Karl Schuettler

4/14/15
Richmond, Virginia: Analysis of Suburbanization
Introduction
Suburban growth took off at an explosive rate in the Richmond, Virginia Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) between 1970 and 2010. This study tracks the shifts in population in the center city
and suburbs over that span, and also analyzes changes in income distributions across the entire
MSA.
Population Growth in the MSA
In 1970, the entire MSA consisted of just the City of Richmond and three outlying counties (see
map), which included just five Census-Designated Places (CDPs) and a significant population in
unincorporated areas. By 2010, the MSA ballooned to include 45 CDPs across 19 counties
beyond the boundaries of the city. The population of the Richmond MSA more than doubled
over the forty-year span, even the City of Richmond itself lost 45,000 residents.
Table 1: Population Growth in Richmond MSA
City of Richmond
Total Suburban
--Incorp. Suburbs
--Unincorp. Suburbs
Total

1970
249,621
268,968
39,789
229,179
518,589

2010
204,214
1,054,037
424,267
629,770
1,258,251

Growth Rate
-.18
2.92
9.66
1.75
1.43

1970 data includes 4 counties and 5 CBPs outside of the City of Richmond; 2010 data includes
20 counties and 45 CDPs outside of the City of Richmond. Growth rate expressed as a decimal.
Methodology Note: Incorporated and Unincorporated Suburbs
While the growth in incorporated suburbs is clearly the most dramatic shift in regional
population trends, the substantial population numbers and growth in unincorporated areas is also
a significant trend. (For the purposes of this paper, all cities, towns, and CDPs are considered
incorporated, and any other residents of MSA counties are labeled as living in
unincorporated communities.) The 1970 unincorporated population in particular constitutes a
substantial share of the population, and while incorporated communities have grown at the
fastest rate, this growth is hardly confined to those communities. This report therefore includes
breakdowns between the two populations where appropriate. Future studies might further
understanding by putting incorporated and unincorporated regions in comparative perspective
with other U.S. cities, and by studying the incorporation process and characteristics of the
unincorporated areas.

Central City vs. Suburbs

A look at the percentages of total MSA population shows the growth of the suburbs in even more
stark terms (see Table 2). As the suburbs grew and the center city shrank, the City of
Richmonds share of the MSA population decreased dramatically, going from nearly half of the
MSA in 1970 to a mere 16 percent in 2010. The share belonging to incorporated suburbs grew by
a dramatic 26%. While some of this growth comes from the addition of previously incorporated
cities into the MSA as new counties are added, most growth has been in newly incorporated
suburban communities. Henrico, Hanover, and Chesterfield Counties, the three suburban
counties that were part of the MSA in 1970, went from five CDPs and a population of 39,789 in
1970 to 26 and a population of 333,540 in 2010. Unincorporated suburban areas, while growing
at a much slower rate, nevertheless now account for over half of the MSA population.
Table 2: Percentage of Richmond MSA Population by Region
City of Richmond
Total Suburban
--Incorp. Suburbs
--Unincorp. Suburbs

1970
48.13
51.87
7.67
44.19

2010
16.23
83.77
33.72
50.05

% Change
-31.90
31.90
26.05
5.86

1970 data includes 4 counties and 5 CBPs outside of the City of Richmond; 2010 data includes
20 counties and 45 CDPs outside of the City of Richmond.
Growth Patterns in Richmond Suburbs
Centricity
The Richmond MSA is, by and large, monocentric. Interestingly, the 2010 MSA boundaries
include two areas that were considered metros in 1970: Richmond and the three-city belt of
Petersburg, Hopewell, and Colonial Heights 20 miles to the south. These cities disrupt
Richmonds otherwise fairly smooth approximation of the negative exponential predicted by the
Y=Ae-bx equation (see graph on following page of census tract population density and distances
from the city center below, reproduced from Assignment 1). That said, this preexisting MSA has
now been almost completely subsumed within the Richmond MSA. It also does not appear to
represent a new pole of growth, as populations in these cities and Dinwiddie and Prince George
Countiesthe five counties and county equivalents that comprised the Petersburg MSA in
1970has grown at a modest 5.70% clip, a pace noticeably slower than the rest of the Richmond
MSA.
This further supports the notion that these cities are not an emerging new node or an edge city,
but are instead preexisting relatively dense cities that have been absorbed by the outgrowth of the
Richmond MSA. The rest of the suburban growth has been fairly steady, and no one suburb
dominates the others; the largest, Tuckahoe, has a population of only 44,990. To the extent that
the sprawling Richmond MSA has a key node, it remains in Richmond proper.

Figure 1: Population Density and Distance from City Center

Population Density and Distance from City Center (2010)

Population Density per Census Tract

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Distance from City Center (miles)

Ratio of Land Area to Population

The ratio of population to land area in the Richmond MSA has been halved since 1970 (see
Table 3). Despite the Richmond MSA population doubling over that 40-year stretch, the MSA
added land area at an even more rapid rate. The addition of 16 new counties and county
equivalents nearly quintupled the land area of the MSA. While parts of the furthest outlying
counties are so sparsely populated that they hardly qualify as suburban under most standard
definitions of the term, the narrative remains clear: the growth of the Richmond MSA has
occurred at a low-density rate, spreading far across a the Atlantic coastal plain to cover most of
central Virginia.
Table 3: Land Area Growth and Population per Square Mile, 1970-2010
Total Land Area
Persons per Sq. Mi.

1970
1189.72
435.89

2010
5684.96
221.33

Rate of Change
4.78
-.51

Inner Ring vs. Outer Ring

Given the lack of CDPs in 1970, it is difficult to do a thorough analysis of possible inner-ring
suburban decline in the Richmond MSA. The five suburbs that did exist in 1970 all show
3

substantial declines in household income (see Table 4), though most remain comfortably around
the median for all Richmond MSA CDPs, and their poverty rates, while rising, are all below the
MSA average. Of the eight CDPs with median incomes lower than $40,000 in 2010, four
(Bensley, Bellwood, Dumbarton, Montrose) are within ten miles of the Richmond city limits and
located in counties that were part of the MSA in 1970. This certainly suggests possible first-ring
decline, though it is impossible to know how real this decline is without access to 1970 income
data on these then-unincorporated areas. Two others (McKenney, Prince George) are not in the
inner ring, but instead on the distant periphery of the MSA, suggesting they have yet to feel the
full effects of suburban growth. Two more, Petersburg and Hopewell, are stand-alone cities that
long predate urban expansion; while they do not qualify as first-ring suburbs in the traditional
sense, both lost population between 1970 and 2010, and are certainly not sites of extensive new
development.
Table 4: 1970 and 2010 Population and Income Data for the Five 1970 CDPs
CDP

1970
2010
Household Household
Income
Income

1970
Poverty
Rate

2010
Poverty
Rate

1970 Pop.

2010 Pop.

Bon Air

10,562

16,366

$96,213

$67,214

2.60%

6.66%

Chester

5,556

20,987

$72,823

$57,368

6.34%

7.84%

Highland Springs

7,345

15,711

$57,306

$40,904

8.77%

13.96%

Lakeside

11,137

11,849

$57,086

$49,357

3.45%

12.06%

Mechanicsville

5,189

36,348

$89,195

$68,302

1.58%

4.46%

All MSA CDPs*

289,410

628,481

$49,425

$52,702

12.00%

14.21%

*includes City of Richmond. The 1970 figure includes 6 CDPs, and the 2010 figure includes 46.
Corridors of Wealth
The wealthiest eight CDPs, all with median household incomes in excess of $75,000, are all
located beyond the inner ring. Six of them, however, are still located within the original three
suburban counties. The most extreme differences are . If there is a favored sector, it seems to be
toward the northwest, where five of the suburbs are located, though there are also ones to the
northeast and southwest. The only region that has not seen the emergence of wealthy suburbs is
the southeastern corridor out of the city, which leads toward preexisting relatively poor cities
such as Petersburg and Hopewell.
Suburban Income Distribution
Methodology Note
Comparing CDP incomes between 1970 and 2010 causes immediate problems, as the 1970
Census measured aggregate incomes by community (making it easy to compute a mean
household income difficult to compute a median) and the 2010 Census reported median
household incomes by community (making it difficult to compute a mean). This study settles for
a comparison of 1970 means with 2010 medians. While hardly an ideal scenario, it still provides
4

a general picture of trends in the Richmond MSA. Due to outliers on the upper end of the income
spectrum, mean incomes tend to be higher than medians, meaning the 1970 figures may be
unrealistically high in some places, particularly in smaller CDPs.
Center City vs. Suburbs
A study of city and suburban incomes reveals further decline in the center city and, perhaps more
surprisingly, an even larger decline in suburban household incomes (see Table 5). However,
despite these apparent declines, household incomes in the Richmond MSA still grew modestly
over the study period. The increase in suburban population and its share of the MSA population
was enough to offset declines in the center city and in the small number of suburbs that existed in
1970.
Table 5: Richmond City and Suburban Income Trends
Richmond City Household Income
Suburban CDP Income
Income Ratio Between Minimum
and Maximum Suburbs

1970
$46,477
$71,705

2010
$38,266
$59,651

1.69

4.67

Incomes are in terms of 2010 dollars. Inflation adjustments calculated using the CPI calculator
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1970 means calculated by dividing aggregate household
income by number of households per CDP. 2010 medians calculated by multiplying each CDPs
median income by its share of the population of all CDPs and adding the results.
Suburban Diversity
Figure 2 reveals considerable divergence as Richmonds suburbs have grown. In 1970, there
were no low-income suburbs to speak of, as shown by the near-nonexistent lower whisker. In
2010, the range of incomes is far greater, and this is most extreme in the top quartile, where there
is a $70,000 range. It is notable that the top quartile in 2010 begins at a lower level of median
household income than both the overall mean and median household incomes in 1970; as shown
in Table 5, suburban mean/median incomes have actually declined significantly since 1970. The
difference in sample size, however, skews this apparent decline. Richmonds suburbs have gone
from being the realm of a handful of wealthy families to the predominant urban form, and they
increasingly reflect the U.S.s broader stratification and growing income inequalities. The change
in the ratio between the lowest and highest-income suburbs further emphasizes this point, as the
gap between top and bottom suburbs more than doubled over the study period.

Figure 2. Mean and Median Household Income by Suburb, 1970 and 2010.

Mean and Median Household Income by

Suburb, 1970 and 2010
160000

Median Household Income by Suburb

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
1970

2010
Year

Box-and-whisker plot separates the Richmond MSA by quartiles. Purple diamond indicates
mean suburban household income.
Fragmentation
As the Richmond MSA has grown and added new suburban areas, it has grown more
fragmented, as shown by Table 6. There are far now dramatically fewer people per government
body in the MSA. This remains true regardless of whether fragmentation is measured by
population in CDPs or in counties as a whole. While comparable, the rate of fragmentation
within CDPs has been slightly faster than the rate for the metro area as a whole.

Table 6: Fragmentation of Metro Area, Measured as Persons per Government, in Richmond

MSA Census-Designated Places and Counties
Column1
Pop. in CDPs
Pop. in Entire MSA

1970
48,235
86,432

2010
13,663
27,353

Rate
-.72
-.68

1970 data includes 4 counties and 5 CBPs outside of the City of Richmond; 2010 data includes
20 counties and 45 CDPs outside of the City of Richmond.
Specialization by Income
Using a 2:1 ratio of suburban to total MSA income, only one 2010 Richmond suburb is
specialized: Wyndham, a CDP in Henrico County with a population of 9,785 and an average
household income of $146,027. Wyndham is an outlier, as the next-wealthiest suburb falls just
below the 2:1 ratio threshold at $105,440. Using a 1.5:1 ratio of CDP to MSA income, which
generates a threshold of $79,080, Richmond has six specialized suburbs (Woodlake, Hanover,
Innsbrook, Short Pump, Wyndham, and New Kent). Zero suburbs have an income of less than
half of the MSA income, though eightthe same eight listed earlier in this report as those with
incomes under $40,000have incomes that are less than three quarters of the population.
In 1970, two of the five suburban CDPs, Bon Air and Mechanicsville, exceed the 1.5:1 ratio
threshold of $85,625. No suburbs meet the 2:1, .5:1, or .75:1 thresholds. This is further evidence
of suburban divergence between 1970 and 2010, particularly on the lower end of the spectrum,
where pockets of relatively poor suburbs have developed. In 1970, none have a poverty rate that
suggests specialization at a 2:1 rate; in 2010, three do (Amelia Court House, Templeton, Sussex).
All three of these CDPs are far from the urban core, however, and all have very small
populations; they do not conform to standard theories of the concentration of poverty in or
around inner cities. A 1.5:1 specialization rate does add a fourth specialized CDP, Bensley,
which is an inner-ring suburb in Chesterfield County.