White flight — to the city (Atlanta, Washington: gated, pros and cons, live in)

[arjay57]

From the L.A. Times:

Gregory Rodriguez: White flight — to the city - latimes.com

New census data reveal that Washington, where the population has been more than 50% black since the early 1960s, has lost its black majority. Likewise, due to a decline in the presence of blacks, Latinos and Asians, for the first time since the 1970s a majority of Manhattan's population is white. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, which prided itself on being overwhelmingly African American (remember Mayor C. Ray Nagin and his "chocolate city" speech?), has seen the percentage of black residents drop precipitously. Even Atlanta, long a stronghold for the African American middle class, is projected to lose its black majority this decade.

What are the implications for the ATL?

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by arjay57

From the L.A. Times:

Gregory Rodriguez: White flight — to the city - latimes.com

New census data reveal that Washington, where the population has been more than 50% black since the early 1960s, has lost its black majority. Likewise, due to a decline in the presence of blacks, Latinos and Asians, for the first time since the 1970s a majority of Manhattan's population is white. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, which prided itself on being overwhelmingly African American (remember Mayor C. Ray Nagin and his "chocolate city" speech?), has seen the percentage of black residents drop precipitously. Even Atlanta, long a stronghold for the African American middle class, is projected to lose its black majority this decade.

What are the implications for the ATL?

Best line (the concluding sentence):


"But here's what to hope for in the midst of inexorable change: a way to transplant the benefits of the suburbs without undermining the essential complexities and contrasts of the city."



Let's hope.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Best line (the concluding sentence):


"But here's what to hope for in the midst of inexorable change: a way to transplant the benefits of the suburbs without undermining the essential complexities and contrasts of the city."

Good point, aries. I'm optimistic that things will stay about the same.

[johnatl]

Great read. Thanks for posting the link, arjay57!

One of my favorite newspapers, btw.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Good point, aries. I'm optimistic that things will stay about the same.

I am usually an optimist about things, but I am wary about this.


My fear is that this will just be a "trading places"--instead of true socioeconomic integration and urban enrichment.


Wealthy, affluent urban core vs. Poor suburbs--and with way less services than one would find in the urban core/city.

[Box]

Originally Posted by aries4118

I am usually an optimist about things, but I am wary about this.


My fear is that this will just be a "trading places"--instead of true socioeconomic integration and urban enrichment.


Wealthy, affluent urban core vs. Poor suburbs--and with way less services than one would find in the urban core/city.

I agree with you. What's the use in improving Atlanta as a city, if the people who live there are just sent somewhere else, and the people who have been largely affluent for the most part just move from the suburbs to the city?

[arjay57]

Suburbanites are not going to be happy to find themselves stuck with a bunch of expenses for the poor that are normally covered by taxpayers in the city proper.

[lastminutemom]

The services won't be provided -- they already aren't outside of Fulton/Atlanta and DeKalb. (Perhaps Clayton is an exception.)

You can be poor and live in Cobb or Gwinnett, but you can't be pooooor, if you understand the difference.

[RoslynHolcomb]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Suburbanites are not going to be happy to find themselves stuck with a bunch of expenses for the poor that are normally covered by taxpayers in the city proper.

This used to drive me crazy when I worked in social services. Many of the poor live out in the hinterlands and there were simply no services out there for them and no will to provide them. Transportation was a nightmare and any kind of mental health counseling, drug rehab or anything else was simply nonexistent. And this was in a large primarily rural county. I can't imagine what it will be like around here. As I understand it, this is pretty much the way it is in Europe. The well to do live in the cities with poor people exiled out to the suburbs with absolutely no services whatever. I suspect that's the way we're headed in this country.

[testa50]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

As I understand it, this is pretty much the way it is in Europe. The well to do live in the cities with poor people exiled out to the suburbs with absolutely no services whatever. I suspect that's the way we're headed in this country.

Yep, that looks like the way it's turning out. The poor are increasingly being relegated to places with very little mobility, while cities (at least some cities) will have thriving centers.

Still, with the way America is laid out, much/most of the wealth is always going to be suburban. I think there will still be plenty of great suburbs, but the main difference is we'll have lots of dismal ones as well (in sharp contrast to, say, 1990).

There is a massive list of pros and cons associated with this process, of course, and we'll probably not even fully understand it for at least a couple more decades. But things are sure changing.