

The demographic inversion of the American city. - rms
http://tnr.com/story_print.html?id=264510ca-2170-49cd-bad5-a0be122ac1a9

======
iamelgringo
I was shocked to read that Chicago had torn down the Robert Taylor homes as
well as the Cabrini Green projects. But, really, they had to go. I worked as
an ER/trauma nurse in Chicago in the 90's. The year that I moved there, there
were 994 murders within the city limits. That doesn't include the ones that we
were able to patch back together. I'm sure that a large percentage of those
murders happened within those housing projects. Between tearing the housing
projects down, whatever Chicago PD is doing and the changing demographics of
the city, the murder rate is half of what it was in the mid 90's.

I'm sure that people can't really understand what those housing projects were
like, but to give you a couple of examples--people use to snipe at police men
and paramedics from the top of the buildings in the Cabrini Green projects.
Cabrini Green was about 2 square miles of 10 story slums, and within those two
square miles, there were two full police precincts. Paramedics would not enter
the Cabrini Green projects unless they were escorted by one or two police
cars.

I worked two ER's within a mile of Cabrini Green. It was an adventure to say
the least. One of them was a small 16 bed ER, and we staffed 6 security guards
for our department. Every single ER stretcher had restraints to tie patients
down, chained to the frame of the stretcher. There were a number of times that
I got called out to the entry way to see a car parked, riddled with bullet
holes. The driver and passengers usually had couple of holes in them as well
that needed to be patched up.

And, the Cabrini Green housing project was about 1 mile away from the "Gold
Coast" of Chicago, which was one of the most expensive zip codes in the nation
when we lived there. Mayor Daley slated Cabrini Green for removal, and last I
heard, they had built a hip new development for the neo-urbanites moving in.

So, they relocated thousands of the cities poorest people. And, they removed a
bunch of gangs in the process. The crime rate went down quite a bit after
that, but those people took their Section 8 vouchers to the local burbs. Those
local burbs just don't have the resources or the tax base to deal with
problems. Just Google for images of Gary, Indiana if you want to see what
those local burbs are becoming.

But, even back in the 90's, there was a lot of gentrification already
occurring. One of the things the article didn't mention was how beneficial to
the city it was to have a large gay and lesbian community. Some of the first
areas of Chicago to get gentrified were because gay and lesbian couples who
didn't have kids and didn't have to worry about the school system. They moved
in to neighborhoods in Chicago like the Halstead neighborhood and
Andersonville, and really turned them into hip, trendy and safe areas to live.

~~~
michaelneale
OK, I thought I was having a bit of a tough day at work today (slight head
cold but not enough to go back to bed).

I now feel like a whimp.

Thanks for the detailed writeup !

~~~
iamelgringo
LOL. Thanks. It's just a job and it's paid the bills while I've chased my
dreams. I must say, though that there are a lot of tough men and women working
as nurses in Chicago. I learned a lot from them.

Buy me a beer some day, and I'll tell you about the time my friend Sue was an
hour late for work because she and her paramedic husband were trying to revive
her next door neighbor who had just been shot 3 times in the chest.

I'm 6'6" and 300 pounds, and I'm a complete wuss compared to Sue.

------
geebee
It'll be interesting to see how this goes in the future. In San Francisco,
there has been a huge resurgence in the number of families with small
children.

That's _small_ children, not necessarily school aged children, which is why
I'm still wait-and-see on this. I attended public elementary school in SF in
the 70s, which surprises a lot of the parents I meet now (I have a three year
old). I don't, unfortunately, have very encouraging things to say. It was a
rough environment. Fights (and by that, I mean fist fights) were extremely
common, even among eight year olds. Then again, a lot of people didn't enjoy
school, so I'm not necessarily saying things were all peachy in Marin or Palo
Alto.

I have to wonder if the middle-class people will stick around once they are
faced with difficult decisions about school. San Francisco still uses a
lottery to determine school assignment, while wealthy suburbs guarantee you
access to the "free" wealthy local school.

I know a lot of people with three year olds, and I really like these folks,
but very few of them grew up here, and I wonder how they'll react when the
city tells them they've been assigned to a poorly performing school across
town. Will they accept the assignment (hard to swallow)? Pay $17K+ for private
schools (hard to do when you're struggling to make the mortgage payments)? Or
will they just move out of the city? Keep in mind that SF is very expensive,
just as pricey as these tony suburbs.

It could be that city centers become wealthy, safe playgrounds for singles,
retirees, and young couples who stick around until their children hit school
age.

~~~
gibsonf1
San Francisco is building many high-rise residential towers right now - the
City is _the_ place to live, until the kids need to go to school. But there
are a growing number of good private options, and even a ray of hope on the
public side.

One of the worst Public schools in town (William Cobb Elementary) is being
transformed into an AMI certified Montessori school with complete replacement
of the staff. I have no clue how this is happening here politically, but it
sure is encouraging. A nice side effect to the certification requirement is
that all the old teachers don't qualify :)

The new direction started with a pre-school program with the support of the
top international Montessori school in Marin. The Cobb Montessori program now
has a 5 year track record with glowing reviews from parents. We are enrolling
our 4.5 year old there now. I never dreamed of having our child in public
school until I found this one.

~~~
geebee
There is definitely a ray of hope on the public side. A lot of the parents I
know are extremely committed to staying in the city.

But you sure do need to be committed. The numbers just don't look good for SF.
If you rely on private schools, you are looking at about $17K/yr for the K-8,
followed by $25k/yr for the high schools. The numbers boggle the mind. I have
one kid and another on the way. That means that tuition would run me between
$34K-$50k a year. It's not tax deductible, so this actually translates into
about $50-$70 in salary. I know some two income families that could swing it
without too much pain, but unfortunately, I'm not in one of them.

But even if you _can_ afford it, imagine if you moved to a good school
district in the suburbs and invested that money instead. The education is
"free" - and in a way, you _make_ money on it. You have to pay taxes to
support it, sure, but you'd have to pay them in SF anyway. And because houses
in good school districts tend to hold value or appreciate more rapidly than
others, the tax becomes, in a strange way, an investment (ie., you're
essentially buying a share in a school district when you buy the house).
Living in SF must be very important to these folks, because I wouldn't be
surprised if they're walking away from well over a million in lost revenue
over a lifetime.

Lastly, SF's school district is in particular trouble because of the deals it
cut with the unions in more prosperous times. I read about this in the
chronicle a couple of years ago (sorry, no link). Anyone who worked for five
years for SF Unified (in almost any capacity) gets subsidized health care in
retirement. In other words, someone who worked as a janitor from age 19-24
before moving on to other things is on the pension and health care plan.

Because it's a relatively old school district (newer suburbs simply don't have
retirees to support, because they didn't exist 30 years ago), this problem is
compounded. SF will spend a huge amount of its school budget simply supporting
its pension and health plan obligations.

In a way, it's almost a relief that so many childless people live in SF -
because of these obligations, we may need a much larger tax base to educate
the same number of students as a suburban district.

------
bmj
One interesting bit from the article:

 _Each morning, there are nearly as many people commuting out of the center to
jobs in the suburbs as there are commuting in._

As far as I'm concerned, this defeats the point, unless there is excellent
public transportation to the suburbs.

Another commenter mentioned Pittsburgh, and yep, this is even happening here.
The developers, however, are very much pushing this toward "young" (read:
single, or married without children) people. I don't think we'll see an influx
of families/children into the downtown area (which is quite small by
comparison) because there are very distinct urban neighborhoods with things
like trees and grass within 5 miles of the city center. I can be in downtown
Pittsburgh on my bike in 20 minutes, and I live near one of the rivers, have
two parks within walking distance, and own a house that costs a fraction of
what they are charging downtown. There are at least half a dozen other
neighborhoods like this, too. Most of these neighborhoods also include a small
business district with enough amenities to keep people in the neighborhood
(and out of their cars).

~~~
Chocobean
_The developers, however, are very much pushing this toward "young" (read:
single, or married without children) people. I don't think we'll see an influx
of families/children into the downtown area_

A side effect of having singles or newly married folks is children. Families
with children don't so much "influx" into new neighbourhoods like that as
"spawn" there naturally.

~~~
bmj
This is true, but when there are amenities for families (playgrounds, green
space in general, and schools) this is less likely happen, especially given
that in Pittsburgh, at least, you can live in the city, within 5 miles of
downtown, in a walkable neighborhood, for less money.

~~~
BrandonM
This description applies to Columbus, OH, as well.

------
siculars
I live in NYC and, over the last decade, can attest to this reverse migration
phenomena. The city is definitely becoming gentrified, safer and expensive.
For the first time in years the city is expanding public grade school capacity
in area long deserted by families.

~~~
daniel-cussen
I vividly remember going to Manhattan in 1998 and not seeing a single child.
(I was 12 at the time).

~~~
jimbokun
I remember moving to Manhattan in 2000, and not realizing at first almost all
of the people pushing strollers around were not mothers, but nannies. The lack
of physical resemblance to the children (nannies generally darker in skin
tone) should have clued me in sooner.

------
msluyter
I live in Austin, TX, and can attest to a boom of downtown condo construction
in the last few years. Most of these are 300k and up, which is a fair bit
above the median house price (roughly 175k or so).

------
jobeirne
As a kid growing up in the nineties, the city seems the inherently obvious
place for anyone who enjoys life to live. City-dwellers are flanked on all
ends by some of the highest forms of functional art (architecture), not to
mention the huge supply of dedicated people who spend waking hours forging
enjoyment out of hard work. Cities seem to encapsulate all the qualities of
youth. Unfortunately, residence in a prominent city seems to be growing more
unattainable by the minute. This should not be the case.

Cities, even during periods of prominent trendiness, should have cheap
domiciles on account of the various methods of bulk housing construction used.
Things like rent control provide a scathing impediment to the expansion and
cost effectiveness of urban areas. Rent control, for example, is a hugely
negative incentive for an entrepreneur to throw up a high rise. For my sake, I
wish this were not the case, but I know I'll make it anyway.

~~~
Chocobean
if i understand you correctly, you want trendy architecture and stuff to
happen in an area with cheap housing without rent control...?

is your city doing this, or do you have a plan for how that can be
incorporated?

~~~
jobeirne
are you familiar with capitalism?

~~~
Chocobean
I'm not following.

In a capitalistic society a trendy area of "high value" will push the prices
up unless some sort of socialistic program like rent control steps in, no? My
question was what's your take on how cheap residences can coexist in a trendy
neighborhood.

~~~
jimbokun
No. People will just build more residences until supply and demand meet a
happy medium.

Rent control actively pushes prices up for everyone by discouraging new
development (unless you win the rent control lottery).

Of course, there will be certain ultra trendy neighborhoods that will still be
out of reach for all but the wealthy. But allowing developers to build new
residences in urban areas make it more likely that poor, just out of college
graduates will have some place they can afford to live.

And if you think it is not possible to build new residences in already urban
areas: note the article says that residences in lower Manhattan have doubled
to house 50,000 people since 2001.

~~~
Chocobean
Ah. I think I see what you mean.

But I disagree that we can "just build more". It isn't just simple supply and
demand because land, and hence living spaces, is finite. You can't just
increase production until everyone is happy. And in a good neighborhood all
new residential developments will be priced completely out of range for
college grads and the likes. Availability isn't affordability. [edit: And I
certainly believe in build-and-rebuild in urban areas. I've been to Hong Kong
where the speed of urban renewal makes ones head spins. But all subsequent new
projects are progressively more expensive than the existing projects. Building
more units never made anything cheaper unless they were specifically slated as
"social projects" funding by the government.]

With regards to lower manhattan: are residences cheap there?

Anyway. Sorry this turned into somewhat of an argument. The point is: it is
impossible to have a trendy desirable neighbourhood with cheap residences.

~~~
jobeirne
Analogy: you can get a MacBook (i.e., trendy, desirable computer) for a
reasonable price. If I were to tell you that the MacBook's production was
inhibited by the finite supply of metals and silicon, you'd look at me like
I'd just crapped a swan.

The difference between city housing and a MacBook is that there is no
restriction on how much you can sell a MacBook for after buying one.

------
rms
This is even slowly happening in Pittsburgh, whereas until very recently
absolutely no one has lived downtown and the area adjacent to downtown,
uptown/"The Bluff" is the most blighted area in the entire city. I'm
optimistic that the area will eventually revitalize; it's just that they just
built a damn highway along the best riverfront land.

~~~
jimbokun
'the area adjacent to downtown, uptown/"The Bluff"'

Isn't that The Hill (or am I not following your geography)?

~~~
rms
This map has a few too many subdivisions for my liking (no North Side?) but
it's all here.
[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pittsburgh_Pennsylva...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pittsburgh_Pennsylvania_neighborhoods.svg)
The Hill District is on the hill above the Bluff -- if you drive from downtown
to Oakland along Centre Ave you drive through The Hill and if you drive from
Oakland to downtown along 5th then you drive through The Bluff.

~~~
jimbokun
That's an awesome map! Thanks for the link!

------
ojbyrne
I think tourism is also part of this - I know that in Barcelona large numbers
of the lower class were convinced to leave the downtown because they were
causing problems for visitors (crime, poorly maintaining housing) - whereas
gentrification side by side with hotels and sightseers works pretty well.

~~~
falsestprophet
Can you convince a population to move somewhere else without doing something
villainous?

~~~
lacker
Sure - just add things like parks and restrictions on new construction that
increase property values. This will lead to higher rents. The population that
can't afford it will eventually have to move somewhere else.

~~~
Agathos
Restrictions on new construction to increase rents count as villainous in my
book.

~~~
stcredzero
At some point, someone will have to post eviction notices, and the sheriff
will have to show up and throw someone's stuff out on the sidewalk.

------
eru
Are there really suburbs in America without sidewalks?

~~~
mleonhard
I live in downtown Seattle and walk or take public transportation. It feels
strange to visit my parents in the suburbs of Atlanta. They recently moved
about 10 miles further away from the city, to a new suburban wasteland of
cheap but expensive oversized wooden houses and badly landscaped enormous
lawns. There are no sidewalks in their neighborhood. The closest restaurant is
at least 1/2 mile away.

The main reason they moved is that had begun to feel unsafe in their previous
neighborhood. Apparently a lot of poorer people have been moving out to the
suburbs, some of them bringing crime and gangs.

I'm glad that they enjoy their new house and neighborhood. But I wonder if it
will still be a nice place to live when gas is $15/gallon.

I could tolerate living in a suburb if there was public transportation to
reach some decent restaurants. It would need to be a streetcar, train, or bus
that runs every 20-30 minutes until midnight.

~~~
eru
In Germany we pay around $8.50/gallon for gas, now.

------
BrandonM
_The era of the mom-and-pop grocer, the shoemaker, and the candy store has
ended for good._

I disagree with this idea. As we have seen on the Internet, the more people
that one can reach at low cost, the more niche the needs a business can
successfully fill. The best candidates to fill such niche needs are small
startups, not corporations.

If people with money are moving into the city, then by definition, more people
can be reached at a lower cost. If these people have money, then they will be
willing to spend it on something that improves their lives.

The argument is really easy when you just look at shops today. Even without a
rich population, the denser downtown areas are full of small businesses. In
the suburbs, where people are more spread out, chains rule.

In Europe, where the author claims this gentrification has already occurred in
several places, are there not small town book stores, restaurants, coffee
shops, and even shoemakers?

I'm really curious what made the author even add this comment to begin with.
It was like he was too afraid of saying that city life in the future is going
to be wonderful, so he had to throw something negative in there.

~~~
anamax
> The argument is really easy when you just look at shops today. Even without
> a rich population, the denser downtown areas are full of small businesses.
> In the suburbs, where people are more spread out, chains rule.

Part of that is zoning.

But, how many of those stores are bookstores? How many of them would have sold
food if Webvan hadn't screwed the pooch?

Frankly, I don't see the appeal of small stores, especially for things like
drugs and food. The prices are higher, the selection is smaller, and they tend
to have lousy hours (unless they're liquor stores). If they employ anyone
outside the owner's family, they don't pay much and they don't pay benefits.

------
ckinnan
Thank Rudy Giuliani and community policing and predictive law enforcement
software for making cities relatively safe again.

~~~
Retric
Thank video games and the gay community for making cities safe again.

------
dominik
I've been working in Detroit this summer.

I can confidently say: Detroit sure hasn't inverted.

