WSP03155 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Q ('" ') N """' (' , industrial land also b~ame less intensively used. Acres of commerqiallindustrial prop- erty per 1,000 jobs increased from 17.8 in 1964 to 30.7 in 1975. Chicago's urbanized: area not only in- creased dramatically in the 19605 and 1970s. it did so at an increasing rate in ab- solute terms and whep standardized by population. Between 1:964 and 1970. the urbanized area increased at a compound rate of 3.0 percent annually, while populaM tion grew at a compound annual rate of 0.7 percent. From 197tlto 1975 these rates were 4.0 percent and a.un percent, respec- tively. [One study found generally that the rate of urbanization in; the 19705 was less than in the 1960s in sel.ected fastMgrowing urban fringe counties (~7). J A principal factor in the accelerated rate of Chicago area land :,conversion was a high rate of residential development at the outer edge of the urban area. From 1970 to 1975, 80 percent of the additional residen. tial acreage was in the five fringe counties. Of course, the driving force in the develop~ llIent of residential acre~ge is new housing investment. During th~ first half of the 1970s, the Chicago t)1etropolitan area showeq. a net increase df 135,000 housing units. Only about 100,000 new households were formed. Chicago's: net losses of both housing: units and households were offset by net increases of 197,400 suburban units and 167.000 suburban' households (15). This diffcr<>nce suggests' a rising regional vacancy rate. The vacancies are concen- trated in older housing" units within the central city. Therefore" the high rate of housing: production has; not only pushed the urban boundary ou~ward onto farm. land but has also contributed to a rising rate of abandonment of 'older housing (1). The Chicago area's pppulation growth has lagged behind the state's modest in- creases. This implies higher growth rates in small- and medium-size ~ommunities in Il- linois. And although urban expansion in such communities is hlrgely hidden by Census of Agriculture ovcrcounts, it has been extensive in some areas (4). (;CI The illinois lesson At least four major conclusions ('an be drawn from the Illinois, experience with farmland conversion. First, Illinois census measures overstate true ~eographic totals, Thus, with a given total for land-ill-farms, less land is available for, or actually used for, other land uses. Second, Ct'nsus of Agriculture trend data concerning lund-in-farms are not to he belit'ycd. The more pessimistic NALS conclusions appear to be closer to the I ruth. at least for Itlinoi" ...M .. . 1'11_ Third, most available land use statistics are subject to question, especially insofar as short-term trends become the basis for long-term projections. Although public policies must be based on the best available information, they must also be formed with a healthy skepticism about the con- clusiveness of such information. Finally, much of the urbanization of Il~ linois land in the last two decades appears to be the result of rising affluence rather than population growth. This affluence has permitted massive highway building campaigns, rural electrification, and other urban service expansions. It has also en- abled individuals and firms to afford lower density accommodations. However, with the recent leveling off of affluence, with high interest rates dampening construc- tion, and with the post-baby boom slowing rates of household formation, the forces that propelled urban sprawl in the recent past have diminished, HEFERENCES CITED 1. Berry, B.J.L. 1980. The urban problem, In The Farm and the City: Rivals or Allies? Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N,J. pp. 35.49. 2. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1982. Per- sonal income data by major sources. Reg. i-----NiovING?---l , ' , ' I To be sure you don't miss a copy of I , ' I the JSWC, please send us your old and I , ' I new address immediately. I , ' , ' I Clip this coupon, attach your present : : mailing label, write your new address : 1 in the space provided, and send to: : i Soil Conservation Society of America. : : 7515 Northeast Ankeny Road, Ankeny, ) I Iowa 50021 I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ' , ' J : , : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , o , ~ , c l .~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ $ I K1 E -0 ~_ _ : I .'!I <1l "0 - ~ I a... z <{ 0 (/) I ~-------------------______________J " " ~ . u o o 1 Please attach your mailing label here or print your old address in this space o o . t u . Econ, -Infor. Sys., U.S. Dept. Commerce, Washington, D.C. 3. Cooperative Extension Service. 1970, 1967 Illinois soil and water conservation needs in- ventory. Univ. Illinois, Urbana, 4. Dovring, F. 1981. Land use in Champaign County, Illinois. Staff Paper 81 E-173. Dept. Agr. 1~con" Vniv. Illinois. Urbana. 5, Dovring, F. 1982. Area mea'mrements in il- linois. Staff Paper 82 E-214. Dept. Agr. Econ., Univ. Illinois, Urbana. 6. Dovring, F. 1982. Land potential for bio- n,lOSS prodrr('tion in Illinois. St~ff Paper 82 E.234. Dept. Agr. Econ., Umv. III., Ur- bana. 7. Fischel, W. A. 1982. The urbanjzation of agricultural land: A review oj the National Agricultural Lands Study. Land Economics 58, 2.16.249. 8. Frey, H. T. 1973. Major uses oj land in the United States, summary jor 1969. Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 247. V.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. 9. Frey, H. T. 1979. Major lI.'Jes oj land in the United States: 1974. Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 440. U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. 10. Illinois Forest Resources and Natural Heri- tage Division. 1980. Manuscript statwtics on jorest areas, by county, jor 1979 with per- cent change sjtlCe 1965. Ill. Dept. Cons., Springfield. 11. Luttrell, C. B. 1980. Our shrinking jarm- land: Mirage or potential cri:.'is? Federal Re- serve Bank of St. Louis 62: 11-18. 12. National Agricultural Lands Study. 1980. Illinois jact sheet, V.S. Dept. Agr., Wash- ington, D.C. 13. National Agricultural Lands Study. 1981. Final report. V.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. 14. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 1972. General land use trend~, northeastern Illinois region and its six component COIW- ties, 1064.70. Regional Data Ctr. Bull. No. 3. Chicago, Ill. 15. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 1978. Regional data report. Chicago, Ill. 16. Raup, P.M. 1975. Urban threats to rural lands: Background and beginnings. J. Am. Inst. of Planners 41: 371-378. 17. Haup, P.M. 1982. An agricultural critique oj the National Agricultural Lands Study. Land Economics 58: 260.274. ' 18. Roseman, C. c., A. J, Sofranko, and J. D. Williams. 1981. Population redistribution in the midwest. North Central Regional Ctr. for Rural Dev., Ames, Iowa. 19. Simon,J. L, 1980. Are welosingground?U- linois Business Review 37: 1-6. 20. Sofranko, A. J. 1971. Population change in cOlmtie.~ and incorporated places in Illinois, 1950-1970. Special Publ. 22. Call. Agr.. Univ, Illinois, Urbana. 21. Stewart, L. O. 1935. Public land surveys. Collegiate Press, Iowa State Univ., Ames. 22, Swann, D. H., P. B, DuMontelle, R. F Mast, and L. H. Van Dyke. 1970. ILLIMAP: A computer-based mapping sys- tem jar Illinois. Circ. 451. Illinois State Ceol. Surv" Champaign. 23. V,S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con- servation Service. 1967. National inventory oj soil and water conservation T1eed~. Wash- ington, D.C. 24. U,S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con- servation Service. 1978. 1.977 national reo sources inventorie.... Washington, D.C. 25. U.S, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Various years. Census oj agl'i~ culture, Washington, D.C. 26, V,S, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1980. Cellsus oj population and housing. Advance Reports, PHC80, V-IS. Washington, D.C, 27. Zeimetz, K. A., E. Dillon, E. E. Hardy, and R. C OUe, }976. Dynamics oj land use in fast growth areas. Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 325, U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C, 0 November-December 1982 361 - --_. ,~--, --