From newgeography.com:
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.
More:
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.
Still more:
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.
Read the whole article. It documents why attempts to emulate Portlandia in small cities in the midwest are failing and how reviled megalopoli like Atlanta and Houston are doing a better job at delivering true diversity in urban life.
Imagine a style of journalism that digs deeper than the happy-babble of boosterdoggling press releases…
Teri Lussier says:
What a great find, Greg.
>Lack of diversity in culture makes it far easier to implement “progressive” policies that cater to populations with similar values… It is much more difficult when you have more racially and economically diverse populations with different needs, interests, and desires to reconcile.
We talk around this issue all the time in Dayton.
October 20, 2009 — 9:11 am
Greg Swann says:
This is one of those topics I could talk about at enormous length. As an example, the “progressive” movement has been racist de facto from its inception, with its best victim being the century-long lynching of black entrepreneurs. Walter Williams wrote an excellent book called “The State Against Blacks,” a thoroughgoing documentation of the means by which the welfare state keeps black Americans, in particular, from realizing the American Dream.
Meanwhile, to head off completely irrelevant comments from people who may not know how to make relevant distinctions, Phoenix and Maricopa County have been persistently guilty of racism-by-zoning, this going back to pioneer days. Lately we’ve taken to aping Portland’s style of racism. We destroyed a huge number of minority-owned businesses in order to build a Trolley, and the always-empty Trolley will in turn eliminate or curtail bus services that are actually used by poor black and brown people. Shiny-happy white yuppies get to preen about their progressiveness as they drive in their Jaguars alongside the Trolley line, but poor people will lose the only transportation available to them to get to the jobs they will no longer have. Nice…
October 20, 2009 — 9:38 am
Naomi says:
I’d buy into this better if the racial statistics provided went beyond white and black. As a Seattle native, I know there are substantial Asian and Native American populations in Western Washington & Oregon. When they are figured in, does that change things? I’d genuinely like to know.
October 20, 2009 — 11:16 am
Benjamin Ficker says:
Well this strikes close to home since I’m from Portland. From my perspective, I never noticed any racism in regards to city planning. We lived in The Pearl District, easily one of the best parts of the city. At the same time, the Pearl District was the most expensive place to live and also had the most low income housing available.
To be honest, it never would have occurred to me how any one could look at Portland and say racism was involved. Of course this is coming from a late twenty-something white guy.
This article does make some valid points. I can see how one might see the inner NE Portland area and feel that gentrification was taking place. Many minorities had lived in these homes for 40+ years. And with all this renewal, many felt the need to leave to North Portland where there were more minorities. Is that racism? Or did a family who had their house paid off, making $30k a year for a family of 5 or 6, decide to take more money then they would most likely ever see? Honestly, they seemed to be more prudent investors then whitey “forcing” them out of the area. They had a home and sold it at the peak of the market. And then moved to a lower priced up and coming area.
I get how many of the policies may seem like there were racist intentions. But I also remember hearing every year about the low minority voting turn out.
There are minority owned businesses along the light rail and plenty of minorities who rode along side my wife and I on the streetcar and light rail system. Comparing it to what is here in Phoenix is a joke. There are relatively few stops along the Phoenix light rail that seem inviting and make one want to get off and go explore. When the train stops 4 or 5 blocks from where the action is, everybody would rather drive (It does get ridiculously hot here, not quite walking weather). Portland’s streetcar and light rail lines had stops all over the place. Literally right at the door steps to the zoo, right next to both the Rose Garden (Where the Blazer’s play) and next to the civic stadium where the minor-league Beaver’s play. Anytime you were bored, you could jump on the MAX (that’s what we call it up there) and randomly pick a spot and have something to do.
I’m sure people can find racism anywhere they go. I do like it down here, but I have heard more racist comments about black people and Mexicans in the 4 months I’ve been here then my entire time in Portland (As Greg pointed out).
So should a city NOT plan on making itself more livable? Should renewal not happen because someone of another color will feel bad? Should a city not try to better itself? Is all city planning bad? If urban renewal is bad, and ignoring the obvious needs of renewal is bad, I’m not sure what the alternative is.
October 20, 2009 — 11:55 am
Teri Lussier says:
Dayton is talking about changing part of the inner city. Eminent domain, planned zoning, etc. Beautification, gentrification, infill housing, small boutiques and retail will replace it. It sounds lovely, doesn’t it? However, what is going to happen is that eminent domain will displace the poorest residents and will guarantee a particular income level of residents, if not overtly guarantee a particular race.
Because this serves a very small segment of the Dayton population, this pet project is doomed to fail.
In Portland, however, where the majority of the population skews along particular lines, it would be a great idea.
October 20, 2009 — 1:21 pm
Al Lorenz says:
Greg, Thanks for mentioning this. The local jurisdictions here are doing the oxymoronic goals of updating their growth management plans while giving lip service and a bit of money to affordable housing and diversity. Fascinating statistics.
October 20, 2009 — 2:03 pm
Melina Tomson says:
OKay I’ll chime in since I lived in Portland for 10 years and now live just south of it.
First of all, Oregon has just funky politics. We are the only state where you have the right to die, but can’t pump your own gas. Progessive is a matter of perception, but we have funky politics here. I have to laugh at an outsiders idea that Oregonians share similar values. The only real value they share is “to each his own.” Otherwise this is a very idealogically diverse state.
Second, the reason that Oregon, in general, has a low African American population is because they weren’t legally allowed to live in Oregon until 1926. Oregon didn’t want to “side” with either side in the civil war so they just said “blacks can’t live here.” It takes a while to recover from idiotic laws like that. I don’t think that the author of the article took that into account when wondering why we have such a low population out here. Our “progessiveness” has nothing to do with zoning people out now, but we certainly “zoned” them out of the state before 1926.
Third, Portland is about 78% Caucasian (2000 census). Still high, but we have larger Asian, Native American, and Hispanic populations here. I think it is flawed to only talk about African Americans when talking about diversity. Why don’t other ethnicities don’t count?
As for the housing issues, affordale housing is a significant problem in Oregon in general. We have the opposite problem here where our poorer folks tend to go to our smaller cities and the outskirts for more affordable housing. Closer in means higher prices. As a result the max lines have helped make the city more easily accessible. Up until recent budget woes part of the max and bus lines were free. The max has been a great thing for our poorer families because it makes it easier to get into downtown for work. It also has many stops in local minority communities.
All cities will tell you they are working on affordable housing, but finding an investor to do an affordable housing project is another story. Investors that invest in the revitalization districts expect to turn a profit. I don’t think it is possible to have revitalization districts without displacing lower income families. So the question is do we say “let’s just keep these areas run down so lower income families have a place to stay?” Should we tell our local investors “sorry too much profit. You can’t make as much because the houses will displace minorities.” I say that not to be glib, but what do we regulate? Do we forget about code enforcement and boarded up houses? Do we tell investors to stop making money? Do we change fair housing laws so that 30% of homes sold in a neighborhood should be to minorities so we can make areas more racially and socially economically diverse?
October 21, 2009 — 12:24 am
Teri Lussier says:
It’s not about race, the bigger picture is about a lack of cultural diversity. Having a homogenous cultural experience means you get things done with less haggling over priorities.
I was telling my husband about this post and he reminded me that several years ago, when NASCAR was looking into building a racetrack in the greater Seattle area, it was met with outrageous vocal stereotyping of NASCAR fans, even by public officials like the Speaker of House in Washington state, who said he wouldn’t want to live next to them.
I wonder if he was drummed out of office for that?
October 21, 2009 — 7:27 am
Greg Swann says:
> It’s not about race, the bigger picture is about a lack of cultural diversity.
Check. In the same way, building and land-use restrictions have a significant disparate impact on economic strata. The absence of black residents in cities like Portland and Austin stands out because black people considered as a group are distributed differently, on the economic Bell Curve, as distinguished from Asians, for example. BoBo Utopias, by inference, will also be short on white poor people, brown poor people and yellow poor people. To the extent they are racially diverse, they will be highly homogenous economically — just like Scottsdale or New Rochelle.
This is why the article is interesting, because it points out factors people might not have considered when holding up the New Urbanism Valhallas as cities worthy of emulation: The factors to be emulated are de facto hostile to poor and especially poor minority populations, and are essentially unworkable in cities that already have large populations of poor people.
The next inference to be drawn is very simple: If you want to provide equal access to real estate to all economic classes, you must eliminate building and land-use restrictions. The things that make Portland and Austin and San Francisco desirable to Yuppies make them inhospitable to non-Yuppies. That’s racism in fact, in deed, regardless of the ideological intentions of the proponents.
(Interesting, isn’t it, that Americans spend so much time talking about racism and so little time talking about policies that do real damage to the lives of black and brown people?)
October 21, 2009 — 7:58 am
Melina Tomson says:
Part of Portland sits in Washington county. That county has 15% Hispanics. We have large Russian, Vietnamese, Japenese, Malaysian, Mexican, Native American, etc populations here. Teri there isn’t a lack of cultural diversity in Portland. Just a lack of African Americans. That makes it about two races and not culture.
October 21, 2009 — 8:00 am
Greg Swann says:
It were well to stop focusing on Portland and to consider the points the article is raising. Houston has few land-use restrictions and many black people. Austin has many land-use restrictions and few black people. It’s possible to argue that the two are not causally intertwined — except that we already know that land-use restrictions cause a great host of urban ills. OTOH, it’s very easy to see that policies that cause housing to cost a great deal more than it otherwise might will tend to eliminate poor people of all races from the buying pool.
(The next step in the process, incidentally, is below-market set-asides, which also do not bear up to close scrutiny. This is the real source of political power for groups like ACORN, to be the choosers of the beneficiaries of the developer’s coerced largesse.)
October 21, 2009 — 8:15 am
Don Reedy says:
“(Interesting, isn’t it, that Americans spend so much time talking about racism and so little time talking about policies that do real damage to the lives of black and brown people?)”
Greg, you hit a nerve with me here. I believe, based on pretty much my life’s interaction with folks, that we talk about rascism because it allows us to avoid “time talking about policies that do real damage to the lives of black and brown people.”
Righteous and thoughtful appearing conversations are really oratorical masks that cover the fact that the majority don’t really give a damn about other people’s lives. Melina’s comment about Oregonians being about “to each his own” is right on, and probably not what she wants to hear.
I really appreciated your take on this subject.
October 21, 2009 — 8:15 am
Greg Swann says:
> I really appreciated your take on this subject.
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m a bleeding heart on this topic. I’m not. I’m just aware of how supposedly-beneficial market intrusions by the state are harmful to the actual economic interests of poor people — who are, alas, disproportionately black and brown.
In some cases this is intentional, as in Scarsdale and other white-flight suburbs, and in others it can be an unintended secondary consequence. But, either way, the tighter the economy is bound by rules of any sort, the harder it will be for the people with the least investment capital — and, therefore, the fewest economic opportunities — to improve their lots. The fewer your options in the game, the greater your need for an unrestricted playing field.
Does the Welfare State exist to keep poor people down, to maintain them as a reliable source of votes for yet more welfarism? Perhaps not — perhaps this is not the actual intent of these policies. But this is their actual effect. And yet these are the people who are most in need of true political freedom.
October 21, 2009 — 8:51 am
Melina Tomson says:
Melina’s comment about Oregonians being about “to each his own” is right on, and probably not what she wants to hear.
Why would I say it if I didn’t want to hear it? Oregon is very much a “take care of yourself” state. It is an innate part of the Oregon culture. It is anti-tax, anti-social services here. The author talks about the yuppie/homogenous nature of Portland but the arguing over the MAX line was crazy. There was no “universal agreement, easy process.”
I just think the person who wrote the article has a flawed theory. That’s all. Atlanta has 4.5% Hispanics per the census. I bet I could pull many east coast metros with low Hispanic populations. Does that mean their policies are racist against Hispanics?
I just think the author’s theory is way off because they are looking at one race. If they really want to make an appropriate comparison, they should pull other ethnic groups into their study. I’m all for looking at policies and racial issues. I just think they need to be looked at thoroughly and in full context. I bet you I could do that same comparison and call many metros racist based on low racial numbers of some ethnic group.
October 21, 2009 — 11:33 am
Teri Lussier says:
Melina-
The author focuses on blacks because, as he says, “African Americans, (are) the traditional sine qua non of diversity”
The charts and graphs show the demographics, and the author addresses your concerns.
All the article states is that the less diversity a city has- racial, ethnic, social, economic, cultural- the less diversity a city has, the easier it is to get citizens on the same page.
And as a citizen of a diverse city, in the same terms that are being discussed in the article, we keep being told we should function like Bobotopia in order to succeed. That’s going to be impossible. But who cares? More importantly for the Rustbelt, we don’t need to, as Atlanta and Houston have shown.
Houston particularly, one of the few cities without zoning laws, would truly fit the freedom-loving model of a modern major metropolis, and is also a place where blacks not only prosper, but take an active part in setting city agendas.
October 21, 2009 — 4:10 pm
Thomas Johnson says:
I love it when the Brick Ranch boosts Houston! Teri, your visa to come here is always valid!
I have always said that folks don’t come to Houston to live, they come here to work and then liberty works its magic and they stay.
October 21, 2009 — 9:12 pm
Teri Lussier says:
>Teri, your visa to come here is always valid!
Thomas, Houston is a fascinating city to me. I drove through Houston once in ’85 or ’86. It was mile after mile after mile of ghost town. Abandoned subdivisions, incomplete condo developments, it was downright sad and scary, and that’s the only picture I have of Houston.
The city of Dayton is currently carrying about a 24% vacancy rate for residential property. That’s downright sad and scary, too.
Over the past 10 years my husband has become a seasoned business traveler and has visited cities all over the world, including several trips to Houston. That’s the city he always looks forward to visiting, and always comes back to tell me we need to take a vacation there. “I know you’d love it! There’s something special about Houston. The attitude of the people is unlike any other city.”
Of course that description doesn’t jive with my limited memory of the largest ghost town in the country, but, since becoming a Realtor, since watching Dayton struggle with massive real estate issues, since grasping the true problems of forced zoning, planned zoning, as indicated in this article, and knowing that part of the draw of Houston is the comparatively messy way it grows and embraces freedom, I do believe that the liberty you describe is exactly what Jamie is viscerally responding to when he’s there.
I’ve been suggesting repeal of zoning laws (“Look at Houston!”) in Dayton for some time now, and it’s usually met with horror. A shame, really.
October 22, 2009 — 6:54 am