Cities Emptying Out

I JUST posted something related to this on my new blog. In short, the cities are emptying out, and yes, we're still segregated by race, but not as much as we used to be, and instead of having lots of areas that are 90% or more white, now that's ticking down below 80% white. Since the partisan split within white voters is a lot less than between whites and racial minorities, when a city empties out and that population of people who've been voting 90% Dem is dispersed, rather than simply moving a few miles from the previous dividing line (as you implid about Detroit, but which is more complex than that), it gets a lot harder for the GOP to pack a disproportionate share of Dems together in +65% districts and then create a greater number of 55% Repub districts.

Link to the post is here: http://rootedcosmopolitan.word...

---

by: Dana Houle @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 21:40:24 PM UTC

With the (now) decades of gentrification

I don't buy your conclusion about many of our cities.

While your conclusion about places like Detroit makes sense, people are moving into cities all over the US.

Isn't Manhattan now majority white, for example?

Nevetheless, there is more diversity in a number of our closer-in suburbs.

---

by: tietack @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 22:42:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Cities That Are Growing...

...are mostly the more suburban cities like Charlotte or San Jose. NYC is a bit of an outlier because it's arguably the biggest cultural and financial hub in the world, but Chicago lost over 200,000 people, and a lot of the mid-sized cities like Toledo, St Louis and Buffalo lost population.  

Chicago's an interesting case, btw: iirc, it gained about 25,000 Latinos, but lost about 50,000 whites and 175,000 black residents.  Some of those people moved out of the region, but many moved to the suburbs.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 22:56:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are other growing cities

Seattle and Portland are both filling in their urban areas, for example. San Fran too.

I haven't studied the overall picture, but the cities you're naming that have lost population (and presumably are coring out) are all midwestern.

Are you saying that gentrification in American cities is a sham? If it were, all of the developing transit systems would not be viable, and developers wouldn't be targeting such areas.

---

by: tietack @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 23:02:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And aren't a lot of cities pushing core development?

I get the impression that Orlando for example, now has a legitimate core.  

---

by: tietack @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 23:05:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Los Angeles is trying

There was a lot of movement east this past decade into Riverside and San Bernardino but with gas prices and traffic making long commutes really stressful (I have a cousin who drives from Hemet to Santa Ana for work!), LA will be poised to benefit. If the 30/10 plans get implemented, the LA basin will have a decent light-rail system and that will spur a lot of denser housing and commerical zones. Downtown LA, where development froze during the financial crash, is starting to heat up again.  

27, Dem, CA-39 (home), OR-04 (school)

---

by: Artesian @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 23:47:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, the cores are developing

In many cities, the core areas grew rapidly but the poor and minority areas lost population.
Here's a map of population growth in the SF Bay Area, for example:

Blue indicates population growth and yellow indicates population loss, with darker colors being faster growth/loss. Downtown SF and Oakland both grew rapidly, while many other areas grew slowly or lost population.
Similar things happened in Baltimore:

Or Philadelphia:

In those cities and many others, the cores grew, but the lower income areas didn't.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 00:04:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

wow there was even a high growth section in Camden

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:20:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mhm, there's new development near the waterfront.

Camden has been decaying for decades, so this is definitely an improvement.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:25:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Camden lost a mere 2.5% of its pop. over the decade.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:50:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

.

Where'd you get these maps? If you made them, would you mind posting two more? Austin and San Antonio. Pretty please!

21, Conservative Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood) TX-10 (Home) TX-23 (School);   DKos: wwmiv.

---

by: wmayes @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 06:39:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wish I could take credit for these maps

They are actually from the New York Times' census map tool. It's a great resource; it has maps of population changes, racial demographics, and other census data mapped for the entire US.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 17:15:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Las Vegas certainly is...

And even Reno and Sparks are up north. And looking at the future, Henderson and North Las Vegas down here are looking at ways to revive their urban cores and grow more sustainably, especially since all our recent exurban sprawl is increasingly becoming a horrid eyesore. (Just look at all the vacant developments along The 215 in The Southwest.)

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 00:20:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Likewise Philadelphia

I really do wonder how it grew but Chicago didn't.

---

by: andgarden @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 23:46:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Regional networking effects, maybe

Philadelphia benefits from being in the BosWash corridor. Chicago is relatively isolated.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

---

by: borodino21 @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:47:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The people who moved to the burbs came back

I've only been here since 1999, but from what I hear things got really bad in the 1970's/80's and began to improve when Rendall was mayor and has continued.  Lots of pocket neighborhoods have had renewals and the city for the most part is very liveable.  

Also, as the city became more cosmoploitan and people actually wanted to come to the city (i.e. nightlife, restaurants, etc) living in the burbs is less and less of an option.  The Schuykill Expressway to the western suburbs is a nightmare (its only 2 lanes and pinned between a river and pretty dense rocky terrain).  Back in the days of the good economy I would literally turn down jobs if they were in the western burbs, it just wasn't worth the headache.

Ironically, one other thing I think that will help Philly long-term is the decrease in the city wage tax (it has gone from 4.5% to I think around 4% in recent years).  This isn't great in and of itself, but the statewide income tax rate went up (2.8% to 3.07%) so the city tax is a smaller and smaller portion of the total tax and if you know Philly, the city-wage tax is something people of all affiliations bitch about incessantly but nobody even pays attention to the state tax rate.

---

by: rdw72777 @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:58:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

.

Austin is another one.

21, Conservative Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood) TX-10 (Home) TX-23 (School);   DKos: wwmiv.

---

by: wmayes @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 23:56:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's Gentrification, But Overwhelmingly Black Neighborhoods Remain Overwhelmingly Black

From NPR http://www.npr.org/2011/02/18/...

"There is another substantial share of the white population that is perfectly willing to live in diverse neighborhoods," he says, "although the proviso seems to be, not in a white-black neighborhood - but in a neighborhood that has already been integrated with the arrival of Asians and Hispanics, and people get a comfort level about diversity.

"And then when African-Americans join the mix, [it] seems to be easier to be accepted."

But overall, Logan says, "There is not much pioneering by whites into minority neighborhoods, at all."

"I want to challenge you on that," Inskeep says, "because I think I live in a neighborhood that could be described this way. It's happened over a period of decades; it's in central Washington, D.C.; it was a historic black neighborhood - and white people have moved in in substantial numbers over time."

"It can happen," Logan says, "and it might even happen that this is an area that can remain racially integrated over a long time.

"However, I do research that looks at thousands of neighborhoods, across dozens of cities," he says. "And between 1980 and 2000, I found out of say, a total of 5,000 census tracts in the country, only a handful - 20 or 30 - that were predominantly minority, and in which whites established a significant presence."

---

by: Dana Houle @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:10:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not unheard of

but some of the integrated communities have been that way for a long time. E.g., Mount Airy Philadelphia.

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:28:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gentrification Can Still Cause Population Loss

The average number of people per household tends to drop in a gentrifying area. So it depends on what/who the new gentrifying folks are displacing.

If the buildings they are moving into either didn't exist or were vacant or unpopulated (e.g. former industrial lofts), they do cause an increase in population.

If the buildings were occupied by lower-income people, though, then there's probably a population loss. The usual pattern is for families with children to move out of central cities in search of more land and/or better schools.

In my census tract in Baltimore, families with children are being replaced by singles, childless couples (both straight and gay) or empty nesters. There's very little new construction because it's built up already. Sure enough, the census tract lost population. (Though not nearly as much as in other parts of Baltimore where people left and weren't replaced.)

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:09:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But if I understand right, it generally does not

cause population loss (long term), as gentrification does come with some rebuilding, esp multistory condo building near transit stations. It also comes with repopulation in industrial areas previously unoccupied (lofts, studios, etc).

But I think there's frequently a lag time between the start of gentrification and the buildup of condos, etc. So if there are few industrial areas, I can believe a temporary population loss.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 14:27:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure you could say that

I just looked at the Wiki information for all U.S. cities over 500,000.  This is pretty much what happened in the last decade:

Very dense cities: New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Philadelphia grew - only Chicago declined.

Somewhat dense cities: Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Jose grew - Baltimore, Milwaukee, and Detroit shrunk.

All major U.S. cities with population densities under 5,000 people per square mile grew.  However the following is true in all cases - either they're in the South and West, and thus can still expand territorially, and/or they have undergone city-county mergers like Indianapolis, Louisville, Jacksonville, and Nashville, and thus have a lot of suburbs within the city.  

As I see it, the urban fate of cities is pretty much threefold.  

1.  In the Northeast corridor and the West, cities are stable.  Blacks and white, working-class people continue to drift into the suburbs, but enough white professionals, Asians, and Latinos are moving into the cities to more than make up the difference.  This means growth isn't dynamic, and certainly less than the suburbs, but there are no systematic problems with the cities themselves.  

2.  The Sun Belt cities are doing just fine, in part because they either contain suburban areas themselves or can annex new ones with ease.  

3.  That leaves the rust belt.  This is not just the Midwest, but also contains areas like Baltimore, western Pennsylvania, and Upstate New York.  These cities are screwed in some ways, because they can neither expand their borders into more suburban areas, nor do they have an immigrant population large enough to counteract white and black flight.  

---

by: eschaton @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 14:29:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now here's a fun example

The city of Minneapolis (and somewhat St. Paul) was able to stave off population loss over the decade with a former booming condo market in what was the Warehouse District but now is called the North Loop neighborhood on the edge of the business center of downtown.  On the flip, lots of minorities are moving out of the city in search of better public schools, which is something I saw first hand being one of the first families in 2000 to kick-off the exurban housing bonanza.  When I started in 8th grade, there was one black kid in my grade (and he was a Republican) but by the time I graduated, well, I was proud of the fact that there were so many minorities moving in that I couldn't keep up with learning names anymore.

I was working on an analysis of suburbs in the Twin Cities and unfortunately, I lost my wet dream worthy Excel with all my election results computed.  (Still have an older version with just the raw numbers that I'll fix up again some day.)  What I had found was that many of these high-growth suburbs and exurbs that minorities are moving to actually voted more for George Bush between 2000 and 2004, with 2004 to 2008 mirror the statewide average mostly.

At first, that should seem backwards, and I first posed this comment as a question hoping this would be a good topic starter for what the hell is going on.  Answer, these areas have always been Republican, but there were plenty of Farmer-Labor DFLers who have stayed loyal all these years.   Even with the influx of minority voters, the number of white people moving in as a raw number versus % overwhelmingly outdid them and thus, they are creating the new Republican suburbs.  I say "the new" as the GOP base in the upper class suburbs has been waning heavily, and actually, the two have probably reversed in voting habits.

Redistricting wise, I don't think much difference can be made.  The new GOP base are third and fourth ring suburbs which should make them easy to dilute, but our proximity to WI border makes them centered north and west of the cities.  At the same time, even though this makes our DFL base more centered, the DFL doesn't control a single suburban seat and there is too much population for there not to be plenty of DFL suburbanites left-over after packing MN-4 and MN-5.  And with only 5 seats for the metro area, you can only do so much.

---

by: Andrew @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 21:16:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As you point out

the real pattern is Democrats moving from inner city districts to the suburbs, which doesn't change the net balance as the inner city districts simply expand to get them back.  Representatives like McCaul in Texas who were worrying about all the Democrats moving in to their district get to just dump them back as their district moves its physical area further from the city core, and becomes more exurban in nature.  No net change.

---

by: skaje @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 21:54:34 PM UTC

But That's Not Quite What's Happening

It's not still all white vs all black but with the lines shifting, it's all black vs mostly white, still largely over 80% in most metro areas around the US, but there are few places in metro areas that are like where I grew up, where a mile away was a +95% black community but there wasn't a single African-American in my school district. Now even the whitest places still have some African-Americans.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 22:29:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW, Western ND Isn't Losing Population

Particular counties in Western ND are losing population, but the most populous counties are actually gaining, largely because of the petroleum industry:
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip...

And even in KS, the counties with the largest populations--Ellis, which is the regional hub and along the freeway, as well as the areas around Dodge City, Garden City and Liberal where there meat packers continue to bring in workers, mostly Mexican but even some Somalis--had modest growth. It was the counties that were already sparsely populated that are even more empty now. I drove through some of those places last summer and fall, and what used to be small towns are now literally deserted, with buildings falling to dust.

---

by: Dana Houle @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 22:41:06 PM UTC

Rural counties

It seems those tiny rural counties are just continuing the depopulation trend that began in the 1930s. For example, Slope County, ND has 4,940 people in 1920, and today has only 727 people. Most of the people didn't simply pack up and leave though, they just moved to the nearest urban area where it is easier to find work (cities like Amarillo and Odessa in Texas continue to show growth while the rural counties around slowly die out).

25, Male, CT-01 (home), Perth-Wellington riding (sometimes)

---

by: WalterSobchak @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 00:46:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

in Iowa

about two-thirds of the counties lost population. All the population growth in the state has been in dozen or so metro areas.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:52:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ND

The descendants of those old farmers are mostly in Fargo and Bismarck now. Most of that land is still in production (although much of it has been turned into hunting preserves) and more productive than ever, but it doesn't take nearly as many people to work the land as it used to. Ergo the rural areas empty out and the cities keep growing.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:55:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

shocked

that more people didn't leave NV with unemployment as high as it was. Then again, when you're underwater on your mortgage it's hard to move.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:51:40 AM UTC

That's the dilemma...

Folks are underwater, so it isn't easy to walk away. And now that the economy is slowly starting to recover, there's less of an urge for people here to just flee. In fact, there are even some people relocating here from elsewhere with the recent casino openings.

Nonetheless, Nevada probably won't see again the kind of extreme growth we saw in the previous two decades. Growth will probably be slower, and hopefully be more sustainable.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:31:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised not to see a single MN related thing

concerning population growth.  Overall, we are very weak, but the exurbs have been one of the hardest hit areas in the country with the housing market.  Guess growing by 40%-60% doesn't make you hot shit anymore.

---

by: Andrew @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:03:31 AM UTC

Scott County

was #39 for population change by percentage, with about a 45% gain. Wright and Sherburne weren't too far behind.

---

by: Crisitunity @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 16:44:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]