Since that's the period of the study, I assume you're invoking a "god of the gaps"-type argument to invite people to assume that afterwards it went the way your predispositions say it should have?
It does seem rather daft to challenge claims from book written seven years ago about the next five to ten years by using data from between 50 and 9 years go.
That sentence seems odd. NYC was about to go bankrupt during that period. Boston was losing population and employers into the 1990s. The current new urbanism renewal is mostly overstated and applies to a thin slice of demographics and locations but it’s also very recent—less than 20 years old for the most part.
its the 4 most recent decades covered by census data. Although you're right to point out that suburbia had its primacy in this time period, the researcher can't be faulted for looking for the highest quality, most recent data.
