US Cities Could Verge on Becoming Ghost Towns by 2100, Study Finds(sciencealert.com)
sciencealert.com
US Cities Could Verge on Becoming Ghost Towns by 2100, Study Finds
https://www.sciencealert.com/thousands-of-us-cities-could-verge-on-becoming-ghost-towns-by-2100-study-finds
88 comments
>America can't afford to maintain cities and it can't afford to maintain the infrastructure required for suburbs.
Big piece right there. If cities can finally stop subsidizing suburbs, they can probably shore themselves up just fine.
Big piece right there. If cities can finally stop subsidizing suburbs, they can probably shore themselves up just fine.
New Yorkers saving a few dollars in taxes instead of shipping them upstate won’t be enough to address the fact that it costs $3-5 billion to build a mile of subway in the city these days.
Something people have discovered is that if you offer to spend more on something, the guy who is selling it to you will gladly accept.
Compared to many comparable countries, the US has such a huge number of local governments, with so many functions devolved to the local level.
If state governments took over more of the functions of local governments, or if local governments were merged – such as a single local government for an entire metro area – that might solve many of these problems.
When the state government takes over, the suburbs contribute to the state-wide tax base. Similarly, when the suburbs are merged into a single metro-wide local government, their local taxes now start contributing to services in other parts of the metro area which they commute to or rely on.
If state governments took over more of the functions of local governments, or if local governments were merged – such as a single local government for an entire metro area – that might solve many of these problems.
When the state government takes over, the suburbs contribute to the state-wide tax base. Similarly, when the suburbs are merged into a single metro-wide local government, their local taxes now start contributing to services in other parts of the metro area which they commute to or rely on.
The solution is to limit the expense of non-contributing people in our cities. Fact of the matter is is that certain lifestyles require a certain amount of ability to produce value. No one gets upset when you say that a middle-class person can't buy a luxury automobile without greatly increasing the ability to earn, but the same principle applies to the basics as well.
Seattle and King County were spending a cumulative $100,000/year per homeless person. That's higher than the per capita income of the county. No way to sustain that in the long term. If you aren't prepared to tell high-school dropouts, drug addicts, and the lazy, that they shouldn't aim for more than an ultra-high density apodment and generic brand everything and no kids, then you can't have a high standard of living city for anyone.
Seattle and King County were spending a cumulative $100,000/year per homeless person. That's higher than the per capita income of the county. No way to sustain that in the long term. If you aren't prepared to tell high-school dropouts, drug addicts, and the lazy, that they shouldn't aim for more than an ultra-high density apodment and generic brand everything and no kids, then you can't have a high standard of living city for anyone.
While I agree homelessness is a problem, it's a small financial burden compared to the unsustainable growth of infrastructure. Maybe it's time to finally get serious about treating mental health? Whenever I see comments like this, I always note there doesn't seem to be any broader solution than 'ship them somewhere else and make them someone else's problem'
> it's a small financial burden compared to the unsustainable growth of infrastructure.
American cities aren't really growing their infrastructure that much (that's one of the problems), they are just maintaining what they already have. But ya, we will spend billions on a link from Ballard to West Seattle here, and it won't be ready until sometime after 2040.
> Whenever I see comments like this, I always note there doesn't seem to be any broader solution than 'ship them somewhere else and make them someone else's problem'
That's because while the problem is national, the resources expected to solve it are local. Since the problem is also mobile (as anyone taking a greyhound bus to Seattle could see), at least not being a preferred destination for the problem is a valid strategy. Shipping it off is also valid, but mostly the chronic homeless will go places where they can survive (looking for better weather, generous social services, and police that aren't going to throw them in jail for doing fent on the bus).
American cities aren't really growing their infrastructure that much (that's one of the problems), they are just maintaining what they already have. But ya, we will spend billions on a link from Ballard to West Seattle here, and it won't be ready until sometime after 2040.
> Whenever I see comments like this, I always note there doesn't seem to be any broader solution than 'ship them somewhere else and make them someone else's problem'
That's because while the problem is national, the resources expected to solve it are local. Since the problem is also mobile (as anyone taking a greyhound bus to Seattle could see), at least not being a preferred destination for the problem is a valid strategy. Shipping it off is also valid, but mostly the chronic homeless will go places where they can survive (looking for better weather, generous social services, and police that aren't going to throw them in jail for doing fent on the bus).
> So shipping it off somewhere else, or at least not being a preferred destination for the problem, is a valid strategy.
Is a valid local strategy. Not a national one. The cities are just responding as best they can to the brokenness of the national (lack of) response.
Is a valid local strategy. Not a national one. The cities are just responding as best they can to the brokenness of the national (lack of) response.
I'm not sure how that differs from my response, but sure. You can't really blame these places for dealing with it as best they could, and the cities that don't do that (Seattle) are only rewarded with an increasing share of the problem.
It only differs in a bit of emphasis. You're emphasizing that the local response is reasonable; I'm emphasizing that the national response is a catastrophic failure. (You said that "the problem is national"; I just thought that point was worth emphasizing more strongly than you did.)
I thought that was obvious, but sure. National problems can't be solved at the local level, so only national solutions should be seriously considered as having a chance. In the meantime, localities need to do what they need to do to survive.
You would have to make benefits conditional on satisfaction of mental health treatment compliance to get anywhere.
I think you could follow a carrot and stick approach to reduce the largest harms of homelessness. Get caught using drugs or alcohol in public, or harassing people? Jail, with deferment into a mental health program (which is also available to all homeless folks). Stay in the mental health program, and you get housed, for free at first, and then a small percent of your income once you get a job.
> per homeless person
Oh, I thought that by non-contributing you meant tax dodging millionaires that incentivise vast array of useless luxury services and extract undue rent from the populace through their various schemes.
Oh, I thought that by non-contributing you meant tax dodging millionaires that incentivise vast array of useless luxury services and extract undue rent from the populace through their various schemes.
Your average unemployed homeless person is dodging enormous amounts of taxes simply by not having an income. Do you also complain about them or is your bitterness simply a result of envy?
This reeks of being an outside observer. WA has no income tax, but has a sales taxes which homeless people are subjected to. The only taxes are from property which renters also don't pay. When people complain about the rent seekers it's from a place of empathy, not envy. The extraction of wealth done by them always has and always will be more negatively impactful than homeless folks.
You can't dodge something you don't owe. Homeless pay all taxes they owe. Mostly salea tax I imagine.
The vast majority of wealthy people who are commonly accused of not "paying their fair share" and of dodging taxes are simply structuring their financial lives in ways that allow them to reduce their tax obligations. Very few are engaged in actual tax evasion and all the rest pay all the taxes they owe.
Structuring by moving their wealth to Bahamas which is indeed fully legal because they are the ones writing same laws (or golfing with the authors) - something the homeless cannot. So this legal trick allows them to fully enjoy their wealthy status locally while paying close to zero taxes. While supporting the Bahamas economy, yay I guess.
And they get $100k/year of services. Their life is still not particularly good, but mismanagement can burn even the largest resource pile.
Christ. At that point just hand them the 100k. The addicts will quickly end the public problem and those who just needed a starting seed will emerge anew with at least a van to live in .
[deleted]
100k/per year for homeless person? Do you realize that by giving that amount to most of them would get them OUT of the homelessness by next year (or sooner)? Yes there are the ones unable to get out of the pit, but most would. I would think if the measure of your services is how many homeless you support, then you'd increase the number of homeless,right? It's all KPIs and perfectly in the spirit of the OC.
I would pass law, average public spend per homeless can't exceed average public spend per public school student without annual public vote.
Let them explain, ever year, why your child is less deserving of the public investment.
Let them explain, ever year, why your child is less deserving of the public investment.
That isn't true. The really bad cases will trash/burn down their housing in a few months of obtaining it without lots of live in resources to make that not happen (or renovate/rebuild after it does happen). If it were just housing, we could solve this problem more easily, but we have decided as a society to combine it with our drug abuse problem and have decided for some odd reason to treat the harder cases first and wait for the easier cases (just need housing) become hard cases (now addicted to drugs) before doing anything about it.
Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly.
> Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly.
You are ignoring the 9 people they did help that way, but they didn't stay homeless for very long and aren't counted as chronically homeless. The one person that did burn down their hotel room is chronically homeless and very difficult to help...well, they are chronically homeless after all.
Not really exaggerated at all, I'm guessing you live in a nice suburb or somewhere without a chronic homelessness problem? Or you are just trying to gaslight us into thinking our property crime/drug problems aren't as extreme as we see them to be?
You are ignoring the 9 people they did help that way, but they didn't stay homeless for very long and aren't counted as chronically homeless. The one person that did burn down their hotel room is chronically homeless and very difficult to help...well, they are chronically homeless after all.
Not really exaggerated at all, I'm guessing you live in a nice suburb or somewhere without a chronic homelessness problem? Or you are just trying to gaslight us into thinking our property crime/drug problems aren't as extreme as we see them to be?
It would, but the homeless-industrial complex couldn't stand for that.
just burn the lazy and roast the rich then?
Everyone that wants to know more about this owes it to themselves to watch this strong towns video
It's a grim situation that doesn't even require decline, just the end of growth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI3kkk2JdoI
It's a grim situation that doesn't even require decline, just the end of growth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI3kkk2JdoI
>A new study has run the numbers and found that by the end of the century, almost half of the nearly 30,000 cities in the US will face some sort of population decline, losing between 12 to 23 percent of their resident population.
I am genuinely curious to know what number of cities and towns in the US have lost at least 12 to 23 percent of their resident population, or have become ghost towns, in the past 100 years.
I am genuinely curious to know what number of cities and towns in the US have lost at least 12 to 23 percent of their resident population, or have become ghost towns, in the past 100 years.
Lots of them. “Ghost towns” is an exaggeration. But Detroit has shrunk from 1.8 million to 650,000 and that’s caused tremendous economic problems. Philadelphia has shrunk from over 2 million to about 1.5 million and is stuck in a constant state of stagnation. Chicago has shrunk from 3.6 million to 2.6 million. It’s in much better shape than the other two, but went from being the “Second City” to a one with a questionable future. Baltimore shrank from nearly a million people to under 600,000, and seems to be in a state of terminal decline. Pittsburgh almost hit 700,000, and now is less than half that. The city has enjoyed a recent resurgence due to CMU and biotech, but the prosperity is not widely shared, and the city is kind of a museum to its more prosperous heyday.
These numbers are impressive. Do you have data on the split od these reductions? What percentage moved to the suburbs of the same city, nie mamy moved away and do long?
I don't think any of the large metro areas have shrunk in population, certainly none significantly. But those metros (St Louis, Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago, etc) have stagnated or grown much more slowly than healthier metros. They have suburbanized a mostly constant population, leading to much higher infrastructure construction and maintenance costs, while devaluing the real estate tax base that supported existing infrastructure in the central cities.
The default tendency for cities over the last 100 years would have been to shrink due to the decrease in household size. In 1920, it was 4.3 people per household, today it is 2.5.
Some cities have increased population by expanding their city limits and annexing adjacent unincorporated areas or merging with other cities. And some cities had existing undeveloped areas. But for many cities, they were already completely built up and haven't increased their city limits. In that case, the main way a city can grow population is to replace single family detached houses with multi-family housing, or to replace smaller multi-family housing with multi-family housing with more units.
In metro areas that are constrained by geographical or regulatory constraints on the growth of suburbs, this was done. But in metro areas that don't have those constraints (most cities in the midwest) suburban land is cheap and that type of housing replacement doesn't make sense. When land is cheap, single family detached housing in the suburbs is cheaper to build per unit than multi-family housing, so that is primarily what gets built. In that case, even if there is no flight from the inner city or housing that is abandoned, the central city becomes less dense as household size declines.
Some cities have increased population by expanding their city limits and annexing adjacent unincorporated areas or merging with other cities. And some cities had existing undeveloped areas. But for many cities, they were already completely built up and haven't increased their city limits. In that case, the main way a city can grow population is to replace single family detached houses with multi-family housing, or to replace smaller multi-family housing with multi-family housing with more units.
In metro areas that are constrained by geographical or regulatory constraints on the growth of suburbs, this was done. But in metro areas that don't have those constraints (most cities in the midwest) suburban land is cheap and that type of housing replacement doesn't make sense. When land is cheap, single family detached housing in the suburbs is cheaper to build per unit than multi-family housing, so that is primarily what gets built. In that case, even if there is no flight from the inner city or housing that is abandoned, the central city becomes less dense as household size declines.
12-23% is pretty easy, and includes some very prominent present-day cities. Detroit lost about 2/3 of its population between 1950 and today. Pittsburgh lost about 60%. St. Louis lost 65%. Buffalo lost 53%, Cincinnati and Baltimore around 40%.
Ghost towns are rarer, and it doesn't usually happen to major cities that have national recognition. There's a good list [1] on Wikipedia. tl;dr: they number in the hundreds, easily, but are largely small towns that you wouldn't have heard of unless you lived locally.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_ghost_towns_in_the_Un...
Ghost towns are rarer, and it doesn't usually happen to major cities that have national recognition. There's a good list [1] on Wikipedia. tl;dr: they number in the hundreds, easily, but are largely small towns that you wouldn't have heard of unless you lived locally.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_ghost_towns_in_the_Un...
A lot of mining towns have closed up when the ore (or coal) ran out. Some of them may have gained back population because they are in country that is attractive to the well-off.
I think it's fair to say that some of the rust belt cities decline is due to the iron ore running out in the great lakes region. And some of it was the rentier capitalists attempts to break unions.
Nature Cities Paper from the article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00011-7
If the legacy infrastructure of the current cities becomes too difficult to maintain and operate for smaller populations, we might see the populations establish newer communities in adjacent areas, like mediaeval Lundenwic and Lundenburg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_London#Lundenwic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_London#Lundenwic
Aren't the suburbs in the US essentially this, especially for the really decayed cities like Detroit and Baltimore? Many suburbs even have a lot of employment, so the city isn't necessary for that.
Another reason that cities are abandoned historically is that they become too hard to defend. In such cases, the people often relocate to a more defensible location. Similarly, in the US, many cities were abandoned by those who could afford it because of increasing crime, and they retreated to suburbs that were less hospitable to crime.
Another reason that cities are abandoned historically is that they become too hard to defend. In such cases, the people often relocate to a more defensible location. Similarly, in the US, many cities were abandoned by those who could afford it because of increasing crime, and they retreated to suburbs that were less hospitable to crime.
Not including climate change in their study was a huge miss. Saying the midwest is going to face population decline when frankly, the great lakes region is likely to boom as people look for an area that doesn't have as many heat waves and has a plentiful fresh water supply.
Edit: I never said the great lakes region would be immune to climate change, just one of the best places to migrate to in the continental us
Edit: I never said the great lakes region would be immune to climate change, just one of the best places to migrate to in the continental us
So, about how they don't have that many heat waves[0]:
>Increased heat wave intensity and frequency, increased humidity, degraded air quality, and reduced water quality will increase public health risks.
>More than 20 million people in the Midwest already breathe air that fails to meet national ambient air quality standards.
>Air quality is expected to get worse with higher temperatures, due to both human-induced emissions and longer pollen seasons.
>The frequency of major heat waves in the Midwest has increased over the last six decades. Between 1980 and 2010, the rate of warming in the Midwest increased three times as quickly as it did from 1900 to 2010.
>Extreme rainfall events and flooding have increased during the last century, and these trends are expected tocontinue across the entire region. In the Midwest, when it rains, it will – more and more frequently – pour.
What about that "plentiful fresh water supply"?
>These lake surface temperatures are projected to rise by as much as 7°F by 2050 and 12.1°F by 2100.
>Higher temperatures, increased precipitation, and lengthened growing seasons are likely to result in increased production of blue-green and toxic algae in the lakes. Blooms of these algae can harm fish, water quality, habitats, and aesthetics—and could worsen the impact of invasive species.[1]
[0]https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/regional_rel...
[1]https://toolkit.climate.gov/regions/great-lakes
>Increased heat wave intensity and frequency, increased humidity, degraded air quality, and reduced water quality will increase public health risks.
>More than 20 million people in the Midwest already breathe air that fails to meet national ambient air quality standards.
>Air quality is expected to get worse with higher temperatures, due to both human-induced emissions and longer pollen seasons.
>The frequency of major heat waves in the Midwest has increased over the last six decades. Between 1980 and 2010, the rate of warming in the Midwest increased three times as quickly as it did from 1900 to 2010.
>Extreme rainfall events and flooding have increased during the last century, and these trends are expected tocontinue across the entire region. In the Midwest, when it rains, it will – more and more frequently – pour.
What about that "plentiful fresh water supply"?
>These lake surface temperatures are projected to rise by as much as 7°F by 2050 and 12.1°F by 2100.
>Higher temperatures, increased precipitation, and lengthened growing seasons are likely to result in increased production of blue-green and toxic algae in the lakes. Blooms of these algae can harm fish, water quality, habitats, and aesthetics—and could worsen the impact of invasive species.[1]
[0]https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/regional_rel...
[1]https://toolkit.climate.gov/regions/great-lakes
> So, about how they don't have that many heat waves[0]
Yes... but compared to where?
> What about that "plentiful fresh water supply"?
Even at higher temperatures and increases in algae the Great Lakes are still there and can still provide fresh water.
Yes... but compared to where?
> What about that "plentiful fresh water supply"?
Even at higher temperatures and increases in algae the Great Lakes are still there and can still provide fresh water.
I didn't say the great lakes region would be without issues. I said it would be one of best regions to move to. If you think the great lakes will be bad, I shudder to think of everything below the mason dixon line
I constantly think of this 2020 ProPublica analysis which basically said I should move to Vermont to save my family from climate change
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
Ironically, Vermont along lake Champlain is another region that's likely to be highly resilient to climate change, yes.
Is there a similar report for Europe?
I wish. I live in London. Ireland, Northern England and Scotland will probably do quite well.I joke to my northern wife that one day we'll have a summer home in Yorkshire. Bad news is this island could have 80m people on it by then.
Look for anywhere with an oceanic climate. Ironically, much of Europe will do fairly well, climate wise, you just have a much higher population density to contend with.
>the great lakes region is likely to boom as people look for an area that doesn't have as many heat waves and has a plentiful fresh water supply.
This take, combined with the ever prevalent "Housing is so much cheaper in the Midwest" has been said so much that at this point I regard it as nothing more than pro-Midwest propaganda.
This take, combined with the ever prevalent "Housing is so much cheaper in the Midwest" has been said so much that at this point I regard it as nothing more than pro-Midwest propaganda.
Oh I'm sure there's a certain amount of boosterism at play but I can't say they're wrong.
My issue is that I've heard the cheap housing line for over a decade at this point, but other areas of the country are growing much faster despite having higher housing prices. I lived in Michigan for 7 years and was fed the whole "This is the year of Detroits resurgence" line the whole time I lived there. Now, I'm not going to say that Detroit hasn't improved a lot, but the way people talked about Detroit, you'd think that it was due for Austin levels of growth for at least a decade.
The area has cheap housing, mainly because it doesn't have high paying jobs. If you could move there with a remote tech job, you'd live like a king. Otherwise? Not so much.
I have done roughly this. I don't live in Detroit, but moved from Austin to another rust belt city in Michigan. It also happens to be my hometown, so it's hard to recommend it to people who don't have that connection. I own a home that I definitely couldn't afford in Austin, and life is pretty good. That said, I worry about the job market. I have no desire to leave my current company in the immediate future, but I think I may find it difficult in the current climate. Still, we put enough down on the house (and got the mortgage just before interest rates really popped) that we can easily stay put with just a "replacement-level" job in retail or similar, so it wouldn't be the end of the world.
I should say that, ironically, the reason I grew up here is that my Dad was a Federal employee at a time when there was no cost-of-living adjustment for Federal jobs (meaning his salary would be the same no matter which office he was assigned to, regardless of whether that was NYC or Peoria). He found this city doing research about low cost-of-living cities before putting in for a transfer. Now my daughter is growing up here for essentially the same reason. It's the circle of Midwestern life.
I should say that, ironically, the reason I grew up here is that my Dad was a Federal employee at a time when there was no cost-of-living adjustment for Federal jobs (meaning his salary would be the same no matter which office he was assigned to, regardless of whether that was NYC or Peoria). He found this city doing research about low cost-of-living cities before putting in for a transfer. Now my daughter is growing up here for essentially the same reason. It's the circle of Midwestern life.
>If you could move there with a remote tech job, you'd live like a king.
While I lived in SE Michigan, the main city that was targeted by remote workers wasn't Detroit, it was Ann Arbor. Housing prices there were already elevated due to U of M, but they spiked up more than surrounding areas did during the abnormally low interest rate era. People weren't moving to Livonia or Taylor despite the fact that they had lower housing prices than Ann Arbor because they wanted Ann Arbors amenities. Now, you won't have a bad life, but living like a king may be a bit too far unless you move outside of the well known areas.
While I lived in SE Michigan, the main city that was targeted by remote workers wasn't Detroit, it was Ann Arbor. Housing prices there were already elevated due to U of M, but they spiked up more than surrounding areas did during the abnormally low interest rate era. People weren't moving to Livonia or Taylor despite the fact that they had lower housing prices than Ann Arbor because they wanted Ann Arbors amenities. Now, you won't have a bad life, but living like a king may be a bit too far unless you move outside of the well known areas.
Regarding the “plentiful fresh water”, when I lived in Grand Rapids, Michigan there were more restrictive water usage regulations than when I lived in Phoenix, Arizona. The lakes can’t be drawn on without affecting shipping, and money trumps environment.
The Midwest is a continental climate. It will and does have heat waves.
Everywhere has heat waves. British Columbia was thought to be the safest place on the planet from climate change but the heat waves a few years ago, and it's steadily declining snow pack put that idea very much in question. If we carry on business as usual, millions of people will be looking for the safest port in the storm, and the great lakes region is one of 3 regions in the US that I think will have a large influx of climate migrants, especially by 2100.
it mentions jackson, ms but has no context whatsoever. do they even consider metro areas in the study? looks like it's hyperfocused on cities/towns, surely they consider movement within a metro area, because that's what happened in jackson (aka white flight).
"White Flight" is a bit of a misnomer as people that could afford to leave cities did leave cities (including non-white people) for a variety of reasons. One reason is that through the 1930's (depression) and 1940's (WW2) very little new housing was built and the housing inside of cities was beginning to age with minimal investment in upkeep. Costs were still very high, like they are today in many cities. But by the 1950's we were able to expand out of cities because of the automobile and new house construction was more affordable due to advances in materials and methods. So people began to leave cities because you got more space, your own yard, and an automobile and the costs were the same or cheaper than living in a cramped apartment in the city.
The second reason for people leaving cities was because of a sharp increase in crime, especially violent crime. The political leaning of the 1960's and 1970's were to be very soft on crime and that era is marked by a stark rise in crime. People that can afford it will not live in a high crime area - go figure! They move to an area that is nicer and the politics of those areas tend to be protective in that they don't want the same political policy that allowed crime to soar.
This of course starts a chain reaction where there are better living conditions and lower crime outside the city and the city begins to rapidly lose its tax base. The entrenched politicians are more concerned with having power than managing a city and the city rots. So they scapegoat people for being "racist: because they didn't want to live in a crime infested, cramped, hellhole when there were viable alternatives. The market speaks.
The main reason people left cities was because of better living conditions in suburbs and the rising tide of high crime in cities. That's it.
The second reason for people leaving cities was because of a sharp increase in crime, especially violent crime. The political leaning of the 1960's and 1970's were to be very soft on crime and that era is marked by a stark rise in crime. People that can afford it will not live in a high crime area - go figure! They move to an area that is nicer and the politics of those areas tend to be protective in that they don't want the same political policy that allowed crime to soar.
This of course starts a chain reaction where there are better living conditions and lower crime outside the city and the city begins to rapidly lose its tax base. The entrenched politicians are more concerned with having power than managing a city and the city rots. So they scapegoat people for being "racist: because they didn't want to live in a crime infested, cramped, hellhole when there were viable alternatives. The market speaks.
The main reason people left cities was because of better living conditions in suburbs and the rising tide of high crime in cities. That's it.
you can debate about it being racist or not, but the data shows that white people moved from the cities to the suburbs in southern cities. this is called white flight. a lot of the movement coincided with wins from the civil rights movement — this suggests that it has to do with race. imo it's very much race driven.
regardless, your suburb vs city dichotomy ignores the great migration from the south. rural folks in the south moved to urban areas in the north. it's not suburb vs city. it's rural vs urban. my criticism of this study is about that, it used an example of a city where there's been growth and urban sprawl in the metro area as a whole, but ignored that and only focused on the city of jackson itself. jackson has lost a lot of population for various reasons, but seeing that example in this article about the study set off a critical flag in my brain. it seems like a simplistic look at jackson without examining the metro area as a whole. it might do that and i just didn't read the study.
regardless, your suburb vs city dichotomy ignores the great migration from the south. rural folks in the south moved to urban areas in the north. it's not suburb vs city. it's rural vs urban. my criticism of this study is about that, it used an example of a city where there's been growth and urban sprawl in the metro area as a whole, but ignored that and only focused on the city of jackson itself. jackson has lost a lot of population for various reasons, but seeing that example in this article about the study set off a critical flag in my brain. it seems like a simplistic look at jackson without examining the metro area as a whole. it might do that and i just didn't read the study.
That's not to say that racism played no role - of course there were racists at the time, and it probably played a role in influencing the decision to move. But without the rising crime rates in the 1960s and 1970s, I don't that wouldn't have been enough to lead to large-scale abandonment of neighborhoods these racists had lived in for generations.
You're wrong, there was a large financial incentive to abandon neighborhoods once non-whites started living there. The racism caused housing sell-offs, amplified by the crashing home prices.
People quickly learned that their home value would plummet when the neighborhood became integrated, so they rushed to be the first ones out; while values where still high. This, of course, exacerbated the problem. Racism is at least a good 70 to 90 percent of the problem.
Racism in part but even looking at redlining it isn't how it is portrayed. Redline documents would point out not only where clusters of blacks lived but also Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, poor whites, etc. And those regions were all difficult to get loans to buy because the homes were often older and the banks were pretty sure that the working and lower class people living in them would not be able to afford upkeep. So they didn't want to lend money to buyers of homes that were likely to decrease in value. There was no Federal guarantee in those days.
Racism played a part too of course but class is often completely ignored in the USA.
Racism played a part too of course but class is often completely ignored in the USA.
One thing I've learned is redlining also meant that if a black, Mexican, or Asian family moved onto your street no one else on the block could get a home loan. Which meant you couldn't refinance, get a second mortgage. And if you sold it would have to be to a cash buyer.
See also block busting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting
See also block busting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting
It really had little to do with who moved in - although to be sure people certainly wouldn't sell to certain types of people in certain places. Properties were rated by their quality and their potential of being renovated and kept up - that's what red lining actually was. I've read through red lining documents and they mentioned all types of ethnic groups on the side, but the main consideration was the quality of the properties and if the area would sustain or decline due to the ability of current and future owners to renovate the structures.
Many properties in areas that were claimed to be "block busted" by revisionists were of low build quality to begin with were aging out and were unlikely to be revitalized by whoever lived there in the future. As I mentioned, because of the depression and WW2 there were not many new things being built and the existing stock in many of these areas was already low quality to begin with and had gone decades without much investment. Therefore the demand was low for these properties and lower class people were the market for them. So the neighborhood began to change and more crime was brought into these places which only accelerated the plummeting of values.
People act like an area of affluent people living in high quality homes all ran for the hills as soon as a black family moved in and the prices plummeted. No, it was places like the south side of Chicago which were always working class and full of small, cramped living places. Building huge housing project towers in these areas didn't help either, nor did the highway systems that cut through these areas. But people got out because the living conditions sucked compared to what was available in the new suburbs being built. Not to mentioned, jobs were moving out of cities because business could expand to new locations that were safer and not cramped.
Did race play role? Sure. As did class to a greater extent. But the narrative you hear and accepted as fact just doesn't reflect the total reality.
Many properties in areas that were claimed to be "block busted" by revisionists were of low build quality to begin with were aging out and were unlikely to be revitalized by whoever lived there in the future. As I mentioned, because of the depression and WW2 there were not many new things being built and the existing stock in many of these areas was already low quality to begin with and had gone decades without much investment. Therefore the demand was low for these properties and lower class people were the market for them. So the neighborhood began to change and more crime was brought into these places which only accelerated the plummeting of values.
People act like an area of affluent people living in high quality homes all ran for the hills as soon as a black family moved in and the prices plummeted. No, it was places like the south side of Chicago which were always working class and full of small, cramped living places. Building huge housing project towers in these areas didn't help either, nor did the highway systems that cut through these areas. But people got out because the living conditions sucked compared to what was available in the new suburbs being built. Not to mentioned, jobs were moving out of cities because business could expand to new locations that were safer and not cramped.
Did race play role? Sure. As did class to a greater extent. But the narrative you hear and accepted as fact just doesn't reflect the total reality.
No. Drive through Austin right now on Google Maps. The houses are huge, the streets are gorgeous, and the neighborhood went from majority white to 90+% Black in the span of just 10 years.
My understanding is that a lot of black East Austinites moved out to Manor because of house prices.
The Washington Park subdivision where redlining was eventually shot down was a brand new prosperous subdivision. The black families moving into it were well off.
The first person to integrate that neighborhood was a banking magnate. They bombed his house. Five times. They bombed banks and real estate agents who sold or lent to blacks.
Racial covenants were popularized as the more progressive way to keep neighborhoods segregated because racial violence was so bad.
The first person to integrate that neighborhood was a banking magnate. They bombed his house. Five times. They bombed banks and real estate agents who sold or lent to blacks.
Racial covenants were popularized as the more progressive way to keep neighborhoods segregated because racial violence was so bad.
when yt moves to the suburbs or the country it's white flight, and when he moves to the city it's gentrification. is there somewhere yt can move without it being racist?
i don't know what you're talking about. white people in jackson, mississippi moved to the suburbs. this is a fact. this has nothing to do with your comment.
Access to white people is basically a human right at this point, so any attempt by whites to prevent non-whites from exercising their human rights is by definition racist
I mean, it wouldn't exactly be unprecedented. New cities spring up and old ones die every few generations or so when we go through logistical churn. When the old passenger rail system died off, ghost towns emerged. When the old pre-interstate highway system was obsoleted by the interstate system, ghost towns emerged. And I imagine as we shift the way we build things and where value is generated geographically in this country, ghost towns will probably emerge. The nature of low-density suburbs and exurbs is that it doesn't take a lot of people leaving before they become unsustainable.
I feel like Americans should be more used to this.
I feel like Americans should be more used to this.
There are already states like Nevada with more ghost towns than live ones.
Arkansas too. Lots of places where the biggest and best export they have is their kids.
"A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies."
If rents drop, not such a bad future.
>If rents drop, not such a bad future
This is a fallacy similar to hoping for interest rates to drop; these things don't happen in a vacuum, they are the result of other factors.
Rents might drop, but that's because the area is getting less appealing (much like interest rates might drop, because the economy is faltering). Is that net good? I don't know. Having more people living cheaply in an area with crumbling infrastructure doesn't sound great.
This is a fallacy similar to hoping for interest rates to drop; these things don't happen in a vacuum, they are the result of other factors.
Rents might drop, but that's because the area is getting less appealing (much like interest rates might drop, because the economy is faltering). Is that net good? I don't know. Having more people living cheaply in an area with crumbling infrastructure doesn't sound great.
Huh? If housing supply exceeds demand, rents drop.
If demand drops for your chosen neighborhood, it probably has nothing to do with people hoping for lower rents. It usually means people don't want to live in a place because it's less attractive. And that means it's not as nice. Be careful what you wish for.
It's a bit different when overall population is dropping, which is predicted for all major developed countries by the second half of the 21st century. When population drops, demand drops for reasons entirely unrelated to how desirable your neighborhood is relative to other neighborhoods. Demand is dropping everywhere.
We only think that unusual because we've grown up in an era of perpetually-rising population. A lot of our economic rules of thumb don't hold once population growth reverses.
It is true that de-growth generates all sorts of other problems, though. One is labor: you may have houses, but they'll be shittily maintained, and you won't be able to find people to do the maintenance. Another is peace: when growth is happening, everyone has an incentive for peaceful trade so that they can capture the long-term profits of growth, but when growth reverses, the incentive reverses to conquering and pillaging as much of the pie now, before it shrinks, so you don't get left without a slice when it's gone.
We only think that unusual because we've grown up in an era of perpetually-rising population. A lot of our economic rules of thumb don't hold once population growth reverses.
It is true that de-growth generates all sorts of other problems, though. One is labor: you may have houses, but they'll be shittily maintained, and you won't be able to find people to do the maintenance. Another is peace: when growth is happening, everyone has an incentive for peaceful trade so that they can capture the long-term profits of growth, but when growth reverses, the incentive reverses to conquering and pillaging as much of the pie now, before it shrinks, so you don't get left without a slice when it's gone.
The idea is that the reason rent drops matters for the population in who moves in to the area.
Building more housing drops rent, but means the area is growing. People leaving because they are no jobs also drops rent, but good luck living in a place with no jobs.
Building more housing drops rent, but means the area is growing. People leaving because they are no jobs also drops rent, but good luck living in a place with no jobs.
So why is the supply increasing? Are people are going to keep investing in housing in cities with crumbling infrastructure? Are people moving away?
His argument is that demand will drop.
It's a complex issue and many people are sure they know the solution, but the reality is that the only way we know how to govern ourselves anymore is scraping the bottom of the barrel with knee-jerk responses to acute events.
Edit: I can tell by both responses that I wasn't clear enough in my main comment. Civically, America's representative governments have collectively established a policy of maintaining function just slightly above total catastrophe, while robbing taxpayers blind through nearly every single initiative they fund.