What is wrong with the inner ring?

So after experiencing decades of growth and popularity during the 1950-1970 time period and another decade of stability, inner ring suburbs across the US are now largely (but not exclusively) experiencing a decline in property values, stagnant or declining population and the fastest growth rates of population living in poverty comparied to central cities, rural towns or more distant suburbs.

Why?

In the 1980s, schools were good, crime was low, access to central cities was good, new edge cities with their 5,000,000SF of office space were nearby -- what is not to like? The houses.

Volume builders can put up lots of new houses at a size and with amenities that middle and upper middle households find most desirable at a very reasonable cost. Older suburbs have older, smaller houses that are really expensive to replace. As a result, when new families are looking for a place to live, they look further out. So who moves in? It isn't like houses become vacant? With property values lower than in the new suburbs, the new residents tend to be more diverse economically and ethnically. Since social problems and school quality tend to be correlated with low income, the quality of life indicators that realtors and new home buyers look at might tip ever so slightly and the slide has begun.

Because of their location close to the central city, if the land were still agricultural, most of these cities would developed now as exclusive suburbs. Location does matter. But the smaller and aging housing stock makes such redevelopment impossible.

But recent experience tells us that while some midopolises are headed for collapse, others experience a rebirth -- although rebirth should not be confused with turning back the clock to become what they once were.