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.
You referenced NYC, but you base this information on a single census. NYC losing black population happened in just one decade in the last 16, and could easily grow again by 2020. You don't base long term trends on a single data point. I gave a potential reason for why this may be happening, but I really don't know why. And you also assume that if they are leaving the city, they must be moving to the South. That's not necessarily true. They could've just as easily moved further out where housing, in particular, is less expensive. Pretty much every metro around NYC GAINED in black population during the 2000s, so that may be where they are going. The vast majority of the Midwest's major metros also gained in black population. My hometown of Columbus was up 34%. The only metros that lost had ongoing economic or other issues, such as New Orleans, Cleveland or West Coast cities like LA. Ironically, of the top 10 metros that saw the highest rate of black population increase, 4 were in the North, 3 were in the West, 2 were in the Southwest and 1 was in the Southeast. If you go by city, the picture is even more convoluted, with multiple cities in every region gaining or losing. There was NO clear, defined migration from one region to the next.
To that end, some Midwest cities are among the largest gainers in the country, like Columbus, Minneapolis and Indianapolis, which goes against the grain of current trends of "from North to South". Both the Midwest and South are too vast and diverse to be included in most/any all-encompassing truisms, like "the North is losing its black population", or "the South is racist". This country isn't nearly as black & white as it used to be (figuratively and literally!).
Ok I'll try to make this simple. The OP is talking about regions, the Midwest is a region of the United States. "Down South" is not a region of the United States so he/she either meant the Southeast or the Southwest. Texas 9/10 times is refereed to as a Southwestern state and most of the arguments in this thread have more to do with the Southeast so it is logical to conclude that this is a Midwest vs. Southeast thread.
Down South might mean Iowa to a Minnesotan as it isn't a region, just a general direction. Michigan actually has a lot in common with Missouri, obviously you've never been to either.
It's certainly not a word in the way it's constantly used, which is my point. You likely understood that, but feel free to continue to support the butchering of the English language to attempt to stick it to me.
It was a simple oversight.You understood what was said but you just wanted to publicly shame someone.You are just getting a dose of your own medicine.
You misunderstood. Defending your home against lies or half-truths or insults is one thing, but why then attempt to spread the same information about other places? If someone said that the South is the most racist region, they likely cannot prove that because racism is often about personal experience and perception and can't easily be measured. You have several responses to that claim in this thread with an equal claim about the Midwest. You don't defend your home against crap by shoveling some of it yourself.
So what did i say that was not true?Please do tell.
You referenced NYC, but you base this information on a single census. NYC losing black population happened in just one decade in the last 16, and could easily grow again by 2020. You don't base long term trends on a single data point. I gave a potential reason for why this may be happening, but I really don't know why. And you also assume that if they are leaving the city, they must be moving to the South. That's not necessarily true. They could've just as easily moved further out where housing, in particular, is less expensive. Pretty much every metro around NYC GAINED in black population during the 2000s, so that may be where they are going. The vast majority of the Midwest's major metros also gained in black population. My hometown of Columbus was up 34%. The only metros that lost had ongoing economic or other issues, such as New Orleans, Cleveland or West Coast cities like LA. Ironically, of the top 10 metros that saw the highest rate of black population increase, 4 were in the North, 3 were in the West, 2 were in the Southwest and 1 was in the Southeast. If you go by city, the picture is even more convoluted, with multiple cities in every region gaining or losing. There was NO clear, defined migration from one region to the next.
Who says you don't?This is the most current data.Why would I use data from the 1940's versus now?That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
The vast majprity of blacks are moving South and some to the West.As a region over the past few dcades,the North and Midwest has not gained as much in black populations as most Southern cities.
Their is plenty of documented evidence that shows the migratory patterns of blacks to the South.
Quote:
The New Great Migration is the term for demographic changes from 1965 to the present which are a reversal of the previous 35-year trend of black migration within the United States. Since 1965, deindustrialization of cities in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States, growth of jobs in the "New South" with lower costs of living, family and kinship ties, and improving racial relations have all acted to attract African Americans to the Southern United States in substantial numbers.
About 17 percent of the African-Americans who moved to the South from other states in the past decade came from New York, far more than from any other state, according to census data. Of the 44,474 who left New York State in 2009, more than half, or 22,508, went to the South
Quote:
The percentage of blacks leaving big cities in the East and in the Midwest and heading to the South is now at the highest levels in decades, demographers say
What opinion? That came from a demographer (from St. Louis, no less)!
This article talks about housing prices, and that urban homes are gaining faster than suburban homes (in most markets). Nobody debated this. Firstly, there is a constraint on supply in the urban core, for obvious reasons, unlike the suburbs. Secondly, for most cities the foreclosure crisis hit hardest in the suburbs, not the city core. Lastly, the representation of core values:suburban values tells me that the cities with the most urban core growth were those with low median housing values and large swaths of delapidated homes, like Detroit, Phoenix and Cleveland. The cities near the top that didn't follow this pattern were those that were hit hard during the foreclosure crisis in the city core and have since bounced back some (like Miami). NYC is one of the only cities that is seeing value increases due to organic growth and a true desire to live in the core, and never really had the severe sticker shock that some of the other boom/bust cities on the list had.
On the flipside, SF, Minneapolis, Seattle, and Denver -- near the bottom of the list -- are all cities with well-established urban cores that aren't chock full of slums and have been desirable places to live long before this new urban renaissance.
In short, I wouldn't use this chart to display the prominance of one city over another in terms of core growth or prosperity, but rather, the change from a baseline over time. Take the #1 city on the list: Detroit......does anyone think that since it's #1 that it's THE place to be for urban living? I hope not, but that doesn't mean it hasn't done great things to work towards having a stronger urban nucleus, not unlike Atlanta.
It was an opinion.It was not a fact what he said.You assuming that the growth in thses cities is because of large swath of dilapidated house lets me know you are just guessing.
Most of all those cities you mentioned have had significant gentrification in some its worse areas.San Francisco especially.As early as the 1980's and 1990's there were several areas in SF that are now good.
I lived in Denver in the 1990's and I can tell you that certain areas like Colfax were not great area at all.
The other cities I'm not as familiar with but I'm sure just as they never had great population booms like some Southern cities have had then it would make since that they would not have major development of thier inner cities either.America is very much a suburban country.
Seattle Minneapolis and the rest you mentioned still have a much higher percentage of people living in the suburbs than the city.
Does not make either one better than the other but facts are facts:The South is a more desirable area than the Midwest.This is based on simple statistics of where people are moving to.
People move for weather and jobs.
The city of Atlanta had one of the highest population increase of a major city.Did you see the chart with Atlanta and Charlotte being one of the leaders?
Atlanta's is infilling is a result of people moving to the city versus the suburbs.Hence higher demand for housing and rising cost.
Housing is so tight in the city of Atlanta right now.As soon as something on the market is listed,its gone fast.Friends of mine from Portland tried all this summer to find a nice house to rent in the $3500 range but either the owner wound up selling it or someone else would rent it.
Home prices are up 19% since last year in Atlanta.This hardly from "dilapidated houses".
The BeltLine is helping to drive up prices/People are not moving in the "slum" areas of Atlanta so its irrelevant.They are moving to hot areas like Midtown West.
In most cases its simply infill development.Not slum areas.Regardless,it does not matter because it is what it is.
Atlanta is not Detroit.The desire to live in the city of Atlanta and all its increase in population growth is much higher
Ok I'll try to make this simple. The OP is talking about regions, the Midwest is a region of the United States. "Down South" is not a region of the United States so he/she either meant the Southeast or the Southwest. Texas 9/10 times is refereed to as a Southwestern state and most of the arguments in this thread have more to do with the Southeast so it is logical to conclude that this is a Midwest vs. Southeast thread.
Down South might mean Iowa to a Minnesotan as it isn't a region, just a general direction. Michigan actually has a lot in common with Missouri, obviously you've never been to either.
Down South mean just thatOWN SOUTH.How you come up with Southeast only is crazy.
The South and Down South is a cultural terminology that describes the Southern traditional experience.
Texas shares a similar accent,some foods,architecture, and a history of civil rights and Civil war.
Neither of those are emblematic of the Southwest region which Texas also shares with states like New Mexico,and Arizona.
Yet New Mexico or Arizona do not share attributes to the South as Texas clearly does.
Down South mean just thatOWN SOUTH.How you come up with Southeast only is crazy.
The South and Down South is a cultural terminology that describes the Southern traditional experience.
Texas shares a similar accent,some foods,architecture, and a history of civil rights and Civil war.
Neither of those are emblematic of the Southwest region which Texas also shares with states like New Mexico,and Arizona.
Yet New Mexico or Arizona do not share attributes to the South as Texas clearly does.
Texas and Southern Missouri have similar accents, foods, architecture and Civil War history. So can we count Texas with the Midwest? I mean Missouri is the most Southern state in the Midwest, maybe we're down south?
Same could be said about Kansas and Oklahoma for the most part. West Virginia seems VERY southern as far as accents, cuisine and culture but, it isn't a Southern state.
You can include Texas all you want but, I will not.
Ok I'll try to make this simple. The OP is talking about regions, the Midwest is a region of the United States. "Down South" is not a region of the United States so he/she either meant the Southeast or the Southwest. Texas 9/10 times is refereed to as a Southwestern state and most of the arguments in this thread have more to do with the Southeast so it is logical to conclude that this is a Midwest vs. Southeast thread.
Down South might mean Iowa to a Minnesotan as it isn't a region, just a general direction. Michigan actually has a lot in common with Missouri, obviously you've never been to either.
If you want to argue semantics and say "down South" is different that just "South" that is grasping at straws. I think everyone who hears "down South" generally draws an image of the states that make up the very real region of the "South"
Texas and Southern Missouri have similar accents, foods, architecture and Civil War history. So can we count Texas with the Midwest? I mean Missouri is the most Southern state in the Midwest, maybe we're down south?
Same could be said about Kansas and Oklahoma for the most part. West Virginia seems VERY southern as far as accents, cuisine and culture but, it isn't a Southern state.
You can include Texas all you want but, I will not.
West Virginia IS considered a Southern state, as is Texas. If you don't want to live in a Southern state, move.
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.
OWN SOUTH.How you come up with Southeast only is crazy.
