Projection of a Metropolis: Technical Supplement to the New York Metropolitan Region Study [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9780674188907, 9780674186323

Citation preview

PROJECTION of a METROPOLIS TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION STUDY

By Barbara R. Berman, Benjamin Chinitz, and Edgar M. Hoover

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts · 1960

© Copyright 1960 by Regional Plan Association, Inc.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 60-53213 Printed in the United States of America

Foreword This handbook i s a companion piece to Metropolis 1985, by Raymond Vernon, the summary volume of a series on the forces that shape metropolitan areas. In particular, the s e r i e s h a s to do with the forces that shape the largest and most complex metropolitan area in the United States, a 22-county expanse which t a k e s in parts of three s t a t e s but which, for convenience, we have termed the New York Metropolitan Region. In 1956, the Regional Plan Association, a nonprofit research and planning agency whose purpose is to promote the coordinated development of t h e s e 22 counties, requested the Graduate School of Public Administration of Harvard University to undertake a three-year study of the Region. The challenging t a s k w a s to analyze the key economic and demographic features of the Region and to project them to 1965, 1975, and 1985. In the summary volume, Metropolis 1985, the general methodology and the results of t h e s e projections are presented. This handbook, Projection ot a Metropolis, provides the technical detail that underlies the general description contained in the last chapter of Metropolis 1985. In developing this technical supplement we had three audiences in mind: people who are interested in the methodology for i t s own sake, for application to other places and in other times; those who are interested in the methodology in order to determine for themselves how much reliance to place on the projections; and those who require the methodology in order to manipulate our projection model for policy-making purposes. T h i s last group i s of particular importance. The projections which are presented in Metropolis 1985 represent a view of the Region's probable development, assuming that the economic and demographic forces in sight follow their indicated course and assuming that the role of government is largely limited to existing policies. Many, however, will wish to alter some aspects of the Region a s projected by t h e s e data and will seek answers to the question: what would the Region look like if one of the assumptions about the future were changed? For these persons the handbook i s indispensable. Even a work a s extensive a s this handbook, however, does not really provide all of the data and assumptions which went into the making of the projection. As the technical reader will appreciate, there are a variety of elements in the model which are not elaborated between t h e s e covers. The rationalization for some of the exogenous elements in the model is found in one or another of the companion books in the s e r i e s . The rationalization for the economic projections for the nation is not presented here, largely b e c a u s e the orientation of this s e r i e s i s toward the New York area rather than the nation, and because the methods used in this area of our projection broke no new ground in projection methodology. It is not easy to account for all the elements that went into the making of this handbook. The Regional Plan Association performed a vital function in conceiving and sponsoring the idea of the Study as a whole. The research underlying the handbook was undertaken a s an integral part of the Study, with the use of funds generously provided to the Regional P l a n Association by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Publication was made possible by the Regional P l a n Association, which provided supplementary funds in order to ensure that the technical materials and methodology would be available to scholars and technicians in the urban research field. The usual formula in such a situation obviously applies: credit for the results must be shared with those who helped to bring it about, but the onus of error or omission lies with us. Edward S. Mason for the Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard University

Contents I. ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS FOR THE REGION AS A WHOLE, by Barbara R. Berman

1

1. Introduction 2. The Model Annex to Chapter 2 3. Estimating the Parameters 4. The R e s u l t s , and Some Further Observations on the Methodology Appendix A: Classification Appendix B: Projections of Changes in Output per Man-Year by Industry Appendix C: Input-Output Matrices

1 3 9 10 31 39 43 45

II. DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS FOR THE REGION AS A WHOLE, by Edgar M. Hoover

55

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Purposes and Basic Procedure Potential R a t e s of Natural Increase of Population for the Region Migration into the New York Metropolitan Region Over-all Population Projections Without Regard to Age Composition Procedure for Projections of Population by Age Groups Final Population Projections Growth of the Region's Labor Force

57 58 60 61 63 68 69

III. EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR PARTS OF THE REGION, by Benjamin Chinitz

77

Some General Points Manufacturing Wholesale and Retail Other Sectors of the Economy Distribution of Total Employment Annex: Manufacturing Industries in the New York Metropolitan Region Classified by Dominant Locational Characteristics

79 83 89 90 98

IV. PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION CHANGE WITHIN THE REGION, by Edgar M. Hoover Manhattan Core Counties Outside Manhattan The Rings Counties of the Modified Inner Ring Counties of the Modified Outer Ring

For colored map oj the New

99

103 106 107 110 112 114

York Metropolitan

see inside back cover.

Region,

Tables I. ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS FOR THE REGION AS A WHOLE 1-1. Employment and Value Added in New York Metropolitan Region, 1954 1-2. Distribution of Industries by Proportion of Local-Market Output (p ) , New York Metropolitan Region, 1954 1-3. Estimates of Per-Family Consumption Parameters for Local-Market Goods, New York Metropolitan Region, in 1954 Dollars 1-4. Allocations of Consumer Expenditures for Manufactured Goods to Allow for Trade and Transportation Margins 1-5. Estimates of Demand for Local-Market Goods Versus Estimates of Local-Market Output, New York Metropolitan Region, 1954 1-6. Projections of the Distribution of Local Government Expenditure, and of Average Salary of L o c a l Government Employees, New York Metropolitan Region 1-7. Projected Relations between Employment (in Man-Years) in Governments and Population in New York Metropolitan Region 1-8. Employees per Million of 1954 Dollars of Output, New York Metropolitan Region, 1954 and Projected 1-9. Value Added and Personal Disposable Income per Employed Person, New York Metropolitan Region, 1954 and Projected 1-10. Residents in New York Metropolitan Region per Employed Person, 1954 and Projected 1-11. Regional Employment in National-Market Industries as a Share of Total U.S. Employment in Such Industries, 1954 and Projected 1-12. U.S. Employment by Industries, 1954 and Projected 1-13. Special Projections of Employment in Industry Segments, New York Metropolitan Region 1-14. Employment and Population, New York Metropolitan Region and U.S., 1954 and Projected 1-15. Projected Indexes of Employment, U.S. and New York Metropolitan Region 1-16. Projected Employment by Industries, New York Metropolitan Region 1-17. Projected Distribution of Output by Source of Demand, New York Metropolitan Region, 1965 1-18. Projected Distribution of Output by Source of Demand, New York Metropolitan Region, 1975 I-19. Projected Distribution of Output by Source of Demand, New York Metropolitan Region, 1985 B - l . Fitted Trend Lines, U.S. Output per Man-Year, by Industry C - l . Estimated Direct Purchases from Local-Market Firms Per Dollar of Total Output, New York Metropolitan Region C-2. Direct and Indirect Requirements from Local-Market Firms Per Dollar of Final Demand, New York Metropolitan Region

12 13 16 16 18 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 36 37 38 43 46 50

II. DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS FOR THE REGION AS A WHOLE I I - l . Projected Crude Birth, Death, and Natural-Increase R a t e s for New York Metropolitan Region, 1955-1985

60

II-2. Comparison of Net Migration Assumptions of Present Study with Those of Regional Plan Association Study (Bulletin 87) II-3. Projections of Total Population of New York Metropolitan Region on Basis of Alternative Assumptions Regarding Fertility and Migration II-4. Difference Between Minimum and Maximum Projections of the Region's Population in 1965, 1975, and 1985, and Amounts of Differences Ascribable to Varying Assumptions Regarding Fertility and Migration II-5. Estimated 1955 Distribution of the Population of New York Metropolitan Region by Age and Sex II-6. Projected Five-Year Survival Rates for Total Population of United States, 1955-1985 II-7. Estimated Net Migration into New York-Northeastern New Jersey Standard Metropolitan Area by Age, 1940-1950 II-8. Final Projections of Population, New York Metropolitan Region II-9. Projected Net Migration to New York Metropolitan Region, by Age, 1955-1985 11-10. Labor-Force Participation Rates by Age, Color, and Sex in New York-Northeastern New Jersey Standard Metropolitan Area, 1950 11-11. Labor-Force Participation Rates in United States and New York-Northeastern New Jersey Standard Metropolitan Area, 1950 11-12. Projected Labor-Force Participation Rates for United States and New York Metropolitan Region, 1955-1985 11-13. Projected Labor-Force Participation Rates for New York Metropolitan Region, by Age, 1965-1985 II-14. Final Projections of the Labor Force, New York Metropolitan Region, 1965-1985

62 63

63 64 66 67 70 70 71 72 73 74 75

III. EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR PARTS OF THE REGION III-l. Employment in New York Metropolitan Region by Categories Used in the Intraregional Projection, 1956 and Projected III-2. Distribution of Total Employment by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 Actual and 1985 "Expected" III-3. Distribution of Employment in Women's and Children's Apparel, Printing and Publishing, and Electronics, New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected III-4. Distribution of Employment in Communication-Oriented Manufacturing Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected III-5. Distribution of Employment in Nuisance, Water-Transport, and Raw-MaterialOriented Manufacturing Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected III-6. Distribution of Employment in Local-Market Manufacturing Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected III-7. Distribution of Employment in Large-Plant National-Market Manufacturing Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected III-8. Distribution of Employment in Small-Plant National-Market Manufacturing Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected III-9. Distribution of Employment in Transportation by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected III-10. Distribution of Employment in Communications and Other Public Utilities by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected III-11. Distribution of Employment in Real Estate and Rentals by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 111-12. Distribution of Employment in Central Offices by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 111-13. Distribution of Employment in "Other Business Services" by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected

80 81 84 85

86 87 88 89 91 92 93 94 95

111-14. Distribution of Employment in Medical, Dental, and Other Professional Activities by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 111-15. Distribution of Employment in Nonprofit Organizations by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 111-16. Distribution of Total Employment by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected

96 97 98

IV. PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION CHANGE WITHIN THE REGION IV-1. IV-2. IV-3. IV-4.

Population in the Core outside Manhattan during the 1950's Population in the Core outside Manhattan, 1950, 1955, and Projected Population in Core and Rings, 1950, 1955, and Projected Projected Net Increments of Population in Inner and Outer Rings of New York Metropolitan Region, by Type of Accommodation, 1955-1985 IV-5. Projected Population Growth in Counties of the Modified Inner Ring by Periods, 1955-1985, and Type of Accommodation IV-6. Vacant Land Suitable for Development in the Modified Outer Ring, 1954, by County and Access Zone IV-7. Population of New York Metropolitan Region, by Counties, Projected to 1985

108 109 110 112 114 116 119

I ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS FOR THE REGION AS A WHOLE By Barbara R. Berman

I. Economic Projections for the Region as a Whole B y B a r b a r a R. B e r m a n 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction The present attempt to project important economic magnitudes for the New York Metropolitan Region as a whole into the next three decades takes its principal inspiration from two famous classical economists: Wassily Leontief and Thomas Malthus. To Leontief is owed the central idea of the methodology, and to him and his associates are owed some of the statistical raw materials as well. Through the use of the input-output technique we arrive at estimates of employment, production, population, income, consumption, etc., which are consistent among themselves and are also consistent with the projections made by other contributors to the Study. The economic activity of any region which is not self-sufficient can be divided into two parts. The first consists in the production of goods to be exported, that is, to be exchanged for the production of other regions: New York sends garments and brokerage service to Detroit and gets automobiles. The second type of activity is what economists enjoy calling "taking in one another's laundry." It consists in the services New Yorkers render to each other: retailing services, barbering, teaching, and policing, for instance, a s well as certain types of manufacturing, housing construction, and so on. It also includes some of the activities of the industries which sell to the export industries, but do not export their products directly, such as the electric utilities. The forecasts of employment for the New York industries which cater to a national market have been produced by other hands and their methodologies detailed in other volumes. 2 The task of the present writer is largely to assay the size and composition of the "laundry bund l e . " In the briefest possible summary, this has been done by building up an enumeration of all of the demands expected for the New York product from whatever source. Most of these demands are dependent on other demands, that is, the demand for barbering is dependent in

^ T h a n k s are d u e t o Andre D a n i e r e , E d g a r M. Hoover, and L>eon Moses for a d v i c e and comfort g i v e n in t h e long c o u r s e of t h i s s t u d y . C o m p u t a t i o n s on the Harvard-M.I.T. IBM-704 were programmed and s u p e r v i s e d by J o h n Korbel, who d o n a t e d h i s time and e n e r g y . It i s a p l e a s u r e t o t h a n k him. T h e innumerable hand c o m p u t a t i o n s required were performed by E r i c D r e f u s and C a r l R i s k i n , both Harvard und e r g r a d u a t e s at t h e time. T o t h e H a r v a r d . E c o n o m i c R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t I am i n d e b t e d for a c o n s i d e r a b l e q u a n t i t y of d a t a a s w e l l a s for h o s p i t a l i t y in the o f f i c e s of the P r o j e c t , w h i c h i n c l u d e d houseroom, c o f f e e , and t h e c o m p a n i o n s h i p of s y m p a t h e t i c c o l l e a g u e s . T h e m a n u s c r i p t w a s r e a d in part by Dr. E l i z a b e t h Gilboy, for w h i c h I am g r a t e f u l . 2 S e e the following books p u b l i s h e d by Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s : Made in New York, ed. Max H a l l (1959); Sidney M. R o b b i n s and N e s t o r K. T e r l e c k y j , Money Metropolis (1960); B e n j a m i n C h i n i t z , Freight and the Metropolis (I960); Robert M. L i c h t e n b e r g , One-Tenth o( a Nation (1960).

Γ11

part on the personal income of the population, which is dependent in part on the demand for labor in the electric utilities industry, which is dependent in part on the demand for garments, and s o on. Thus no component of the local demand is properly estimated independently of all others. It i s , of course, in connection with our treatment of population that we invoke the name of Malthus. Indeed, the method by which the present model handles population is its principal claim to novelty. Malthus' theory that mouths appear as soon a s the food to go into them appears has been abandoned so far as the studies of developed economies go. In recent years it has been revived and applied to backward economies. Here we introduce it as an explanatory factor in regional economics. Within any developed country, total population is thought to be largely independent of economic events. However, within geographic subdivisions, this is obviously not true, so long a s migration among them is free. Growth in the demand for the output of a region will generally imply a growth in the demand for labor, 3 which may be met from the existing population by the natural growth of the region's population, or by an increased participation of that population in the labor force. If increased supply of labor is not forthcoming from these sources, it may be met by migration from other regions. Whether people in other regions respond to the demand depends, of course, on what is going on in the economy of those other regions and on the pecuniary and psychic costs of moving. If they do not respond, there may be a tendency for wages to rise in the growing region, and this, through the mechanism of locational decisions by firms, may decelerate the region's growth. 4 In the c a s e of the New York Metropolitan Region, there seem to be several reservoirs of labor which are being freely tapped, and will seemingly continue to provide labor as it is needed in the foreseeable future. Changes in local rates of labor-force participation can be expected to take up some of the change in job demand. The Puerto Ricans, the southern Negroes, and the bright young people from other sections of the country will continue to come when called. Hence, our reference to Malthus. Thus, New York's population can be thought of as depending in good measure on the number of jobs the demand for its products creates. And since an increase of population means more " l a u n d r y , " which in turn means more jobs, which call forth still more population, it is clear that forecasts of population cannot be made independently. Thus, population becomes a variable to be determined " s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , " in consistency with all of the other variables. It is this desire for consistency which lends a complicated air to the methodology, although in truth the machinery which we employ to crank out our answers i s , by necessity, quite crude in many of its parts. It is possible that accuracy may be at war with consistency, in the sense that a straightline projection of the time trend of each of the magnitudes, which does not take into account the relationships known or thought to exist among them, may give more plausible results than one that does. But the loss of accuracy arises from the postulation of incorrect relationships among the variables, and not from the attempt to insure that one's assumptions are not contradictory. Since this study does essay to use relationships among the variables which seem to have a good claim to validity, we lose nothing by insuring consistency. What we gain, of course, is the satisfaction of not contradicting ourselves.

^Obviously, c h a n g e s in labor productivity w i l l c h a n g e the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n growth of output and growth of demand for labor. ^Unless w a g e s are r i s i n g e l s e w h e r e at the same rate, of c o u r s e .

[2]

The projections presented here use as " i n g r e d i e n t s " the data and projections developed elsewhere in the New York Metropolitan Region Study. Work was not started on the over-all harmonizing projection, which we shall call the "Unified Regional Model" (U.R.M.), until the work of the other contributors was virtually complete. Thus, there was little opportunity to have the partial projections or s p e c i a l data tailor-made to fit into the over-all scheme. This necessarily resulted in the employment of rough adaptations of material developed by others. Furthermore, some of the ingredients necessary for the model presented here simply were not developed in other parts of the Study and had to be fabricated from scratch. Thus, some bricks have been made with remarkably little straw. This is not to deny that the over-all projections are of value. It may be, however, that the refinement of the method is somewhat in e x c e s s of the refinement of the data. We shall postpone a detailed look at the results themselves until we have described the methodology at some length in the next two chapters.

CHAPTER 2

The Model In this chapter we shall give an outline of the U. R. M., or Unified Regional Model. 1 T h e model i s designed to predict for the years 1965, 1975, and 1985 employment, output, and value added by industry, a s well a s breakdowns of these magnitudes by type of demand. It also will generate estimates of personal disposable income and population. The conceptual framework outlined in Chapter 1 requires that we divide firms 2 in the New York Metropolitan Region into two groups: (1) Those which cater to the national market, that is, which export to other regions (or other nations) a considerable portion of their output, or which are subject to competition from firms in other parts of the country. The size of the output of such firms and their number depend not only on the national demand for their product, but on the relative advantages of a location in the New York Region a s opposed to location elsewhere. We shall call such establishments "national-market" firms. (2) All other firms, which will be labeled a s " l o c a l - m a r k e t " firms. T h e s e will include not only firms which serve the local population but a l s o some whose economic function i s to provide goods and services used by the Region's national-market firms. 3 It is obvious that the latter group also serves a national market, although indirectly. Our model takes account of this, of course, and in a very convenient way. ' S t u d i e s with methodology s o m e w h a t s i m i l a r to t h e p r e s e n t one w e r e c a r r i e d out b y t h e C h i c a g o Area T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Study and t h e Stockholm School of E c o n o m i c s . In p a r t i c u l a r , s e e I r v i n g Hoch, Economic Activity Forecast, Final Report ( C h i c a g o , 1959), which a l s o h a s r e f e r e n c e s to p u b l i c a t i o n s u s e f u l in t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e g i o n a l p r o j e c t i o n s , and R o l a n d Artie, Studies in the Structure of the Stockholm Economy (Stockholm, 1959). 2 T h e d i s c u s s i o n h e r e c o n c e r n i n g firms i s purely h e u r i s t i c . All d a t a h a n d l i n g w a s d o n e on t h e b a s i s of i n d u s t r i e s or " p a r t s of i n d u s t r i e s . " 3 Some i n d u s t r i e s or p a r t s of i n d u s t r i e s w h i c h c o u l d b e i d e n t i f i e d a s s e l l i n g e n t i r e l y t o e x p o r t e r s of g o o d s from t h e R e g i o n w e r e c l a s s e d a s n a t i o n a l - m a r k e t . However, in t h e c a s e of an i n d u s t r y l i k e e l e c t r i c light and power, s a l e s t o e x p o r t e r s w e r e c l a s s e d a s m e e t i n g l o c a l - m a r k e t demand.

[3]

It is usual to compute results in terms of "industries," which are groups of firms, generally classified on the basis of similarity of technology. It would have been very much simpler and more elegant if the industry classification used here were fine enough so that each industry was composed entirely of "national-market" or "local-market" firms. However, any scrupulous attempt in this direction would have multiplied industries to an impracticable degree and would have created difficulties in the incorporation of data from other sources. Of our 43 industries, 10 are completely local-market and 8 are completely national-market, while 25 have both types of firms. The intermixing of local-market and national-market firms in a single industry requires that we subscribe to the following fiction: each industry produces two distinct products, one of which is sold in a national market, a national market which includes the New York Region, while the other product is sold only locally. 4 Moreover, the two products of each industry are produced in an identical technological setting, which means that the same quantity and quality of labor, raw materials, machinery, etc., are used per dollar of output in the one as in the other. As an example, we may divide legal services 5 into two separate "products": services to large corporations and services to small firms and individuals. Services to large corporations are sold on a national market, consisting of all large corporations, those in New York included. The demand for workers on the part of the New York legal industry which produces such services depends on how many large corporations there are in the country and how litigious they are, and on the proportion of such legal firms deciding to locate in New York. The demand for the services of the type of New York lawyer who works for small companies and individuals clearly depends on the population of small firms and the population of individuals in New York, and on how litigious they are. It is highly probable that the firms catering to large corporations tend to buy their furniture input from Sloane's, while the others favor Macy's, but such differences in technology will have to be ignored, and in somewhat more gross cases than this one. We have now (conceptually) divided the output of each industry into two parts, and we now proceed to subdivide the output of the local-market part still further, based on the source of demand. The local-market product of each industry may be thought of as being distributed among the following buyers: business purchasers, consumers, and governmental bodies. We shall develop for each group of buyers in turn a set of equations which describes how their demand for output from each industry depends on variables affecting their economic activity. 1. Business purchasers. The Region's electric light and power industry, for example, provides power to all of the other industries of the Region. We may class this type of sale as the purchase of a " f l o w input," in that any industry's purchase is likely to be closely geared to its flow of output. We shall assume that purchases of such inputs by any industry from local-market firms are proportional to its output. Thus, if the ;th industry produces output worth X'j dollars in a year f, we assume it will purchase dollars worth of output from local-market firms in the ith industry that year, where atj is a known number called a " f l o w coefficient" 6 and depends on the technology used by the ;th industry.7 Since the demand for inputs comes to local-market firms from both local-market and national-market firms, and since both types of firm in a given industry are assumed to share the 4In

the actual computations this assumption w a s somewhat relaxed; see Chapter 3.

5This

discussion is again only for purposes of clear illustration.

" L e g a l s e r v i c e s " is not a sepa-

rate industry in our classification scheme. 6The

a ' s , and all other symbols lacking t superscripts, represent quantities or ratios which are a s -

sumed not to change over time.

Γ 4]

same technology, we can gauge the demand for input from the total output of the purchasing industry, without regard to the proportion of that output sold in local or national markets. Another type of purchase which New York industries make from New York local-market firms i s of goods designed to increase their capacity to produce. We label t h e s e " c a p i t a l g o o d s " and assume that their purchase is proportional to desired growth in capacity to produce output which i s in turn equal to the growth in output. Thus, i f . X j i s the output of the /th industry in year t, and Χ^~10 i s its output ten years previously, and if we further assume that its capacity is rather tightly adjusted to i t s output in any period, then the ;'th industry must purchase c

„

c*; -

χ;-

1 0

)

during the ten-year period from local-market firms in the ith industry, provided that Χ]>

x ' -

1 0

.

If the inequality does not hold, the industry might sell its equipment and thus make "negative p u r c h a s e s , " but we shall assume that such an industry purchases and s e l l s no capital goods. Since we will be concerned with purchases in single years rather than with purchases over ten-year periods, we must make some assumptions about the time pattern of growth. In this model, we will assume a " s t r a i g h t - l i n e " pattern, 8 which gives us

10

v

X;

'

-

χ;

)

- 1 0

)

as the value of capital goods purchased in the tenth year by the ;th industry from local-market firms in the ith industry. T o sum up, in any year i, both local-market and national-market firms in the /th industry will purchase a

+

"

10/

'

-

f ü r «-ι» 10 I

from the local-market firms in the ith industry. 2.

Consumers.

products in all.

Each of our 43 industries potentially provides two " p r o d u c t s , " making 86 We assume that all of the type of product provided by the local-market firms

which New York consumers purchase i s bought from the local-market firms located in New York, and that furthermore, none of the product of local-market firms i s exported. 9 If X' is the value of purchases by consumers from the local-market firms in the ith industry in year t, we will write *,'«

=

d

,

p , +

' J

1

where P' and Y' are population and personal disposable income in year t, respectively. T h e c?i and f. are constants which describe the propensity of New Yorkers to consume local-market products. 7 T h e apparel industry, according to the 1947 input-output table, i s estimated to purchase $ . 0 0 1 of electricity for every dollar's worth of output it produces. Apparel in our scheme i s designated Industry 4 and electric light and power i s designated as Industry 28. Thus, a

28,4 =

«-001

and the purchase of electricity by the apparel industry in 1965 is designated a

28,4

X6S

4 *

T h e apologetics for this assumption are presented in Chapter 3. 9 T h i s assumption is somewhat relaxed in the model which was quantified. 8

[5]

See Chapter 3.

T h e principal impact of the federal, state, and local governments i s in

3. Government.

their employment of labor, but they also make purchases from local-market industries, principally the construction industry.

The responsibility for providing a behavioral model for total

local government expenditure rested with others in the study. 1 0

Their model was adapted to

fit into the present framework, with state and federal expenditures being handled in a somewhat analogous way. In outline, government expenditures were treated as a linear function of the Region's population 11 with purchases from each local-market industry being considered as a fixed proportion of government expenditures on goods and services.

Thus, if X'g

i s gov-

ernment purchases in year t from firms in the ith local-market industry, we have X

where the parameters a '

ii

and b*

l&

U = °u

p t

+

4Ϊ,

differ for the differing projection years according to the

propensity to spend of the various l e v e l s of government.

Having listed all the sources of demand for output from local-market firms in the ith industry, we can obtain the total demand for the output of such firms, which we shall designate by summing the flow input demand and the capital goods demand from all industries on the ith industry and adding to this the consumer and government demand on the ith industry: (1)

X'IL

= a

n

x
ά > Χ ΙΑ ι-

-α

n CO Ο

3 ο Ε

.

υ χ Κ • Ο.

υ § υ ω Ηι-

"3 υ" ν Λ cS ΙΑ α)

I

Ο S

ΙΛ νο f - οο ON Ο

1) an α ι* .4Ο-1 ΙΑ ο3 ω Β •IH e IA 3 ο Ο VM CO S tοi CO > IA oi fr« c 13 ^ υ 4) 3l-i CO f- s

§

Ή CN CO CN CN

00 in

Os

1 U"> vd . I 1

**

ΙΛ öco ι—i

0\ os

.

ι

ι 1

CS Os

ι I

as i-H Os CN 1 1 COOS 1-1 CN 1 1 CO

ο m m σ\ CN -Ol3 CΟ cο Ο ο U Χ Ο H N f ) Tf TT •

h

in οCO oo PO oo oo

CO Olυ υυ c CO V)9

i-H 00

Table 1-17

Projected Distribution of Output by Source of Demand, New York Metropolitan Region, 1965 (million· of 1954 dollars) L o c al-market output

U.R.M. code8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

TOTAL.

Consumer demand

Government demand

2.56

1,909.25 —

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

196.25 —

.07

—

—

—

—

—

3,930.41 —

15.12

.66 .48 .74

—

2,018.60

—

—

—

TOTAL

—

196.10

—

Input demand

20.95 103.36 539.48 588.19 55.88 888.55 —

315.65

.12

71.95 106.59 10,235.89

15.12 —

20.95 300.12 539.96 785.18 55.88 888.62 —

71.95 106.59 10,551.66

—

—

—

—

—

—

166.44

166.44

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

.40

—

554.96 206.69 233.26

—

.85 2.32

—

—

165.64

—

—

—

1,535.41 4,572.08 449.46 463.07 —

11.83 8.32 2.51

—

—

—

.45 1.26 —

3.89 1.11 2.37 —

1,243.60

45.88 1,333.35 1,071.74

17,957.06

2,491.76

—

5.85 1,456.66 267.19 687.59 424.50 816.58 1,827.49 —

—

—

130.64 172.48 761.94 1,709.69

12.43

- —

—

2,255.22 493.97 391.70

—

.85

—

944.71 36.97 405.47 469.20

—

945.11 591.93 613.01 704.78 —

178.07 5.85 2,992.92 4,839.27 1,148.88 895.89 819.09 1,827.49 —

709.19

2,281.98 611.54 440.88 1,078.80 1,043.43 299.15 307.06 844.18 1,796.25 1,333.35 3,024.53

25,607.50

46,056.32

26.76 117.12 47.92 1,078.80 1,039.54 167.40 132.21 82.24 40.68 —

"For descriptions of industries s e e Table 1-16.

[36]

Nationalmarket output

3,906.89 352.63 1,130.01 6,704.89 169.67 451.96 598.96 2,929.00 4,680.12 163.13 244.69 569.32 327.93 1,088.72 2,096.20 5,632.70 1,621.70 2,326.10 — —

121.84 8.06 963.60 71.23

TOTAL output

7,837.30 352.63 1,145.13 6,704.89 190.62 752.08 1,138.92 3,714.18 4,736.00 1,051.75 244.69 641.27 434.52 11,640.38 2,096.20 5,799.14 1,621.70 2,326.10 945.11 591.93 734.85 712.84 963.60 249.30

405.16 132.09 17.56 34.26

5.85 3,880.86 4,919.96 1,148.88 895.89 1,301.80 4,990.41 409.20 2,610.06 611.54 440.88 1,443.40 1,043.43 299.15 307.06 1,249.34 1,928.34 1,350.91 3,058.79

42,464.56

88,520.88

—

887.94 80.69 — —

482.71 3,162.92 409.20 328.08 — —

364.60 — —

—

Table 1-18

Projected Distribution of Output by Source of Demand, New York Metropolitan Region, 1975 ( m i l l i o n s of 1954 d o l l a r « ) L o c a l - m a r k e t output

U.R.M. codea

Consumer demand

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

2,411.92

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

416.46

TOTAL.

Government demand

4.79

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

241.91 —

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

696.75 266.67 299.07 —

217.82

28.35 155.38 678.90 758.76 78.56 83.83 —

84.94 137.28 1,589.09 —

210.51 — —

.80

—

TOTAL

4,995.59 —

15.53 —

.32

—

2,578.88 —

1.18 .78 1.26

251.80

Input demand

—

1.66 4.17 —

1,201.93 89.54 520.67 598.68 —

15.53 —

28.35 408.36 679.68 1,001.93 78.56 83.83 —

84.94 137.28 2,005.87 —

210.51 — —

1,202.73 786.29 789.00 901.92 —

233.06 8.29 3,797.93 6,206.21 1,434.57 1,160.94 1,056.48 2,415.44 573.70 2,946.01 787.23 560.18

1,701.59

82.92 676.53 1,398.56

15.24 8.29 1,828.06 345.43 830.51 545.37 1,051.92 2,415.44 573.70 40.13 152.50 61.87 1,378.62 1,335.43 215.46 169.98 106.22 53.59 360.20 799.29

23,130.63.

2,233.24

21,098.08

46,461.95

—

1,968.21 5,860.78 582.77 600.47 —

— —

1.66 —

21.29 15.10 4.56

—

—

—

—

2,905.88 633.78 496.04 —

—

.95 2.27 —

7.07 2.04 5.33

—

174.96 231.86 956.69 2,215.20 —

—

" F o r descriptions of industries s e e Table 1-16.

[37]

1,378.62 1,342.50 392.46 407.17 1,062.91 2,351.71 1,036.73 3,899.44

Nationalmarket output

4,928.10 482.03 1,435.93 7,348.50 244.53 559.54 732.50 3,613.12 6,011.11 1,418.43 285.89 658.86 443.93 12,952.16 2,704.50 7,048.50 1,800.20 3,530.88 — —

139.24 9.29 1,166.40 86.82 —

1,217.83 115.05 — —

679.72 3,863.33 —

460.18 •

— —

509.39 — — —

561.86 164.30 1,042.33· 45.76 66,260.21

TOTAL output

9,923.69 482.03 1,451.46 7,348.50 272.88 967.90 1,412.18 4,615.05 6,089.67 1,502.26 285.89 743.80 581.21 14,958.03 2,704.50 7,259.01 1,800.20 3,530.88 1,202.73 786.29 928.24 911.21 1,166.40 319.88 8.29 5,015.76 6,321.26 1,434.57 1,160.94 1,736.20 6,278.77 573.70 3,406.19 787.23 560.18 1,888.01 1,342.50 392.46 407.17 1,624.77 2,516.01 2,079.06 3,945.20 112,722.16

Table 1-19

Projected Distribution of Output by Source of Demand, New York Metropolitan Region, 1985 (millions of 1954 d o l l a r s ) Local-market output

Consumer demand

U.R.M. code® 1

...

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

TOTAL.

Government demand

2,999.39

7.71

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

317.45 —

—

.09

—

—

—

—

29.97 184.53 818.70 956.28 71.80 105.79

.46

94.65 175.69 1,827.12

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1.21

—

280.36 —

2,478.977 7,381.47 741.26 763.69 — — —

3,676.21 798.98 618.06 —

—

228.60 303.64 1,183.33 2,815.54

—

2.51 6.68 — —

2.60 —

34.54 .24.33 7.34 — —

1.49 3.71 —

11.52 3.34 6.97 —

2,488.68

134.56 1,097.57 1,628.48

29,533.16

2,980.30

—

94.65 175.69 2,414.74 252.98 —

1,503.80 71.33 652.02 747.36 19.64 11.59 2,254.81 462.51 946.27 682.02 1,327.26 3,133.60 —

—

—

—

—

—

29.97 503.83 820.00 1,252.78 71.80 105.88

—

—

252.98

—

18.21 —

—

587.16

861.62 337.70 376.59

6,224.75

18.21

—

—

TOTAL

—

—

—

—

3,217.65 —

1.85 1.30 2.04

294.46

Input demand

57.13 193.71 77.06 1,719.86 1,667.40 272.70 215.53 317.95 77.68

1,505.01 932.95 992.23 1,130.63 —

300.00 11.59 4,736.38 7,843.98 1,722.07 1,470.04 1,334.60 3,133.60 —

913.89

3,733.34 994.18 698.83 1,719.86 1,678.92 504.64 526.14 1,501.28 3,027.78 1,097.57 5,031.05

25,078.49

57,591.95

—

" F o r d e s c r i p t i o n s of industries s e e T a b l e 1-16.

[38]

Nationalmarke t output

6,224.76 663.20 1,802.96 8,422.40 344.69 695.77 888.33 4,194.10 7,107.82 2,011.75 324.40 765.77 588.20 16,160.15 3,310.80 8,179.76 1,770.99 5,237.97

TOTAL output

555.27 193.26 1,758.19 50.82

12,449.51 663.20 1,821.17 8,422.40 374.66 1,199.60 1,708.33 5,446.88 7,179.62 2,117.63 324.40 860.42 763.89 18,574.89 3,310.80 8,432.74 1,770.99 5,237.97 1,505.01 932.95 1,140.49 1,142.05 1,354.60 400.00 11.59 6,400.51 7,985.69 1,722.07 1,470.04 2,262.04 7,834.01 761.30 4,341.09 994.18 698.83 2,388.69 1,678.92 504.64 526.14 2,056.55 3,221.04 2,855.76 5,081.87

82,337.21

139,929.16

— —

148.26 11.42 1,354.60 100.00 —

1,664.13 141.71 — —

927.44 4,700.41 761.30 607.75 — —

668.83 — — —

APPENDIX A

Classification The purpose of this appendix is to identify more clearly the contents of the sectors of the Unified Regional Model, and to reconcile the U.R.M. scheme with the following: The Census codes, as found in U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1947 Census of Manufactures. The Standard Industrial Classification (S.I.C.), as found in U. S. Bureau of the Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Vol. II (1949). The "emergency model" input-output codes, as found in U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The 1947 Interindustry Relations Study—Industry Classification Manual (revised March 20, 1953, mimeographed). MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES U.R.M.

Census

Input-output

1 2 3 4 5

20 21 22 23 24

21-28 29 30-33 34-35 36-40

6 7 8

25 26 27 + S.I.C. 7331-2, 7351

41-43 44-46 47

9 10 11 12 13 14

28 29 30 31 32 33, 34, 38, 39

48-61 62-64 65-66 67-69 70-77 78-109, 153-164

15 16 17 18

35 36 372-379 371

110-128 129-144 148-152 145-147 [39]

Description

Food & kindred products Tobacco manufacturing Textile mill products Apparel & related products Lumber & wood products (excludes furniture) Furniture & fixtures Pulp, paper & products Printing & publishing (includes related industries, such as duplicating, stenographic, and photostating services) Chemicals & products Petroleum & coal products Rubber products Leather & leather products Stone, clay & glass products Metals, fabricated metal products & misc. manufacturing (includes primary metals, also instruments and related products) Machinery except electrical Electrical machinery Transp. equip, exc. motor vehicles Motor vehicles & equipment

NONMANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES U.R.M

19 20

21 22 23

24

25 26

27

S.I.c.

Input-output

01, 071, 0723, 0729, 08, 091, 0741 4012, 411-15, 431-33, 438-39

1-10

4011, 4013, 4021, 4041, 4742-43 421, 4221, 423-5, 428-9 441, 4421, 4453-54, 446263, 4469, 4422-23, 443-4, 4452 451-2, 458

169

461 50, 512, 514; 511 except rental activities by manufacturers' sales branches; 513 except enterprises that treat com-· missions as business expenses rather than including them in the price of their product (those parts of 511 and 513 are in "Business s e r v i c e s , " U.R.M. 37) 52-27, 59

Description

Agriculture & fisheries (includes for-

178

170-171 172-173

174

175 176

estry, hunting, trapping) Local and highway transportation (includes electric railroads, local and interurban railw.ays and bus lines, taxicabs, terminal facilities for motor vehicle passenger transportation) Railroads (both freight and passenger; also includes railway express) Trucking, warehousing & storage Water transportation (includes services incidental to water transportation) Air transportation (includes airports and services related to air transportation) Pipeline transportation (petroleum) Wholesale trade (includes merchant wholesalers; petroleum bulk stations; assemblers, mainly of farm products; some sales branches and sales offices of manufacturing and mining companies; and some agents and brokers)

Retail trade (includes building equipment; farm equipment; general merchandise; food, including fluid milk, cream, butter, and cheese; automotive dealers & gasoline service stations; apparel and accessories; furniture, homefurnishings and

177

28

4911, 4931, 496, 4922-26

167-168

29

4811, 482, 489

179

[40]

equipment; miscellaneous retail stores) Electric & gas utilities (includes natural gas transmission and distribution; mixed gas distribution and manufactured gas production and distribution; steam heating systems) Telephone & telegraph

S.I.C.

U.R. Μ.

Input-output

Description

Real estate & rentals (includes agents, brokers, managers; title abstract companies; subdividers and developers)

183

32

653-5 and the real estate (as opposed to construction) activities of 6561; the rental portions of U.R.M. 30 are not individually comparable with S.I.C; they include all residential and nonresidential rents, including those paid to establishments classified in S.I.C. 6512-19 60-62, 67, 633-36 , 639, 631, 632, 641; insurance activities in 661 (the rest of 661 is in "Medical, dental & other professional s e r v i c e s , " U.R.M. 41); plus employment in central offices 701, 7032, 704, 7031

33 34

5812-13 721-22

180 184

35

723-26, 727, 729

185

Other personal services (includes photographic studios, barber and beauty shops, shoe repair and hat cleaning, funeral service and cemeteries, pressing, alteration and garment repair, miscellaneous personal services)
()* β

b

15410.04 6674.03 10613.25

558.55 214.59 114.16

24423.40 19406.40 8362.40 9346.20 7905.00 5552.90 13078.10 8647.90 17807.40 29786.10 8123.60 8646.50 6214.50 5838.40 7213.00 5290.40 9102.20 10859.40 5337.20 4063.10 26433.00 6807.10 9305.40 6250.10 9222.70

249.17 602.55 188.88 71.67 2.50 198.36 450.33 129.98 537.58 1334.02 282.75 166.35 254.99 149.60 231.58 164.00 190.51 371.87 90.20 108.10 100.00 156.10 531.40 67.10 54.70

• I n the e q u a t i o n y s t a n d s for t h e p r o j e c t e d v a l u e of output per man-year in 1947 d o l l a r s ; a s t a n d s for t h e v a l u e of output per man-year in 1942; t i s the number of y e a r s c o u n t e d from 1942, the latter corr e s p o n d i n g to z e r o .

[43]

The trend lines given in the table were reached by a linear extrapolation of the information available for the years 1929-1956.

T h i s was done without a thoroughgoing analysis of

the conditions affecting the future productivity trends, industry by industry, as the cost of such an investigation was beyond the resources of the Study. The first stage in the computation was based on annual data of income generated and of employment, by industries, for the years 1929 to 1956 as presented in Tables 13 and 25 of the National

Income

Supplement

to the Survey of Current Business

(1957).

Specifically,

Table 13 provides data on national income by industrial origin, that is, the net value added to production by each industry, measured at factor costs.

T a b l e 25 provides the number of

full-time-equivalent employees by industry, that is, the number of full-time employees plus the full-time equivalents of part-time employment.

T h e data on income generated by in-

dustries were converted into 1947 constant dollar amounts by the use of price indexes of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and were aggregated into the industry grouping which is shown in our Table B - l . Value added is, of course, not the same thing as value of output. Our next step, therefore, was to translate these data into value of output by each industry.

In the case of manufac-

turing industries, ratios of value added to value of product shipped were computed for each industry group, based on data provided by the 1954 Census of Manufactures.1

For nonmanu-

facturing industries, similar ratios were obtained by relating the income generated figures taken from the National

to figures showing the distribution of output of

Income Supplement

the relevant producing industries from the 1947 input-output table for the United States. 2 These ratios multiplied by the corresponding income originating figures provided a series of value-of-output

statistics in the required industrial breakdown.

These estimates of the

yearly values of output for each industry were divided by the corresponding yearly employment in the same industry (based on Table 25 of the Supplement).

The resulting ratios pro-

vided rough yearly estimates of output per man-year by industries for the period 1929-1956. A linear relationship was fitted by the least squares method to the figures thus obtained for each industry. In considering these estimates one should keep in mind that alternative procedures would have yielded different conclusions.

For instance, projections based on a longer historical

period (say the last 60-70 years) would have resulted in a steeper rise in output per man-year because of the burst of mechanization and electrification around the turn of the century.

At

the same time, adherence to linear extrapolation may result in overestimation of the output per man-year trends, at least in some industries.

Deviation from another assumption—the

assumption that the relation of value of output to value added in any industry was stable in the past and will remain so in the future—could also produce greatly changed results. In any case, the choice of procedure and underlying assumptions carries with it a powerful source of error.

A very thorough analysis of particular industries would have undoubtedly

isolated the conditions which have led in the past to non-linearities and other changes in trends in labor requirements.

Such a study was beyond the resources allocated to this proj-

ect; in addition, the question remains whether the improvement in the reliability of estimates due to such a study would have been proportionate to the increase in costs. 'The

value added concept of the 1954 C e n s u s i s

figures as defined by the National Income 2 See

slightly different from the income originating

Supplement,

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Interindustry Economics, Interindustry

and Services

by Industry of Origin and Destination,

T a b l e IV, October 1952.

[44]

Flows

ot Goods

APPENDIX C

Input-Output

Matrices

This appendix consists of two tables, C-l and C-2. The place of these tables in the Unified Regional Model is explained in Chapter 2, above, and their construction in Chapter 3. Additional uses to which they may be put are given in Chapters 3 and 4. In Table C-l, each entry shows direct purchases from local-market firms of the industry named at the left by the industry named at the top, per dollar of total output by the latter. This is matrix A of Chapter 3, which includes capital goods purchases. In Table C-2, each entry shows the total dollar production directly and indirectly required from local-market firms of the industry named at the left, per dollar of delivery to Regional consumers, government, and national-market demand by the industry named at the top. This is matrix (I - A)~1 of Chapter 3.

Γ45]

CM sO sO Ο 00 ι Ο ιI ιι LA ι ο Jο Ο ο

JΓΛ — so ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

ΙΑ J· CM Ο I ο Ο ο I ο ο ο ο ο

so Γ— LA ΓΛ Ο Ο

I ι

00 J· CM Ο Ο Ο

Ο 00 ο -dLA ο

J· ΓΛ Ο ο ο ο

ΓΛ r-SO σ ι ι — I •— ο ο ο Ο ο

σ\ οο

CO ο so ο ο ο

ΓΛ I LA I -4" Ο ο

ΓΛ Ο Ο ο ο ο

νΟ Γ^ J ι .— Ο ι VO ο Ο ο Ο ο

00 eg Jο ο ο

IAVO LA CM J · JJ- ο Ο ο ο

,— Ι Α

J· — CM I sO ο I ο ο ο ο ο ο

J" σι Γ*. SO

.— .— ο ο

CM CO νο CM CM ι — ο Ο Ο ο ο Ο

CM ιI Ο I ο ο

I •

CM CM Ο Ο Ο

ο ο

00 00 ΓΛ ΓΛ ι — ο ο I Ο ΓΛ Ο Ο Ο Ο

-3CM I — I Ι Ο Ι Ο Ο

Iι ιI

σ> l a la — so

ιι ι

ο

•—

•—

_

•—

CM LA J" 00 CM I ΓΛ ι I Ο I Ο Ο Ο Ο

•—

.— —

ΓΛ SO C0

ΓΛ Ο Ο ο

ι I

00 Ο LA sO ΓΛ Ο CM Ο Ο ο

ι ι

,—

eg

-ί I Ο ι Ο Ι ο ο

,—

JνΟ ι CM I Ο Ο

σι

ΓΛ Ο LA Ο Ο Ο

σ\ ο J· I ·— IΙ Ο ο

σι I ο CM J · ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

LA νΟ Ο CM I ΓΛ Ο Iι Ο Ο Ο ο ο ο

ΓΛ CM Ο Ο

00 C0 ΓΛ u i J · Iι ι Ι Α II Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΙΑ σ* I i— Iι I Ο ιI Ο ο

ο σι sO LA ι sO LA I ι Ο Ο I Ο Ο Ο Ο

so ο —

ο ο

00 ο f » σι m J- ι LA — I ο ο ο ο

I I

ιΛ νΟ 00 r-Ο ο

•— ο

ο ο ο ο ο

ι I

ι I

ι I

ΙΑ r^ ο ΓΛ Ο Ο

ι I

I I

ι I

I I

CO SO SO ΓΛ Ο Ο

Ο σι VA •— Ο Ο

— la J" CM Ο Ο

ι I

I 1

ι 1

ι t

J " ΓΛ SO CM νΟ LA CM ι σ ι N f ι CM Ο CM ο Ο Ο ο Ο

J" ö ΓΛ Ο Ο

Ο Γ-— -ί CM ο

σ\ ο ο ο ο ο ΓΛ ο 1 ο ο

CM CM Ο Ο Ο Ο

C0 CM LA Ο Ο Ο

ΙΑ — ο ΓΛ ΓΛ Ο

00 CM Γ-» LA Ο Ο

ι ι

ΓΛ ι ο ο ο

,—

._

LA CM LA Ο ι ΓΛ σ ι CM ι CM J - Ο Ο ο ο ο ο ο

_

σι ΓΛ II II ο ο

Γ*» ΓΛ .— Iι Ο Iι ο ο

00 LA ν£> σ> l a LA VO I — LA Ο Ο II ο ο Ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

ι ι

ι ι

ι ι

CO CM σι ο CM Ο

CM — CM LA J " LA «— i— I 1 CM CM 1 1 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

I ι

ι t

ι ι

JΓΛ LA Ο CO cm r— ο ο Ο Ο

ι1 Iι

ι ι

Γ"·» ΓΛ I— JΓΛ σ ι Γ-» ΓΛ ι 00 LA ο CM I '— I ι r^ J- ο ο I Ο I1 ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

.—

CM J · ΓΛ Q ο ο — CM ο ο ο ο

J· ΓΛ σ\ J· ο ο

ι I

ι I

Γ-. Γ- c ω Ο L. Q. (Λ C 0) 0) υ L·. c cn Φ c ιΛ

Ο) v0r^00CT\O·— LA -3· -3· -3· 00 00 Ι · Ο CM CM — I I

CM σ\ ΓΑ σι Ο C0 ο - 3 00 LA — CM 0σι J- -3- 00 -3" I Ο Ο νΟ Ο Ο -3" ι — ιι — Ο LA ιι σιο ι σι CM οο Iι Ο ι ι r-» II— ι ι ιι ι ι CM -3*Ο ΓΑ 1ι — I CS I CM 1 I L A Ο — I I ο • I CA LA I Ι I I ΟΟ \0 σι ιι Ο ιI Ο Ο -3- ι ι ο ο Ο LA ο — — ΓΑ ι ι ι Ο Ο ιι ο I CO ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο CM ο ο ο ο 00 ο ο Ο Ο ο δ οο rvOlO Γ^ νΟ >0 -3" σι νΟ νΟ— 00 -3· σι ι I LACM ιI Ο CM ι I CMσι ι > ι ι ι ι \Ω 00 ι Ο Ο Ο — 00 Γ» — ι ι ι ιι 1 LA -3*— νΟ I Ο I ι οο CM ιι νΟΟ ι > Ο • — 1 1 1 ι ι ι -3" —ι ιΟ Ο σι Ο ΓΑ CM CM ι ιI Iι I Pvflο — ι ο Ο Ο Ο ο ο ο Q Ο — Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο ο ο ο ο ο Ο Ο Ο ο ο § 8 Ο Ο ο ο ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

_ ο

— CA _ _ νΟ νΟ CM J- σι ΓΑ C0 ΓΑ ΙΑ _ -3" — -3· ΙΑΓ** CMCM CM ΓΑ CM CM 00 Ο 00 ΓΑ Ο VO CMΓΑ \0CM — CM Ο ιι ο Ο CO Iι LA — I • ι — r^. ιI ·Γ—Α ι ι I ι J--3" ι Ο — -3-— ΓΑ ·ι— ΓΝ. ι ι ι ιI IσιΝ οο - CM σι ιι Ο ιI 00 Ο ιι ο Ο ΓΑ II ο *ο I ι ο OJ ΙIΟ Ι · I I —— ΓΑ ι Ο LA 00Ο ΓΑ ΓΑ I I ιI ι ι -3* C ΟM — ιι ο I 00>— ο ο Ο Ο ο ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο ο Ο ο ο Ο ο Ο Ο Ο ο ο ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο ο ο ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

— cMrAj-iAor^coc^o — CM •— •—

-3·ΙΑ\ΟΓ·^ΟΘΣΙΟ — CMCA-3-LAV0T^00(7\O — — CM CA '— •— '— — — _ Ϊ Μ Ν ( Μ Μ Ν ( Μ Ν Ν Ν ( Μ « \ ( Ο Ι ^ ( Λ Γ Ο Μ Γ Ί \ ( Λ Γ Λ Ί Λ Ί 4 · 4 · 4

[47]

CM PA

P^ R— VO Ο

ο ο ο

ο ο

00 Ι Λ CM — 00 Ο ο Ο

—

ο ο

Ι Ο

σ\ ο

Ο

ο ο

•

ο

•

·

Ο ΡΑ Ο — Ο ο Ο • •

CM Ο -a- i n -a- «Λ CM — Ο Ο Ο Ο

— Ο Ο Ο Ο ο

m ο ο

I

ιI

_ ο ο

m νΟ R^

— Ο

ιI I

CO V0

CM

3

-3"

ο ο

I I

•

CM Ο Ο Ο

ο ο

Iι Iι

Ο ιι ιι

Ο

TJ 10 I—

ο Ο ο ο Ο

.— Ο

•

Ο ο ο Ο

m ο ο ο ο ο

•

Ι Ι

CM

PPL CM

n\ m ο ο ο

ο CO CM

ο

Ο

CM CM

νΟ σι CM

νΟ ο ο

•

—

I I

I—• CM

ο ο ο ο

Γ-.

ο ο ο ο ο

— ο

Ο 00 Ο ι Ο CO I Ο ο ο Ο Ο CM

Ο Οι — Ο ο

σ ι -3CM ι η ο Ο Ο

Ο

ο ο

ο ο

σ\ σι σ\

ο ο

_

ι •

Ο ο ο ο ο

CM CM Ο Ο Ο •

—

ο ο

•

ιI Iι

σι

ΡΑ ·— ο

ο ο ο

·

CM CM 00 OVO — ο CM ι ο ι I Ο Ο I Ο " ο ο ο ο ο ο

Iι Iι

— — I— ο

Ρ*~

ο ο ο ο ο ο

ΡΑ

ο ο

ο ο

ο ο

ιι ιι

σι Ο

— ,. νΟ —

Ι·*· CM - 3 · ο ο ρρι Ν Ν ( Γ Μ Ο CO

ο ο ο ο

·

·

·

Ο — ο ο

\D ο ο ο

— Ν ο Ι Λ - ' ΰ I — ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

νΟ σ ι ιη ο ΡΡΙ ο ο ο ο ο ο

οο

—

J·

00 ι η ο \ Ν ι ^ \ Ο CM ο ιη — σι ο — ο ΡΡΙ ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

-3" I ο ο ο

νΟ οο ο ο ο

•

"

·

L A CO ΝΟ

ιη νΟ ο ο ο

CM -3·

ο ο ο

"

•

CM

ΡΛ ΡΛ ο R^

ρρι ο ο ο •

σι ο ο ο

•

C M P A - 3 - I N \ 0 P ^ C 0 0 \ O —

Ο

—

ο ο

ο CM Ö ο ο ο

I

νΟ ο ο ο ο ο

•

— ο ο ο

Ο

I ι

ι I

ι ι

co

CA

ο ο ο

ιι Iι

ι ι

ι • 1 I

ι ι

CM

ο ο

•

I

ι

Ο

I

σι

CA

ο ο ο

•

L

ι

ιη — ο ο ο ο

in m ρ-. J -

e n m 0 0 ΡΑ

ο ο

ο ο

νΟ CM ο — Γ^ ιη CM ο — — ο ο — ο ο ο

CM

j

1 Ι

CA Ο Ο Ο •

ο ·

CM οο σ ι Ο CO ο ρ·* CM CM — J Ln — CM 00 ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

CA \ Ο

ο ο ο ο ο

-3" ι ι

O

M

CM Γ** R^

I I

ΡΑ Ρ Α CM CM

SO σ ι PA ι

Ο — Ο ο ' •

-

Ι I

ο

Ι I

00 Ρ^. ιη ο ο ο

I ο ο ο ο

ΙI I

CM 0 0

ο

CM CA

ιηιο-ί

Ο M — Ο - Ί Ο Ο CM Ο

ο

ο

Ο

ο

ι ι

ι

ο

— I— CM CM Ο 00 νΟ Ο ο Ά ο ο σ ι οο Ο 00 CM CM - I t ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

M I Ο Ο Ο

I1 II

σ\

—

•

•

·

R^ — OY ΙΛ Ο

Ι ^ -3· M PEL — -3Ο Ν Ο —

ΟΟ VO CM ι— Ο

σ\ CM CM \C Ο

ΡΑ

-3" νΟ ι η ο ο ο -3· J · Ι— — σι — ιη — ιη — ο ο •— — ο ο ο ο

·

ο

ο

Ρ^

·

•

ο

ο

σι ο co ο ο

\Ο -3· — Ο ο Ο Ο O

CM co M I N J · O CA -3- ι η νο P A CA \ 0 — Ρ Α vo ο ο — Ρ Α

ο ο

CM

ο ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο ο ο ο

ο ο

CM 00 — CM Ο ΡΑ — Ο Ο Ο ο ο

P A co ι η οο ο CM σ ι -3- σ ι Ο Ο Γ**· Ρ Α CM Ο Ο Ο Ν Ν Ο Ο

Ο Ο

CM — Ο Ο •

·

•

·

Ο Ο

·

•

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

CA

νΟ •—

ο ο ο

ο ο

·

1t Iι

1 1

iι ιI I

ι

ι I

I I

Ο Ο — — CM ο Ο ο Ο

ιη ι νΟ

ι I

I

ο

Iι 1ι

ι ι

I I

σ\ ο ΡΑ CM •—

ι ι

00 f^ Γ^

— ο ο

Iι ιI

Ο ΡΡΙ I N Ο Ο

I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

•

ο

ι ι

ο

— Ο

ο ο

ΝΟ Ι Λ

νΟ

CA ΡΑ Ο Ο

CM Ρ Α CM Ρ Α Ο ο Ο Ο Ο ο Ο Ο Ο ο

CA

οο σν οο ι ^ 00 PA CM Ρ Α

00 — Ο

ο Ο

•

Γ^

σι — σι

N V Ü ^ T CA CM σ ι σ ι ο ο ο — Ο ο ο ο Ο • • · ·

Ρ Μ Ρ Α - 3 · Ι Η \ 0 > ^ 0 0 Σ ΐ Ο — C M P A - 3 * I N \ O R ^ O O O Y O — € Μ Ρ Α - 3 · ΐ Η Ν Ο Ρ ^ Ο Θ Σ Ι Ο — — — — — — — — N N N N N N N M N N ^ W T N M N M ^ M R R I M T N J -

[48]

CM ιη νΟ ιη σ ι ι -3" — Iι ο ο ο ο

•

I I

σι ο

CM —

CM

00

-ίο ο ο

σι ο

ι I

σι 00 ο ο ο

•

Ο M ΝΟ ^T" S I O — — Ο Ο

1ι Iι

00

ο

CM

ο

(ΛνΟ

ΡΑ CM CM — Ο σι — Ά σι ο ζΤ\ Ρ Α CM CA — Ο Ο ο Ο Ο Ο ο

I I

I

I

ΝΟ CM

00 σ ι οο V0 m Γ^ ο ι r ^ ΡΡΙ σ\ νο 1 ΡΡΙ M ο — CM CM — ο ο ο ο ο

ι I

•

-3Ο Ο

σι

Ο ο ο ο

0 0 — 1 Ο Ο I Ο Ο Ο Ο

m CM CO Ο σ ι ο οο σ ι I CM CO ΝΟ — ι -3· Ο νΟ ο -3- m ο Ο ο ο ο

ο

ι ι

ο

_

•

I I

PA 00

•

00

_

ι I

in σι

CM

ΡΑ σ ι I

-3-

•

Ν 4 VO Ι Α Φ Ι Λ ΙΛ ι — CM νΟ — Ο I Ο — Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο σ ο ο ο ο

_

ΡΑ

CM — ,

οο

er» ο CM — Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο ο

CM J"

Ο ο ο

ΡΑ — Ο

ο ο

00 ιη

CM

ο ο ο

-3"

ιη

-3" CM CM

ο

•

CM CN I CO I1 CM CM Ο

CM ΡΑ

ΟΟ CM CM

Ο

CM CA 00 CM CM Ο

CM PA

00

•

CM CM Ο •

— J -

CMCA ^ J ·

vO Ο Ο

σι

CM 4

ο CO ο

Ο ο ο

4

Ο Ο

Ο Ο

ΓΛ

ι I

4 CM Ο Ο Ο

ο r» ο 4 ο ο ο ο — ο ο ο ο ο ο

_

, Ο

ο ο ο ο

σι σ\

_ ,

Ii

vD

\£>

Ο σ\

cm

_

ο ο ο ο ο

οο ο ιι ο ιι ο ο ο ο ο

CM νΟ

,

J ·

C M

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

4 ο Ο Ο

ο

γλ vo

ΙΛ \θ σι οο -ί • 00 ο ο M Iι \0 ι ι 4 " CO r s o o — 4 - ΓΛ

ο L A LA ο ο ο Ν Ν Ο ο Ο (Μ - ί LA ο ο — Ο Ο ο ο ο ο Ο

.—

ΙΛ

νΟ

ΙΑ Ο

ΓΛ σ Ν \ CM CM ν ιI - 4 " l a ιι ο . — ι CM I1 i — I ο Ο Ο Ο ο Ο Ο ο Ο

ο

4 " ΙΑ νο

—

Ο CM CM « Λ Iι ο Ν — — Iι Ο — Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ν I I

ΓΛ Ο σ

ι ι ι ιι ι ο ο 4 4 4 σι I ο ο ο — ο — «—III1 1 ο ο 4 4 ο ο Ο ο ο ο ο ο ο Ο

LA

σ\ ΓΛ CO

Ο

'

00 c r i

Ν Γ Λ

I I

I I

ο ο ο ο ο

ο ο σ ο ο

c r i Ο νΟ

Γ Λ

I I

Ο Ο Ο

Ο

ΙΛ «Λ

I I

Ο Ο Ο Ο

ο

ο γλ

4

r r i

00 ο ο ο

4 m rri

• ϊ CM ο Ο cri J Ο ο Ο Ν ο σι ο Ο νΟ Ο ·— Ο ο ο ο ο Ο Ο

r 1 ΟΟ I 1 -Ί Ο CM Ο Ο Ο

Ι Ι

Ο Ο Ο

II II

I I

CO Ο ΡΑ Ο Ο Ο

I I

Ι I

CM Ο CM Ο Ο Ο

I Ι

I I

LA CO CM Ο Ο Ο

Ι Ι

R» ΝΟ LA ΡΑ Ο Ο

J00 ΣΙ ΡΑ Ο Ο

I I

^ Ο CM 0 0 CM Ν 4 «Μ Σ \ Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΟΟ J· Ο Ο Ο Ο

Γ^ — Ο Ο O Ο

R^ ΝΟ CA R^ — Ο

R^ CO CM — JΟ Ο Ο Ο

LA R^ Ν Ο — Ο

LA 00 Ν — Ο Ο

• "

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΝΟ 0 0 ΝΟ J · 0 0 CM Σ Ι CM Ο 0 0 CM I—. Ο 0 0 Γ ^ ΟΟ Ο -AΟ Ο LA Σ Ι Ο Ο Ο CA Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

— CM Ο Ο Ο

00 Ο CM LA Ο Ο

^Ο LA ΟΟ -ΊΟ Ο

I I

-Ί· ΡΑ Ο Ο Ο Ο

CA Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Γ^ CA Ν Γ^ Ο Ο

I Ι

II Ι1

I I

LA LA CM Ο Ο Ο

R ^ CM Ο Ο I— \ 0 Ο 3 L A -4- 0 0 Γ r— ΡΑ Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

II IΙ

00 Ο CO Ο Ο Ο

CM ΝΟ Ο Ο Ο Ο

Γ^ ΡΑ •Ώ ΡΑ . Ο

ΝΟ CN Ο \D I Ο

ΙΙ IΙ

CM CM Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΡΑ ΡΑ -3" J · ΡΑ CM — Ο Σ > -3- — ΡΑ Γ** Σ \ Ο J - ΡΑ Ο Σ \ — J · CM ΡΑ Ο CM Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ι I

ΙΙ II

Ι I

ΣΙ PA Ο Ο Ο Ο

CM ΣΙ Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ρ^ -A· ΣΙ CA Ο Ο

II ΙΙ

-3-4* >— Ο Ο Ο •

-3" CM Ι Ο Ο Ο •

-4" Σ> ΝΒ Ο Ο •

00 ΝΒ Ο Ο Ο Ο •

PA Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

' I

Ι Ι

— Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Γ— VO Ο Ο Ο Ο

CM CM ΙΑ Ο Ο Ο •

PA ΣΙ Ο Ο LA Σ Ι Ι Α CM CM CO CM CO — Ο CM Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο •

·

CM R^ Ο Ο Ο Ο

— LA Ο Ά Ο Ο

ΡCA ΟΟ ΣΙ Ο Ο

LA LA LA Σ Ι -3- CM -3- — Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΣΝ Ο CM Ο Ο Ο

Σ» (Η ΣΙ ΟΟ Ο Ο

LA M J· \D Ο Ο

CO LA MVFL -4- CA Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

-3" -3" Ο Ο Ο Ο

-3· Σ Ι LA Ν LA Ο ΝΒ Ο Ο Ο Ο

— M Ρ^ LA — Ο

LA ΙΒ ΣΙ Ο Ο Ο

Ο Ο Ο Ο

CA ΣΙ Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΡΝ CM Ο M -3· Ο •3" Ο Ο

(Λ Ο Ο ΙΑ Ο Ο

— Ρ Ρ Ρ Ο Ο

ΣΙ ΝΒ ΡΑ Ρ Ο Ο

ΣΙ Ο ΙΑ CA S -3- 0 0 Ρ 00 Ο Ο — ΙΟ Ο Ο •

_

ΡΑ -3· CM CM Ρ— Ο •

CM \ 0 ΡΑ Ο • 3· ΡΑ Ο -3" Ο Σ * — Γ ^ Ο Σ Ι PA Ο Ο Ο CM Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΣΙ I CM CM Ο Ο •

— LA CM — J- ΣΙ LA Ο ΡΑ Σ Ι Ο -3" -3" Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΣΙ ΡΑ ΡΑ ΣΙ Ο Ο

II ΙΙ

CM ΝΒ ΝΒ ΣΙ 3 R^ Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΙΙ ΙI

Ο Ο Ο Ο ·

•

·

ΡΝ. CO CO ΡΑ Ο Ο

Ο CO Ο ΙΑ Ο Ο

·

"

·

CO Ρ^ R^ Ο -3ΝΎ Ν — Ο Ο Ο

Ο ΡΑ Ο CM Ο Ο

Σ\ \£> Ο CA Ο Ο

PA -3" ΝΟ ΡΑ Ο Ο

Ι I

Ι Ι

Ν£> CM LA CM Ν 0 0 Ν — LA J Ο Ο ΟΟ Ο — Ο Ο CM Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο *

ΝΒ Ρ^ R^ CM Ο Ο

ΡΑ — ΟΟ ΙΑ Ο Ο

Ι I

Ι Ι

•

·

— , ΙΙ ΙΙ

00 00 Ρ— CM Ο Ο •

5 3 ΙΑ Ο Ο Ο

J - - 4 CM J- — — 0 0 — ΝΒ Ν - CM CM Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ο Ο Ο Ο

LA — Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΙΑ Ο — . Ο

. . ·.

•

_

00 ΡΑ Ο Ο Ο Ο

Γ^ Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ρ^ R^ -3" ΝΒ CM Ο

CO ΝΒ '— CM Ο Ο

— Σ\ CM -3" Ο Ο

— PA CA CM Ο Ο

Γ^ — ΣΙ -3· Ο Ο

1 I

CM LA Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΡΑ Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ο ΝΒ ΝΒ CO — Ο

— ΝΒ CM CM Ο Ο

00 ΝΒ 00 Ο Ο Ο

-3· CM ΣΙ -Ο Ο

-3ΙΑ ΡΑ -3" Ο Ο

1 Ι

ΣΙ -3" Ο Ο Ο Ο •

ΝΒ Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο •

Ο Ο -3CO — Ο

ΟΟ 4 Ο Ο

0 0 ΝΒ CM Ρ ΟΟ - Ϊ Ν ΓΝ Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ι Ι

•

.

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

CM Ο Ρ Ο Ο Ο •

I IΙ

I Ι

·

Ο Σ> Ο Ο Ο Ο

_ ΡΑ Ο Ο Ο Ο •

— — LA Γ^ Ο Ο

ΣΙ -3" ΡΑ Ο Ο

CM Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΙI ΙΙ

CO Ο ΟΟ Ο CA ΝΒ -3Σ Ι Vß 3 CM ΝΒ ΝΒ CM Γ Α Ο Ο ΣΙ Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο — Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ιη

U C α

ΡΑ Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο •

Ο

Ε Υ

ΝΒ -3-

L·

·—•

—

C

Ρ*« ΙΟ Ο Ο •

Ο — ΝΒ Ο Ο Ο

ΡΑ -3" Ο Ο Ο

IΙ ΙI

CO Ο R » CO ΟΟ — L A - 3 · LA Σ Ι ΡΑ ΡΑ LA - Ί - — Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο •

·

•

ΙΛ U

-Ο C Π

CM I CJ

•

Ι IΙ

00 Ο Ο Σ>

CM LA CA Ο Ο Ο

LA CM Ο Ο Ο

CM I I

I Ι

ΝΟ ΙΑ CM Ο Ο Ο

— , Ο

•

I I

CA CM CM Ο Ο Ο •

Ρ*. RS -3- II — 1Ι Ο Ο

CO ΝΟ '— Ο CA Ο

ΙΑ ΣΙ CM ΝΒ Ο Ο *

_ 00 CM Ο Ο Ο

00 — CM Ο

ΟΟ ΣΙ ΣΙ ΝΟ

ΣΙ CM Ο Ο Ο •

·

ΝΟ CM LA ΣΙ Ο

_

.....

·

-3- Ι Α \Β ·— Ο CM Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

-3-3" CM CM Ο Ο

CO — Ο — Ο 00 Ο — Ο Ο Ο Ο • '

Ο ΝΒ

I I

ΡΑ -3" '— Ο Ο Ο

I I

CM Ο ΡΑ Ο Ο Ο

I I

-3Ο Ο

I Ι

I I

-3-3ΝΒ Ρ— ΝΒ Ο

ΡΑ — CM Ο Ο Ο

Ο Ο •— ΙΑ Ο •— •

CM ΝΒ Σ Ι Ρ— ΝΒ 0 0 00 Ο -3" — Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο • •

- 3 · -3" 3" ΣΙ Ν Ο Ρ

Σ Ι I

Ι •

....

·

ΙΛ

>

U •Μ (/) 3 -Ο C —Ι

4-1 Ο 3 •Ο 0 ΊΟ.

Ό

Α U XI C

_ -Χ

Υ

OB

_Q Π I—

Ό 0 0 LI-

ΙΛ *J

Ο 3 Ό Ο ΊΑ

ΙΛ

ΙΛ

ΙΛ

4-1 U Υ 3 "Ό 3 Τ> -Ο Ο Ο Φ ΙU 4-1 Α . Α . - XI Φ

Ij> — U Ι— Φ

Υ

ΙΟ Ο

ΙΛ •—

ΙΟ 10 •— 4-> ΣΙ Φ Ε

10

Ρ-

—

Φ Α. Φ Ο Κ Φ

— .

>. U

Α Φ - ΙΛ C Φ — — C 10 - C ID Ο 4-> Υ Φ 4-1 Φ 10 _ Ι CO Χ χ.

Ί4-> Ο 4-1 10 4-> C. 4-> Ο Φ Ε Ε ΙΛ Ο Α Φ Α 4-* ΙΛ I- C Α 3 1- Φ σ Φ Φ Φ Υ Υ - C ΊΙΛ 4-> C Χ Φ ΙΛ — J= >Υ ΙΛ Φ 10 Α Φ ιύ •— 12 Ε Φ Σ> 3 Υ Ρ - σ *— 1. 10 Φ JZ 3 £·— Φ Υ Ρ > 4-· Ι Λ U Α 3 4-> ΙΛ Ι - Υ — Υ C Ο Ρ— Φ Φ 10 4-1 Ι . Ο •— Ο ΣΙ Ο LÜ 1 - χ. < —I

Ο

ΙΛ ιύ ΣΙ C —

ΙΛ

3 Ο ^ Φ Ι10 S

.

— .

.

_

ΙΛ

•Ο Σ Ι 10 C Ο Ρ—

— .— Υ Φ

3 I.

CC Η -

C Ο C Ο Ρ— C 4-* Ο 10 — 4J 4J Ί - Φ L_ 4J 10


ΙΟ Α ΙΑ C 10 L.

4-* • C Ρ Α ρ— Φ Ρ— 4-4 Σ Ι 3 Φ Ρ— Ο "Ό ΙΛ Φ Φ Φ 4-1 1- Φ Σ Ι 4-4 • Σ 10 U I Φ I. Φ 4-1 Υ C Ρ 10 0 ΙΛ I -C Φ Ρ - 4-1 Α 10 Υ Φ Ο 4-> Φ Ρ— Φ Ρ- Φ CC Ω I—

— ,

Φ C Ρ—

— . — , Υ Α Ρ— Ο-

C Φ 1-

ΙΛ ΙΛ

.— Φ +J C Φ K-

C

ιύ

ΙΛ Φ Υ 10

ΣΙ C

,—

C Φ CL Φ — ΣΙ Υ C Ρ— U C Ό Ρ— Ι - ÜL •Σ

ΙΛ Φ Υ

>

CM PA CO CM Ο Ο

00 ΣΙ CA — Ο Ρ

•

·

"Ο Φ L.

Ι I

CM LA ΣΙ ΟΟ

— , Ρ

ιύ

Ρ—

ΙΛ

>

ΙΛ

PH U ΣΙ Φ U C ΙΛ —. Ρ Φ ΙΛ ΙΛ Α Ρ-. ΙΛ Φ 4-1 Φ Ι 1- C Φ Ρ— Ο > ΙΛ 4-> "Ό 3 3 < M
C Υ U Ρ— Ρ— Φ

Ρ· Φ Υ C r: ιύ 10 C C Φ Ρ— Ο 4-1 U I/) ΙΛ 1Φ ΡΡ UB Φ Φ ΙΛ Σ Ι Α Φ C LA Σ Ι L. — C •Ο ψ—* Ρ— C Φ 10 C 4J 4J 3 JZ Φ Φ +J Φ Φ 0 Α : M Χ LÜ - I Ρ

>.

3 - 4" ΝΒ 0 0 S 3 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

— ,

A) ΣΙ ΝΟ Ο Ο Ο Ο

ΙΦ

> U Φ ΙΑ

ΙΑ C 4J 14- 0 Ο Ο Ρ— Ι - 4-> > •Λ Α 3 14-* Φ ΙΑ Ι_ Ρ ΙΛ Φ Φ 4-4 1- • C ΙΑ 3 4-1 C C Ρ— 4-1 Ο Ρ— Ο Ρ— Φ Υ CL ιύ 4-* 4-1 Φ Η. Υ Ρ 14- 3 U C Π Ο I. U Ο Ο Ί - 4-» Φ — Α ΙΑ 4-1 - Σ C C Χ 4-> Ο Φ Ο Ο Ο Ζ Ρ Σ Σ

ΙΛ - C Φ Υ

L·.

_

CMCA-3-LAV0P^OO» J·I ι Ο *Μ IιΟ " • L A Ο L A L A Iι ο Ο .— ΙΑ CM -- -4· ιι ο ο ο ΓΑ Γ Α Γ Α CA II Ο ι cn ο ο ο Ο CM CM Ο Ο - Ί J· Ο νΟ Ο Ο — ο ο ο οο οΟ Ο ο ο ο οο οο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο ο ο Ο ο

·

"

^ CM CM

J· σι co

οο α> J· Γ " . — Γ*·» 0 0 Ο CM σννο σ\ — νΟ Ν ρ>. CM CM ο — — — ο Ο ο ο οο οΟ

CM ·— • CA Ο Γ Α CM Ο Ο ΓΑ

ο r^

ο ο οο οο

Ο Ο

Γ» \0 σ\ ο \θ σι νο LA CO Ο Ο ^ ΰ Ν CM LA οο σι ΓΑ Iι Ο Iι LA LA CA — CM 00 II CM Ο ιI ο II Ο J Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο ο

( Ί ο (Λ ο ο ο

Ά ο Ν ά οο — Γ». Ν 0 0 Ο Ν (Λ ο ο — ο ο ο

CO ΓΑ SO Ο Ο ο

σι ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

LA LA σ\ νΟ — Ο

νΟ - ί — Ο - ί vC - ί " L A CM ΟΟ CM Ο Ο — Ο Ο Ο

\ο CM LA Ο ο ο

co CA ο ο ο ο

ρ~ Ο o σ ο ο

CM — ο

S LA — Ο Ο Ο

\0 ΙΑ νΟ Ο Ο ο

J-ί ο ο ο ο

οο οο CM 00 — νο ο ο ο ο

-ίσν ο ο ο

σν οο CM CO ο ο

CM S CM CM — LA Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Ρ* IM Ο Ο ο ο

c r \ CO JνΟ CA Ο -ίο ο ο ο

να ο νΟ ο ο ο

ο ο

Ο Γ— ο σ ν Ο νΟ ν Ο (Λ ΓΑ -ί" ΙΑ Ο s ι — CM - ί " 00 — 1 ο — Ο ο — Ο Ο ο ο ο C0 Ο ο ο ο Ο Ο ο

-ί- Ρ* 00 ο co — 0 « 1 Ν Ο Ο CM ο ο ο ο ο ο

CM ο ο ο ο ο

νΟ CM - i 00 CM CM I •— Ο 00 Ο ι ο — ο Ο Ο Ο ο ο

σ\ CM ο ο ο ο

I I

co Ο ο Ο ο ο

Γ— ι — 0 0 -3· - ί \ο > ο m m ι Ο — Ο Ν ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

ο ο ο

CO m σν LA ο ο

Ο o — Ο ο ο

Ρ-* s Γ— -ίο ο

cm ·— ο Ο ο ο

οο σ> ΟΟ - ί -ί- ΓΑ Ο Jο ο ο ο

ΙΑ ΓΑ CM CM CM σ > cm Γ^ CM 0 0 - ί " I ο CM Ο ο ο ο ο ο Ο ο ο ο

ΓΑ ο CM Ο Ο Ο

ΙΑ f—• ο - ϊ Ο Ο

-ίΟ Ο ο ο ο

σ \ σν — νΟ ΙΛΟ ο Ά ο ο ο ο

~ -ί-

CA — ο ο ο ο

Ο Ο 00 ι η ο ο - ϊ ο ο ο ο

Μ ο ο

c M c A - ί - ΐ Λ ν θ Γ ^ ο ο σ νΟ ο" — —

ο ο

• I

CM — Ο ο ο

σν

σ\

ΓΑ ΓΑ Ο Ο

II II

ΟΛ -ί" Ν -ίΟ ο

Ρ^ γλ ί" \0 Ο — CM ο ο ο ο

•J Ο Ι Λ Ο CA — S ΙΑ Ο Ο Ν Ν Ο Ο — CM ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

— S Ο Ο Ο ο

-ίCM ο — ο ο

Ο νβ νΟ Ο Ο Ο

ο ο

ο - ί - - ί - σ \ ο ΐ Λ — ^ - ί Ο Ο Ο J - 0 — V O O O O O O L A v O O O O ο ο ο — ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

C0 ο ο

N C 0 L A CA CM - ί * Ο CM Ο Ο Ο Ο

S — ο Ο

. Ο CA Ο -ίο ο Ο Ο

m \0 LA 00 CM Ο

I I

\ 0 L A CA CM Ο S CA L A c o Ο Λ Ν Ο ί Π Ο Ο ν Ο 0 0 CM Ο CM Ο — L A Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

-ί" CM - ί " CM Ο Ο Ο CM Ο Ο Ο

— NO

S LA Ο 00 Ο Ο

νΟ

CM CM Ν N ω m ΓΑ Ο ο ο

la σν — CM Ο ο

\θ LA ca CA ο ο

Iι Iι

CM σν C 0 v o Ο ο

ο

CM ο ο ι ο ι ο

Ρ*. J * Ρ* Ο ' - ' Ο LA Ο CM ο ο

LA ΓΑ Q ΓΑ ί Λ Ν σ \ CA ·— Ο ο ο

Ο Ο ο ο ο ο

ιι ιι

ο ο ο ο ο

- ί - CA Γ Α Γ Α — CO L A ν Ο L A - ί - CA Ο Ο ο CA ο CM Γ Α Ο Ο ο ο

>— Ο Ο ο ο ο

-ί* — Ν Ο - ί ν Ο — ο ο ο ο ο

ο ο ο ο ο

CA ΓΑ LA ο ο ο ο ο ο

I ι

CM CO CA CA -ίο

00 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

ο

ΓΑ CA Ο LA · " ο

νΟ γ α ο ο ο ο νΟ CM \ 0 ν Ο LA Ο Ο Ο ο ο ο ο

ιι ιι

CM ο CM ο ο

S CM ο ΓΑ 0 0 νΟ Ι Α ν Ο CA Γ·~ ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

I I

ο

Ο

I I

-ίο σ> Γ Α Iι σ ν Γ Α II C A ο Ο Ο

-ί00 CM •ίο I CM I LA ο ο ο ο

•ί00 ο ο ο

-ί— CM Ο ο Ο

00 οο LA 00 Ο Ο

Ο νΟ — Ο

CA νο — ΓΑ Ο ο

-ί" σν νΟ -ίΟ ο

ι ι

ΓΑ νΟ Ο Ο Ο Ο

\£> 00 Ο Ο Ο Ο

LA -ί" νΟ Ά Ο Ο

CA Ο CM \0 Ο Ο

-ί" -ί" CM CM Ο Ο

.— νΟ Ο

Γ-, LA σ ν ιΙ — ο ι σν CM ο ο ~

CM Ο Ο Ο

— .

CA Γ Α S ο LA Ρ·* CA — — ο ο

LA CA Ο 00 Ο ο

Ο

ΙΑ \ 0 Ο CM ί " ιI σ ν ιI ο Ο ο ο

LA ΙΑ Ο σν ο CA ΙΑ — LA Ο CM νΟ C0 νΟ ΙΑ Ο ο Ο L A σν — CM Ο Ο Ο CM CM — ο Ο Ο Ο ο Ο

ρ* ρ * νΟ σ\ οο Ρ * ΓΑ 0 0 ο

-ί* m LA —

_ — .

CM Ο Ο ο ο ο

σ\ LA - ϊ LA CM CM CM — ο ο

ΐ Λ σ ν ο - ί · ν θ \ θ Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν ν Ο Ι Λ C A O O O V O — C O — • · — — -ί" ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

\0 \Ω CM CM ΓΑ — Ο

— CM ( Ό •— νΟ ν Ο CM ο ο

00 σ* -i-ίΟ

CM LA CA νΟ CM I I s Ο I1 L A CM Ο ο Ο

LA -ί"

\0 ο ο ο

LA Ο 1 CA 1 CM CA Ο

ι I LA CM Ο

ΙΑ Ν Ο Ο Ο

— CA ο

00 I -ίο II ο Ο

1 I

Ο JS ο ΓΑ Ο

CMCA-i-LAvOP^OOCTvO'— < Μ Γ Α - ί - ι Α ν Ο Ρ ~ Ο θ σ ν Ο — C M C A J - L A v O r ^ G O O N O — CMCA — _ — — ·— C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M Γ Α CA Γ Α CA Γ Α Γ Α CA Γ Α CA Γ Α - ί " - ί " - ί * - ί "

[52]

_

σι P-. 1 Ο ιI ο ο

ΙΑ J•— νΟ Ο Ο

ι ι

CM -3 - J - Iι ο ιι ο ο

ΙΑ CM ο ΓΑ ο ι Ο .— I1 — ΓΑ ο ο

νΟ — CM Ο ο ο

-3" -3" LA I Ο ι ο ο

ο CM Ο ο ο ο

νΟ -3" σ ι γα σ*

— Ο CM — ο

σι ΓΑ 00

ΓΑ 0 0 0 0 CM ΓΑ ΙΑ ο ο CM ο ο ο ο ο ο

ο r^ r^ 00 Ο Ρ ^ Iι ο ο ΓΑ II ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

— νΟ οο σι — ο

σ ι ι— Γ^ CM νο ο — ο ο

CM οο Ο οο ο ο

\ο CM

ο

JΓΑ — ο ο ο

VC 00 ο ο ο ο

-3· -3· σι ΓΑ ο ο

CM r^ CM σ^ ο r ^ ιι ο Ο -3- II ο ο ο ο Ο ο ο ο

r^. — -3" ν£ -3" ο

σι ί— LA LA ο ο

σι ·— CO νΟ ο ο

γα •— 00 00 ο ο

σι ο •— α ο

σι -3" I ο ο ο

Ά ο ο ο ο

Γ*» ο σ\ οο 0Λ r ^ ιι ·— CM Iι ο ο ο ο

ο CM ο ο ο ο

CM 0 0 LA ο ο Ο LA ο ο ο

LA — LA 00 ο ο

CA r^ Ρ*» ΓΑ ·— ο

-3· CM LA LA — σ\ •— CA ο ο

Ο LA ο ο ο ο

-3" Ο Ο ο ο ο

ΓΑ νβ -3* σι — ο

LA Γ^ 00 -Τ ο α

LA 00 CM ΓΑ Ο ο

.—

0 — . 0CM

— .

γ α LA ΓΑ νΟ CM ο CT\ CTi σ \ — •— — ο ο ο ο ο

ο ο ο ο ο

ΓΑ σ ι ΓΑ LA Ο CM — ο ο ο ο

-J ο

ο ο ο ο ο

Γ-. -3" VD ·— Γ— ΓΑ CM CM CM — — ο ο -3· ο ο ο

-3* ο νώ ο CM ο

ο ο ο ο ο

ι νο co cn σ ι l a LA LA — CA Ο Ο — ο LA ο Ο cö CS ο

CN

C0

in CS 00 CO ο CN ο CN in CO in TT CN CN CN

VO 00 in in m CN CO rH rH o\ CO rH o ο ö CN ο ö ο

δ? ο ο ο rH

σ\ in CS o\ CO t^ VO

00 T-( in CN CN Ο 00 cö CN rH 00 ^r CO rH

CO CO MD 00 cö i-H ο

δ? ο ο ο rH

CO CN rH TT CO t^ t^

vo CN CN CO in oo ^O in CO CO cö CN rH ( rH

rH ο TT co CO CO CO CO rH rH cö ι—( ö ο ο rH ο Ο Ο

δ? ο ο ο rH

OS Ο CN t^ s

ON 00

00 TT TT rH 00 CS o\ in cö rH CN CS Η •-

a\

rH ο Ο

CS TT rH ο 00 00 ο ys CS cs rH ο Ο rH

VO \o CO » — ( rH ο Ö CN ο ο ο

TT ο ο

CO rH rH rH ο Ο Ο

00 rH rH CO •»r CS CS CO rH rH rH ο ο rH ο ο

=3 •§ ju 0-O •ό

ε (0 C 3

α

Β •Οη

ού Ο ?

0) 2:

ΟΧ) C 5 ι·* Φ C C

U1

0) •C ο ω φ ?

C 0) 0D φ CQ

[84]

Π) ΙΛ (Λ co α

"Ο Β CO w tn ω

ω 2 Β ο Ε £ a C/D

e ο ·* I § I J * υ bo « I ω 3 1 -S 1 ° £ ζ α λ

We first computed the pattern of " e x p e c t e d " growth with shares fixed at the 1956 levels. The results are shown in Table III-4, in Columns 2, 4, and 6. As before, "expected" means what would happen to aggregate employment (in this case, employment in the communicationoriented industries) if each component (that is, each communication-oriented industry) grew at the same rate in all parts of the Region. mild.

As the reader can see, the effect of mix is very

The reason for this is that the group is very homogeneous both with respect to in-

traregional location and projected Regional growth. After adjusting for mix, we modified the share of New York City downward to reflect the decline in share which had occurred between 1947 and 1956.

The rate of decline of the

City's share was stepped up in each successive decade on the grounds that the ability of the ring counties to provide an adequate environment for such industries would be enhanced at an increasing rate as population densities increased and absolute employment in these industries reached large proportions.

By the same token, the Inner Ring was favored over the

Outer Ring more in 1965 than in 1975 and more in 1975 than in 1985. Fairfield and Middlesex were projected to grow more slowly than the rest of the Outer Ring, on the basis of past experience. The projections of shares are given in Columns 3, 5, and 7 of Table III-4. Table III-4

Distribution of Employment in Communication-Oriented Manufacturing

Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected

Core" New York City

Nassau Westchester Bergen Passaic

Suffolk Morris Dutchess and Putnam . .

Rockland

1975

1985

Expected

Projected

Expected

Projected

Expected

Projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

85.0

85.3

81.4

85.5

77.9

86.0

71.0

79.8

80.2 5.1

75.9

80.3

65.0

5.5

5.2

71.9 6.0

80.7

5.2

5.3

6.0

10.7

11.2

14.2

11.1

17.2

10.7

19.4

5.4

5.8

6.2

5.7

6.6

5.4

6.6

0.5 1.3 1.0

0.5 1.4 1.0

1.1 1.9 1.8

0.5 1.4 1.0

0.5 1.4 1.0

2.2 2.8

1.4

1.5

1.9

1.5

1.7 2.3 2.7 2.3

1.4

3.2 2.5

1.1

1.0

1.3

1.0

1.6

1.0

2.1

4.3

3.5

4.4

3.4

4.9

3.3

9.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.5

1.0

0.9

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.8

1.1

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.2

0.6

0.7 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.4 0.5

0.3 0.3

0.4

0.5 1.0

0.4 0.9

0.5 1.1

0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8

0.8 0.8

0.5 1.3

0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9

*

*

*

*

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2 0.3

(1)

Entire Region

1965

1956 actual

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

0.4

(6)

(7)

1.7

*

1.1 1.6 0.6

0.1

0.9

"including Richmond. N o t including Richmond. * L e s s than 0.05 per cent. N o t e : T h e industries

covered by this 'table do not i n c l u d e those communication-oriented industries

included in T a b l e ΙΠ-3.

[85]

Table III-5

Distribution of Employment in Nuisance, Water-Transport,

and Raw-Material-Oriented Manufacturing Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 1956 actual

Entire Region

100.0%

1965

1975

1985

Expected

Projected

Expected

Projected

Expected

Projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

38.5

39.7

34.8

40.5

33.0

41.4

31.8

26.8

28.7

23.8

29.1

21.6

29.6

20.0

11.7

11.0

11.0

11.4

11.4

11.8

11.8

32.3

31.6

33.3

31.8

33.9

32.0

34.9

8.5

8.1

8.1

8.2

8.2

8.3

8.3

o;7 2.0

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.6

0.7

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.6

3.6

Bergen

4.2

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.3

Union

9.8

9.9

11.6

10.4

12.4

11.0

13.8

7.1

4.8

4.8

4.5

4.5

4.2

4.2

29.2

28.7

31.9

27.7

33.1

26.6

33.3

8.5

10.1

10.1

9.7

11.6

9.3

11.6

13.5

13.0

15.2

12.3

14.7

11.7

14,6

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.6

0.7

Monmouth

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.6

Monis

1.8

1.3

1.5

1.2

1.4

1.1

1.4

Dutchess and Putnam . .

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.5

1.5

1.9

Orange

0.2

0.2

1.5 0.3

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.4

Somerset

2.7

1.7

2.0

1.7

2.0

1.5

1.9

0.2

0.1

0.2

New York City

Inner Ring b Nassau

Fairfield Suffolk

0.2 including bNot

0.1

0.1

0.1

Richmond.

including Richmond.

Other " S p e c i a l " Types of Manufacturing In Anatomy of a Metropolis,

it will be recalled, three groups of industries were identified

as having dominant locational requirements of a special kind.

These are the so-called nui-

sance, water-transport, and raw-material-oriented industries. For the first two categories we projected constant absolute employment in New York City on the grounds that the industries still remaining in the City were not under any further pressure to relocate but that there was no room for expansion. Outside the City we favored Union County over all other counties for these classes of industry.

In the raw-material-oriented

group we projected the 1956 percentage distribution into the future. The figures are given in Table III-5. The Remaining Manufacturing Industries The projections we have described so far account for 44 per cent of the Region's manufacturing employment in 1956.

The remaining 56 per cent was classified into four groups: 1. Local-market, consumer 2. Local-market, intermediate 3. National-market, large-plant 4. National-market, small plant

[86]

The classification had been developed on a priori grounds but both the 1956 cross-section data and the 1947-1956 trend data supported the validity of the classification.

Consequently

the classification was also preserved for purposes of projection. Local-Market

Industries

For those producing consumer goods, we were guided mainly by the population projections as described by Edgar M. Hoover in the final paper of this handbook.

If a county's share of

the Region's population was projected to increase (decrease), the share of the Region's employment in each local-market industry was projected to increase (decrease).

However, we

also projected, on the basis of experience, that there would be, in addition to this, an "autonomous" movement of such industry toward population.

Hence we projected a greater de-

cline in New York City's share than might be expected on the basis of population alone. The "autonomous" shift was projected to favor the Inner Ring, but progressively less so in each decade. In the case of industries producing intermediate products, we were guided by the projected distribution of all other kinds of manufacturing within the Region, and again there was the assumption of an additional "autonomous" movement towards the market. The figures for local-market industries—consumer and intermediate combined—are given in Table III-6.

Table III-6

Distribution of Employment in Local-Market Manufacturing Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 1965

1956

actual

1975

1985

Expected

Projected

Expected

Projected

Expected

Projected

100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Entire Region

.

Core" New York City

.

57.8

59.1

47.4

59.1

36.2

48.2

49.6

38.8

49.8

41.2 33.8

59.3

.

50.2

9.6

9.5

8.7

9.3

7.4

9.1

30.5 5.7

32.2

31.8

41.3

9.4

10.1

31.7 9.4

44.4

9.9

31.6 9.3

45.2 9.0

Hudson .

Inner Ring b Essex Nassau

1.5

1.6

3.0

1.6

9.5 3.3

Westchester Bergen Union Passaic

2.2 5.2 5.0

2.5 4.6 5.3 8.4

4.5 7.3 6.9

2.5 4.6 5.3 8.3

5.4 8.7 7.7 9.8

8.4

9.5

1.7

3.3

2.6

6.6

4.6 5.2 8.2

8.7 7.7 9.9

Outer Ring

10.0

9.1

11.3

9.2

14.4

9.1

18.6

Fairfield

2.7

2.7

2.8

2.6

3.1

2.5

3.4

Middlesex Suffolk Monmouth

2.2

2.0

3.0

2.1

3.8

0.3

2.5 0.9

2.1

0.4 0.5

1.5

0.8

1.3

0.4 0.5

2.2 2.0

Morris

1.5

0.5 1.2

0.4 0.5

1.3

1.2

1.6

1.2

2.0

Dutchess and Putnam . ..

0.5 0.6 0.3 1.3

0.5

0.7 0.7

0.5 0.6

1.0 0.9

0.6 0.6

1.4

0.6 0.3 1.0

0.4 1.2

0.3 1.0

0.7 1.3

0.3 0.9

1.2 1.4

Orange Somerset Rockland including bNot

Richmond.

including

Richmond.

[87]

1.2

National-Market Industries Large plants- have shown the greatest aversion to locations within New York City.

How-

ever, in looking carefully at past data w e discovered that New York C i t y ' s share of the Region had not declined in those large-plant national-market industries which had not grown absolutely in the Region as a whole.

Moreover, in industries in which the C i t y ' s share had

declined, the absolute l e v e l of employment in the City had remained stable. these results i s presented in Anatomy oi a Metropolis.

T h e rationale for

In our projections, therefore, w e made

the following assumptions: that absolute employment would not decline in expanding industries and that the C i t y ' s share would not decline in declining industries.

Outside New York

City we projected the current distribution in declining industries and favored the Outer Ring counties—except

F a i r f i e l d — f o r expanding industries.

Within the Inner Ring, Hudson and

Essex were projected to have progressively declining shares over the years.

T h e figures

for large-plant national-market industries are given in T a b l e III-7. Small-plant national-market industries with projected declining employment were treated like large-plant industries.

In the expanding industries, the shares of New York City, E s s e x ,

and Hudson were projected to decline in line with the 1947-1956 experience and the entire " s l a c k " was assigned to the remaining counties in the Inner Ring. projected to grow at the Regional rate.

Outer Ring counties were

Beyond 1965, however, Outer Ring counties were also

projected to participate in the " s l a c k " created by the relative decline of the City and Hudson

Table III-7

Distribution of Employment in Large-Plant National-Market Manufacturing

Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected .„., actual

Entire Region Core"

1975

1985

Projected

Expected

Projected

Expected

Projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100)0%

100.0%

.

100.0%

100.0%

..

25.2

26.1

19.6

26.1

15.7

26.0

12.8

.

15.5

16.4

11.9

16.4

10.1

16.4

8.3

9.7

9.7

7.7

9.7

5.6

9.6

4.5

.

43.9

44.3

47.9

44.8

49.2

45.6

49.7

.

10.3

11.8

9.2

11.6

7.0

11.3

6.0

6.1

5.0

6.4

4.7

7.1

4.3

7.5

5.2

5.5

6.6

5.8

7.2

6.3

7.7

10.3

9.4

11.1

9.4

11.9

9.5

12.0

New York City Hudson Inner

1965 Expected

Ringb

Essex Nassau Westchester Bergen

.

Union

8.6

9.4

10.4

10.1

11.3

11.1

11.5

Passaic

3.4

3.2

4.2

3.2

4.7

3.1

5.0 37.5

Outer Ring

,.

30.9

29.6

32.5

29.1

35.1

28.4

Fairfield

.

12.5

12.3

10.2

12.1

9.8

11.6

9.1

Middlesex

4.6

4.4

5.1

4.6

5.8

5.0

6.7

Suffolk

6.4

4.9

7.1

4.5

7.9

4.0

8.6

Monmouth

1.1

1.9

2.1

1.8

2.1

1.6

2.2

Morris

1.1

1.0

1.5

1.1

1.5

1.1

1.6

Dutchess and Putnam . . .

0.3

0.4

0.8

0.4

0.8

0.4

0.8

Orange

0.5

0.6

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.6

1.3

Somerset

3.0

3.1

3.6

3.1

4.5

3.2

5.3

Rockland

1.4

1.0

1.2

1.0

1.7

0.9

1.9

d e l u d i n g Richmond. b Not including Richmond.

[88]

and Essex, and more so in 1985.

The figures for small-plant national-market industries are

given in Table III-8.

Wholesale and Retail Wholesale Trade So much for manufacturing.

In the nonmanufacturing sectors our categories are much the

same as those that were identified in the Regional projection. Wholesaling employment, figures for which are given in the Appendix to Metropolis 1985, was projected to grow considerably more slowly in Manhattan than in the Region as a whole, based on previous experience. Manhattan's share of the Region was projected to decline from 58.6 in 1956 to 40.9 in 1985. The rest of New York City was projected to increase its share through 1975 but not beyond.

For the City as a whole, Manhattan's loss was not to be offset

by the gains elsewhere even in the first two decades. Outside New York City, the Inner Ring was projected to grow faster than the Outer Ring throughout the whole period up to 1985.

Up to 1975, Hudson and Essex counties were ex-

pected to participate in the gain of the Inner Ring, but not beyond.

Table III-8 Distribution of Employment in Small-Plant National-Market Manufacturing Industries by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 1956 actual

Entire Region

.

Core" New York City

. .

Hudson Inner Ring*5 Essex Nassau Westchester

.

Bergen Union Passaic Outer Ring

1975

1985

Projected

Expected

Projected

Expected

Projected

100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

58.9 53.4

60.0 54.5

55.8 51.6

59.9

51.4

54.4

48.4

60.1 54.5

47.9 45.4

5.5

5.5

4.2

5.5

3.0

5.6

2.5

25.3

24.3

24.3

8.2 2.5 2.1

7.7 2.3

28.5 7.3

24.1 7.7 2.2

32.5 5.7

2.1

3.8 2.9

30.9 6.5 4.9 3.4

2.2

4.4

4.0 4.6 3.9

4.4 3.9

5.0 4.9

5.4 5.6

4.3 3.8

5.7 5.8

3.9

4.6

4.4 3.9 3.9

5.1

3.9

5.6 19.6

7.7 2.3 2.1

5.3

15.8

15.7

15.7

15.8

17.7

15.8

Fairfield

7.9

7.7

7.7

7.8

7.8

8.0

8.0

Middlesex Suffolk

3.0 0.8

3.0 0.8

3.0 0.8

3.0 1.4

2.9 0.8

3.3

Monmouth Morris

2.8 0.7 0.6 1.1

0.6 1.1

0.6 1.1

0.6 1.1

1.0 1.6

0.6 1.1

1.4 1.8

Dutchess and Putnam . . .

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.8

1.0

1.2

Somerset

1.2 0.2

1.2 0.2

0.2

1.2 0.2

1.4 0.3

1.2 0.2

0.4

Rockland

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.4

Orange

.

1965 Expected

"including Richmond '»Not i n c l u d i n g Richmond.

[89]

1.7

1.6

Consumer Trade and Services This category includes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Auto repair and garage Miscellaneous repair Laundries and dry cleaning Other consumer services Motion pictures and other amusements Eating and drinking places Other retail trade Hotels and motels Domestic workers

Projections of the first seven categories were based on equations which had been developed, relating employment in a county to its population. The equations are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Ε Ε Ε Ε

= = = =

+ -

1 5 . 2 7 + 1.34 Ρ 191.03 + 1.99 Ρ 181.10 + 2.66 Ρ 528.03 + 5.64 Ρ

5. Ε = - 22.84 + .68 Ρ 6. Ε = 6 2 0 . 8 8 + 6.74 Ρ 7. £ = + 1960.31 + 27.69 Ρ where Ε = employment in a given line in a given county and Ρ = population in that county. By inserting population values for 1965, 1975, 1985, we generated a forecast of the distribution of employment in each of the categories. However, the equations were not used for Manhattan, Essex, and Brooklyn, where "downtown" shopping attracts significant numbers from beyond the county borders. For these three counties we made estimates by hand which in general assumed that the relative decline of these centers would be faster than one might expect on the basis of the relative decline of their county populations. P a s t experience had indicated that the centralization of retail trade within these counties was giving way to a more even distribution with respect to population. Aside from the special treatment of these three counties, other c a s e s in which the equations did not predict very well, such as the Bronx and Queens, were also not allowed to be determined fully by the equations alone. Hotel employment was not predicted in terms of the changing distribution of population. Instead it was largely a question of deciding how much of the growth would take the form of hotels in Manhattan and how much would take the form of motels in the suburbs. The share of New York City was reduced sharply, but the absolute amount of employment was projected to grow, nevertheless, at a fairly rapid rate. In the c a s e of domestic workers, though no equation had been developed, the principle of redistribution was very much the same. Increases in employment of domestic workers were projected as a function of increases in population.

Other Sectors of the Economy Transportation Employment in all forms of transport—truck, rail, water, and air—was projected to grow most rapidly on the New Jersey side of the Region, to grow less rapidly on the New York side of the Region outside New York City, and to decline absolutely within New York City. The only segment which could be expected to grow in New York City is air transport. But even here, the growth was expected to be more rapid outside New York City because the Region's

[90]

new airports will unquestionably be built outside the City and probably on the New Jersey side. The Port is being developed more rapidly on the New Jersey side. Rail transportation, which is a declining industry, is likely to hang on more firmly on the New Jersey side. And truck terminals will also favor the suburbs and more so in New Jersey than in New York— though the Borough of Richmond (Staten Island) is a possible exception to that. On the New Jersey side, Hudson County was not expected to participate equally in the growth of that sector. Figures for the transportation sector are given in Table III-9. Communications and Other Public Utilities

The location of this type of employment is partly a function of population but there is also an element of centralization due to the location of head offices. We assumed that there would be no net tendency for the activity to decentralize relative to population. However, the shares of the counties were modified in accordance with the population projections. The figures appear in Table ΙΠ-10. Banking, Finance, and Insurance

Here we are guided by the projections of Money Metropolis in the New York Metropolitan Region Study series.

The projection for New York City is exactly as shown in that volume.

Outside New York City we modified the projections of the authors by correcting for the differTable ΠΙ-9 Distribution of Employment in Transportation by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 1956 actual

1965 projected

1975 projected

1985 projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Core" New York City Hudson

76.2 69.0

69.3

63.1 55.9 7.2

57.3 50.3 7.0

Ring b

17.1 7.0

21.0

23.9

26.9

8.8

9.4

10.1

Nassau

1.7

1.9

2.2

Westchester Bergen

2.2 2.1

2.4 2.6

2.6 3.2

2.4 2.9

Union Passaic

2.6 1.5

3.4 1.9

4.2 2.3

Outer Ring

6.7

9.7

13.0

15.8

Fairfield Middlesex Suffolk Monmouth

1.7 1.4 0.6 0.7

1.9 2.0 0.8 0.9

2.1 2.5

2.3 3.0

1.5 1.4

1.8 1.8

Morris

0.3

1.3

2.0

2.8

Dutchess Orange

0.7

0.9

0.6

0.8

1.1 1.0

1.1

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.8

0.2

0.4 0.3

0.6

0.7

0.3

0.3

Entire Region

Inner Essex

Somerset Rockland Putnam eIncluding bNot

7.2

0.2 Richmond.

i n c l u d i n g Richmond.

[91]

62.1 7.2

3.8 5.0 2.7

1.2

Table ΙΠ-10

Distribution of Employment in Communications and Other Public Utilities by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected

Entire Region Core" New York City Hudson Inner Ring Essex

1956

1965

1975

1985

actual

projected

projected

projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

62.0

55.1

49.4

45.1

59.4

52.5

47.0

43.0

2.6

2.6

2.4

2.1 27.6

b

Westchester Bergen Union Passaic Outer Ring Fairfield Middlesex Suffolk Monmouth Morris Dutchess Orange Somerset Rockland

26.8

28.1

7.9

8.3

8.3

7.9

4.3

4.6

4.8

4.6

4.9

5.3

5.6

5.9

3.4

3.9

3.8

2.3

2.6

2.8

2.7

2.2

2.6

2.7

2.7

13.8

18.1

22.5

27.3

2.8

3.2

3.8

4.6

1.9

2.6

3.4

4.1

3.6

4.2

4.6

1.9

2.6

3.4

4.3 2.4

1.1

1.5

2.0

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.8

1.1

1.3

1.6

2.1

0.3

0.6

1.0

1.6

0.9

1.3

1.5

1.7

*

0.1

0.1

0.1

"Including Richmond. Not including Richmond. • L e s s than 0.05 per cent.

ences between their provisional population projections and the final projections as described in the fourth and last paper in the present handbook. B u s i n e s s and Professional Services In real e s t a t e , we deflated the City's share in line with the 1947-1956 experience. We a s sumed that the relative growth of Inner Ring and Outer Ring during that period would also be maintained in the future. Within each ring we were guided by population projections. The real e s t a t e figures are given in Table I I I - l l . In central offices the location of employment was projected to shift outward at a modest rate. New York City, it was assumed, would lose one-tenth of its share in each decade; that i s , its share in 1965 would be equal to 90 per cent of its share in 1956, i t s share in 1975 would be equal to 90 per cent of its share in 1965, and s o on. The Inner Ring counties of Bergen, Nassau, and Westchester were expected to draw most of the suburban growth of central o f f i c e s . In the final decade, the Outer Ring was projected to attract such activities too. The projected distribution of employment in central offices is given in Table 111-12. Advertising, it was assumed, would cling to New York City a s strongly in the future a s it had in the past. In the c a s e of "other business s e r v i c e s , " the ratio of New York City's growth to ring growth in 1947-1956 was projected into the future. Both rings were expected to grow at the [92]

Table ΠΙ-11

Distribution of Employment in Real Estate and Rentals

by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 1956 actual

1965 projected

1975 projected

1985 projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Core" New York City Hudson

79.3 76.5 2.8

75.1 73.1 2.0

71.6 69.9 1.7

64.1 62.7 1.4

Inner Ring b Essex Nassau Westchester

15.5 4.5 2.9 3.4

16.8 4.0 2.9

16.8 3.6 2.7

17.8 3.8 2.8

3.3

1.9 1.4 1.4

3.0 1.9

3.5 3.3

3.8 3.5

1.7

2.0 1.7

2.1 1.8

5.2 1.5

8.1

11.6

1.7

2.1

18.1 3.0

1.8 2.0

2.9

0.6

1.9 0.9

2.9 1.5

0.5

0.7

1.1

0.5 0.3

0.7

1.3

0.7

1.4

0.7 0.1

1.0 0.1

Entire Region

Bergen Union Passaic Outer Ring Fairfield Middlesex

0.6

1.2

Suffolk Monmouth Morris Dutchess

0.9 0.8 0.4 0.3

1.5 1.3

Orange

0.3

Somerset Rockland Putnam

0.1 0.3 *

0.5 *

2.9

"Including Richmond. ''Not including Richmond. " L e s s than 0.05 per cent.

same rate, based on past experience.

Within the Inner Ring, Hudson and E s s e x were pro-

jected to lag far behind the other counties.

The figures for "other business s e r v i c e s " are

shown in Table III-13. In the c a s e of medical, dental, and other professional activities, the b a s i c principle was again one of taking account of projected shifts in population.

The Core, it was assumed,

would suffer a decline in its share of these activities proportional to the decline in its share of population.

Within the rings, each county was projected to increase its share in proportion

as it was projected to increase its share of population. Figures are given in Table III-14. With respect to nonprofit organizations we made two assumptions.

One was that New York

City would retain its hold unimpaired over such nonprofit activities as had a national scope; the other was that its share of Iocs! activities of this type would decline in proportion to the decline in its share of population. national and how much was local.

However, we had no basis for estimating how much was Our solution for this problem was to assume that in 1956,

New York City had 90 per cent of the national activities and 60 per cent of the local activities.

This provides an equation, the solution of which yields an estimate of the breakdown

between national and local for the Region a s a whole.

Our estimate derived in this way was

that 70 per cent of employment in nonprofit organizations was local and 30 per cent was na[93]

Table III-12 Distribution of Employment in Central Offices by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected

Entire Region Core" New York City Hudson Inner Ring b Essex Westchester

1956 actual

1965 projected

1975 projected

1985 projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

88.4 84.5 3.9

80.0 76.1 3.9

72.0 68.5 3.5

64.8 61.7 3.1

9.5 2.4

15.7 2.9 2.2 3.0 2.4 3.0 2.2

22.3 3.6 3.6 4.6 3.9 3.7 2.9

28.3 4.0 5.2 6.0 5.4 4.1 3.6

4.3 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0

5.7 1.3 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0

6.9 1.5 1.7 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0

1.7 1.0 2.2

Outer Ring Fairfield Middlesex Suffolk

2.1

Morris Dutchess Orange

0.4

Rockland Putnam

0 0 0 0

' i n c l u d i n g Richmond. N o t i n c l u d i n g Richmond.

b

[941

Table III-13

Distribution of Employment in "Other Business S e r v i c e s "

by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected

Entire Region Core" New York City Hudson

1956 actual

1965 projected

1975 projected

1985 projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

77.0

73.0

66.9

61.5

75.6

71.5

65.4

60.0

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.5

21.0

25.7

29.8

4.7

4.9

4.9

4.9

Nassau

2.8

3.8

5.1

5.6

Westchester

2.2

3.0

4.4

6.2

Bergen

1.9

2.5

3.8

4.3

Union

5.3

5.5

5.7

6.2

Passaic

1.0

1.3

1.8

2.6

Outer Ring

5.1

6.0

7.4

8.7

Fairfield

1.4

1.6

1.8

1.8

Middlesex

0.7

0.9

1.2

1.4

Suffolk

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.1

Monmouth

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Morris

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

Dutchess

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.5

Orange

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.5

Somerset

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

Rockland

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

*

*

*

*

Putnam aIncluding bNot

Richmond.

including Richmond.

* L e s s than 0.05 per cent.

[951

Table III-14 Distribution of Employment in Medical, Dental, and Other Professional Activities by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected

Entire Region Core" New York City Hudson

1965

1975

1985

1956 actual

projected

projected

projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

67.8

57.5

48.9

42.5

66.1

56.0

47.6

41.4

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.1

Inner Ring Essex Nassau Westchester Bergen Union Passaic

20.7

24.7

26.7

28.9

6.4

6.8

6.5

6.5

4.5

4.9

4.9

5.4

4.0

4.7

5.4

6.0

2.4

3.7

4.6

5.0

Outer Ring Fairfield Middlesex Suffolk Monmouth Morris Dutchess Orange Somerset Rockland Putnam

b

1.8

2.5

2.9

3.2

1.6

2.1

2.4

2.8

11.5

17.8

24.4

28.6

3.9

4.5

5.2

5.7

1.0

2.0

3.2

3.9

2.5

4.0

4.9

5.2

1.2

2.2

3.4

4.1

0.7

1.2

1.9

2.2

0.6

0.9

1.3

1.7

0.7

1.0

1.5

1.9

0.4

0.8

1.4

2.0

0.4

1.1

1.5

1.7

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

"Including Richmond. kfJot including Richmond.

[961

tional. We then redistributed the total employment in this category in accordance with the assumptions noted above. The figures are shown in Table 111-15. Government Employment in local governments in New York City and Hudson County, it was assumed, would remain unchanged in absolute numbers throughout the period of the projection.

For

other counties, we derived a per capita figure for the base year 1956 and, as a first approximation, projected the growth of government employment in 1965 to follow the growth of population to 1965 with the per capita relationship remaining constant.

Since the aggregate of all

counties, when projected in this way, f e l l short of the independently projected Regional total, we then allocated the difference to each county in accordance with its share of population in the projected period. This procedure was repeated for 1975 and 1985. State and federal employment in any given projection year was first distributed among the Region's six so-called "labor-market a r e a s " (as defined by the U. S. Department of Labor) according to the 1956 distribution.

Then it was distributed within each labor-market area

among the counties in proportion to each county's share of local-government employment in the labor-market area. Construction and Agriculture We assumed no change in the intraregional distribution of employment in these two categories. Table ΠΙ-15

Distribution of Employment in Nonprofit Organizations

by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected

Entire Region

1956 actual

1965 projected

1975 projected

1985 projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

70.9

64.2

58.5

54.4

69.0

62.6

57.2

53.3

1.9

1.6

1.3

1.1

18.3 4.9

21.2 5.0

21.4 4.4

22.5

Nassau

2.9

3.5

3.3

3.6

Westchester

4.9

5.1

5.1

5.2

2.9

3.7

3.9

Core* New York City Hudson Inner Ring b Essex

Bergen

4.4

Union

2.0

2.5

2.7

2.9

Passaic

1.9

2.2

2.2

2.5

10.8

14.6

20.1

23.1

3.5

4.0

4.2 3.4

Outer Ring Fairfield Middlesex

1.2

1.9

3.0

Suffolk

1.7

2.6

3.5

3.6

Monmouth Morris

1.6

2.7

3.3

1.3

1.8

2.2

Dutchess

1.3

1.5

1.7

Orange

0.9

1.2

1.6

0.6

1.2

1.7

Rockland

0.8

1.1

1.3

Putnam

0.1

0.1

0.1

Somerset

0.3

" i n c l u d i n g Richmond. N o t including Richmond.

[971

Distribution of Total Employment When we combine the projections for all the categories of employment we arrive at the projected total employment by parts of the New York Metropolitan Region for 1965, 1975, and 1985. The absolute figures are given in the Appendix to Metropolis 1985, Tables A-4, A-5, and A-6. In our Table ΙΠ-16 we give the percentage distribution of total employment by counties for 1956 and for each of the projected years. Table III-16

Distribution of Total Employment by Parts of New York Metropolitan Region, 1956 and Projected 1956 actual

1965 projected

197S projected

1985 projected

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Core" New York City Hudson

65.2 60.8 4.4

59.3 55.0 4.3

54.5 50.7 3.8

49.8 46.5 3.3

Inner Ring b Essex Nassau

22.7 6.3 4.3

25.7 6.4 4.5

27.4 6.2 4.7

28.7 6.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.2 3.6

Entire Region

Westchester Bergen Union Passaic Outer Ring Fairfield Middlesex Suffolk Monmouth Morris Dutchess Orange Somerset Rockland Putnam

3.4

4.0

4.4

3.2 3.0 2.5

4.1 3.6

4.7 4.0 3.4

12.1 3.8 2.0 1.6 1.0 0.9 0.8

15.0 3.9

3.1

2.7 2.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.9

0.8 0.6 0.5 0.1

0.8 0.7 0.1

"Including Richmond. Not including Richmond. Note: B e c a u s e of rounding, detail will not necessarily add to totals. b

Γ981

18.1 4.2 3.2 3.0 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.1

21.5 4.5 3.7 3.5 2.5 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.1

ANNEX

Manufacturing Industries in the Λ ew York Metropolitan Region Classified by Dominant Locational Characteristics ( C o d e numbers are a s found in U. S. B u r e a u of t h e Budget, Standard Vol. I, P a r t 2, D e c e m b e r 1945) Women's 2253 233 234 236

and children's

Classification

apparel

Knit outerwear m i l l s Women's and m i s s e s ' outerwear Women's and c h i l d r e n ' s u n d e r g a r m e n t s Children's outerwear Printing

271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279

Industrial

and

publishing

Newspapers Periodicals Books Miscellaneous publishing Commercial printing Lithographing Greeting cards B o o k b i n d i n g and r e l a t e d i n d u s t r i e s S e r v i c e i n d u s t r i e s for t h e p r i n t i n g t r a d e Electronics

3571 3661 3662 3811

Computing and r e l a t e d m a c h i n e s R a d i o s and r e l a t e d p r o d u c t s Electronic tubes Scientific instruments Communication-oriented

other than above

apparel

and printing

and

2325 M e n ' s and b o y s ' c l o t h h a t s 235 Millinery 237 Fur goods 2387 Belts 2395 T u c k i n g , p l e a t i n g and s t i t c h i n g 2396 T r i m m i n g s and art g o o d s 2398 Embroideries, except Schiffli 317 P u r s e s and s m a l l l e a t h e r g o o d s 391 J e w e l r y and s i l v e r w a r e 3941 G a m e s and toys, not e l s e w h e r e c l a s s i f i e d 396, exc. 3964 C o s t u m e j e w e l r y , f e a t h e r s , p l u m e s , a r t i f i c i a l f l o w e r s & b u t t o n s 3993 S i g n s and a d v e r t i s i n g d i s p l a y s 3994 Hairwork Nuisance 201 206 281 282 2841 285 286 287 2886 2894

and

Meat p r o d u c t s Sugar Inorganic chemicals Organic chemicals Soap and g l y c e r i n P a i n t s and a l l i e d p r o d u c t s Gum and wood c h e m i c a l s Fertilizers G r e a s e and t a l l o w G l u e and g e l a t i n

[99]

water-transport

publishing

Manual,

291 303 309 3272 3331 334 335 339 373

Petroleum refining Reclaimed rubber Rubber industries, not elsewhere c l a s s i f i e d Gypsum products Primary smelting and refining of copper Secondary smelting and refining of nonferrous metals and a l l o y s Rolling, drawing and alloying of nonferrous metals Primary metal industries, not elsewhere c l a s s i f i e d Ships and boats Raw-material-oriented

324 325 328 3295 3296

Cement, hydraulic Structural clay products Cut-stone and stone products Minerals and earths: ground or otherwise treated Sand-lime brick, block and tile Local-market,

consumer

202 Dairy products 205 Bakery products 207 Candy and related products 208 Beverages 209 Miscellaneous food preparations 239, exc 2395, 2396, 2397, 2398 Curtains, draperies, housefurnishings, bags, canvas products and other fabricated text i l e products 243 Millwork and related products Local-market,

intermediate

226 Dyeing and finishing textiles (except knit goods) 241 L o g g i n g camps and logging contractors 242 Sawmills and planing mills 244 Wooden containers 249 Miscellaneous wood products 261 Pulp-paper and ρ aperboard mills 266 Paper bags 267 Paperboard containers and boxes 289, exc. 2894 Miscellaneous chemicals 327, exc. 3272 Concrete and plastic products 336 Nonferrous foundries 341 T i n cans and other tinware 349 Miscellaneous fabricated metal products National-market,

large-plant

213 T o b a c c o (chewing and smoking) and snuff 227 Carpets, rugs and other floor coverings 283 Drugs and medicines 293 Coke and byproducts 295 P a v i n g and roofing materials 329, exc. 3295, 3296 Abrasive asbestos and miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral products (except sand-lime brick, block and tile and minerals and earths) 331' Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills 332 Iron and steel foundries 333, exc. 3331 Primary smelting and refining of nonferrous metals (except copper) 356 General industrial machinery and equipment 357, exc. 3571 O f f i c e and store machines, except computing machines and cash registers 358 Service-industry and household machines 361 Electrical generating, transmission, distribution and industrial apparatus 362 Electrical appliances 363 Insulated wire and cable 364 Electrical equipment for motor vehicles, aircraft, and railway locomotives and cars 365 Electric lamps

riooi

366, exc. 3661, 3662 Phonograph records; telephone, telegraph and other communication equipment 369 Miscellaneous electrical products 371 Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 372 Aircraft and parts 374 Railroad equipment 382 Mechanical measuring and controlling instruments 386 Photographic equipment and supplies National-market,

203 204 211 212 221 222 223 224 225, exc. 2253 228 229 231 232, exc. 2325

small-plant

Canned and frozen foods Grain mill products Cigarettes Cigars Scouring and combing plants Yarn and thread mills (cotton, wool, silk and synthetic fiber) Broad-woven fabric mills (cotton, wool, silk and synthetic fiber) Narrow fabrics and other smallwares mills (cotton, wool, silk and synthetic fibers) Knitting mills except knit outwear mills Hats (except cloth and millinery) Miscellaneous textile goods Men's and boys' suits and coats Men's, youth's and boys' furnishings, work clothing and allied garments (except hats and caps) 238, exc. 2387 Miscellaneous apparel and accessories (except belts) 251 Household furniture 252 O f f i c e furniture 253 P u b l i c and professional furniture 254 Partitions, shelving, lockers and o f f i c e and store fixtures 256 Screens, shades and blinds 259 Furniture and fixtures, not elsewhere c l a s s i f i e d 264 Paper coating and glazing 265 Envelopes 269 Pulp goods and miscellaneous converted paper products 284, exc. 2841 Cleaning and polishing preparations; sulfonated oils and assistants 288, exc. 2886 Vegetable and animal oils and fats (except grease and tallow) 299 Petroleum and coal products, not elsewhere c l a s s i f i e d 301 T i r e s and inner tubes 302 Rubber footwear 311 Leather: tanned, curried and finished 312 Industrial leather belting and packing 313 Boot and shoe cut stock and findings 314 Footwear (except rubber) 315 Leather g l o v e s and mittens 316 Luggage 319 Miscellaneous leather goods 321 F l a t glass 322 Glass and glassware, pressed or blown 323 G l a s s products made of purchased glass 342 Cutlery, hand tools and hardware 343 Heating and plumbing equipment 344 Structural metal products 346 Metal stamping and coating 347 Lighting fixtures 348 Fabricated wire products 351 Engines and turbines 352 Agricultural machinery and tractors 353 Construction and mining machinery and equipment 354 Metalworking machinery 355 Special-industry machinery (except metalworking machinery) 359 Miscellaneous machinery parts 375 Motorcycles, b i c y c l e s and parts 379 Transportation equipment, not elsewhere c l a s s i f i e d 383 Optical instruments and lenses

[101]

384 385 387 393 395 3964 397 398 and 399, exc. 3993, 3994

Surgical, m e d i c a l , and d e n t a l i n s t r u m e n t s and s u p p l i e s Ophthalmic goods Watches, c l o c k s , c l o c k w o r k - o p e r a t e d d e v i c e s , and p a r t s M u s i c a l i n s t r u m e n t s and p a r t s P e n s , p e n c i l s , and other o f f i c e and a r t i s t s ' m a t e r i a l s N e e d l e s , p i n s , h o o k s and e y e s , and s i m i l a r n o t i o n s F a b r i c a t e d p l a s t i c s p r o d u c t s , not e l s e w h e r e c l a s s i f i e d

B e a u t y shop and b a r b e r s h o p equipment; f u r s , d r e s s e d and dyed; u m b r e l l a s , p a r a s o l s and c a n e s ; t o b a c c o p i p e s and c i g a r e t t e h o l d e r s ; s o d a f o u n t a i n and b e e r - d i s p e n s i n g equipment; m o d e l s and p a t t e r n s (not paper); and other m i s c e l l a n e o u s f a b r i c a t e d products.

[102]

IV PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION CHANGE WITHIN THE REGION By Edgar M. Hoover

[103]

IV. Projections of Population Change within the Region By Edgar M. Hoover Our aim here is to describe the methods by which the distribution of population within the New York Metropolitan Region, by county, was projected for 1965, 1975, and 1985. Many of the basic assumptions and hypotheses about future trends in the Region's population distribution have been formulated and supported in Anatomy of a Metropolis, especially Chapters 8 and 9, and supporting arguments will not be repeated herein except as occasionally may be necessary. Reference will also be made to the projection study described in the Regional Plan Association's Bulletin 87 0 u n e 1957), again without needless repetition. Our final county-by-county projections are given—and discussed—in Metropolis 1985, the summary volume of the New York Metropolitan Region Study, and are also reproduced at the end of the present paper. All the projections here described were carried through on the basis of the final projection of population for the entire Region, described in Part II of this handbook, "Demographic Projections for the Region as a Whole." This projection assumed (1) Regional age-specific mortality rates equal to national rates as projected to 1980 by the Census Bureau, and further extrapolated to 1985; (2) Regional birth rates slowly converging upward toward the U.S. birth rates implicit in the Census Bureau's Projection II (gross reproduction rate remaining at the 1955-57 level of 1.79); (3) net migration into the Region of 1,135,000 persons in 1955-65 and 396,000 in 1965-75, and net out-migration of 175,000 in 1975-85; and (4) differential age patterns of net migration derived as described in "Demographic Projections for the Region as a Whole." The projected increases in population in the Region during the three decades from 1955 to 1985 are 2,941,000, 2,777,000, and 2,902,000, respectively. The population is projected to be 23,712,000 in the final target year 1985. We distinguish several types of area within the Region, namely: A. Areas in which we have reason to believe that population will be virtually stable (except perhaps for some change due to changing household size in a fixed number of dwelling units) within the time interval being considered. These will be either areas fully built up or " s a t u r a t e d , " or areas so inaccessible or otherwise disadvantaged a s to make further residential land development unlikely in the time interval being considered. B. Areas in which density will be raised by the building of new multiple-family dwellings (Stage 2 or Stage 5 in the sequence outlined in Chapter 8 of Anatomy of a Metropolis). C. Areas in which density will rise because of conversion and crowding, associated with downgrading of the neighborhoods (Stage 3 of the Anatomy sequence). D. Areas in which population will increase through new single-family subdivision development on previously vacant land. E. Areas in which density will decline because of thinning-out (Stage 4 of the Anatomy sequence) or conversion of residential land to nonresidential uses.

[105]

Although in some instances several of the above processes can be expected to occur in close juxtaposition, we shall find that in a good many counties or other sizable divisions of the Region we need consider only one or two of the f i v e processes listed.

T h e locus of each

of the processes will of course shift to some extent between 1955-65 and 1975-85.

Manhattan Let us first consider what i s likely to happen in the Region's core of the Core, the borough of Manhattan.

It seems clear that Process D will be missing there (new single-family

development) and also the Stage 2 component of Process B. 1965-75,

In each of the periods 1955-65,

and 1975-85, Manhattan will probably contain, however, some stable-population

neighborhoods (A), some redevelopment areas with density increase (B), some conversiondowngrading-crowding areas (C), and some areas where thinning-out or residential land l o s s ( E ) i s occurring. We may assume that the neighborhoods with relatively new or rehabilitated housing (the Upper East Side luxury apartments, the completed lower- and middle-income redevelopments, and some neighborhoods like Greenwich V i l l a g e ) will show a high degree of population stability for the foreseeable future and can thus be excluded from any allocation of population increments. In future redevelopment, both high-income and low-income, in Manhattan there may well be some local increases in density if recent patterns are a reliable guide.

But those same re-

cent patterns suggest that the total effect on Manhattan's population size will hardly be significant in the upward direction.

The density increases are not large and the areas affected

are not likely to bulk very large in relation to the borough's total residential area. Moreover, a foreseeable increase in the latitude of residence choice for all types of people may favor greater selectivity of occupance of Manhattan housing in terms of family size; the predominance of small households may become even more pronounced and may spread over a wider range of incomes.

A further shrinkage in Manhattan's household s i z e s would of course exert

in itself a downward impact on population density.

Consequently, we expect the effect of

the redevelopment process ( B ) upon Manhattan's population to be close to neutral. Residential thinning-out of slum areas is probably the most conspicuous actual trend in Manhattan's density pattern and accounts largely for the borough's decline in population from its 1910 peak. fied.

In Anatomy of a Metropolis

the forces contributing to this trend were identi-

These same forces argue for continued or even accelerated thinning-out, and for the ex-

pansion of the process over a larger area.

At the same time, they argue for a reduction in

the importance, extent, and duration of phases of neighborhood density increase through the downgrading-conversion-crowding

syndrome.

From this reasoning we get a definite picture of substantial net decline in densities over a large part of Manhattan's total residential area, when thinning-out and crowding are considered together on balance.

The pre-emption of residential land by nonresidential uses, a

persistent but probably not very significant population-reducing force in Manhattan historically, seems likely to continue, though with a quite small downward effect on population in the borough. Recalling now that the operation of processes A and Β i s likely to have substantially no net effect, that process D (new single-family development) is non-existent in Manhattan, and that processes C and Ε on balance will exert a continued strong downward effect, we come out with what looks like a rather firm b&sis for projecting further decline in Manhattan's total population. It i s of course much less clear whether the decline should be projected at a fairly constant rate in line with past trends, or at a diminishing or accelerating rate. Manhattan changed as follows after reaching a peak in 1910:

[106]

The population of

(thousands)

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 19571

2,332 2,284 1,867 1,890 1,960 1,794

Considerable cyclical variation was manifest, and there was some reason to suspect significantly greater under-enumeration in the 1957 Special Census than in the regular decennial Censuses; so the precise trend was not altogether clear. We have noted certain factors that might be the basis for accelerated decline; on the other hand, the continued progress of redevelopment will put an increasing part of the area of the borough into a stable population category in addition to making local increases in density. On the whole, we were inclined to project a somewhat more rapid decline for the earlier part of the projection period than the later, and proposed the following figures (in thousands): 1965 1975 1985

1,750 1,650 1,600

Our suggested Manhattan figure was substantially lower than others that have been proposed. For example, the Regional Plan Association CBulletin 87) came up with a 1975 figure of 1,825,000, or 175,000 higher than our 1975 figure. The recent zoning report for New York City was based on a projected 1975 population of 1,725,000. A liberal or "outside" figure is perhaps appropriately used for zoning purposes, while we have tried in our projections to make a "best guess." Core C o u n t i e s o u t s i d e M a n h a t t a n In the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Hudson County, there is again to be expected a mixture of influences on population growth, but a somewhat different mixture than in Manhattan. A small but significant amount of vacant land suitable for development still remained in 1954 in all those counties, totalling 15.7 square miles, or 10,000 acres, according to the Regional Plan Association estimates (Bulletin 87, Table 20, p. 31). If, say, three-fourths of such land in each of the counties were to be residentially developed, at one-half the average density prevailing in 1954 in the respective counties, the following numbers of people could be accommodated: Bronx Brooklyn Queens Hudson Total

67,000 52,000 11,000 33,000 213,000

Information on new housing construction in recent years suggests that these apparent margins of capacity for "Stage 1 " development are being used up at quite varying rates in the four counties. Assuming the "household s i z e s " (average numbers of persons per occupied dwelling unit) that prevailed in the respective counties in 1950, it appears that a year's new 1 S p e c i a l C e n s u s of April 1, 1957, c o n d u c t e d by the U.S. C e n s u s B u r e a u . As e x p l a i n e d in Metropolis 1985, our p r o j e c t i o n s were c o m p l e t e d b e f o r e t h e 1960 C e n s u s r e s u l t s b e c a m e a v a i l a b l e . However, s o m e of the 1960 preliminary f i g u r e s are given in Metropolis 1985, T a b l e A-7.

[107]

construction under recent patterns of activity would have accommodated something like the following numbers of persons (in thousands): In all n e w structures

In single h o u s e s only

Queens

23

5.5

Bronx Brooklyn Hudson Total

16 21 3 62

1.5 .7 .9 8.5

The relative unimportance of single-family development in these counties is apparent, particularly when we take into account the fact that the recent development rate in Queens looks sufficient substantially to exhaust the remaining vacant land in that borough within a very few years. It seems clear that "Stage 1 " development (new single-family construction onpreviously vacant land) will not be the significant controlling factor in determining the relative growth rates of the counties in this group or a significant contributor to whatever growth they may show. Much of the land classed as vacant and suitable for development is in scattered pockets interspersed with industrial areas or with other disadvantages that account for its having remained vacant thus far. This is particularly true of the surprisingly large amount of "vacant, suitable" land in Hudson County. Population changes after 1950 are indicated in Table IV-1. Table IV-1

Population in the Core outside Manhattan during the 1950's (in thousands)

1950 Census 1955, Regional Plan Association Bulletin 87 (published 1957) 1955, estimates made in 1958 by Harvey H. Segal of New York Metropolitan Region Study 1957 Special Census 1958, New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development

Bronx

Brooklyn

Queens

Hudson

1,451

2,738

1,551

647

1,490

2,725

1,750

645

1,431 1,424

2,636

1,699

645

2,602

1,763

—

—

—

—

662

As already noted in connection with Manhattan, the 1957 figures may be a bit low; and the other post-1950 estimates are subject to various margins of error. The significant point, however, is that all these counties now show the symptoms of population saturation, and changes in density on already developed land will be the main determinant of their future population change. If further new single-family development is unlikely to figure significantly in future population change in any of these four counties, what kinds of change can be foreseen via alterations in density on already built-up land? On the side of rising densities there is the factor of "Stage 2 " construction of apartments in previously single-family areas, which has been of some importance especially in Queens and the Bronx. In Brooklyn a more substantial proportion of the new apartment construction has been "Stage 5 " redevelopment, which recent experience indicates usually somewhat reduces densities in projects outside Manhattan. Downgrading and "slum invasion" is a factor of rising density in some neighborhoods, probably mainly in Brooklyn though also in a few parts of the Bronx. On the side of declining densities the important factor is thin-out (Stage 4), though in future Stage 5 redevelopment may play an increased role in the transition to lower densities in present crowded slum areas.

[108]

As of now it is clear that all the density-changing factors combined are exerting a net downward effect on population in each of the four counties, since population has apparently ceased to grow despite some continued building of new single-family houses on new land. As the latter factor vanishes we might merely on that account expect some acceleration of population decline. But will the balance of forces affecting density remain the same? We have argued in Anatomy of a Metropolis, Chapters 8 and 9, that in general the Core counties outside Manhattan will lose in relativ.e attractiveness to nearly all types of people. The spill-over from congested Manhattan slums will tend to be channeled less into immediately adjacent areas in the Core counties, like Brooklyn or Jersey City, and more into the Inner Ring as these people acquire wider choice and as their jobs too become more suburban. The type of residential area that predominates in Queens, built up largely in the 1920's and later, with rather small single units constituting a large proportion of the total, seems less well adapted to structural conversion to higher densities than do many somewhat older neighborhoods with larger units in the inner parts of the Inner Ring. Finally, it will be recalled from Anatomy of a Metropolis, Chapter 8, that there is significant evidence that movers within the Region rate every Core county quite unfavorably on the score of general amenities of living, as compared with other counties in the Region. On balance we saw no reason to foresee a reversal of the already-established or apparently incipient trends of diminishing population density in the four Core counties around Manhattan. Even more forcefully than for Manhattan, it may be argued here that to the extent the Stage 3 slum-invasion-conversion-crowding-downgrading process occurs, it will be associated with far less actual build-up of density than in the past, because of wider choice, greater mobility, a relatively larger supply of housing subject to downgrading, diminished relative demand for subway access to Manhattan, and (in Queens) a less easily crowdable type of structure. The demand for upper-income new apartments is likely to be far less brisk here than in Manhattan, since what the occupants generally want is immediate access to Manhattan's central business district. Publicly-supported slum redevelopment and renewal projects sire more likely here than in Manhattan to lower rather than raise densities. On the other hand there are elements of considerable stability in the density pattern in these counties. Except in a few areas, congestion is far less intense and less widespread than in the Manhattan slums, and the single-family and other non-slum areas are unlikely to show much thinning-out, except possibly through some rise in vacancy rates. Brooklyn's decline, though apparently already established, may be retarded quite significantly by more intensive development of areas convenient to the Narrows Bridge. We inclined therefore toward projecting Queens' population with a slight growth for the next several years, succeeded by stability; the Bronx's with a continued slow decline; Brooklyn's with a substantial decline though less steep than might be in order without allowance for the stimulus of the Narrows Bridge; and Hudson's with a gradual decline. Translated into numbers, these trends are shown in Table IV-2. Table IV-2

Population in the Core outside Manhattan, 1950, 1955, and Projected (in thouiaadf)

Bronx... Brooklyn Queens . Hudson . Total

1950 (Census)

1955 (est.)

1,451 2,738 1,551

1,431 2,636 1,699

1,400

1,350

1,350

2,520 1,910

2,430 1,910

2,350 1,910

647 6,387

645 6,411

650 6,480

625 6,315

600 6,210

[109]

1965

1975

1985

At this point we may pause to take the score.

We have projected declines in population in

all of the five Core counties except Queens, but a substantial growth in the population of the Region.

What increments of population does this leave to be allocated among the counties of

the Inner and Outer R i n g s ? T a b l e IV-3

T h i s is answered in T a b l e IV-3.

Population in Core and R i n g s , 1950, 1955, and Projected (In thousands)

Entire Region

,.

Core Inner and Outer Rings (residual) . . ., .

1950 (Census)

1955 (est.)

1965

1975

1985

13,951

15,092

18,033

20,810

23,712

8,347

8,247

8,230

7,965

7,810

6,845

9,803

12,845

15,902

5,604

T h e table shows that if our projections are sound, the Inner and Outer Rings in 1985 will have almost a s large a population a s the entire Region does today, and will contain two out of every three of the R e g i o n ' s residents, a s against 4 0 per cent in 1950 and 44 per cent in 1955. From the early 1 9 6 0 ' s on, fewer than half will live in the Core.

T h e i n c r e a s e in population in

the Inner and Outer Rings combined will be c l o s e to three million in each of the ten-year periods 1 9 5 5 - 6 5 , 1 9 6 5 - 7 5 , and 1 9 7 5 - 8 5 .

T h e Rings We now have " a control t o t a l " of projected population growth for the Inner and Outer Rings of the Region combined.

In breaking this down, we found it appropriate to treat as part of the

Outer Ring, rather than the Inner, the sparsely-settled outer parts of Westchester and P a s s a i c Counties lying beyond the narrow waists of t h o s e counties.

Our "Modified Inner R i n g , " then,

c o n s i s t s of Richmond, Nassau, Bergen, E s s e x , Union, Inner P a s s a i c , and Inner Westchester. And our "Modified Outer R i n g " c o n s i s t s of Suffolk, F a i r f i e l d , D u t c h e s s , Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Somerset, Outer P a s s a i c , and Outer Westchester. F i r s t we may make some reasonable assumptions about the relative importance of three different ways of accommodating population change, viz: new single-family construction; new apartment construction (net increase after allowance for structures demolished); and changes in density of occupance of existing structures through conversion-downgrading-crowding

as

against thinning-out. In recent years new single-family construction appears to have accounted for about fivesixths of all new residential construction in the R i n g s — a proportion not very different from that applying in all nonfarm housing construction in the United S t a t e s . 2

For all U.S. nonfarm

housing, the single-family proportion s i n c e the 1 9 3 0 ' s has been much higher than it was in the 1 9 2 0 ' s and showed some tendency to r i s e a little until the War, but there i s no apparent trend over the last 15 years or s o . A reasonable surmise i s that this change represents the impact of four principal factors: (1) the revolution in personal transport wrought by mass automobile ownership, (2) the postwar shift to higher birth rates and larger family s i z e s , (3) government aids to home financing which have favored owner-occupied a s against rental housing construction; and (4) realization of important new economies of l a r g e - s c a l e single-family developments.

Most if not all of

these underlying changes appear non-recurring, and the ratio of single-family to total new residential construction has ceased to rise significantly.

2

S e e R e g i o n a l P l a n A s s o c i a t i o n , Bulletin

87,

It therefore seems legitimate to expect

C h a r t 2 4 , p. 3 8 .

[1101

this ratio to decline toward a somewhat lower "equilibrium" level, since the main reason that it rose so high was that the pre-existing stock of housing was out of line with a father abruptly changed pattern of preference and effective demand.

Such an equilibrium level would

lie somewhere between the proportion of single-family to total in recent new residential starts and the proportion in the existing housing stock—which

could give us a wide range, from 80-

85 per cent down to 40-50 per cent, in the Rings of the Region taken as a whole. Our working assumption was that single-family housing will account for the following percentages of the total net addition to housing supply through new construction in the Inner and Outer Rings combined: 1955-65

85

1965-75

80

1975-85

75

These figures attempt to allow for the fact that construction of new multifamily housing quite generally involves some demolition of housing previously on the site, so that the share of new multifamily construction in the total net addition through new construction is a little less than its share in new construction per se on a " g r o s s " basis. These proportions apply of course to the two Rings combined.

In the older and more

densely settled areas, new single-family construction will play a much less important role. We assumed that in the Modified Outer Ring, new single-family construction will account for seven-eighths of the net gain through construction. Next, we assumed that changes in the density of occupance of existing structures will not be of significant magnitude for the Modified Outer Ring as a whole.

In discussing population

changes in the Core, we have foreseen that the combination of downgrading, conversions, and crowding is likely to spread rather rapidly, though in a more diluted form, in older communities of the Modified Inner Ring.

Some substantial fraction of the resulting efflux will contrib-

ute to rising densities in old structures in tbe Modified Inner Ring, at least in the earlier parts of the projection period, while in the later parts of the period we may expect that this will begin to be outweighed by a thinning-out process in some of those Inner Ring communities.

Over the long run, we foresee a continuation of the historical tendency toward lower

peak slum densities and a damping of the crowding-thinout cycle.

It is difficult to guess even

roughly what the magnitudes of change might be, but we assume that the net change of density in occupance of existing structures will account for an increase of 200,000 in the Modified Inner Ring in 1955-65, 100,000 in 1965, and' zero in 1975-85. Finally, we assume that the amount of new single-family development in the Modified Inner Ring as a whole will slow down rather rapidly because of scarcity of suitable vacant land. As of 1954 there were still something more than 200,000 acres of vacant land rated suitable for development in the Modified Inner Ring: an amount roughly equal to the land actually in residential development by that date.

But in terms of capacity for single-family development

the Modified Inner Ring was far more than half " f i l l e d up" in 1954.

Substantial parts of

the theoretically suitable land will not go into this type of development for a long time, if ever; some will be used for industrial, governmental, or recreational purposes, and some will remain unused because of undesirable local situations such as the high cost of utilities. More important, if recent trends are any guide the density at which this vacant land will be developed will be far less than the average 1954 density of something more than 20 persons per residential acre.

Half that density would be a much more reasonable expectation.

Conse-

quently, the limit of population growth through further single-family development after 1955 in the Modified Inner Ring might be about 1.9 million persons. If we assume that this increase does occur between 1955 and 1985, and apply a "taperingo f f " rate of growth with approach of saturation as suggested by the relation between growth

[111]

rates and degrees of saturation in municipalities of the Land-Use Survey A r e a , 3 the number of persons (in thousands) accommodated in new single-family developments in the Modified Inner Ring would follow this pattern: 1955-65

1,050

1965-76

650

1975-85

200

The various assumptions so far made s u f f i c e , when applied in combination, to determine the pattern of growth detailed in T a b l e IV-4. It w i l l be observed that (by coincidence) the projected 1955-65 increases in the Modified Inner Ring and the Modified Outer Ring are equal. Table IV-4

Projected Net Increments of Population in Inner and Outer R i n g s of

New York Metropolitan Region, by T y p e of Accommodation, 1955-1985 ( e l l figures In thousands of persons) 1955—65

1965-75

1975-85

1955-85

2,958 2,758

3,042

3,057

9,057

2,942

3,057

8,757

2,344

2,354

2,293

6,991

414

588

764

1,766

200

100

0

300

1,479

1,095

665

3,239

1,279

995

665

2,939

1,050

650

200

1,900

229

345

465

1,039

200

100

0

300

1,479

1,947

2,392

5,818

1,479

1,947

2,392

5,818

1,294

1,704

2,093

5,091

185

243

299

727

0

0

0

0

Inner and Outer Rings

Multiple-family Through change in occupancy of existing structures (net) Modified Inner Ring

Multiple-family Through change in occupancy of existing structures (net) Modified Outer Ring

Multiple-family Through change in occupancy of existing structures (net)

We can now proceed to break down the indicated growth components by individual counties, starting with those of the Modified Inner Ring. C o u n t i e s of the M o d i f i e d I n n e r

Ring

T h e factor of density change in existing structures, representing the balance between conversion-crowding-downgrading and thinning-out, we have projected for the whole Modified

3This

area, in which an intensive survey w a s made, i s mapped in Anatomy

of a Metropolis,

p. 131.

It i s the same a s the Modified Inner Ring, e x c e p t that it i n c l u d e s Hudson County and d o e s not include Richmond.

[112]

Inner Ring as accounting for an increase of 200,000 persons in 1955-65 and an additional 100,000 in 1965-75, with no net change in 1975-85. We may assume that this process is confined essentially to communities characterized by rather high density, old structures, lack or scarcity of vacant land, good access to employment concentrations, a housing pattern which is either already largely multifamily or is tending in that direction, declining relative income levels, slow recent growth in population, and relatively little new residential construction activity. If we pick out the communities in each county that seem to satisfy all or most of these criteria we find that (weighted by their populations) they are distributed approximately as follows within the Modified Inner Ring: 4 Essex Inner Westchester Inner Passaic Union Bergen Richmond Nassau

45% 24 16 9 7 5 0

We have used these percentages as rough guides to the relative importance of density changes in the various counties, but have tried to allow for a somewhat earlier thin-out in the older areas where the downgrading process started earlier. 5 Our final allocation of the density-change component of population change was as will be shown in Table IV-5. The next step was to allocate by counties the total increase via single-family development, amounting to 1,050,000 persons in 1955-65, 650,000 in 1965-75, and 200,000 in 197585. Since we assumed that the total expansion of this sort represented using up substantially all the single-family development " c a p a c i t y " of this zone, as limited by vacant land, our allocation of the total single-family expansion by counties was based on estimates of their acreages of suitable vacant land and probable densities of development. These had been worked out by individual municipalities by Peter Stone of the New York Metropolitan Region Study, and somewhat earlier on a slightly different basis by the Regional Plan Association. Existing differences in actual and zoned residential densities were taken into account as well as any foreseeable factors tending to raise or lower development densities in the future. For the period as a whole, the percentage allocation of single-family development among the counties of the Modified Inner Ring was as follows: Bergen Nassau Union Richmond Essex Inner Passaic Inner Westchester

34% 21 14 10 8 8 5

In making the allocations over time, it was assumed that the remaining vacant land would be used up earliest in the counties where recent development has been more active. The final allocations of the new-single-family-development component of growth were as shown in Table IV-5. 4 F o r all these counties except Richmond, judgments were based mainly on data from the Land-Use Survey and related Census data on population, housing, and income; the Richmond share i s a roughlyassigned guess. 5 T h e allocations to Union and Richmond were also influenced by the assumption of most rapid industrial employment growth in the sector southwest of New York City.

[113]

Table IV-5

Projected Population Growth in Counties of the Modified Inner Ring by Periods, 1955-1985, and Type of Accommodation ( a l l f i g u r e s in t h o u s a n d s of p e r s o n s ) Total

Inner Passaic

Inner Westchester

Richmond

Essex

Union

Bergen

Nassau

119 98 54

253 162 121

200 161 85

347 290 154

265 146 71

147 94 58

148 144 122

ia new single-family development 1955-65. 1965-75. 1975-85.

94 68 24

105 37 11

147 100 20

316 238 90

252 125 25

94 44 14

42 38 16

ia new multifamily development 1955-65. 229 1965-75. . . . . . . . . . . 345 1975-85.

20 25 30

63 90 115

28 46 60

21 42 59

13 21 41

23 35 49

61 86 111

10 10 5

0 0 5

30 15 -5

45 20 -5

Total growth 1955-65 , 1965-75. 1975-85.

ia change in density of occupance of existing structures 1955-65. 5 25 85 1965-75. 5 35 15 1975-85 0 5 -5

Finally, the net growth through new multifamily construction (totalling for this zone 229,000 in 1955-65, 345,000 in 1965-75, and 465,000 in 1975-85) was allocated. Here the initial guide was the distribution, by counties, of the multifamily housing starts of 1950-55 but this was significantly modified in the allocation, particularly in the latter part of the period. For example Nassau County, which has had a very small share of the Inner Ring's multifamily development in the past, was allowed a substantially increased share after 1965, particularly in 1975-85 when its capacity for further single-family expansion was assumed to be close to exhaustion. The final allocation of the new-multifamily-construction component of growth was as shown in Table IV-5. It should be kept in mind that these figures represent net increase in accommodations through apartment construction, after allowance for losses through site clearing, and that the gross amount of multifamily construction would therefore be substantially greater. Table IV-5 assembles the projections made for the Modified Inner Ring counties by specific types of accommodation and shows the resultant estimates of total net population change in each period by county. C o u n t i e s of the Modified O u t e r R i n g We have already established (Table IV-4, above) the following "control totals" for population growth in the Modified Outer Ring as a whole (in thousands of persons): Total growth Via new single-family development Via new multifamily development (net) It remains to distribute these changes by counties. 1114]

1955-65

1965-75

1975-85

1,479 1,294 185

1,947 1,704 243

2,392 2,093 299

Let us first consider the main component of Modified Outer Ring growth: new singlefamily development on vacant land. The total supply (as of 1954) of vacant land suitable for development in this zone has been estimated by the Regional Plan Association (Bulletin 87) at more than 3,700 square miles, or nearly 2,400,000 acres.

It is clear then that in the ag-

gtegate this supply of land will not be exhausted by the projected Modified Outer Ring population expansion of 5,091,000 in single-family developments between 1955 and 1985.

We

shall assume that these people will be accommodated at an average gross density of 5,000 per square mile or 7.81 to the acre (which would for example be roughly consistent with an average of 3.4 persons per household, an average lot size of 15,000 square feet, and an allowance of 20 per cent of the sub-division area for streets and other space not incorporated in lots). On this assumption, the land taken for subdivisions would be, in square miles: 1955-65 1965-75 1975-85 Total, 1955-85

259 340 419 1,018

The densities are of course likely to vary considerably from the assumed average in the individual counties, and we shall at a later point try to make some allowance for that. The first point, however, is to frame some reasonable assumption about how the areas to be developed in the various stages of the projection period will be selected from the available supply of land. Our key assumption here is that relative convenience of access to the more densely urbanized parts of the Region will continue to be a key factor in determining development priorities, and that land in the more accessible zones will be taken up faster. It is not, however, plausible to assume that all of the closest land will be developed before any development is undertaken on land farther out—we must assume a very considerable degree of "leapfrogging," with some new residential development taking place even in the most remote reaches of the Region. As a rough initial guide to allocating the Modified Outer Ring land supply for new singlefamily development, we have divided it into five categories according to apparent relative access advantage. Since no actual detailed information was available on distances or traveltimes from all Outer Ring points to all relevant employment centers, a crude cartographic short-cut had to be employed.

First a line was sketched on the map around the periphery of

the Region's essentially continuous main built-up area, this line following roughly the limits of territory within 90 minutes' rail commuting time to central or lower Manhattan and lying in most sectors near the inner edge of the Modified Outer Ring. 6

The fairly small amount of

Modified Outer Ring territory lying inside this line was assigned to access zone A. 7

Next,

another line was drawn roughly parallel to the first and about 7 or 8 miles farther out in an airline distance, and the territory between the two lines was styled access zone B. same procedure repeated gave zones C, D, etc.

The

In drawing all these lines, some deliberate

smoothing of the contours was introduced in order to take cognizance of the fact that with mass use of automobiles and a more and more elaborate suburban highway network, actual travel times between points will probably correspond much more closely with straight-line distances than was or is the case with travel times to Manhattan in which rail transport is used for part of the journey. 6Cf.

Maps 3 and 4 on pp. 10 and 11 of Regional P l a n Association Bulletin

87.

T h e s e a c c e s s zones are of course not to b e confused with the a c c e s s z o n e s 1, 2, 3, etc., a s laid out within the L a n d - U s e Survey Area in Anatomy of a Metropolis, Chapters 6 and 7, though a certain kinship is apparent.

[1151

Some attempt was made also, in laying out these boundaries between access zones, to allow for the expected pattern of fast highway development (Cf. Regional Plan Association 87, Map 11, p. 34) and the presence of substantial concentrations of employment

Bulletin

such as Poughkeepsie, detached from the main Regional mass. were marked out in this way, denoted by letters A through E.

In all, f i v e access zones Zone Ε was "open-ended,"

extending. all the rest of the way to the Region's outer boundary in Dutchess, Orange, and Suffolk Counties regardless of distance. No other counties had any Zone Ε land. Next, the land area in each Outer Ring county was tabulated by access zone on the basis of rough measurements on the map. Finally, the Regional Plan Association map (Bulletin 87, Map 7, p. 14) was scrutinized in order to distribute each county's "vacant land suitable for development" (ibid., Table 20, p. 31) by access zones. The results are shown in Table IV-6. Table IV-6

Vacant Land Suitable for Development in the Modified Outer Ring, 1954, by County and Access Zone ( a l l figures In square m i l e s )

Modified Outer Ring, total .,

Total, all zones

Zone A

Zone Β

Zone C

Zone D

Zone Ε

3,716

351

841

831

790

903

35

97

174

78

0

91

106

39

0

0

31

173

48

0

0

5

93

113

76

0

0

26

17

0

0

36

37

0

0

0

0

81 15

252 0

180

60

22 79

0

4

26

10

0

0

0

25

143

390

29

120

185

105

64

84

108

126

5 328

Suffolk

0

The next step was to allocate the land subdivision activity of each phase of the projection period to the various access zones.

A s noted earlier, the guiding assumption was that a

larger fraction of the currently available vacant land would be used in the zones with better access, but that some subdivision development would go on in all zones.

In default of any

firm basis for gauging the degree to which such priority of development might apply in the future, the following guess was made: that in each period Zone Β would develop half as large a fraction of its stock of vacant land (as of the beginning of the period) as Zone A does; Zone C would use up half as large a fraction as Zone B; and so on out, so that Zone Ε would be using up one-sixteenth as great a proportion of its vacant land in any period as Zone A does. Having now provisionally projected the pattern of residential subdivision activity in terms of land by access zones, we proceeded to distribute each zone total by counties on the basis of the relative amounts of vacant land of that access class in each county in 1954. This gave a provisional projection for the total area of new single-family subdivision activity in each county during the period 1955-65. T o these area figures were applied different net density figures for the individual counties. These were derived from the relative densities in 1954 as roughly measured by population per square mile of intensively developed land (Anatomy of a Metropolis, 11161

Table 24, p. 136), but the

amount of intercounty variation was arbitrarily halved on the assumption that t h e s e differences in relative existing net density would otherwise greatly exaggerate the probable differe n c e s in net density in new single-family development in the various Modified Outer Ring counties. T h i s halving of the variation w a s accomplished by taking, for each county, the average between the figure given in Table 24 of Anatomy of a Metropolis and the over-all average net density (from the same table) for the Outer Ring proper. The set of county net density figures thus derived was then adjusted so a s to make the over-all average net density for the Modified Outer Ring conform to our initial b a s i c assumption of 5,000 persons per square mile in new single-family residential development. Application of these adjusted densities to the land development figures by county gives provisional projections of population growth via new single-family development in each county in 1955-65. The net increase via new multifamily development was based on the ratios of multifamily to total housing starts in 1950-55 by counties, adjusted so as to make the total projected net multifamily increase for the Modified Outer Ring conform to our previous projection, that is, one-seventh a s much as the number of persons accommodated in new singlefamily developments. Adding the single-family and multifamily components a s thus projected gave provisional projections of population gain by counties for 1955-65. Since t h e s e projections had been based essentially on the relative supply of vacant land of various degrees of a c c e s s in the several counties, plus some assumptions about relative development d e n s i t i e s and distribution of multifamily construction, they were regarded a s strictly provisional. No explicit account had been taken of the differentials in growth that might be expected to arise from such factors a s the changing distribution of employment, diff e r e n c e s in development cost on account of terrain, differences in the attractiveness of various Oüter Ring areas (e.g., in the shore areas of Monmouth and Suffolk counties), the special stimulus to growth in Rockland County through construction of the Tappan Z e e Bridge, or changes in zoning policy. Consequently it was not surprising that in some of the counties the provisional estimates turned out to be substantially at variance with other short-run growth indicators. In an attempt to uncover t h e s e differences and make some allowance for the factors mentioned above as having been omitted from consideration, our provisionally projected 1955-65 increases were compared (1) with linear projections based on the 1950 C e n s u s and the latest available county estimates (1956, 1957, or 1958) and (2) with the Regional Plan Association projections shown in Bulletin 87 for the periods 1955-60, 1960-65, and 1965-70. For several of the counties, the correspondence was close enough to make no s p e c i f i c adjustment seem indicated; but it was decided that our provisional estimates for Suffolk County were a great deal too low, those for Dutchess and Rockland Counties somewhat too low, and those for Somerset, Orange, and Monmouth (especially Somerset) too high, so that they should be revised before proceeding with projections for the later decades of the projection period. Our projections in t h e s e c a s e s could have gone awry for either or both of two main reasons. For example, our provisional large underestimate of the growth in Suffolk County could have resulted if vacant land was developed there at much faster rates, in relation to existing supply in various a c c e s s zones, than in the rest of the Outer Ring; or it could also have arisen if the net density in new developments in Suffolk County had been higher (in relation to such densities elsewhere in the Outer Ring) than we assumed. We decided to make our adjustment entirely on the first of these bases; i.e., to revise upward the rates of land development in such c a s e s without changing the assumed density. Similarly, we revised downward the provisional 1955-65 projection of new land development in Somerset and other " o v e r e s t i m a t e d " counties, and this brought their projected growth in that period more in line with other indications but at the same time left those counties in a somewhat better land-supply position for subsequent development than our provisional projections had done. [117]

In making the adjustments in 1955-65 land development in the various counties, we retained the assumption that in each county the proportion of Class A vacant land developed would be twice as great as the proportion of Class B, four times the proportion of Class C, and so on. The individual county adjustment factors derived for 1955-65 were applied, in a deliberately attenuated form, in projecting the pattern of 1965-75 and 1975-85 single-family development. Each adjustment factor was brought one-quarter of the way toward unity by 1965-75 and another quarter of the way by 1975-85: in other words, the amount of adjustment in either direction was reduced in successive decades. For example, if the 1955-65 adjustment factor was .80, the 1965-75 factor was set at .85 and the 1975-85 factor at .90. The reasoning here was thus: Combinations of influences, by no means all clearly recognized, are currently making the growth rates of certain counties diverge from what we had projected on the basis of access and density considerations. Those factors, and the sheer relative momentum of the faster growth rates, could be counted on to have some continuing effect through the whole period. The further into the future we go, the greater the uncertainty; but also, it would seem, the greater the probability that these particular influences now most active will become diluted by others, and that the basic growth-influencing effect of supply of conveniently accessible land will play an increased role. On this last point, it is relevant to note that our projections imply that by 1985 more than three-quarters of the 1955 stock of access-Class A land in the Modified Outer Ring would have been developed, and about half of the 1955 stock of Class Β land, along with smaller proportions of the less accessible categories. The projections of 1965-75 and 1975-85 growth still retained the basic assumptions stated earlier for the Modified Outer Ring with respect to: 1. The "priority function" for allocating land use to the different access classes in any county in any period. 2. Over-all single-family development density of 5,000 persons per square mile for the whole Modified Outer Ring with densities in individual counties higher or lower in the same pattern as assumed for 1955-65. 3. Multifamily accommodation of population growth to the extent of one-seventh of the single-family development for the Modified Outer Ring a s a whole, with the fraction running higher or lower in individual counties in the same pattern as assumed for 1955-65. The calculation of projections for the Modified Outer Ring counties made it possible to assemble the figures in Table IV-7, covering the whole Region by counties. Westchester and Passaic Counties, which we temporarily dismembered during the analysis, now appear reunited and classed in the Inner Ring according to its usual definition.

[118]

Table IV-7

Population of New York Metropolitan Region, by Counties, Projected to 1985 ( ' all

f i g u r e s i n t h o u s a n d s of p e r s o n s ) 1955

1965

Region

15,092

18,033

20,810

23,712

Core

8,247

8,230

7,965

7,810

1,836

1,750

1,650

1,600

Eronx

1,431 2,636 1,699

2,430 1,910

1,350 2,350

645

1,400 2,520 1,910 650

1,350

Brooklyn Queens

625

1,910 600

New York City

7,806

7,903

7,761

7,685

Inner Ring

4,399

5,999

7,249

8,093

Manhattan

Hudson

Richmond

1975

1985

204

323

421

475

1,033

1,298

1,444

1,515

Westchester

709

966

1,247

1,524

Inner® Outer

593 116

741 225

885 362

1,007 517

Bergen

678

1,025

1,315

1,469

Passaic

375

534

646

728

Inner b Outer

358 17

505 29

599 47

657 71

Essex

950

1,203

1,365

1,486

Union

450

650

811

896

2,446

3,804

5,596

7,809

Dutchess

164 170

240 236 35

341 350

481

Orange Putnam

44 318

58 409 1,340 1,420 1,157 667

Nassau

Outer Ring

Rockland Suffolk Fairfield Monmouth

26 107 457 592 280

211 757 790 476

Morris

200

315

Middlesex

335

553

845

Somerset

115

192

334

1,055 1,065 771 473

540

1,175 562

a E x t e n d i n g from the south end of W e s t c h e s t e r County up to and including North Tarrytown, Greenburgh, White P l a i n s , and Harrison. b E x t e n d i n g from the s o u t h e a s t end of P a s s a i c County up to and including the borough of Pompton Lakes. Note: B e c a u s e of rounding, d e t a i l w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y add to t o t a l s .

[119]

PUTNAM

ORANGE

FAIRFIELD

ROCKLAND

MORRIS

'BRONX; NASSAU

/HUDSOI

UNION

MONMOUTH

KINGS

New YorJc Metropolitan 22

in New Jersey in New Yorkin Connecticut

COUNTIES

SCALE

Rgcfion

Ο 5 to IS 20 25 iO msss^BmssssstsBBsssisssi^s^

MILES

New YorJc City and Vicinity

BRONX

e

NEWARK

Ό

cea

Ο

ust

Riv«K.

[JERSEY CITY I

ELIZABETH

BROOKLYN (KINOS COUNTY)

f

Lower N.Y. ΒΛν

/

to

MILES