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 had an interesting conversation with one of the bailiffs at SF a few months back. He grew up in Oakland. Obviously middle-class, but it's pretty tough in the Bay Area to make it. I can't remember what his wife does. They moved out of Oakland to Concord a few years ago when the kids were getting close to school age. Concord doesn't have a great rep, but the schools up in the part near Clayton are quite good and it's surprisingly affordable by Bay Area standards. By stereotype, that's uncommon for a black family to black flight to a suburb. Today black flight is in force. Antioch, Concord, Brentwood all doubled or quadrupled. Brentwood now has a pretty even distribution racially. It's 6.2 vs 6.7 for the Bay Area as a whole, although it's still lower than Alameda County (12%) or Contra Costa (9%).
Particularly, black flight in Alameda County began in earnest somewhere between 1990 and 2000.
Yup I know...there is a ton of black middle class family flight in Oakland. And the entire Bay Area. Lots of people jumped ship out of state to the south and ATL. In fact my family did that (but I grew up in Santa Clara county...and this was the late 80s). We later came back, when I was college age. I have also head about people moving to Solano county too (Like Fairfield)
Middle class families in general are priced out of the Bay Area. And it is particularly tough for black kids in urban school districts (for lots of reasons), so families leave. Not sure how things will shake out. Oakland used to have a very big black middle class, particularly families. There are now lots of black people like me...(think educated, middle class, and child-free), but most leave if kids come into the picture....
White flight (and redlining) were a pretty big contributor to sprawl.
Your reading comprehension fails you; I was not disputing white flight, but was merely pointing out my amusement in how, in an article that chronicles the history of suburbanization in the United States, with a recurring theme of the increase in wealth in the population, you picked out two teeny sentences to leap on. Of course white flight contributed to the growth of post-war suburbs; no one has said it didn't. But it contributed; it was not the only reason or even the primary reason.
Yeah, it's tough. Unless you've got the money for private school, there aren't a lot of options. Haywards, Concord, Brentwood (kind of), Castro Valley (kind of). There's not much left where you can afford to live a middle-class lifestyle. San Jose has a pretty large lower-class Hispanic population, but they're extremely marginalized. Like you have families of 8 living in 1/2bd apartments, which isn't how most people want to live.
White flight (and redlining) were a pretty big contributor to sprawl.especially when not everyone was allowed to join in the sprawl party, and it it led to the decline of housing prices in the urban areas.......
It isn't a big leap here.
In fact most of our urban problems are directly related to white flight.
1. redevelopment efforts tearing up neighborhoods
2. crappy urban schools (we pushed out the middle income people from the city)
3. blight
........
We've covered most of the other angles in that article, as I mentioned. It is a new one, that wasn't in the discussion.
Really can not discuss commuting, suburban sprawl or urban problems without also discussing racism.
Too much overlap and too much history.
Just finished the book you recommended, Root Shock, and the history of Urban Renewal and the Interstate highways thru urban areas is not a history we should be proud of. Thanks!
Your reading comprehension fails you; I was not disputing white flight, but was merely pointing out my amusement in how, in an article that chronicles the history of suburbanization in the United States, with a recurring theme of the increase in wealth in the population, you picked out two teeny sentences to leap on. Of course white flight contributed to the growth of post-war suburbs; no one has said it didn't. But it contributed; it was not the only reason or even the primary reason.
And the increase in wealth wasn't a "fair game" if you will. Those are infinitely related.
The so called "best times in the US" were some of the times where racisms and inequality were the worst. You can't disconnect those things by any stretch of the imagination. Without the feel good 50s, we probably would have the levels of income inequality we have today.
Really can not discuss commuting, suburban sprawl or urban problems without also discussing racism.
Too much overlap and too much history.
Just finished the book you recommended, Root Shock, and the history of Urban Renewal and the Interstate highways thru urban areas is not a history we should be proud of. Thanks!
Yeah, it's tough. Unless you've got the money for private school, there aren't a lot of options. Haywards, Concord, Brentwood (kind of), Castro Valley (kind of). There's not much left where you can afford to live a middle-class lifestyle. San Jose has a pretty large lower-class Hispanic population, but they're extremely marginalized. Like you have families of 8 living in 1/2bd apartments, which isn't how most people want to live.
Sounds like some poor sections of Long Island (though due to a lack of apartments in some parts, it's often crowded detached houses). And maybe NYC, looking at population density and seeing variation with neighborhoods with similar housing stock, there must be some apartment overcrowding.
Your reading comprehension fails you; I was not disputing white flight, but was merely pointing out my amusement in how, in an article that chronicles the history of suburbanization in the United States, with a recurring theme of the increase in wealth in the population, you picked out two teeny sentences to leap on. Of course white flight contributed to the growth of post-war suburbs; no one has said it didn't. But it contributed; it was not the only reason or even the primary reason.
From what I can tell, the cities that had more severe decline, on average had more white flight (and less immigration to make up for it) and racial tensions. Of course there are other factors.
And the increase in wealth wasn't a "fair game" if you will.
Nothing's fair. There always will be disparities in income, no matter how much you or I don't like it.
The bald truth is that suburbs exist: a) because increasing populations have to live somewhere; and 2) over the years, an increasing number of people had the increased means to move farther and farther out of town or away from their workplace. Even my coal-miner and factory-worker grandfathers did it in the 1920s just as soon as they could afford to move to bigger houses with larger yards.
Nothing's fair. There always will be disparities in income, no matter how much you or I don't like it.
The bald truth is that suburbs exist: a) because increasing populations have to live somewhere; and 2) over the years, an increasing number of people had the increased means to move farther and farther out of town or away from their workplace. Even my coal-miner and factory-worker grandfathers did it in the 1920s just as soon as they could afford to move to bigger houses with larger yards.
And my sharecropping and farming relatives wanted the same, but the list of places they could move was pretty small. In fact, the town my granddad grew up in is still segregated on the same lines. And people still have issues when black people move to the "white part of town." Like in 2014.
But I guess it is progress everyone is banding together against the "mexicans." *rolls eyes*
But the side of town where my family has land has zero development (aka the black section) and barely paved roads. And the white side of town has development and paved roads. Now. In 2014. (And the same thing is true where I have family land on my mom's side.)
So all of those decisions, and opportunities in the 1920s, still have huge impacts today. Especially in the areas where there were land grants/entitlements/40 acres and a mule for white people.
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.
