The White City

[Storebought]

Again, none of this is any reason why white progressive choose to move to already wealthy places like Seattle and not to cities that could stand the capital investment

Can we identify exactly who you are talking about? What is the presumption that progressives naturally bring capital to the table? Primarily they bring human capital in the form of their skills and educations, not financial assets, because we are talking about people just starting out in their careers. Unless they are willing to be entrepreneurs, and many aren't, moving themselves to a place without opportunity for them to practice their professions would only deplete their individual human capital with no benefit to the local economy.

That sounds like a copout. These people bring with them the same wealth-producing capabilities that educated, or even simply hard-working, but less liberal whites do when they move to cities like Phoenix and Dallas, except, in the latter case, those whites are incapable of disguising their self-interest with moral superiority (no "dense walkable cities", etc.)

[Brittain33]

That sounds like a copout. These people bring with them the same wealth-producing capabilities that educated, or even simply hard-working, but less liberal whites do when they move to cities like Phoenix and Dallas, except, in the latter case, those whites are incapable of disguising their self-interest with moral superiority (no "dense walkable cities", etc.)

It's not a copout. To produce wealth, you either have to work for an employer who makes good use of your skills, or start your own business. I'm saying that if you're not inclined to do the latter, and there is no employer in Flint or Youngstown who can do the former, there's nothing you can do to build capital in those places. Lots of people don't want to start their own businesses or work freelance, but want the security of an established company. That means, in a lot of the industries where the people we're talking about work, only being able to reach your financial potential in certain places.  

If I want to work in publishing, I can't move to Birmingham or Cincinnati. There are precious few jobs I could take, and little choice of career should I get one. I could move there if I wanted to freelance, but I don't want to freelance. So I stay in a major metro area with a good publishing industry. For the same reason, young Republicans who want to go into investment banking don't move to Fort Worth or San Bernardino.

Entrepreneurs tend not to be Democrats, no?

[Storebought]

But I contend that cities are able to make their own industries given the capabilities of their populations. There are only a few occupations in the US that absolutely constrain your choice of residence (investment bankers or accountants must live in the New York metro or San Francisco; congressional staffers must live in DC or an inner-lying suburb, ex.). But what exactly does Austin provide that simply cannot be found in, say, Indianapolis? Most of the people moving to Austin aren't employed by Dell or Whole Foods or even the state university. Why is Philadelphia, an ancient city with a fully-developed economy, so unattractive to the white progressives who would normally flock to such a place, unlike Boston?

I think that all of this skirts about some deeply obvious issue that was mentioned in passing by Torie and Verily: No one wants to live in a city where there is a high probability of being mugged or murdered, and most muggers and murderers in inner cities are black. And even this stands as just one issue in this whole movement.

[Brittain33]

But I contend that cities are able to make their own industries given the capabilities of their populations. There are only a few occupations in the US that absolutely constrain your choice of residence (investment bankers or accountants must live in the New York metro or San Francisco; congressional staffers must live in DC or an inner-lying suburb, ex.). But what exactly does Austin provide that simply cannot be found in, say, Indianapolis? Most of the people moving to Austin aren't employed by Dell or Whole Foods or even the state university. Why is Philadelphia, an ancient city with a fully-developed economy, so unattractive to the white progressives who would normally flock to such a place, unlike Boston?

Philadelphia does have a ton of white progressives. It just has lots of other people, too.

What does Austin have that Cleveland doesn't? Media industries, software, high tech. 

[Sam Spade]

So NYC isn't a progressive city?

Not really.  Among white voters living in Manhattan below 96th street and a few trendy outer borough neighborhoods, yes.  But once you get to the outer boroughs, the long-term resident white voters are pretty conservative.  Portland and Austin didn't elect someone like Giuliani.

So the point is that outer borough whites are superior to Portland whites because they live in the same metro area as a lot of blacks? This discussion is starting to get into the twilight zone.

I said nothing about superiority.  Just that NYC isn't as "progressive" a city as many think once you leave Manhattan.  Outer borough long-term white resident voters are more conservative than many think (though not as conservative as conservatives on the national scale).  Giuliani wouldn't have been elected in Portland or San Francisco.

Ignoring the ethnics in the outer boroughs for a moment, I might point out that there are certainly a lot of self-identified liberals and progressives in NYC who don't like minorities or think they're inferior in some way - it's hard to get it out of them, but they do....    Don't kid yourself otherwise. 

Racial hatred in NYC is not necessarily directly correlated with political views.

[Storebought]

But I contend that cities are able to make their own industries given the capabilities of their populations. There are only a few occupations in the US that absolutely constrain your choice of residence (investment bankers or accountants must live in the New York metro or San Francisco; congressional staffers must live in DC or an inner-lying suburb, ex.). But what exactly does Austin provide that simply cannot be found in, say, Indianapolis? Most of the people moving to Austin aren't employed by Dell or Whole Foods or even the state university. Why is Philadelphia, an ancient city with a fully-developed economy, so unattractive to the white progressives who would normally flock to such a place, unlike Boston?

Philadelphia does have a ton of white progressives. It just has lots of other people, too.

What does Austin have that Cleveland doesn't? Media industries, software, high tech.  

And that progressive population is, given its location, population, and age, tiny compared to its peer cities (excepting NYC, as its economy is significantly larger), even though Philly's economy is broader and better developed.

Cleveland has many, many problems. But considering the opinions expressed on this thread, and elsewhere, I don't see any real means of addressing them: (1) It has amenities, but not necessarily the ones progressives like (2) Its economy has shed practically all of its old manufacturing sector, yet it cannot attract new residents with the industries it retains (3) it has a first class research university, but its graduates flee as rapidly as the older generation white flighters had (4) It is overloaded with legacy issues -- brownfields, surplus housing stock owners cannot or will not renovate, concentrated poverty stemming from old zoning, unshakeable media image ("Mistake by the lake").

Except for the environmental cleanup (which is necessary for health but doesn't provide employment) and possibly housing renovation, and even that is limited by the taste and judgement of the property developer, progressive policy doesn't seem to address this. Conservative policy, as such, is to abandon places like this in favor of a new sunbelt exurb with fewer legacy issues. Progressive policy is basically the same thing, except the new location happens to be a fogbelt town out West, or a gentrified city back East.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Wait a minute... What do we mean by 'progressive' exactly? Is it a state of mind, a series of policies or a type of person (who happens to be largely white) we are referring to here. (Not being an American I can't really comment much on the topic in any depth only to note that it is very interesting and no, I don't think Storebought is arguing that white progressives are racists)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fascinating thread, for various different reasons.

Racial hatred in NYC is not necessarily directly correlated with political views.

As Mayoral elections over the past couple of decades (especially) show quite neatly.

[Brittain33]

I've been reading "progressive" as the "stuff white people like" person. Not sure it matters since I haven't yet gotten a handle on what this is about despite contributing too many posts.

[phk]

This reminds me of an episode of King of the Hill.

[Storebought]

I've been reading "progressive" as the "stuff white people like" person. Not sure it matters since I haven't yet gotten a handle on what this is about despite contributing too many posts.

That 's actually an interesting issue. Terms are ill-defined because they've never been identified by demographers and subject to a rigorous taxonomy. In short, no one has asked why anyone from an all-white suburb or from some decayed industrial town moved to Denver or to Boston. It was always assumed to be self-evident, the default movement of a white person with a college education or better to a location offering a higher quality of life (which would be?). I have yet to read a single New York Times essay or a Brookings Institute report that even identifies this movement as one worth investigation. Entirely unlike the well-investigated, and deeply loathed, movement of whites without college degrees from similar all white suburbs and decayed industrial towns to the Sunbelt.

[Brittain33]

Entirely unlike the well-investigated, and deeply loathed, movement of whites without college degrees from similar all white suburbs and decayed industrial towns to the Sunbelt.

In what way has this been criticized? Have you seen this called white flight?

I know it has been criticized, but I'm curious if we've identified the same reasons behind it.

[muon2]

Wow, a day and a half goes by and I miss three pages of posts. However, I'd like to hop back to comments on my post from page 1.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For a very good reason: White-black integration has always remained the most intractable, and, as previously mentioned, the presence of blacks is the primary factor concerning white flight on the local scale, and, arguably, on the national scale as well.

The question in the article simply posed why cities held as examples of 21st century urban design, particularly by progressives, are among the least black in the US, yet, somehow, have managed to avoid the stigma surrounding majority white suburbs in the Midwest with similar amenities, or equally well-maintained and sparsely-black cities like SLC or Boise. Indeed, an article in Time Magazine went so far as to describe places like Boise (but not Portland) "Whitevilles."

An interesting fact: Cities like San Francisco and Portland had higher percentages, and likely, even raw numbers, of blacks when they were controlled by traditional ethnic Democratic machines.

I would have far less problem with the article if the author clearly framed the question in terms of the white-black composition of the cities in question. My beef is his extension of the problem to one of diversity which encompasses a number of different ethnic groups. I pointed out the Hispanic population as one in particular.

The phenomenon of "White Flight" traditionally has been White vs Black mostly. Hispanics are a bit harder to pin down since there is almost no real White Flight from White Hispanics but somewhat a good amount due to Native American Hispanics. Asian "White Flight" is probably likely only in areas with good amounts of Hmong or Khmer populations I suppose.

Actually I have seen a number of areas have white non-Hispanics move out in response to increasing numbers of Hispanics. However, unlike the city-based white flight from black neighborhoods, what I see is suburbs that transition in response to Latino population influx. White suburbanites leave disproportionately when faced with the ethnic change in their town.

On one point I would agree with storebought in regards to the intractable problem of white-black integration. The tract-level Census data clearly show that in the northern rust-belt cities, a higher percentage of whites remain in Latino-majority neighborhoods than in black-majority neighborhoods. That seems to be true in transitioning suburbs as well, but there is less data over time to base any solid claim. I take this trend as a positive sign for long-term integration of the Hispanic population compared to the experience with black-white integration.

[Beet]

But I say that the progressives' solution to that fact is an unsavory as the crude and obvious white flight of the 1960s. It still involves a kind of denial that those people even exist -- either by moving to cities or rural counties that are, in fact, whiter (in the non-Hispanic sense) than the US as a whole, or it means pricing the current residents out of wherever they happen to live currently through bourgeois real estate development. And even then, the latter occurs only in places the progressives deem worthy of development, because of interesting (if dilapidated) architecture or proximity to the refurbished downtown. Just because one happens here doesn't deny that the other isn't concurrent elsewhere.

Progressives' solution to white flight is to attack socio economic inequality generally. Absent explicit racism such as redlining or conscious refusal to live near blacks, it is economic inequality that causes the problems you speak of. It is no accident that blacks made some of their greatest income gains relative to whites during the New Deal era. It is true that even among progressives, not all are economically leftist. Not all believe in equality of result. During the 1990s and 2000s a lot of progressives shifted their focus away from economic issues. This turned out to be a mistake. Progressives are increasingly become populist as the economic suffering continues. Unlike the right, the left will focus on economic outcomes when they do become populist.

Again, none of this is any reason why white progressive choose to move to already wealthy places like Seattle and not to cities that could stand the capital investment, like the non-sunbelt Southern cities or practically any in the Midwest not named "Chicago." Or that progressive urban development entails a causal or at least coincidental decline of the populations that have made those older places strong candidates for white flight.

As for the New Deal improvement of black income levels: Yes, it occurred during the heyday of semiskilled employment, one which will never occur again. Especially not in the progressive cities, since the manufacturing apparatus is dismantled and that improving the dysfunctional public education system present in practically every US city that condemns every child passing through to illiteracy, doesn't stand as a concern for urban progressives.

Choose to focus on the speck and miss the larger picture if you wish to. If you're really concerned with the revival of declining industrial cities or the elevation of poor populations and black populations, it's not going to happen under the 'free market' neo-liberalism that passes for the status quo these days, nor will it occur inchoate tea partyism.

[bgwah]

Storebought, are you trying to say that the things progressives supposedly like (walkable neighborhoods, good transit) can be found in other cities, or that they're merely an excuse for liking white cities?

People enjoy living in areas with cultures and values similar to their own... Clearly there will be some correlation with race and ethnicity here. Why are black people moving to places like Atlanta instead of Portland or Phoenix?

[Storebought]

Storebought, are you trying to say that the things progressives supposedly like (walkable neighborhoods, good transit) can be found in other cities, or that they're merely an excuse for liking white cities?

People enjoy living in areas with cultures and values similar to their own... Clearly there will be some correlation with race and ethnicity here. Why are black people moving to places like Atlanta instead of Portland or Phoenix?

My laptop is malfunctioning, so I'll have to keep my answer short.

I note that media comparisons are made in ways that favor the white(r) cities. If Portland, say, were being compared to Phoenix, then the criterion of superiority is "dense and walkable". If Portland were compared to Birmingham, then Portland would be "better-educated." If it were compared to poor Cleveland, then the comparison would be the "refreshing natural amenities" that Cleveland lacks. All of these things are true for Portland, within the context, but still misleading.

Your second point would not be an issue, or less of an issue, if the people moving to these sunbelt cities, and not the old East Coast-Pacific Northwest ones, weren't scapegoated for diverse ills such as automobile dependency, water misuse (which would be a factor for the entire eastern seaboard, which has had recorded centuries-long droughts), cultural illiteracy, pandemic obesity, etc. The latter two are especially disingenous since its the rural Southern poor (and Midwestern urban poor) who suffer the worst effects, and not the sunbelt migrants.

[Storebought]

But I say that the progressives' solution to that fact is an unsavory as the crude and obvious white flight of the 1960s. It still involves a kind of denial that those people even exist -- either by moving to cities or rural counties that are, in fact, whiter (in the non-Hispanic sense) than the US as a whole, or it means pricing the current residents out of wherever they happen to live currently through bourgeois real estate development. And even then, the latter occurs only in places the progressives deem worthy of development, because of interesting (if dilapidated) architecture or proximity to the refurbished downtown. Just because one happens here doesn't deny that the other isn't concurrent elsewhere.

Progressives' solution to white flight is to attack socio economic inequality generally. Absent explicit racism such as redlining or conscious refusal to live near blacks, it is economic inequality that causes the problems you speak of. It is no accident that blacks made some of their greatest income gains relative to whites during the New Deal era. It is true that even among progressives, not all are economically leftist. Not all believe in equality of result. During the 1990s and 2000s a lot of progressives shifted their focus away from economic issues. This turned out to be a mistake. Progressives are increasingly become populist as the economic suffering continues. Unlike the right, the left will focus on economic outcomes when they do become populist.

Again, none of this is any reason why white progressive choose to move to already wealthy places like Seattle and not to cities that could stand the capital investment, like the non-sunbelt Southern cities or practically any in the Midwest not named "Chicago." Or that progressive urban development entails a causal or at least coincidental decline of the populations that have made those older places strong candidates for white flight.

As for the New Deal improvement of black income levels: Yes, it occurred during the heyday of semiskilled employment, one which will never occur again. Especially not in the progressive cities, since the manufacturing apparatus is dismantled and that improving the dysfunctional public education system present in practically every US city that condemns every child passing through to illiteracy, doesn't stand as a concern for urban progressives.

Choose to focus on the speck and miss the larger picture if you wish to. If you're really concerned with the revival of declining industrial cities or the elevation of poor populations and black populations, it's not going to happen under the 'free market' neo-liberalism that passes for the status quo these days, nor will it occur inchoate tea partyism.

As opposed to what, exactly, hiring out these generators of white flight for internships at Apple?

By the way, this will be the last post of yours I respond to.

[fezzyfestoon]

I haven't read through the whole conversation yet, so forgive me I miss something.

To me the "progressive" group of young adults are largely extremely sheltered.  They come from middle class parents in the suburbs and went to college.  They have never lived in a diverse area and thus might be uncomfortable around areas and people they grew up thinking of as unsavory.  Most suburban raised people think of "the city" as being a little seedy and that usually translated into being around black people is a little seedy.  Really white people are afraid of black people and "progressives" tend to be really white.  It's not really racism as much as it is just ignorance and lack of exposure to other American cultures.  The new progressive cities provide an echo chamber of sorts for people to pat each other on the back for being such good people.  But it keeps them away from the less desirable areas they donate to.

[Beet]

But I say that the progressives' solution to that fact is an unsavory as the crude and obvious white flight of the 1960s. It still involves a kind of denial that those people even exist -- either by moving to cities or rural counties that are, in fact, whiter (in the non-Hispanic sense) than the US as a whole, or it means pricing the current residents out of wherever they happen to live currently through bourgeois real estate development. And even then, the latter occurs only in places the progressives deem worthy of development, because of interesting (if dilapidated) architecture or proximity to the refurbished downtown. Just because one happens here doesn't deny that the other isn't concurrent elsewhere.

Progressives' solution to white flight is to attack socio economic inequality generally. Absent explicit racism such as redlining or conscious refusal to live near blacks, it is economic inequality that causes the problems you speak of. It is no accident that blacks made some of their greatest income gains relative to whites during the New Deal era. It is true that even among progressives, not all are economically leftist. Not all believe in equality of result. During the 1990s and 2000s a lot of progressives shifted their focus away from economic issues. This turned out to be a mistake. Progressives are increasingly become populist as the economic suffering continues. Unlike the right, the left will focus on economic outcomes when they do become populist.

Again, none of this is any reason why white progressive choose to move to already wealthy places like Seattle and not to cities that could stand the capital investment, like the non-sunbelt Southern cities or practically any in the Midwest not named "Chicago." Or that progressive urban development entails a causal or at least coincidental decline of the populations that have made those older places strong candidates for white flight.

As for the New Deal improvement of black income levels: Yes, it occurred during the heyday of semiskilled employment, one which will never occur again. Especially not in the progressive cities, since the manufacturing apparatus is dismantled and that improving the dysfunctional public education system present in practically every US city that condemns every child passing through to illiteracy, doesn't stand as a concern for urban progressives.

Choose to focus on the speck and miss the larger picture if you wish to. If you're really concerned with the revival of declining industrial cities or the elevation of poor populations and black populations, it's not going to happen under the 'free market' neo-liberalism that passes for the status quo these days, nor will it occur inchoate tea partyism.

As opposed to what, exactly, hiring out these generators of white flight for internships at Apple?

By the way, this will be the last post of yours I respond to.

Lol, first of all, moving from one mostly non black area to another mostly non black area for economic reasons is not white flight. I'm afraid it hurts you that your fellow co-conservative whites historically flew away from blacks for explicitly racist reasons, and not just economic ones. If it makes you feel better to believe that liberals who move to Portland are racists too, go ahead.

And to answer your question, no, as opposed to investment in workers and their communities in the form of government led or sponsored industrial development, skills training and community development, rather than leaving them and their communities to rot away.

[Brittain33]

Lol, first of all, moving from one mostly non black area to another mostly non black area for economic reasons is not white flight. I'm afraid it hurts you that your fellow co-conservative whites historically flew away from blacks for explicitly racist reasons, and not just economic ones.

That's another definitional thing. Moving from Detroit and Philadelphia to Atlanta and Phoenix isn't what is commonly considered white flight. Lots of African-Americans have left the north for the Sunbelt since the 1970s, too. White flight is leaving a city for a suburb or a suburb for an exurb within the same metro area. Moving from Detroit to Livingston County, or Philadelphia to Chester County, would be closer to w.f.

[Storebought]

I haven't read through the whole conversation yet, so forgive me I miss something.

To me the "progressive" group of young adults are largely extremely sheltered.  They come from middle class parents in the suburbs and went to college.  They have never lived in a diverse area and thus might be uncomfortable around areas and people they grew up thinking of as unsavory.  Most suburban raised people think of "the city" as being a little seedy and that usually translated into being around black people is a little seedy.  Really white people are afraid of black people and "progressives" tend to be really white.  It's not really racism as much as it is just ignorance and lack of exposure to other American cultures.  The new progressive cities provide an echo chamber of sorts for people to pat each other on the back for being such good people.  But it keeps them away from the less desirable areas they donate to.

It's interesting that that the most favored cities by urbanists (Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle) are those
with cultural progenies stemming from New England, which never had many blacks to begin with.

I know it's anecdotal, but my best friend from high school had parents who were "really white people" from PA. They listened to NPR, attended Congregationalist churches, ate only the blandest of dinners, etc. Most of all, they hated the racism of Louisiana and longed for the peace and racial equality of, you guessed it, suburban Pittsburgh, the whitest metro of the nation. They never realized the irony of it.

[Brittain33]

It's interesting that that the most favored cities by urbanists (Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle) are those
with cultural progenies stemming from New England, which never had many blacks to begin with.

Boston is currently one-quarter black. Minneapolis is 18% black and its Congressional rep is Keith Ellison. This is a higher percentage minority population than the vast majority of communities where white people live.

[Verily]

I know it's anecdotal, but my best friend from high school had parents who were "really white people" from PA. They listened to NPR, attended Congregationalist churches, ate only the blandest of dinners, etc. Most of all, they hated the racism of Louisiana and longed for the peace and racial equality of, you guessed it, suburban Pittsburgh, the whitest metro of the nation. They never realized the irony of it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're just making sh**t up.

[Sbane]

I think Storebought is conflating different things. People moving from Detroit to Atlanta or Houston does not make it white flight. As pointed out already, many blacks are themselves making that move. Why these cities are "looked down" upon as compared to "progressive" cities is because these cities have become examples of sprawl gone wrong. Cities like Portland, Denver and Austin have taken steps to ensure their cities don't sprawl out like the ones I mentioned. You may disagree with their city planning, but how does that make them racist?

People are moving to these places from all over the country for certain reasons and apparently blacks aren't wooed by it. So should we blame white people for that as well? When given a chance (as in they have broken into the middle class), blacks are overwhelmingly ditching places like Cleveland and moving to a place like Memphis or Nashville. And maybe that is because they don't care much for "livability" and care more about getting themselves a nice home for a cheap price and living the American dream? Let's face it, blacks and progressives do have different priorities. Doesn't make any of them racists.

I would also like to address your point about SF having more Blacks before. What is wrong with blacks moving out of the city if they so wish? Nobody is forcing them out. Rather, they are probably seeing that for the same amount of money they can ditch their small house in the city and move to the suburbs like Antioch, Dublin, Tracy or Fairfield. There they can have a bigger house and better schools for their children. These are things that don't interest young progressives. They would much rather stay as close as possible to the city. The same process is going on in Oakland currently. The city used to be 48% black but now it has dropped down to about 36%. I think whites have become a plurality now in Oakland. And it's those same motivations that are pushing out middle class blacks into the suburbs from the city. And at the same time young progressives are moving in who want to be close to the city but can't afford to live in SF. Again I don't see any of these developments as racist or whites trying to avoid blacks. I mean if a white person wanted to avoid blacks, would they move to Oakland? Well right now progressives are moving in droves to that city. Sorry to puncture your pre conceived notions.

[Storebought]

It's interesting that that the most favored cities by urbanists (Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle) are those
with cultural progenies stemming from New England, which never had many blacks to begin with.

Boston is currently one-quarter black. Minneapolis is 18% black and its Congressional rep is Keith Ellison. This is a higher percentage minority population than the vast majority of communities where white people live.

The northern European look/feel was most strongly present today those cities were pioneered by the old yankees, not that they haven't gained any more recent cultural contributions since.

The persistent black American migrations from the old South bypassed them, so these places still retain a yankee-ish culture.