Sorry for the lack of posts. A little of the ol’ H1N1, I think. Like a fine wine, it lingers.
But comments keep coming in. Here’s one you might have missed from David at placemakingstudio.com:
I came across the following, which I found to be thought provoking and inducive to generating commentary: “If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles – places no one expects the average U.S. city to be able to imitate – 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 percentage of African-Americans in its core county. Perhaps not progressiveness but whiteness is the defining characteristic of the group. The progressive paragon of Portland is the whitest on the list, with an African-American population less than half the national average. It is America’s ultimate White City.
The contrast with other, supposedly less advanced cities is stark…Many of the policies of Portland are not that dissimilar from those of upscale suburbs in their effects. Urban growth boundaries 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.”(i)
While the article makes a fair point, removing a growth boundary in order to accommodate greater diversity is a non-starter.
To Renn’s credit, he doesn’t suggest that Portland ever was diverse. It would be difficult to ever have called Portland a significantly African American city. The only time that there was a large AA population in Portland was during the ship building years of WW2, when a huge influx of workers hit the city. These largely people left — and no, not always in fair circumstances — after the war jobs ended.
To suggest there is any significant correlation between the growth boundary and diversity, however, is ludicrous. Portland’s cost of living is still one of the (if not the) lowest of metropolitan areas on the west coast. If Portland is less diverse because of the cost of the UGB, then Seattle, San Francisco, LA, and San Diego should all be even less diverse, as they are all more expensive to live in.
Living in the Portland area, I am more than aware of the flaws, faults, and problems that our model has. These do need a more open debate. Portland is far from perfect. This said, what Renn writes sounds increasing dismissive of Portland’s model. To paste racial demographics onto it and suggest that this means that the Midwest should not look to us for ideas is simply providing fodder for anti-planning, anti-growth control, anti-transit activists.
Then again, Renn writes for Joel Kotkin’s New Geography.
this article received lots of criticism, and rightfully so
Renn points out a lot of uncomfortable truths that a lot of people would prefer to brush under the table. Apparently that is true in the comment section here as well.
I read this a month or so back, originally published at http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/10/20/the-white-city/
It’s an interesting article, and when you also consider the history of places like Seattle and Portland as “Sundown Towns” (look it up) it does give you pause for thought. But I get pretty suspicious when data points get arbitrarily removed based on assumptions that aren’t explored – i.e why is it valid to ignore NY, LA and Chicago (and DC for that matter), you know… *apart* from the fact that it inconveniently messes up his argument.
i find it insulting that the only minority that seems to “matter” to this author is African-Americans
this was a good counterpoint to the original piece:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/how_does_it_feel_to_be_a_problem.php
My response to that article is simple: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
That is, correlation does not equal causation.
That, and Vancouver is a fairly “progressive” city, isn’t it? White, it is not. The article was simply not very well thought through, as should be evidenced by the fact that it specifically ignored every city that is progressive yet doesn’t fit its argument.
Smart growth has been much more effective than enforcing racial covenants at removing/excluding African Americans from urban areas. This is why its so popular with white people. Its a way to remove the negros with no white guilt.
So of course white people love smart growth.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-26-urban-blacks_N.htm