Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there’s a generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best, the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sized cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver. In particular, Portland is held up as a paradigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system, excellent cycling culture, and a pro-density policy. These cities are frequently contrasted with those of the Rust Belt and South, which are found wanting, often even by locals, as “cool” urban places.
But look closely at these exemplars and a curious fact emerges. If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles you will find that the “progressive” cities aren’t red or blue, but another color entirely: white.
In fact, not one of these “progressive” cities even reaches the national average for African American percentage population in its core county. Perhaps not progressiveness but whiteness is the defining characteristic of the group.
The progressive paragon of Portland is the whitest on the list, with an African American population less than half the national average. It is America's ultimate White City. The contrast with other, supposedly less advanced cities is stark.
It is not just a regional thing, either. Even look just within the state of Texas, where Austin is held up as a bastion of right thinking urbanism next to sprawlvilles like Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston.
Again, we see that Austin is far whiter than either Dallas-Ft. Worth or Houston.
This raises troubling questions about these cities. Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?
As the college educated flock to these progressive El Dorados, many factors are cited as reasons: transit systems, density, bike lanes, walkable communities, robust art and cultural scenes. But another way to look at it is simply as White Flight writ large. Why move to the suburbs of your stodgy Midwest city to escape African Americans and get criticized for it when you can move to Portland and actually be praised as progressive, urban and hip? Many of the policies of Portland are not that dissimilar from those of upscale suburbs in their effects. Urban growth boundaries and other mechanisms raise land prices and render housing less affordable exactly the same as large lot zoning and building codes that mandate brick and other expensive materials do. They both contribute to reducing housing affordability for historically disadvantaged communities. Just like the most exclusive suburbs.
This lack of racial diversity helps explain why urban boosters focus increasingly on international immigration as a diversity measure. Minneapolis, Portland and Austin do have more foreign born than African Americans, and do better than Rust Belt cities on that metric, but that's a low hurdle to jump. They lack the diversity of a Miami, Houston, Los Angeles or a host of other unheralded towns from the Texas border to Las Vegas and Orlando. They even have far fewer foreign born residents than many suburban counties of America's major cities.
The relative lack of diversity in places like Portland raises some tough questions the perennially PC urban boosters might not want to answer. For example, how can a city define itself as diverse or progressive while lacking in African Americans, the traditional sine qua non of diversity, and often in immigrants as well?
Imagine a large corporation with a workforce whose African American percentage far lagged its industry peers, sans any apparent concern, and without a credible action plan to remediate it. Would such a corporation be viewed as a progressive firm and employer? The answer is obvious. Yet the same situation in major cities yields a different answer. Curious.
In fact, lack of ethnic diversity may have much to do with what allows these places to be “progressive”. It's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics. Minneapolis-St. Paul, of course, is notable in its Scandinavian heritage; Seattle and Portland received much of their initial migrants from the northern tier of America, which has always been heavily Germanic and Scandinavian.
In comparison to the great cities of the Rust Belt, the Northeast, California and Texas, these cities have relatively homogenous populations. Lack of diversity in culture makes it far easier to implement “progressive” policies that cater to populations with similar values; much the same can be seen in such celebrated urban model cultures in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Their relative wealth also leads to a natural adoption of the default strategy of the upscale suburb: the nicest stuff for the people with the most money. It is much more difficult when you have more racially and economically diverse populations with different needs, interests, and desires to reconcile.
In contrast, the starker part of racial history in America has been one of the defining elements of the history of the cities of the Northeast, Midwest, and South. Slavery and Jim Crow led to the Great Migration to the industrial North, which broke the old ethnic machine urban consensus there. Civil rights struggles, fair housing, affirmative action, school integration and busing, riots, red lining, block busting, public housing, the emergence of black political leaders – especially mayors – prompted white flight and the associated disinvestment, leading to the decline of urban schools and neighborhoods.
There's a long, depressing history here.
In Texas, California, and south Florida a somewhat similar, if less stark, pattern has occurred with largely Latino immigration. This can be seen in the evolution of Miami, Los Angeles, and increasingly Houston, San Antonio and Dallas. Just like African-Americans, Latino immigrants also are disproportionately poor and often have different site priorities and sensibilities than upscale whites.
This may explain why most of the smaller cities of the Midwest and South have not proven amenable to replicating the policies of Portland. Most Midwest advocates of, for example, rail transit, have tried to simply transplant the Portland solution to their city without thinking about the local context in terms of system goals and design, and how to sell it. Civic leaders in city after city duly make their pilgrimage to Denver or Portland to check out shiny new transit systems, but the resulting videos of smiling yuppies and happy hipsters are not likely to impress anyone over at the local NAACP or in the barrios.
We are seeing this script played out in Cincinnati presently, where an odd coalition of African Americans and anti-tax Republicans has formed to try to stop a streetcar system. Streetcar advocates imported Portland's solution and arguments to Cincinnati without thinking hard enough to make the case for how it would benefit the whole community.
That's not to let these other cities off the hook. Most of them have let their urban cores decay. Almost without exception, they have done nothing to engage with their African American populations. If people really believe what they say about diversity being a source of strength, why not act like it? I believe that cities that start taking their African American and other minority communities seriously, seeing them as a pillar of civic growth, will reap big dividends and distinguish themselves in the marketplace.
This trail has been blazed not by the “progressive” paragons but by places like Atlanta, Dallas and Houston. Atlanta, long known as one of America's premier African American cities, has boomed to become the capital of the New South. It should come as no surprise that good for African Americans has meant good for whites too. Similarly, Houston took in tens of thousands of mostly poor and overwhelmingly African American refugees from Hurricane Katrina. Houston, a booming metro and emerging world city, rolled out the welcome mat for them – and for Latinos, Asians and other newcomers. They see these people as possessing talent worth having.
This history and resulting political dynamic could not be more different from what happened in Portland and its “progressive” brethren. These cities have never been black, and may never be predominately Latino. Perhaps they cannot be blamed for this but they certainly should not be self-congratulatory about it or feel superior about the urban policies a lack of diversity has enabled.
Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile.
Email this Story
Another take on the White City
Aaron,
I've lived in Portland for 5 years now. I grew up in the Chicago area, and have lived in several other places with much larger African-American populations than Portland. Your article touches on an interesting and important subject, and I don't have time to do it justice right now, but want to take issue with one of your arguments.
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the main reason that Portland-style transportation policies don't transfer to rust-belt cities is because they don't address the needs of minority populations in those places. That may or may not be true, but I think the larger issue is that many whites in cities with high minority populations are unwilling to fund public transportation and other public goods, because they see it as taking money away from "us" and giving it to "them" (poor minorities. In most of those areas, middle-class whites have long since fled to the suburbs, and don't see public transportation as benefiting them. I have a hard time believing that minority populations in most Midwestern cities wouldn't benefit from and want better public transportation - in fact, a significant challenge is that in many cities, jobs have fled to the suburbs along with middle-class whites and minority residents can't access them because they have no way to get to them.
That said, it stands to reason that what works in Portland might not work in Cincinnati and that Portland's policies can't just be transferred wholesale to another city.
I would agree that is
I would agree that is another potential part of the dynamic that is different in those cities.
Toronto
I kept thinking this too as I was reading your article... it's really not about `homogeneous consensus' or whatever. Then you said ``black people are the sine qua non of diversity' or something and I couldn't believe you said that... Bedford Stuyvesant is not diverse. Inner city Detroit is not diverse. Only black people live there. That's not diversity.
The best example of my point is Toronto.
Toronto could well be the paragon of the North American ``progressive city''. Transit ridership is way higher than in Portland, it's dense, bike friendly, yadayada. It's also 50% foreign born. 50%! That's diversity. It has dozens of ethnicities, not just two. What it doesn't have are racialized social divisions. That's the problem with American cities, and you seemed to completely miss that even as you were talking about it.
Very interesting
Just found you via Rod Dreher. I look forward to reading more here, but have to comment on the data presented in this post. I see lots of problems. Using the core county as your source of racial data to analyze is very distorting. The 3 cities I am most familiar with, Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis, are all much higher minority than the surrounding very large county. I would guess county size negatively correlates with minority population.
However, the much bigger problem is representing non-black as white. "African Americans, the traditional sine qua non of diversity" is a tradition that needs to be buried. Your nationwide analysis only shows regional differences in the largest non-white category. Asians in the northwest, Hispanics in the southwest, blacks in the rust belt and south. As for Texas, get the data for city limits only and show non-Hispanic whites, not one minority group, then let's look at it.
The analysis of the data isn't any better, unfortunately. It has too many issues to address, but one stands out for me. As a Norwegian-American from Minneapolis, I have to decline the credit for our progressive policies on behalf of my fellow Scandinavians. The original power brokers of the Twin Cities were as WASPy as most other American big cities - which is to say, very WASPy. And while white is considered homogeneous today, back in the day WASPs, Germans, Scandinavians, Irish, Central Europeans, Jews, Eastern and Southern Europeans would never put themselves into a category with any of the other groups. Scandinavians do seem to have played an out-sized role in the area's history, but that is only anecdotal. Their numbers never came close to half of the population, I would bet. And that lumps them all together, something Norwegians and Swedes, for instance, wouldn't accept to until relatively recently.
http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com
Black and White Article
Good point, Shooter. Asian populations are much higher in the Northwest. Seattle (King County) alone has a good 13% Asian population. Seattle's white population is actually about the same as some of the "traditional cities" listed, at just about 70% white vs. minority populations.
To comment on Portland, it has implemented "Portland-style" transportation projects in historically and traditionally minority neighborhoods (NE Portland and Interstate MAX system). These neighborhoods are about 50% white, and have reasonably large Africa-American populations to the tune of 35% in some areas according to Census data.
I am not really drawing the connections of what this article is about. I think it needs to be more explicit. To say that Portland style planning doesn't benefit minorities is akin to saying that past planning methods of the Rust Belt cities have benefited minority populations. Both aren't perfect, but let's at least bring some solutions or ideas to the table if you disagree with something.
Comparisons between cities
Comparisons between cities are inherently difficult. I generally do not like to use central city corporate limit data as a basis for comparison because the size of central cities is so different. Indianapolis and Columbus are both large because they annexed large amounts of "suburban" territory, while Cincinnati and Cleveland did not and are much smaller geographically. To compare across cities, I have generally found that it is better to use the core county as a proxy for the central city in most cases since it more normalizes geographic scope. (MSA is probably the best comparator for regions). This isn't perfect either. Denver County is really a county around a smaller central city. St. Louis is an independent city. But I think it is probably the best way to go.
Thanks for the history on Minneapolis.
I have to disagree on the
I have to disagree on the use of county data as a proxy for a city. City has two meanings — one is political, referring to a municipal government. Another has to do with urban form. The city is a denser place with a more urban feel than the surrounding suburbs and countryside. The demographics are often radically different between the city and the suburbs. Both of these meanings of city, crucial in where people choose to live, is lost in your use of county data.
Cities and suburbs are completely different animals. People choose to live in one or the other as much as they choose to live in one region or another.
When people refer to a city like Austin as "progressive," they are referring more to the city itself than the suburbs.
You need to rethink your bias for using county data as a proxy for cities.
just about any unit you choose will have problems
Because the whole process of urbanization in this country has little correlation to our political subdivisions, there will be problems with just about any unit you choose for comparison.
For instance, Aaron choosing Jackson County as a proxy for Kansas City, Mo., is arguably better than using the City of Kansas City itself. Even though Jackson County also encompasses Independence (the county seat), Grandview, Raytown, Blue Springs, and a passel of other suburbs, it also includes all of the pre-World War II urban area, the most densely populated part of the city and (my estimate) home to nearly 3/4 of the city's population of about 450,000 and about 40 percent of the county's population of around 700,000. Meanwhile, the city covers some 320-plus square miles in parts of four counties, and much of the outlying areas of the city are still planted in corn and soybeans, especially near the airport. Meanwhile, Jackson County may well be more thoroughly urbanized than the city.
Either way, you get distortion.
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
Ever notice how planners wave Jane Jacobs like a talisman as they go about ignoring her main points?
What about black as proxy for minority?
Thanks for your reply. All comparisons aren't perfect, we know this; the question is which is best. And not for all general comparisons, but this one. Using county data specifically dilutes the thing you are measuring, minority population, much more than city data.
You didn't address my larger problem, you cited data on blacks, and talked about how white a county was.
You're welcome.
http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com
I would encourage you to
I would encourage you to pull the African American population percentages for the core cities as well if you think that is a better comparison. I would be interested in seeing the results. If I might speculate, the % Black percentage in Minneapolis would indeed be higher, but other cities would might go up by even more. I might suggest checking Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Cincinnati as your benchmarks.
Also, it is true that Not Black != White, so if you'd prefer, we could change the emphasis to the Not Black City. My argument from the piece was precisely that these cities like to use an alternative measure of diversity to divert attention from the fact that they have low African American populations. Much like a company that hired very few blacks touting all the Asians they have on the payroll.
Minneapolis city counts
You are correct, the city of Minneapolis was about 18% African-American (as of the 2000 census), well above the national average. Certainly, if you are talking about cities that are beacons of progressivism (or liberalism), there is a huge difference between the relative liberalism of the city of Minneapolis and that of the suburban communities in Hennepin County. Michelle Bachman's district, for example, comprises an area that is (largely) suburban Minneapolis, albeit not within Hennepin County.
It seems to me that these perceptions about these cities are usually about the cities themselves, not the surrounding suburbs, and that the city should be used as the unit for comparison.
(And, of course, throwing out the Tier 1 cities, such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, seems to vitiate any validity of the conclusions here.)
Denver
For the record, Denver County is not a county around a smaller central city. City and County of Denver are coterminous.
"Denver" - Five Counties
This clarification is correct. As is often the case, confusion about the "city" as compared to the "metro area" is at play. If the author suggests that the percentages are for the metro area, then diversity is stated at a lower rate than the city itself. So which is it?
What's often meant by "Denver" is the five county metro area, which is far beyond the city/county of Denver.
The author's misstatement of the facts reveals a lack of understanding of this subject.
shortsighted analysis
"Again, we see that Austin is far whiter than either Dallas-Ft. Worth or Houston."
Not exactly ... what we do see is Austin is less black than either Dallas-Ft. Worth or Houston.
Instead, Austin is actually a "majority-minority" city.
A quick google search reveals this document from the City of Austin:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/demographics/
(click on "Top ten demographic trends in Austin")
"The City of Austin has now crossed the threshold of becoming a Majority-Minority city. Put another way, no ethnic or demographic group exists as a majority of the city’s population. The city’s Anglo share of total population has dropped below 50% (which probably occurred sometime during 2005) and will stay there for the foreseeable future."
Surely you knew that not everyone in Austin is either "black" or "white"?
Are you talking about inside
Are you talking about inside the city limits? Again, for the reasons I outlined in my comment above, I don't think this is the best method for comparing data across cities. But thanks for the additional insights into demographic trends in Austin.
my take on it
you wrote, "why has no one called these cities on it?". who are you going to call? can you just call up some whites and blacks and ask em? a silly premise deserves a silly question back.
when i moved here it was not to "run away" from blacks. your article has a strange premise. it reminds me of someone who gathers statistics and then makes conclusions from them based on their own ideas. remember the stat that most wrecks happen within 2 miles of your own home/residence? people assumed that meant that people drive worse near their home and came up with other theories, actually it was that you spend more time driving near you own home so you are more likely to have a wreck.
this article reminds me of that-the two are not really related, the progressiveness and the lack of blacks and as far as "why has no one called these cities on it?". Maybe it is because we are calling ourselves on it already? We have several African American Quality of Life Initiatives in the past several years and several Hispanic Quality of Life initiatives as well. The public were invited to come and comment on what is needed in Austin to keep and attract more Blacks & Hispanics. Maybe if you get a few more black friends in Austin-you can ask them yourself.
the creepy texan
Another Comment
I might add that even if Portland is predominately "white" (by the definition of race, not ethnicity) it nonetheless has much more racial integration in regards to available data.
Cleveland's core county has about 1.5% of its population identifying as two or more races, with African-American/black and white race mix representing 0.6% of the total "two or more" race population.
Meanwhile, Portland's core county has about 4.3% of the population identifying as two or more races from recent census data, of which 1% are black/white mix.
Both numbers are low, but based off the fact that Portland barely has above 5.5% black-only population, I find that statistic amazing. Think about how profound that is. Cleveland has almost 30% black population, yet Portland has a higher percentage of black/white mixed people! You'd think that at some point a black person and a white person might meet in Cleveland (they are the two largest races there). I've never lived there, but the data about the core county speaks volumes.
Speaking of Cleveland, Portland has about about 14% foreign born population vs. Cleveland's 7%. This is key, because racially, Hispanic and Latino ethnicity is considered "white", of which Portland has way more than the Rust Belt. About 10% of total population identify as Hispanic/Latino in Multnomah county.
I think this goes to show you're viewing this issue from a black and white perspective, and not an ethnic/international lens.
Are you really sure these Midwest cities are truly anymore diverse than the so called "progressive" cities? I thought this was an interesting article at first glance, but now I think it's more of the same anti-smart growth mantra that gets thrown around on this site.
ACS Census:
Cleveland:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_nam...
Portland:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US41051...
There is no doubt that Rust
There is no doubt that Rust Belt cities generally have very low levels of foreign-born residents. No argument there.
This is the kind of thing
This is the kind of thing that should be used to teach freshman about bad statistics.
What is the definition of a "progressive city?" Is there any quantifiable set of criteria that results in a list of just these five? What is the justification for excluding "Tier One" cities? What is the definition of a "Tier One" city? What is the definition of "Traditional City?"
This, class, is what we refer to a "reliability problem."
Why is "whiteness" indicated as percentage of Af-American? What happened to all the other race/ethnic categories? Why is the NATIONAL avg of Af-American used to define "whiteness" based on COUNTY level data of cities?
This, class, is what we refer to a "validity problem."
I think you basically started with an observation that, "hey, hipsters are white!" and then created a bunch of bar graphs.
Totally agree with the
Totally agree with the comment on bad statistics. There are many other flaws in the argument as well. Chief among them is the very misleading title: why is this called "The White City," when what the author really means is the "Non-Black City?" Is the author suggesting that the U.S. has evolved to a racial paradigm where it's Blacks and everyone else (White, Asian, Hispanic)?
The underlying argument that progressive cities are rooted in a sense of "white flight" from larger cities, is flawed.
1) Does the author consider that because Blacks tend to be poorer, they do not have the means to move to new cities, as other groups do? I bet you would find hordes of Blacks who would prefer the lifestyle of Portland, Denver, or Minneapolis, to Cleveland, Baltimore, or Atlanta.
(also, as others have pointed out, the "traditional" Rust Belt cities are far less racially diverse than the "progressive" cities)
2) How is building light rail an anti-Black policy, as the author suggests? Poorer people tend to live in denser areas and have higher usage of public transporation. And last I checked, plenty of poor minorities and immigrants use bicycles (and would benefit from bicycle-friendly policy) as well.
3)Whites and others move to progressive cities not to get away from blacks, as the author suggests, but because they are more readily able to live out their liberal ideals. "Traditional" cities have more entrenched political systems that make new and progressive policies far more difficult to implement.
"Whites and others move to
"Whites and others move to progressive cities not to get away from blacks, as the author suggests, but because they are more readily able to live out their liberal ideals."
This is complete BS. Everything that is available in white cities is available in cities with major black populations. The politics couldn't be any bluer Democrat. What liberal ideal could you not realize in Detroit? More social programs? Higher taxes? Unionization? Public transit? Educating poor children to improve their futures?
People continue to move from the black cities to the white cities because they don't want to deal with the crime (the inconvenience of avoiding it) and having to constant daily interactions with the poor.
You get tired of seeing teenage mothers swearing at their own children. You get tired of seeing people throw litter on the ground right in front of you. You get tired of seeing every surface covered with tags. You get tired of driving past their houses with collapsing porches and plastic wrap windows.
That's why you move to Portland. So you can walk to a restuarant, then a bar, and walk home without looking over your shoulder or finding your apartment burgularized. We have good bars, restuarants, galleries, and even bike trails in the black cities. And your white cities are chock full of people who grew up here anyway. Its not the presence of yuppies that draws migrants to Denver, Seattle, Portland, and Austin, its the absence of huge, dangerous ghettos.
Exactly right
This is exactly right. Also, you see this same behavior in Scandinavian and European countries, though towards Muslim immigrants who come over and promptly begin stoning their teenage daughters for having premarital sex. Also, for the record, this is not something that people need to be “called out” on.
I do agree with the premise of this article, though and am glad to see it brought to light even if I don't take the same moral offense to what these numbers suggest (no matter how disputed they've been in the comments section).
The idea that people move to
The idea that people move to Portland to get away from litter, graffiti, teenage mothers yelling at babies, break-ins and violence is way too simplistic. Portland has all of that - There are plenty of falling down porches with soggy couches on them/plastic wrap on windows. You'll be asked for money on every single corner and off ramp downtown. Witness drug deals on the train, in the parks, on the streets. See gang tags all over buildings, fences, poles. I've lived here for 15 years, my house has been broken into while I was on a walk around the corner to get a bite to eat. You bet I look over my shoulder when I'm walking around. Portland shouldn't be held up on a pedestal or romanticized....but you won't read that in a visitor's guide.
That said, perhaps there is less of these elements than in a "huge dangerous ghetto" but to imply that it isn't here in Portland - and not a problem - is simply not true.
Aaron- I thought this was a
Aaron-
I thought this was a great article. This is an observation I have made for quite some time, in fact it is one that is noticed by more than you would probably think. In a 20th century US History course I recently took we had a discussion about topics identical to this article. Both black and white students in the class agreed largely with your observation. I live in Tennessee, and I find it interesting that most of the comments that take issue with your article are posted by people living in the cities in question. Now, they might be in a better position to critique or they may just be blindly defensive.... Probably a little of both.
MW
Ummm, what?
Where did you get these statistics and are you aware that if you make claims based on a data point of that "8.8% Travis County residents are African American", then you ought to show the rest of the percentages that add up to 100%.
As it is right now, you are taking a narrow slice out of a large dataset, and using it to making broad generalizations that are completely ignoring entire continents of people.
You Could Say The Same Thing for "The Black City"
Being black from Cincinnati and now living in Austin, reading the "The White City" article is both a validation of demographic observations and sobering testimony of how 21st Century cities are becoming a lifestyle choice where race is just an unintentional adjective, perhaps leading to 'intentional' acts of racial balkanism.
Being raised in Cincinnati, in the '70s my parents moved there because there were an abundance of middle-class blacks that were "doing well". In fact, Cincinnati does have safe "blurbs" (black suburbs). However, my deep criticism of Greater Cincinnati is that the suburban wealthy and middle-class blacks shun the black lower-class in Cincinnati.
In the 2000s, now the black "boom towns" are Atlanta and Houston. Living in Austin, instead of lapping it up in progressive texan shangli-la, I get the creeping sense of being "left behind". Nearly all of my cousins in my young age (20s-30s) have moved to Houston after high school because there is "culture". When I've told my white friends, they look at me with incredulity. They don't understand. But, "old South" may have ended for white Austin, but, after the 60s, it never did elsewhere for black and hispanics, except with a '90s high tech bang with massive white incoming and rising home prices (far beyond average minority incomes).
As a result, Black and hispanic east Austin is dying. The people know it. The city of Austin and its downtown plan expect it. And, cynically, both the young and old minorities suspect, they won't be missed. After all, their positioning in east Austin was a consequence for "old South" segregation. Well, nothing lasts forever, and what the real estate market gave, the market now takes away..and for some young minorities, time to go to a new "promiseland".
For me, I love Austin for the art, "atmosphere" of diversity, progressivism, and civic will to build a denser, more impact urban core. Even though sometimes being only black face in restaurants and stores is a little uncomfortable -and jarring. I want to be a part of that effort against the encroaching suburban "donut hole" ravaging so many of our fine American cities.
Sadly, in some black quarters, the article's mindset simply reveals what many people have thought all along. That, perhaps unconscious - or conscious, race or the lack of race has become a lifestyle choice.
In Texas, Austin for 'liberal' whites. Houston for blacks. Dallas for 'conservative' whites. San Antonio for hispanics. All the while, not dealing, but "dealing", with the issue of race - in its absence.
If it's not done with malicious intent, but it is the result, is it racist? Is it racism at all to go where one feels 'comfortable', even if the faces and viewpoints are all the 'same'?
Please discuss.
Tommy, thanks for a very
Tommy, thanks for a very insightful comment - I really appreciate it.
Fantastic Comment
I am from San Antonio, went to school in Austin and currently live in New York. When I was in school in Austin, I loved the progressive and educated culture, with its liberal social and environmental ideals. I also remember thinking how weird it was that there were so few black people around. It seemed contrary to the ubiquitous open-minded attitude claimed by everyone.
Attending architecture school, I saw old zoning maps from the 30s of Austin, with "Negro District" clearly marked just east of downtown. It's an open secret that I35 was built in the 60s where it is to further segregate the black neighborhood. East Austin is one of Austin's best neighborhoods, and it's another open secret that yuppies are colonizing it very rapidly. Poorer black people are moving further north near the St Johns area which is farther from jobs, is more dangerous, and has lower quality housing.
With the influx of richer whites to the east side, the city has been investing in the neighborhood, and it will (one day) have one of the only light rail stations in the city. Having never had the opportunity to discuss these obvious changes with a black person while in Austin, I am very glad to hear the obvious truth: it's not as much of a progressive wonderland if you are black.
Being gay, Austin seemed progressive, especially compared to San Antonio. Living in New York, the truth is that people will only treat a group with respect when they have a critical mass of economic and cultural influence, regardless of the stated progressiveness (or lack thereof) in a city. I imagine this is true for black people in Atlanta and Houston. Even though Austinites are probably more liberal than Houstonians when it comes to social and environmental issues, no amount of progressiveness can make up for a group having a critical mass of representation.
I think the article needs to focus more on the size of the economies of these cities and the average income. In a place like Portland or Austin, it isn't just about race. These places are rich. Cleveland, by contrast is poor. White flight isn't really about ethnic segregation, it's about the flight of capital away from the inner city (or in this case, the entire city). I am sure there are may rust belt cities that would love to build light rail systems, but they have to weigh that against increasing taxes on a population that has greater difficulty paying them.
Austin was once a poor town, but grew because of the growth of the state government and the prestige of UT. Austin and Portland promoted policies that attracted the rich. These policies took decades to yield results. Portland started building its train system almost 30 years ago. If we want to revitalize the rust belt cities, the federal government needs to help finance public transportation investment and environmental clean ups that will build the kind of cities all sorts of people will be attracted to. Americans shouldn't have to travel thousands of miles for economic opportunities.
Fantastic Comment
I am from San Antonio, went to school in Austin and currently live in New York. When I was in school in Austin, I loved the progressive and educated culture, with its liberal social and environmental ideals. I also remember thinking how weird it was that there were so few black people around. It seemed contrary to the ubiquitous open-minded attitude claimed by everyone.
Attending architecture school, I saw old zoning maps from the 30s of Austin, with "Negro District" clearly marked just east of downtown. It's an open secret that I35 was built in the 60s where it is to further segregate the black neighborhood. East Austin is one of Austin's best neighborhoods, and it's another open secret that yuppies are colonizing it very rapidly. Poorer black people are moving further north near the St Johns area which is farther from jobs, is more dangerous, and has lower quality housing.
With the influx of richer whites to the east side, the city has been investing in the neighborhood, and it will (one day) have one of the only light rail stations in the city. Having never had the opportunity to discuss these obvious changes with a black person while in Austin, I am very glad to hear the obvious truth: it's not as much of a progressive wonderland if you are black.
Being gay, Austin seemed progressive, especially compared to San Antonio. Living in New York, the truth is that people will only treat a group with respect when they have a critical mass of economic and cultural influence, regardless of the stated progressiveness (or lack thereof) in a city. I imagine this is true for black people in Atlanta and Houston. Even though Austinites are probably more liberal than Houstonians when it comes to social and environmental issues, no amount of progressiveness can make up for a group having a critical mass of representation.
I think the article needs to focus more on the size of the economies of these cities and the average income. In a place like Portland or Austin, it isn't just about race. These places are rich. Cleveland, by contrast is poor. White flight isn't really about ethnic segregation, it's about the flight of capital away from the inner city (or in this case, the entire city). I am sure there are may rust belt cities that would love to build light rail systems, but they have to weigh that against increasing taxes on a population that has greater difficulty paying them.
Austin was once a poor town, but grew because of the growth of the state government and the prestige of UT. Austin and Portland promoted policies that attracted the rich. These policies took decades to yield results. Portland started building its train system almost 30 years ago. If we want to revitalize the rust belt cities, the federal government needs to help finance public transportation investment and environmental clean ups that will build the kind of cities all sorts of people will be attracted to. Americans shouldn't have to travel thousands of miles for economic opportunities.
Where's the substance?
What are the qualitative and quantitative metrics for being deemed a, "progressive city?" When I think of the word 'progressive' -- I think of consistent, left-leaning stances in key political issues. But the writer never seems to mention that. What a shame.
Oh, and correlation does not imply causation.
Progressive
I agree that in spoken American English the term progressive refers to leftist.
But progress doesn't mean moving to the left it means progress. Progress and progressive means getting better not more leftist.
I am a bit tired of liberals assuming that they mean progress and the other side doesn't.
A progressive city is a city that is getting better. Could be because of a new right wing mayor investing city funds better.
A Rebuttal on behalf of Austinites
"He’s using a national average to measure diversity? That’s like using a Census to determine the exact population of Tijuana!"
Read more at: http://joah.typepad.com/diatribes/2009/10/an-austin-rebuttal-to-aaron-pe...
Jonah, thanks for posting
Jonah, thanks for posting the link. As I said on your blog, I welcome reasoned dissenting views.
Some have critiqued my data in various ways by saying there are other, more relevant ways to view things. I would encourage others to pull the numbers, write up a narrative around it, and share the link here.
You aren't better, you're just further
The point made in this article needs the widest possible dissemination. Aaron focuses on African Americans because their disadvantaged position creates huge challenges to economic development and urban renewal of the cities and counties where they are a politically significant minority. Hispanics have similar issues, but to a far lesser degree. Asians? Please. Ancestral diversity has no major consequences. The differences that matter are employable vs. unemployable and law-abiding vs. criminal.
A large portion of the African American population is completely disconnected from the economy and society. They don't see opportunity in regular work, so they have nothing to lose by turning to crime. This makes the carefree, walkable, friendly, clean neighborhoods that "progressives" love very difficult to create. You don't find Portland-style neighborhoods in St. Louis and Cleveland because it is not safe to be walking alone and waiting at bus stops with your laptop and iPod.
In white cities, "progressive," liberal, and Democrat means support for amenities like bike trails, libraries, museums, etc. In mixed cities, those words mean redistribution and patronage jobs. Basics like public schools, police protection, and public transit are redistribution because households with below-poverty income have little to tax. The low income minority-majority can raise taxes, and those taxes won't support services valuable to businesses or middle class households. Businesses and middle class households fear this. This is a major reason why our suburbs sprawl and our economies crawl.
I went to a hearing on preservation of a historic building. The black council members stood up and called for enforcement of the minority hiring rules for either the demolition crews or the rehabbing contractors. The building itself? They don’t care. How can they worry about aesthetics when their constituents are desperate for work?
To the white liberals who have moved from the major cities of the Midwest and the Northeast to the overwhelmingly white college towns, state capitals, and western cities: if you really cared about the less fortunate like you claim, you would be here, living with them, sharing their tax burden, spending money in their cities, and trying to create a place for them in the economy. You have run just like the people in the exurbs. Please quit publishing rankings with us at the bottom of “Smart Cities,” “Best cities for start-up,” and “Best cities for young singles.” Quit looking down on those of us trying to survive here.
Disagreement on some points
If Aaron is focusing on African American issues, it should be explicit in the article and present to the reader. He mentions "race" and "diversity". Aren't Asians apart of another race than whites? Are Hispanics and Latinos -- while racially considered white -- not "diversity"?
By all metrics of these words, the so called "progressive cities" meet the demand in comparison. The "traditional cities" he uses are actually mostly comprised of only two races: blacks and whites with very few foreign born denizens.
Whereas many of the progressive cities actually have reasonable large hispanic/latino population, larger Asian population, and larger Native American population, and a reasonably large foreign born population. While the progressive cities are still staggeringly white, are they any less or anymore diverse as the traditional cities? No, not really.
Diversity may be the wrong word
Diversity may be the wrong word choice. "The White City" may be the wrong title. How about the the "non-low-income Black City."
The point remains, citizens of cities with large African-American populations are constantly derided as failures and asked, "why can't you be like Seattle?" Why can't you be like the Twin-cities? Why can't you be like Denver? Why can't you invest in amenities? Why can't you redevelop your central city? Why can't you educate your children?
We can't because we have thousands of uneducated, unemployed people here. They have different needs, different priorities, and very different ability to share the costs of maintaining a city. Redevelopment is slow because yuppies prefer hip neighborhoods that aren't overshadowed by ghettos, so they move to Portland. We (regionally) did educated most of our children very well, which is why they are managing your companies and teaching in your universities.
I agree completely with the
I agree completely with the crux of your argument. I don't have issues with your rationale, I have a few issues with this article. I even agree partially with the essence of it, too. Keep in mind, this is a "published" article and this is not some casual conversation that people are having. It should adhere to a more professional standard.
Also, if telling a Rust Belt city to be like Seattle is not a solution (I agree completely, it's not a solution), then be prepared to say what alternative solution there is.
Btw, even some of Portland's now hip, predominately single-family home neighborhoods actually were run-down at one point. Redeveloping cities is a bottom-up movement, not a top-down movement. Something to consider.
Btw, even some of Portland's
Btw, even some of Portland's now hip, predominately single-family home neighborhoods actually were run-down at one point. Redeveloping cities is a bottom-up movement, not a top-down movement. Something to consider.
Now that is something on which we can both agree.
Good conversation. Many of
Good conversation. Many of us need to begin to objectively look beyond race, and address the real issues. Our history brought us here.
Blacks need to stop blaming whites--time out for that, people have a right to move to a comfortable place.
Whites need to be more impathetic to blacks--we do not make ourselves poor.
I bet other races look at us like we are idiots...as long as we keep this b/w thing going, we are idiots.
For poor cities, I would say its a combination of top down and bottom up...
Anon @ 11:11, Totally agree.
Anon @ 11:11,
Totally agree. Renn's article is one of the best I've read here.
That hip, progressive cities are basically full of white people and run for white people is a point that can't be made often enough.
Sure, Austin's white population may soon no longer be a majority but Austin will still be run by liberal white people who deal with the city's minorities on terms they control. That's really the thrust of Renn's piece, and let's not have quibbling about statistics and definitions of city v. county obscure that.
Cities where minorities are powerful local constituencies (the way they are in NY/Chi/LA) are never going to be progressive in the way white liberals prefer. With minorities able to dictate agendas, the most important local issues will be bread-and-butter economic, not lifestyle related. (Crime/cops may be the one are where there's some overlap.) Absent contracts and jobs, minority politicians don't give a damn about issues like light rail, arts funding, and as Anon mentioned, historic preservation.
Anon's right: Moving to Portland/Madison/Austin is no different from moving to Greenwich/Lake Forest. Just white folks going to places where they don't have to deal with the demands of minorities.
"let's not have quibbling
"let's not have quibbling about statistics and definitions of city v. county obscure that."
Yes, let's just ignore, you know, data and function purely on emotion and prejudice!
RE: by and for white people
"That hip, progressive cities are basically full of white people and run for white people is a point that can't be made often enough."
Okay, but this isn't really saying much, since there are very few cities run by non-white people for non-white people in the US. The examples you cite NY/Chicago/LA are our three largest cities and stand in a category all their own. And, incidentally, I'm no NY expert, but I think there are at least a few critics who might argue with you that "powerful local constituencies" have really been able to shape their own destinies there.
Dallas and Houston are run for white people every bit as much as Austin, with some significant ideological differences. I believe those differences really have nothing to do with the minority populations being fairly represented in either case.
RE: by and for white people
"Dallas and Houston are run for white people every bit as much as Austin, with some significant ideological differences."
Pardon? Are you talking about the Dallas with the two-term black mayor in the 90s? The one with a sitting black DA? The one with four black city council members?
Anyway, the response from the Austin fanboys here is not surprising. I've had this conversation with friends and family from Austin and people really flip out when their superiority complex is undermined by the statistically undeniable fact that Austin is a white enclave.
Only problem with your
Only problem with your statement is the statistics don't show that Austin is a white enclave. But I guess your obvious dislike of Austin allows you to overlook minor technicalities such as that fact. Don't hate the player, hate the game. It's not Austin's fault people have a negative view on the city of Dallas. Work to better your city, instead of trying to tear others down.
According to the Census
According to the Census 2005-2007 estimates, the whites comprised %63.7 (%34.2 "Latino of any race") population of Austin and African Americans %8.5. There are very few cities the size of Austin with that kind of disparity, especially in the South. In Dallas, those numbers are %55.9 whites (%42.4 Latino) and %23.3 African American. http://factfinder.census.gov/
By the way, I like Austin. I lived there for several years and started my career there. My wife was born there and several of my closest family members live there. However, I have always found it very strange that Austinites love one side of their cities' uniqueness, but are totally ignorant to the other things that makes Austin unique: the fact that it is small, uniformly middle-class and disproportionately white.
I posted demographics from
I posted demographics from the 2008 estimates showing Austin's White alone percentage of the population is 49.2% of the population. I might also add the city is 20% foreign-born. I don't know anyone who would consider a city with less than half it's population White to be disproportionately White.
It's also strange to consider a city of nearly 800,000 people to be small. Also, I don't know how being "uniformly middle-class" is a bad thing. However, the poverty rate in Austin for 2008 was 17%, so I'm not sure that would even be considered true.
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/09/28/daily15.html
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US48050...
Austin is certainly more
Austin is certainly more diverse than Portland. I will give it that. But Austin is also the whitest major city in Texas. (It about equals Ft. Worth, depending on how you classify that). Here are the 2008 core county non-hispanic white only population percentages in Texas:
Austin (Travis): 53.2%
Dallas (Dallas): 35.5%
Ft. Worth (Tarrant): 54.2%
Houston (Harris): 36.0%
San Antonio (Bexar): 31.8%
Austin is about 20 percentage points whither than Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio even if you look at that stat directly.
Are you serious?
"To the white liberals who have moved from the major cities of the Midwest and the Northeast to the overwhelmingly white college towns, state capitals, and western cities: if you really cared about the less fortunate like you claim, you would be here, living with them, sharing their tax burden, spending money in their cities, and trying to create a place for them in the economy. You have run just like the people in the exurbs. Please quit publishing rankings with us at the bottom of “Smart Cities,” “Best cities for start-up,” and “Best cities for young singles.” Quit looking down on those of us trying to survive here."
Why just 'survive' anywhere. And share their tax burden...do you mean pay higher taxes so that they can go to public housing, daycare etc.? Sound temping out there to anyone? Nope. I didn't think so. To have a chunk of the population make the choice...and yes in this day and age it is more than a choice to be disconnected from the economy and society is a problem. It should not be tolerated. Particularly if this means they are a disproportionat drag to the rest of us. When did that become acceptable? Why is it acceptable that the language spoken by this disconnected group is unintelligable to outsiders?
Re: You aren't better, you're just further
This is an incredibly thoughtful response to the original post and effectively captures the sentiment that many of us not living in the aforementioned White Cities often feel. The posters who object to what is written here are conflating "white" with "no diversity"--possibly a fair conjecture given the nature of the argument and the way "White City" is bandied about among the discussion here like it's a pejorative. But these cities are not necessarily simply "white" so much as they are "non-black", which, as Anon here demonstrates, brings a host of different issues to the policymakers' tables than it would if the black population was only as large as the Asian population. And in some of these cities, the black population is actually smaller, which undoubtedly ranks these cities as demographic outliers.
Aaron, one other city that might fit into your categorization to a certain extent is Boston. While it is diverse by most metrics, and the white population hovers at I believe around 45%, the black population is significantly smaller than other eastern seaboard cities like Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York, and Washington. Even within New England, when compared to cities like New Haven, Bridgeport, or Providence, Boston's black population is comparatively small. Massachusetts as a whole has a lower percentage of African Americans than your average Rust Belt state, and Boston is the whitest city--or at least the most non-black--no, actually it is the whitest big city--in the East Coast.
Dubious numbers
Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans?
Actually, they aren't, your numbers are just skewed.
Comparing the demographics of those 5 cities with the demographics of the states they are in (and other cities in the state) tells a very different story. Every one of them is less white and more diverse compared to the state as a whole and other cities in the same state, so yeah, they do have cause to feel self-congratulatory.
The exception is Austin which has the same proportion of African Americans as Texas does, but much less than other cities in Texas. Do minorities prefer Dallas to Austin because they hate adequate public transit and walkable neighborhoods? Maybe, but it seems very unlikely considering the greater diversity in other role model cities pursuing the same policies.