U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-26-2014, 03:48 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,137 posts, read 9,907,336 times
Reputation: 6424

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
If you're referring to me, I didn't attach any blame on the middle-class whites or make any comment on whether their leaving was a bad choice. Though as for Canarsie's crime rate, I suspect the Mafia played a role it its high crime rate in the 70s and 80s.
Canarsie had a reputation for the Mafia (not to mention Canarsie was the butt of many jokes years ago) but I doubt the average Canarsian () was really concerned about their wives being mugged and raped or their homes being robbed by the Mafia. No doubt they were far more concerned about crime from drug addicts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2014, 03:51 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
(not to mention Canarsie was the butt of many jokes years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiOeo1obVKo

looked up on how on earth a Frank Zappa (from southern California) song would refer Canarsie. He had a band member from Canarsie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 04:14 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,137 posts, read 9,907,336 times
Reputation: 6424
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiOeo1obVKo

looked up on how on earth a Frank Zappa (from southern California) song would refer Canarsie. He had a band member from Canarsie.
Is the video supposed to be about Canarsie? Californians really tend to see the world differently LoL. Btw the music is perfectly awful.

I do not know about what Californians think but if you read a lot of local New York history you see Canarsie being made fun of in the 1800s and 1900s. I think that is sort of outdated, nowadays your more likely to see jokes about much larger areas like Staten Island, Long Island or even the entire state of New Jersey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 08:20 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,563,164 times
Reputation: 4048
The video is probably from a totally unrelated anime made a couple decades after the song was recorded. Zappa isn't for everyone.
Quote:
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2014, 07:38 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm not sure why the topic would be offensive to you unless maybe you're from there, but from the numbers it looks like a good example of white flight.
The topic isn't offensive. Like I said, I find your assumptions offensive and I explained why (unless I'm wrong about your assumptions but it doesn't look that way.)

White flight is kind of like "hipster" in that it is a term loaded with all kinds of baggage, its definition varies widely depending on the speaker, it's often used to convey an emotion rather than facts, and even the widely accepted attributes are, at their least contentious, disputable.

Quote:
It's probably neither. Canarsie from the demographic history was a place that attracted families with children at around the same time. Once some of those children moved out, population declined. I'd focus on the white % not the total. Take a location that obviously didn't white flight or drastic demographic change.

Levittown, New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Population (and it was almost all white then) decreased 13% from 1970 to 1980 then another 6% in the next decade. Just household size. Canarsie is a bit more drastic, but that's a large piece. In any case the 90s decline is out of line with the other city nieighborhoods you posted, or just a slow drift as the population move out.
% doesn't tell a very accurate story when you're talking about a process that happened over decades. If you're talking about a neighborhood that was 97% white in 1950 and 92% white in 2010 you've completely glossed over the fact that that the neighborhood population declined by 60%.


Quote:
Regardless of what the motive is, it's still white flight. I mentioned that reason earlier. It's bizarre how you think this turned into a general statement about white people, I'm talking about a pattern that occurred in some urban neighborhoods.
I think what's bizarre is that you think there is a settled definition of what "white flight" is. Like I said above, I don't find the topic offensive. It's the assumptions you're putting into the case of Canarsie.


Quote:
Maybe, but this poster on the NYC forum thinks differently. Note leaving because the "neighborhood is changing" was triggered by Russian immigrants as well.
I know. That's why I think there's a problem with suggesting that white people in Canarsie started leaving at a faster rate in the 90s just because the people moving in were black.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2014, 07:55 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
The topic isn't offensive. Like I said, I find your assumptions offensive and I explained why (unless I'm wrong about your assumptions but it doesn't look that way.)

White flight is kind of like "hipster" in that it is a term loaded with all kinds of baggage, its definition varies widely depending on the speaker, it's often used to convey an emotion rather than facts, and even the widely accepted attributes are, at their least contentious, disputable.
Perhaps, though it's mostly just analyzing historic numbers.

Quote:
% doesn't tell a very accurate story when you're talking about a process that happened over decades. If you're talking about a neighborhood that was 97% white in 1950 and 92% white in 2010 you've completely glossed over the fact that that the neighborhood population declined by 60%.
My point was that the prior population decline can mostly be attributed to a decline in household sizes, similar to Levittown.

Quote:
I think what's bizarre is that you think there is a settled definition of what "white flight" is. Like I said above, I don't find the topic offensive. It's the assumptions you're putting into the case of Canarsie.
I didn't say there was a settled definition, for the purposes of this conversation what I was using was an "increased decrease in white population" when another group moves in. The decrease in white population after some tipping point, became much higher.

Quote:
I know. That's why I think there's a problem with suggesting that white people in Canarsie started leaving at a faster rate in the 90s just because the people moving in were black.
Huh? That doesn't follow. Why would that mean it's a problem? Sheepshead Bay may have a flight pattern as well, though not a strictly racial one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2014, 09:19 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
My point was that the prior population decline can mostly be attributed to a decline in household sizes, similar to Levittown.
agreed.

Quote:
I didn't say there was a settled definition, for the purposes of this conversation what I was using was an "increased decrease in white population" when another group moves in. The decrease in white population after some tipping point, became much higher.
OK, except that Canarsie is extremely atypical in that the population peak occurred in 2000. The number of people moving there (to what is, for all intents and purposes, an inner-ring suburb) in the 90s over the course of a decade is extreme and, AFAIK, unprecedented. I wasn't there in the 90s but I would imagine that the pressure to sell was nothing short of intense.

Quote:
Huh? That doesn't follow. Why would that mean it's a problem? Sheepshead Bay may have a flight pattern as well, though not a strictly racial one.
Correct me if I'm wrong but what I've gotten so far from your basic premise is something like white people started moving out of Canarsie faster in the 90s because black immigrants from the Caribbean were moving in. White people had been moving out all along but this accelerated once black people came on the scene. The point being that those white people were moving to get away from the new people because they were black.

Then you posted about how the phenomenon of accelerated departure of long-time residents also happens in other neighborhoods where the immigrants moving in are not black.

To which I repeat, yes, that's right, this sort of thing happens a lot and it happens regardless of the race of the people moving in and regardless of the race of the people moving out. It happened when the Irish took over German neighborhoods and when Italians took over Irish neighborhoods. When people you know and love have been moving out of your neighborhood for decades then people of a different culture or SES take over the commercial and cultural base of that neighborhood it becomes harder and harder to justify staying as most of your socio-cultural connections to that neighborhood have been severed.

So, yes, your double standard for the former white residents of Canarsie is a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 07:49 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
Getting back to the OP a bit, here's how the policy actually played out in two Philly neighborhoods:

So, with no context, we have a black neighborhood like Graduate Hospital:

{demographics}


and with no further context we see the rate of homeownership rise slowly and say "see! homeownership was exploding in the 40s and 50s. but not here!"
{tenure}


but if we look more closely at tenure we see that this neighborhood has always had a high percentage of renters living in units (as opposed to houses)
{tenure by race - only available from 1940-1960}


but when we cross Washington Ave and look at the Point Breeze neighborhood (full of houses, not units) we see something entirely different:

{tenure by race}


we see black homeowners not only buying out the white homeowners but also buying out black and white renters
{tenure}


{demographics}


Now, to be clear, we can't tell if any of these households were using FHA loans but, this 20 year period in Point Breeze shows a rapid transition to homeownership that would be highly unlikely without relatively easy access to credit . . . I can also say, at least anecdotally, that many of the new homeowners in PB in the 50s and 60s were former renters in PB and Graduate Hospital. I can also say that we can repeat these results in other neighborhoods around Philly.

So, as I said earlier, the FHA policy was obviously racist/segregationist and it locked AAs out of the suburbs for 20-25 years but the earlier premise - that some city neighborhoods look the way they do because AAs (and anyone else who lived near them) were denied access to credit would appear to be a false one. The problem wasn't a denial of credit but rather the segregation (and I'm just talking about northern/western cities here) that severely restricted employment and education opportunities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 10:01 PM
 
56,617 posts, read 80,910,543 times
Reputation: 12507
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
Getting back to the OP a bit, here's how the policy actually played out in two Philly neighborhoods:

So, with no context, we have a black neighborhood like Graduate Hospital:

{demographics}


and with no further context we see the rate of homeownership rise slowly and say "see! homeownership was exploding in the 40s and 50s. but not here!"
{tenure}


but if we look more closely at tenure we see that this neighborhood has always had a high percentage of renters living in units (as opposed to houses)
{tenure by race - only available from 1940-1960}


but when we cross Washington Ave and look at the Point Breeze neighborhood (full of houses, not units) we see something entirely different:

{tenure by race}


we see black homeowners not only buying out the white homeowners but also buying out black and white renters
{tenure}


{demographics}


Now, to be clear, we can't tell if any of these households were using FHA loans but, this 20 year period in Point Breeze shows a rapid transition to homeownership that would be highly unlikely without relatively easy access to credit . . . I can also say, at least anecdotally, that many of the new homeowners in PB in the 50s and 60s were former renters in PB and Graduate Hospital. I can also say that we can repeat these results in other neighborhoods around Philly.

So, as I said earlier, the FHA policy was obviously racist/segregationist and it locked AAs out of the suburbs for 20-25 years but the earlier premise - that some city neighborhoods look the way they do because AAs (and anyone else who lived near them) were denied access to credit would appear to be a false one. The problem wasn't a denial of credit but rather the segregation (and I'm just talking about northern/western cities here) that severely restricted employment and education opportunities.
I wonder how many of the latter neighborhoods do we actually see come about that way versus White Flight? I also wonder why the number of renters went down in general and if the economic dynamics changes as renters declined among Blacks and Whites and homeownership increased for Blacks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 11:42 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
I wonder how many of the latter neighborhoods do we actually see come about that way versus White Flight?
I don't understand the question and it would help if you defined your use of the term "white flight."

Quote:
I also wonder why the number of renters went down in general and if the economic dynamics changes as renters declined among Blacks and Whites and homeownership increased for Blacks.
The number of renters went down because people were working, making good wages and had money to buy a house, so they did.

Before WWII there weren't a lot of AAs in Philly. The AA neighborhoods back then were mostly adjacent to Center City - which has had a high percentage of renters in units for 300 years or so. After WWII AA households started to move into homeownership . . . so upwardly mobile black families who were renting in places like Graduate Hospital moved out and bought a house in Point Breeze. The Italians and Jews in PB were moving to bigger, newer houses in Southwest Philly (or the suburbs). With the AA middle class moving on, the black people who were left behind in GH were increasingly poor and less mobile. The process repeats itself in PB with the middle-class families and, more importantly, the children of those households (as they grew up) moving to grander homes in West Philly and the people who are left behind are increasingly poor and/or elderly.

This is almost identical to the pattern in white neighborhoods like Port Richmond or Fishtown. There is no real difference between the reasons that white families moved to different neighborhoods and the reasons that black families do it. The only real difference is the 10-20 year gap between the beginning of the white exodus and the beginning of the black exodus in these neighborhoods . . . and that is at least partially explained by the large numbers of southern blacks who were still migrating north (and going to big cities) in the 1950s.

Even today if you look at the data on Philly, the black population of the city is stagnant and that's only because of African and West Indian immigration. The number of African-Americans in the city has been in decline since the 80s as the AA population get older/move to the suburbs/moves down south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top