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've been thinking lately of how we're still suffering from the effects of housing discrimination and segregation of black Americans that was supposed to have been addressed by 1960s fair housing laws but persists 50 years later. I live in the DC area where blacks are still heavily concentrated in certain areas, presumably due to the fact they weren't allowed to live anywhere else. White folks moving here will commute hours a day rather than move into those areas fearing bad schools and crime. This has resulted in a lot of unnecessary metro sprawl. It's a reason DC is different than European capital cities like Rome or Paris where most areas of those cities are considered desirable places to live. I'm curious about others' views on this and what other effects we're still seeing from this practice of the past.
The house my parents bought in 1962 is worth very little today. Our family still owns the two story brick home on a large lot. It is in the "black neighborhood" The white families who left this area and moved to the exclusively white areas have had their home values sky rocket in value.
Well before the usual suspects show up, let me say that you have posed a really interesting question.
My immediate reaction was to ask what is the meaning your meaning of lasting, because I don't consider 50 years as being all that historically significant in a discussion about race and/or urban demographics. But you hit on a issue that will have a lasting impact well beyond the issue of race, but how white flight to the suburbs also fueled by other ethnic groups fleeing their own ghettos - for the foreseeable future changed the nature of metropolitan areas, and the inefficient infrastructure that supports it.
The house my parents bought in 1962 is worth very little today. Our family still owns the two story brick home on a large lot. It is in the "black neighborhood" The white families who left this area and moved to the exclusively white areas have had their home values sky rocket in value.
I'd say the fluctuations in value--either dramatic increases and dramatic decreases--are artificial and perpetuated by realtors. As another suggested, Sugrue's book The Origins of the Urban Crisis explains this very well. But there's a long history in this country of inflated/deflated property values that goes back to George Washington's infamous career as a land speculator.
^
Yeah, I did a lot of research on racial segregation (the geogrpahy of it) in Dayton and found a good smoking gun in the files of the local Urban League...a big report on the "negro housing market" for the larger midwest cities from a private mortgage company, which pretty clearly stated the growth of the black areas was "directed by the industry" (Ie real estate industry)
I've been thinking lately of how we're still suffering from the effects of housing discrimination and segregation of black Americans that was supposed to have been addressed by 1960s fair housing laws but persists 50 years later. I live in the DC area where blacks are still heavily concentrated in certain areas, presumably due to the fact they weren't allowed to live anywhere else. White folks moving here will commute hours a day rather than move into those areas fearing bad schools and crime. This has resulted in a lot of unnecessary metro sprawl. It's a reason DC is different than European capital cities like Rome or Paris where most areas of those cities are considered desirable places to live. I'm curious about others' views on this and what other effects we're still seeing from this practice of the past.
This is incorrect in DC. For example Anacostia was a White neighborhood well into the 60s and still had a significant White population in the 70s. Georgetown and Capitol Hill had significant Black populations
This is incorrect in DC. For example Anacostia was a White neighborhood well into the 60s and still had a significant White population in the 70s. Georgetown and Capitol Hill had significant Black populations
Right. Perhaps it wasn't an issue within DC proper, although I'm skeptical about that, but what about in areas of Maryland and Virginia close to it?
My immediate reaction was to ask what is the meaning your meaning of lasting, because I don't consider 50 years as being all that historically significant in a discussion about race and/or urban demographics.
This is an important point. DC is gaining population in general, and white population in particular for the first time in decades. What's the larger problem: segregation or gentrification?
My immediate reaction was to ask what is the meaning your meaning of lasting, because I don't consider 50 years as being all that historically significant in a discussion about race and/or urban demographics.
I meant lasting up to now. I'm sure they'll diminish and disappear over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc
This is an important point. DC is gaining population in general, and white population in particular for the first time in decades. What's the larger problem: segregation or gentrification?
Be careful what you wish for.
I'm not wishing for anything here other than understanding.
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.
