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 01-31-2015, 07:01 AM
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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
-blacks in 1940-1980 were more criminal than Hispanics in 1980-2010 (if that's even true, I'm not sure it is)
-blacks in 1940-1980 were relatively poorer than Hispanics in 1980-2010 (pretty sure they were/are both poorer than non-Hispanic whites by a comparable margin)
For both New England and New York City, hispanics are considerably poorer than blacks. But in general, blacks are more segregated in New York City, and there are more mixed hispanic and white neighborhood than mixed black and white neighborhoods (though the latter has increased in the last decade). And also many diverse neighborhoods that have every ethnicity but very few black people.

As for criminal, black areas in general tend to have higher violent crime rates than hispanic ones, at least controlling for income. The murder victim rate for blacks is usually several times higher for blacks than hispanics (by perpetrator is similar but solid numbers are harder). Though interestingly, in New York City in the 70s and 80s, the hispanic rate came close to the black rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2015, 07:13 AM
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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
I'm going to call out this bolded part. I don't think this happened consistently enough to mean very much. A high percentage of renters is a much better predictor of how far and fast the white population of a neighborhood would fall. But then you can say much the same about the black population in neighborhoods with a lot of renters - indeed a lot of those black renters, even starting in the 60s started to leave those neighborhoods and started buying houses in nearby neighborhoods. Off the top of my head this was dramatic in the Graduate Hospital neighborhood in Philly where a lot of people were buying houses in Point Breeze (which already had a high number of black families) but then 10 years later a lot of those people were leaving Point Breeze to buy newer, larger houses in West Philly.
Looking through decade by decade maps in many cities, the black population distribution is a good indication on which neighborhoods would turn mostly non-white. I guess you could argue that those happened to match the rental areas, I'll check later. But it's not plausible to me how the pattern of mostly black and mostly non-black neighborhoods would be created just by whites leaving the city *how do you get so few mixed neighborhoods? For example, Chicago 1970 a more extreme case than most, but most northern cities had something similar.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 07:24 AM
 
10,139 posts, read 23,279,357 times
Reputation: 8290
Poverty is mostly caused by crime and addiction, not the other way around. Progressive welfare state junkies have been arguing for almost a century that poverty causes crime. It does not.

The crime rate among blacks is a multiple of that among whites. The reasons are both opaque and irrelevant. Persons avoiding high crime areas flee to more civilized locations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 07:42 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Not quite about white flight, but didn't know where else to put this. % of black students in nearly all minority schools by region:



The Northeast had the least segregated schools in the late 60s, the most today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 07:49 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,890,268 times
Reputation: 18049
I'd say from what I see white flight is a aged term. Now days in should be urban flight as those that can are doing it; not just whites. Especailly those who have family with kids. One only has to look at any forum on moving to see that for them schools are first question now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 02:05 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,386 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Looking through decade by decade maps in many cities, the black population distribution is a good indication on which neighborhoods would turn mostly non-white. I guess you could argue that those happened to match the rental areas, I'll check later. But it's not plausible to me how the pattern of mostly black and mostly non-black neighborhoods would be created just by whites leaving the city *how do you get so few mixed neighborhoods? For example, Chicago 1970 a more extreme case than most, but most northern cities had something similar.
I think maybe it's the problem of looking at housing discrimination and white migration patterns as if they were two sides of the same racism coin.

What I'm saying is that before 1945, mostly owing to astronomical black poverty rates, that black homeownership wasn't widespread and wasn't going to be. This growing black population was largely confined to the rental submarkets that whites had started leaving a decade or two before.

After WWII but before c.1968 black homeownership grew rapidly but during that roughly two decade period because of lending discrimination (FHA), segregation in the military (AA men barred from serving in most southern states and thus no access to VA loans), and plain old housing discrimination (ie, "we won't sell to your kind.") Black homeowners were effectively limited to buying in the neighborhoods that white people had already started leaving a decade or two earlier. I think in a lot of the earlier cases - 1950s and 1960s - that black families were buying the houses that white people had been renting but close to the communities that they were already a part of . . . because remember, most cities in the early to mid 1960s were not the warzones we remember from the mid-90s and there wasn't as much of a push out of the city as there was a decade later.

From everything I've seen black intra-city migration patterns resemble the white intra-city/suburban migration patterns. They're just smaller and with a delay of 10-15 years. The desegregation of lending from 1968-1972 and Korean and Vietnam wars which opened up VA loans to 2 new generations of black men is, I think, what made the difference.

I think, in 90-95% of the cases white people were going to move where they were going to move. So many white people had left the city by 1960 and so many white kids were being born outside of the city that the decline in services was inevitable. The crime waves of the 70s and 80s were also inevitable (preventable, but c'mon, this is America).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Chicago - Logan Square
3,396 posts, read 6,179,432 times
Reputation: 3717
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
I'd say from what I see white flight is a aged term. Now days in should be urban flight as those that can are doing it; not just whites. Especially those who have family with kids. One only has to look at any forum on moving to see that for them schools are first question now.
White Flight is certainly a dated term, and while there are some very localized issues of modern "white flight", they're too small to really be considered anything more than a local issue.

People really aren't fleeing cities in general anymore - and that includes families with kids. The vast majority of cities have been stable to growing for the last 20 years, although there are a small number of cities that have past a tipping point and are unlikely to stabilize/recover anytime soon (I consider Detroit to be one of those few cities).

Population loss and gain is also an inaccurate way to judge the health of a city, a city can lose population but increase the average education and income levels of it's population and be in better shape with fewer people.

Getting back to the original question, I don't think White Flight is an issue anymore. The new issue for many cities is actually Black Flight. Some of this is driven by the closing of massive housing projects and the move to section 8 housing, and some is due to people making enough money to leave the worst parts of cities. The healthy sections are remaining stable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 02:28 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,386 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not quite about white flight, but didn't know where else to put this. % of black students in nearly all minority schools by region:



The Northeast had the least segregated schools in the late 60s, the most today.
Both of my grandfathers still had their high school yearbooks when I was little and they both went to schools that were clearly multi-ethnic and multi-racial although my grandfather's high school in Jersey City was a lot more diverse than my g'father who went to school in Brooklyn. When they would talk about moving out of the city they would talk about having to heat the house with a tiny wood stove that would always go out at night or just being too crowded in a small apartment. My JC g'father especially would always talk about how terrible his boyhood apt. was. My other grandfather's mom was a school teacher through the Depression so I think they had it better than most.

Anyway, this is the problem with the white flight narrative. Because while there were a lot fewer black people in northern cities in the 1920s and 1930s they also weren't nearly as segregated as some people make them out to be. I think the answer here is readily apparent and, again has to do with the problems that arise from using % instead of numbers.

The Great Migration was about AAs moving to northern cities to both escape Jim Crow and for better paying industrial work. As a black middle class began to emerge and as that middle class began to move to the suburbs (or at least suburban neighborhoods in the city) in the 1970s the black households that were left behind in the inner-city were increasingly poorer . . . which only accelerated movement away from those neighborhoods. Distribute 10,000 black kids around the suburbs with 1 million white kids and they're statistically insignificant.

The white families who remained in the city (white, urban poverty in 1960s Philadelphia was 6 or 7%) were increasingly sending their kids to Catholic school or to some other private institution.

Everybody knows that there are fewer white kids in urban schools - that's been happening for 50 years - but then there are also fewer black kids in those schools as well. The question then is are there more black kids in suburban schools and how are they distributed in those suburban districts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
Well, there's about 36.5% of blacks in Metro Atlanta that live in census tracts that are <10% white. Atlanta is considered to have relatively low segregation for a big city with lots of blacks.

Metro Atlanta Stats, % of blacks that live in census tracts with

<10% whites*: 36.5%
10-30% whites: 23.3%
30-50% whites: 14.9%
50-70% whites: 16.6%
70-90% whites: 8.2%
90%+ whites: 0.5%

A good chunk of the <10% white areas are in the suburbs, much of those are Panthersville and Redan.



*non-Hispanic whites
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill View Post
White Flight is certainly a dated term, and while there are some very localized issues of modern "white flight", they're too small to really be considered anything more than a local issue.

People really aren't fleeing cities in general anymore - and that includes families with kids. The vast majority of cities have been stable to growing for the last 20 years, although there are a small number of cities that have past a tipping point and are unlikely to stabilize/recover anytime soon (I consider Detroit to be one of those few cities).

Population loss and gain is also an inaccurate way to judge the health of a city, a city can lose population but increase the average education and income levels of it's population and be in better shape with fewer people.

Getting back to the original question, I don't think White Flight is an issue anymore. The new issue for many cities is actually Black Flight. Some of this is driven by the closing of massive housing projects and the move to section 8 housing, and some is due to people making enough money to leave the worst parts of cities. The healthy sections are remaining stable.
Black Flight isn't really new though, it's just that the black areas are now reaching city limits so black areas are now expanding into the suburbs. Predominantly black areas of many cities have been losing population for a long time, but up until now, the blacks were moving mostly from near core to outer city, now it's from outer city to inner suburbs typically.

Ex the populations of Detroit's black ghetto (defined as 90%+ black)

Detroit black ghetto 1940 boundaries
1940 Population: 43,889 (41,879 blacks)
1950 Population: 59,915 (59,070 blacks)

So it wasn't losing population yet... btw this includes all metro area census tracts, the population gains mostly occurred in suburban census tracts (ex in Inkster or Royal Oak Charter Township). For just census tracts in the city the population was relatively flat (2% pop growth)

Detroit black ghetto 1950 boundaries
1950 Population: 136,527 (131,793 blacks)
1960 Population: 89,503 (87,409 blacks)
A lot of that loss is probably urban renewal.

Detroit black ghetto 1960 boundaries
1960 Population: 183,573 (175,620 blacks)
1970 Population: 132,355 (124,814 blacks)
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