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.
The 1st migration happened concurrently with the major wave of european immigration in the late 19th/early 20th century. The much larger 2nd migration happened after european immigration was largely over.
Syracuse may be an exception, probably because its glory days were in the Erie Canal/RR era, but it's hardly the rule.
So yeah, I'm not trying to say that black people didn't exist in northern cities before the 2nd migration. Of course african-americans have been part of the social fabric nearly everywhere in the country since before it was a country.
But the OP is about the history of ethnic/racial tensions in the US and it's effects on planning (or at least outcomes) and outside of the south that changed completely during and after the 2nd migration . . . but the changes were different in different parts of the country.
Northeastern cities had patterns of de facto ethno-religious segregation long before they had significant african-american populations and this extended well out into the suburbs - even into the 1950s. Places in and around Philly like Germantown, Swedesboro, and Cynwyd didn't get those names by chance. Little suburban towns throughout the region were long known for being German or Irish or Italian. Seriously, even at 10th & Christian in South Philly Irish parishioners at St. Paul's attacked Italians for trying to use "their" church. That neighborhood is now known as Bella Vista and the church is less than a block from the Italian Market.
These are anecdotes of course but they're repeated in Boston, New York, Chicago, etc. You get similar stories in LA, SF, etc but the ethnic groups are different, the actions or reactions are different, it's less about housing and more about jobs . . . the only thing it's always about is one group giving way to another.
Yes, this is correct and I knew this. Actually, you have this to a degree in Northeastern cities/areas. Syracuse ethnically is similar to Philadelphia, but flip the side of town(South Philly ethnically is similar to Syracuse's North Side, North Philly similar to Syracuse's South Side, West Philly and Syracuse's East Side for examples).
My point was more about pre European immigration in Northeastern cities, where the Underground RR also brought Black people to NE cities or were there already. Syracuse also had the second highest rate of Black Southern migration between WW2 and 1970 and the city peaked in population around 1950 like many Northern cities. I still think that as Urban Renewal policy was going forth and the deindustrialization of cities was going forth, it added to tension at the time.
I do find it interesting that in many cases, it seems like middle class Blacks/minorities in the Northeast did seem to follow Jews in terms of migration/relocation within those metros. You see this in Upstate NY areas and I always though that if you want to find a concentration of a Black middle class in those areas, look for a Jewish concentration and a college or university nearby.
The 1st migration happened concurrently with the major wave of european immigration in the late 19th/early 20th century. The much larger 2nd migration happened after european immigration was largely over.
Syracuse may be an exception, probably because its glory days were in the Erie Canal/RR era, but it's hardly the rule.
So yeah, I'm not trying to say that black people didn't exist in northern cities before the 2nd migration. Of course african-americans have been part of the social fabric nearly everywhere in the country since before it was a country.
But the OP is about the history of ethnic/racial tensions in the US and it's effects on planning (or at least outcomes) and outside of the south that changed completely during and after the 2nd migration . . . but the changes were different in different parts of the country.
Northeastern cities had patterns of de facto ethno-religious segregation long before they had significant african-american populations and this extended well out into the suburbs - even into the 1950s. Places in and around Philly like Germantown, Swedesboro, and Cynwyd didn't get those names by chance. Little suburban towns throughout the region were long known for being German or Irish or Italian. Seriously, even at 10th & Christian in South Philly Irish parishioners at St. Paul's attacked Italians for trying to use "their" church. That neighborhood is now known as Bella Vista and the church is less than a block from the Italian Market.
These are anecdotes of course but they're repeated in Boston, New York, Chicago, etc. You get similar stories in LA, SF, etc but the ethnic groups are different, the actions or reactions are different, it's less about housing and more about jobs . . . the only thing it's always about is one group giving way to another.
That is very interesting. I believe Swedesboro is a historic name, the Swedes came over to that area early on (there is an "Old Swedes Church" in Wilmington, DE), but then they quit coming, for a long time. Holy Trinity Church (Old Swedes) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German, yeah, I've heard there are a lot of Germans in eastern PA. Western PA including Pittsburgh was settled by the Scotch-Irish. Hence the power of the Presbyterian church in that part of the state. Later, loads of Italians and Poles came over to work the mills. My hometown in "suburban" Pittsburgh had a huge Italian-German-Irish Catholic church, and another big Polish Catholic church. There did not seem to be so much residential segregation as in some cities, either in Beaver Falls or Pittsburgh itself. Not to say there wasn't any (before some Pittsburgher jumps in).
There are a lot of factors still in play today that control the racial makeup of a neighborhood or of a suburb. These typically don't directly result in racial divides, but they definitely keep out 'undesirables' unable to meet the ongoing financial requirements to live there.
These include no public transport, tolled roads into the city, mandated suburban lot sizes, strong HOAs, limited or no housing options other than single family, and probably a few others I can't think of right now. The racism is less overt, but it's still there, coded in terms like 'apartment kids ruining schools' and strong HOAs preventing certain types of vehicles from being parked in front of houses.
There are a lot of factors still in play today that control the racial makeup of a neighborhood or of a suburb. These typically don't directly result in racial divides, but they definitely keep out 'undesirables' unable to meet the ongoing financial requirements to live there.
These include no public transport, tolled roads into the city, mandated suburban lot sizes, strong HOAs, limited or no housing options other than single family, and probably a few others I can't think of right now. The racism is less overt, but it's still there, coded in terms like 'apartment kids ruining schools' and strong HOAs preventing certain types of vehicles from being parked in front of houses.
First of all, what are you saying here? That minorities don't have cars, can't afford toll roads, don't like large lots, can't keep up a house to HOA standards, want to live only in multi-family housing? What?
Now let's take these one at a time.
No public transport? Have you ever heard of a public transportation system that doesn't service the suburbs? There may be a few, but the ones I'm familiar with all have service to the suburbs.
Tolled roads into the city? IME, these are not particularly common, and certainly aren't the only way to get to the city in any event. Who says minorities all work in the city?
Mandated suburban lot size? Here is a post of mine from a while back discussing the minimum lot sizes in my suburban city. Now, if you build a PUD, you get drastic reductions in lot size, e.g. Minimum Lot Size 2,500 SF (single family detached); 1,000 SF (multi-family); 1,000 SF(single family attached).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Most communities have a requirement that a developer donate a certain % of land (15% in the case of my city) for open space. The devil is in the details of course, as to just what is donated and how it is developed. Generally developers donate less than desirable land for OS. Developers also have to conform to minimum lot sizes (7000 sf in my town for a residential development; 2500 sf for a single family house in a PUD).
Strong HOAs? Not a fan of HOAs myself, but more b/c I find them "nannyish" than b/c they impose some onerous burden. Basically, aside from telling you what colors you can paint your house and what trees you can plant in your yard and garbage like that, they're basic home maintenance measures.
(L)imited or no housing options other than single family? Seriously? Since when? This isn't 1960.
terms like 'apartment kids ruining schools' ? Never heard it. I've been to planning meetings; schools always come up, the NIMBY people like to bring up the burden on schools with any proposed development but I believe the research shows that fewer kids live in apts than SF houses.
HOAs preventing certain types of vehicles from being parked in front of houses.? Never heard of that either. I've heard of HOAs that prohibit any cars from parking in the streets, and most cities have ordinances that prohibit non-working cars from being parked in streets, in yards, etc, irrespective of HOAs.
(L)imited or no housing options other than single family? Seriously? Since when? This isn't 1960.
The suburb I grew up in is 3% multifamily. It's also somewhat whiter than the county and much whiter than the state, at 76% white non-hispanic. As for the bolded, guess when most of it was built. Just because 1960 was a long time ago doesn't mean there's been much newer housing that it'd reflect trends.
Quote:
terms like 'apartment kids ruining schools' ? Never heard it. I've been to planning meetings; schools always come up, the NIMBY people like to bring up the burden on schools with any proposed development but I believe the research shows that fewer kids live in apts than SF houses.
The last sentence is usually true, but I feel like I've heard 'apartment kids ruining schools' before. I could dig through the Long Island forum, but I don't feel like it at the moment.
First of all, what are you saying here? That minorities don't have cars, can't afford toll roads, don't like large lots, can't keep up a house to HOA standards, want to live only in multi-family housing? What?
Now let's take these one at a time.
No public transport? Have you ever heard of a public transportation system that doesn't service the suburbs? There may be a few, but the ones I'm familiar with all have service to the suburbs.
Where I live more distant burbs may have little to no public transport. PACE is supposed to serve the burbs but compared to CTA service it is pale.
Quote:
Mandated suburban lot size? Here is a post of mine from a while back discussing the minimum lot sizes in my suburban city. Now, if you build a PUD, you get drastic reductions in lot size, e.g. Minimum Lot Size 2,500 SF (single family detached); 1,000 SF (multi-family); 1,000 SF(single family attached).
More affluent burbs can have large lot sizes. South Barrington has a min of 1.5 acres of house size.
Quote:
HOAs preventing certain types of vehicles from being parked in front of houses.? Never heard of that either. I've heard of HOAs that prohibit any cars from parking in the streets, and most cities have ordinances that prohibit non-working cars from being parked in streets, in yards, etc, irrespective of HOAs.
Some places enforce garage parking only. You can not even park in front of your own driveway.
Public transportation can be spotty in many places.
Not all burbs are McMansion burbs though. I've been in LaGrange, IL. The lots there seem pretty modestly sized.
Where are your guests supposed to park? I've also seen areas in the city where you had to park off-street, maybe blocks away.
They don't intend for you to have guests which is the intent of that rule(i.e. no parties due to no parking). Lot size depends on the burb, some have rules for larger lot sizes to hold up property values others not.
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.
