Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the latest few months, I've been doing a bit of research on intown neighborhoods, schools, real estate, etc. Based on my findings, this is what I've been led to believe:
As I'm sure we all know, back in the 1960s, Atlanta was heavily segregated and areas like Grant Park, Kirkwood, East Atlanta, Candler Park, Inman Park, and East Lake were like 100% white. In fact, an older guy at my job told me that Decatur had more blacks than all of the aforementioned placed combined back in the day. Is this true? However, with integration, came white flight and whites fearfully fled intown to the suburbs in droves while selling their homes to blacks at exponentially inflated prices (except for communities like West Buckhead and Druid Hills which remained heavily segregated due to sheer inaffordability and the practice of passing down family estates). This disparity can be seen most evidently today IMO along Northside Dr. as one transitions from sheer opulence to urban blight. This is also true along Monroe/Boulevard and Briarcliff/Moreland (but in lesser degrees due to gentrification).
However, in Kirkwood (for example) [still marginalized] middle class blacks moved into a community that was stripped of its infrastructure. And after spending exponentially more on homes that were worth far less, black Atlantans found it difficult to restore the community as the black version of its former self from scratch. Plus, you had the black flight of families barely above poverty making the move from the slums of Vine City or English Ave. to the opportunities of Kirkwood, East Lake, East Atlanta, or Grant Park, etc. thus flooding the communities with too many people. Then, of course, you have the '80s, and with it came the flood of drugs [by the government] into poorer black communities, thus ravaging Kirkwood, East Lake, Grant Park, East Atlanta, etc.
Then, in the late 80's to early 90's, was the second wave of white/black flight: Middle class blacks escaping intown Atlanta to Decatur, Stone Mountain, Clayton County, South Fulton, etc. while whites in those areas moved to far flung suburbs and exurbs.
Today, we have the movement of middle class suburbanites moving back into areas like Kirkwood, Grant Park, East Atlanta, East Lake, Oakhurst, etc. And while many poorer blacks where forced into Clayton and Dekalb counties due to rising taxes or by simply being bought out, many residents who "live in Grandma's house" still reside in these gentrifying intown neighborhoods, their kids and grand-kids attending Grady (and maybe Decatur high) beside affluent children from Virgina-Highland, Inman Park and Candler Park or Northern Decatur city.
The irony is that many blacks that have escaped to the bastions of black suburbia, such as South Dekalb and South Fulton cannot as readily take advantage of the opportunity to move back into "grandma's old neighborhood" because their property values have diminished while intown values have staunchly risen. There are mansions in South Fulton and South Dekalb that rival those in North Fulton, however, the values of these homes are significantly lower.
[But to be fair, I know or white professors who are kicking themselves because their parents sold their home in Candler Park due to white flight which is now worth three times as much as her spacious Gwinnett County home.]
Nevertheless, we all know black communities (regardless of class and income) appreciate at a slower rate than comparable white communities. Can anything be done about that?For example,what would a home in Hidden Hills (in Stone Mountain) be worth if the area was all white? Would it be the same if the area was all black with an identical class of resident? I don't know.
The double irony is that many suburban blacks are isolated in all-black communities and have little exposure, yet many kids are raised to emulate Jeezy, Juiceman, Flocka, and Gucci (who are all fake) and feel it is who they are to be "hood". What popular black people that they respect are telling them otherwise? And of course, if you live in an all-black community of $400k houses (that would be worth $600k elsewhere) and the kids try hard to act "'hood", it drops the values from $400k to $200k, then from $200k to $60k, and it becomes the hood. While shacks on Hosea Williams (in Grandma's old 'hood... where your mom worked to get you out of) would sell for $200k+. Bitter irony indeed.
Now my question is about the schools and communities. I believe that most middle class blacks live in the suburbs and would have a difficult time selling a home and moving intown (if they so chose). I believe that the majority of people/families moving into gentrifying intown communities are white. I also believe that the majority of the black people in these gentrifying intown communities are poorer blacks (many of whom have been there for decades). Is this the case?Does Kirkwood or East Lake (for example) generally consist of middle class whites and poorer blacks, and is this truly diverse if middle class black families are not noticeably represented?
Secondly, in time, with homes of increased value being passed down to their kids, more exposure, and more educational opportunities, do you think the descendants of that population of poorer intown black families (which I feel far exceeds the number of middle class intown black families) become affluent themselves? Ironically, the blacks in middle class suburbia may suffer due to poor schools, nepotism, and a youth mentality that longs to be in the most notorious 'hoods of the City of Atlanta, not knowing that many of the people who live in those notorious 'hoods, are becoming educated and edified. But don't get me wrong, I know crime, drugs, poverty, and this mentality exists among intown blacks on a large scale, but you get my point...
Is this an accurate representation or am I way off base here?
Now since IMO massive white flight on the scale that we have seen in the 1960's and 1980's is like a one time deal as the mentality of most Americans has changed significantly since them (for the most part). What are the long term affects of gentrification? Is it possible for a community to completely gentrify yet still remain very diverse?
Additionally, is a place really diverse if it is not also economically diverse? For example, if a community is 50% white, 40% black and 10% other races, yet 80% of those whites are wealthy and 70% of the blacks are poor, is that really a shining example of diversity? [Perhaps if there were more poorer whites and more affluent blacks.] Is this the case in East Lake, Kirkwood, East Atlanta, Edgewood, or Grant Park? It seems that the remnants of white/black flight along with gentrification has caused this sociological conundrum...
It seems that gentrification is a chance for integration to work the way that Dr. King initially intended for it to. But unfortunately, it is hard for the black middle class to participate.
I know I've said a mouthful and I have no problem with you correcting me if I'm wrong, but what are your thoughts on any of these issues?
Why is it that you seem to feel that everyplace needs to be equally distributed based on color, wealth, etc.? Why can't their be areas that are majority white, majority black, rich, poor, etc.? I believe there was a group that tried to create equality for everyone, with everyone sharing at the same level, but the name of the group eludes me at the moment. Oh yeah, now I remember- they were called "communists".......
Why is it that you seem to feel that everyplace needs to be equally distributed based on color, wealth, etc.? Why can't their be areas that are majority white, majority black, rich, poor, etc.? I believe there was a group that tried to create equality for everyone, with everyone sharing at the same level, but the name of the group eludes me at the moment. Oh yeah, now I remember- they were called "communists".......
I think you mean Socialism.
IMO and many others, communism is closely related to conservatism.
"To put it more simply: Liberals want the decision to be spread out among more people, preferably everyone; conservatives want the decision to be made by as few people as possible, preferably just one.
Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.
Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing" (Socialism vs. Communism).
Where on earth did you get the idea that homes intown were sold for exponentially "INFLATED" prices? That is dead wrong. Homes were sold at UNDERVALUED prices because the whites wanted to get out at whatever cost and were willing to sell their shirts to do so. This happened in waves repeatedly starting in the 1960s in Atlanta neighborhoods like Grant Park and West End, then into the 1970s in East Point and College Park, then into the 1980s in Central and South DeKalb (Memorial Drive/St. Mt.) and in the 1990s in Clayton. In every wave of demographic shift, property values PLUMMETED because homes were sold below their worth and a new LOWER economic class moved in. THAT is the definition of white flight. Go back to the beginning and start all over. Then I might consider reading the rest of your diatribe.
Where on earth did you get the idea that homes intown were sold for exponentially "INFLATED" prices?
That caught my eye, too. If the houses were sold at "exponentially inflated prices", that would mean the buyers had to have been either upper middle class or wealthy. That just doesn't make sense.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 14,999,411 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD
That caught my eye, too. If the houses were sold at "exponentially inflated prices", that would mean the buyers had to have been either upper middle class or wealthy. That just doesn't make sense.
Perhaps inflated to where they had been in the 70s and 80s. Back then in pretty much every neighborhood it wasn't unheard of to get a nice house for <50k. I'm not talking about the cheap ranches that sprouted up on the far west and south east side, but like Victorian era bungalows etc. Even through most of the 90s housing prices in many neighborhoods remained extremely low, but as they gentrified the prices shot dramatically in a short period of time.
Why is it that you seem to feel that everyplace needs to be equally distributed based on color, wealth, etc.? Why can't their be areas that are majority white, majority black, rich, poor, etc.? I believe there was a group that tried to create equality for everyone, with everyone sharing at the same level, but the name of the group eludes me at the moment. Oh yeah, now I remember- they were called "communists".......
I'm not saying that. I know some areas can have more whites than blacks and vice versa (or more Asians, Latinos, etc.). But many suburban areas (for example) areas that have uniform classes (regardless of racial dispersion). There are usually wealthy whites, with wealthy blacks, and wealthy Latinos, wealthy Asians, etc. with varying degrees of density based on preference. For example, Sandy Springs has a black population, but it is not a disproportionately poor black population.
Conversely, there are areas with varying populations that are uniformly middle and lower class. Regardless of the distribution of race, they share the same economic status usually... but this isn't even my point.
My point that it seems that in many intown communties, there definitely is a mixture of races. But the minorities seem to be poor while the white families are generally affluent. Yet they live together and share the same communites. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just calling attention to the fact that there is a not an affluent black middle class in areas were there is an affluent white middle class intown. I'm not saying it's segregated, because blacks are definitely there. But they are usually poorer. The hypothesis was trying top explain why this is. Was i wrong?
Where on earth did you get the idea that homes intown were sold for exponentially "INFLATED" prices? That is dead wrong. Homes were sold at UNDERVALUED prices because the whites wanted to get out at whatever cost and were willing to sell their shirts to do so. This happened in waves repeatedly starting in the 1960s in Atlanta neighborhoods like Grant Park and West End, then into the 1970s in East Point and College Park, then into the 1980s in Central and South DeKalb (Memorial Drive/St. Mt.) and in the 1990s in Clayton. In every wave of demographic shift, property values PLUMMETED because homes were sold below their worth and a new LOWER economic class moved in. THAT is the definition of white flight. Go back to the beginning and start all over. Then I might consider reading the rest of your diatribe.
In terms of inflated prices, I'm only referring to initial white flight in the 1960s. It is a fact that whites in areas like Kirkwood, East Lake, West End, Westview, Grove park, etc. sold their homes to black families at inflated prices.
Values plummeted after the initial population moved away, not before. This all happened in a very short time period. Months. White churches and schools met and planned it... in the 1960s.
My sources included, several Atlanta families that now live in Collier Heights who experienced this first hand during the 1960s and the book White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism by Kevin M. Kruse. (It was recommended by someone in this forum.) Also read chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the book Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Both books discuss this in great detail.
Now that you have seen a few my amply credible sources, you might consider reading the rest of my diatribe.
Where on earth did you get the idea that homes intown were sold for exponentially "INFLATED" prices? That is dead wrong. Homes were sold at UNDERVALUED prices because the whites wanted to get out at whatever cost and were willing to sell their shirts to do so. This happened in waves repeatedly starting in the 1960s in Atlanta neighborhoods like Grant Park and West End, then into the 1970s in East Point and College Park, then into the 1980s in Central and South DeKalb (Memorial Drive/St. Mt.) and in the 1990s in Clayton. In every wave of demographic shift, property values PLUMMETED because homes were sold below their worth and a new LOWER economic class moved in.
Well, that's pretty much true. Housing prices did plummet during white flight but not all of those moved in were of a lower economic class.
It's also worth noting that many intown neighborhoods did not experience wholesale turnover. For instance, Druid Hills, Morningside and Virginia-Highland on the east side, and many Buckhead neighborhoods on the north side essentially held steady.
White flight also has to be considered in the larger context of urban change. By the 1940s the automobile was well established as the dominant mode of transportation, and that only accelerated in later decades as more arterial roads and interstate highways were built. So-called urban renewal projects did serious damage to many intown areas as well. Suburbs grew increasingly popular and were facilitated by many economic, sociological and planning factors.
These days many suburban areas are at least as economically and culturally diverse as closer in neighborhoods, if not more so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know. 
While shacks on Hosea Williams (in Grandma's old 'hood... where your mom worked to get you out of) would sell for $200k+. Bitter irony indeed.
