Chapel Hill:

No “official” published state projections for municipalities

If town has half of county growth, a gain of 17,247 people, or 30.1 percent

Assuming even growth, a gain of 862 people per year

Assuming a household size of 2.4, a gain of 359 households per year, or 7,187 over 20 years. 12

So, Does This Fit Your Experience?

What Is Significant about These Trends?

What Might This Suggest about Past Choices?

What Do You Think the Projections Mean?

13

Changes in Population Traits, 1990-2010

Increasing diversity, especially in child population Non-Hispanic White share fell to 70 percent from 81

percent; Hispanics account for 6 percent of population, up from 2 percent.

Persons of color account for 45 percent of the child population (<age 18), but 14 percent of the older population (age 65+)

Highly educated, though racial and ethnic gaps exist 74 percent of adults (ages 25+) have a bachelor’s degree

or more.

More family households, though nonfamily share is high Family households account for 51 percent of the total.

Greater density, even though town limits expanded Density is 2,710 persons/sq. mile, up from 2,342

persons/sq. mile

14

A High-Income Community …

15

… but One with Stark Racial/Ethnic Divides…

16

… and Hardships Too Easily Dismissed.

17

So, Does This Look Right to You?

What Is Surprising about These Trends?

What Is Concerning about These Trends?

18

Housing Affordability Is A Crucial Concern

19

Trends for Housing Units, 1990-2010

Supply Trends:

Number of housing units grew by 49.7 percent, up to 22,254 from 14,866.

Occupancy rate held steady at 92 percent.

Of occupied units, share of owner-occupied units rose to 47.6 percent.

Of housing units, 41.2 percent were single-family detached, up from 37.9 percent.

Price/Cost Trends:

For owner-occupied units, the median value is $368k, up from $242k (real).

For renters, the median gross rent was $915, up from $845 from (real).

Median gross rent equaled 35.9 percent of renters’ household income, up from 28.8 percent in 1990.

In general, the newer the unit, the higher the price. 20

Observations for Discussion

Chapel Hill has grown, but not like the rest of the Triangle. That is, at least in part, a reflection of conscious policy

choices.

Chapel Hill is projected to keep growing at a modest

pace. Policy choices can influence the pace; pace is not

inevitable.

Although Chapel Hill is known as a college town, family households account for a majority of households. The town arguably is not as transitory as other college

towns.

The town is affluent and well-educated, which gives it the resources—and luxury—to address change purposefully. Don’t ignore demographic change, economic hardship, and

equity.

21

Contact Information

John QuinternoSouth by North Strategies, Ltd.

179 East Franklin Street, #294 *Chapel Hill, NC 27514(919) 622-2392 * johnq@sbnstrategies.com

More Information Available Online: www.sbnstrategies.com

www.runningthenumbersbook.com

This presentation is copyright © 2015 by South by North Strategies, Ltd. All rights reserved. 22