Earlier today, an anonymous blogger on a local anonymous blog linked to an article in The National Review concerning “demographic inversion,” which seems to be a roundabout way of describing the unintended effects of gentrification in large central cities.
The blogger wondered whether demographic inversion was somehow a part of the discourse of smart growth, implying that I (personally) secretly espouse this notion yet carefully couch my discussions in the language of smart growth. Quoting from the blogger:
It seems that I have stumbled across the real motivations of Lamar White, racism and elitism.
Came across this long story about how rich, white Chicagoans are pushing out blacks and immigrants for housing in downtown.
Isn’t that what Lamar calls smart growth?
However, the story admits that it doesn’t solve the city’s problems, just shuffles them around.
In fact, this quote pretty much sums up the futility of wasting tax dollars on downtown: “Joel Kotkin, perhaps the most prominent of the downtown debunkers, declares flatly that, until families begin turning up in significant numbers on downtown streets, we are talking about a blip rather than a major cultural phenomenon.”
Why are we spending $40 million for a blip? It’s policy that our young mayor seems to unfortunately been sucked in to.
I highly encourage people to read the entire piece and then comment on whether or not they reach the same conclusions. The piece is not about Chicago, which this blogger would have recognized had he or she actually read past the first three paragraphs. It’s about national market trends, shifting demographics, and the reinvestment in inner cities (and with that, the “inversion” of certain development patterns).
But either way, Chicago, which I recently visited and blogged about, is – obviously- very different than Alexandria. In Alexandria, there isn’t any housing downtown, so there aren’t any people to hypothetically “displace.” Our downtown, like many downtowns across the nation, is primarily office and retail space.
What we’re seeing in Chicago is a reflection of the changing lifestyle habits among younger working class professionals and even retirees. The changing demographics of the inner city, in other words, is actually a function of market demand, not a symptom of some nefarious racist and classist policy agenda.
The National Review piece says as much:
Ultimately, though, the current inversion is less the result of middle-aged people changing their minds than of young adults expressing different values, habits, and living preferences than their parents. The demographic changes that have taken place in America over the past generation–the increased propensity to remain single, the rise of cohabitation, the much later age at first marriage for those who do marry, the smaller size of families for those who have children, and, at the other end, the rapidly growing number of healthy and active adults in their sixties, seventies, and eighties–have combined virtually all of the significant elements that make a demographic inversion not only possible but likely. We are moving toward a society in which millions of people with substantial earning power or ample savings can live wherever they want, and many will choose central cities over distant suburbs.
Incidentally, the writer believes this is actually a good thing:
In the 1990s, a flurry of academics and journalists (me among them) wrote books lamenting the decline of community and predicting that it would reappear in some fashion in the new century. I think that is beginning to happen now in the downtowns of America, and I believe, for all its imperfections and inequalities, that the demographic inversion ultimately will do more good than harm. We will never return–nor would most of us want to return–to the close-knit but frequently constricting form of community life that prevailed 50 years ago. But, as we rearrange ourselves in and around many of our big cities, we are groping toward the new communities of the twenty-first century.
It is critical to recognize that he is speaking specifically about large American metropolises and the rearrangement occurring on a massive scale in those cities. Again, this rearrangement has much more to do with market demand than with public policy, and it’s not something that the 49,506 people living in Alexandria need to be preoccupied with, at least in terms of our own redevelopment strategy.
Smart growth isn’t about displacing neighborhoods; it’s about strengthening neighborhoods. And this isn’t done through pie-in-the-sky projects (though certain catalytic developments can make a difference); it’s done by improving infrastructure and accessibility, increasing home-ownership, and reducing crime. Of course, one would be naive to think that displacement never occurs, but if you are careful and deliberative and if you directly involve the community, large-scale displacement can be mitigated. Neighborhoods and the community spirit they foster can be strengthened.
I fully recognize the dialectic between gentrification and displacement. I’ve written about it in the past. But, in short, although we should guard ourselves against the negative effects of gentrification, S.P.A.R.C. seeks to strengthen existing neighborhoods through targeted investments in infrastructure; it does not seek and does not intend to displace. It simply recognizes that decades of neglect have created blight and that certain corridors have long deserved our attention.
CenLamar 
Lamar,
Check out this link:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/BG1426.cfm
The author makes some of the the same assertions as the National Review article but has a lot more data to back them up. As you know, if you twist data enough, you can make it say just about anything. It is interesting reading though.
Darren,
No offense, but the Heritage article isn’t just twisted data; it’s mangled. I wonder how they can reconcile their logic in the wake of the sub-prime fiasco.
Moreover, they are vague and reductionistic about what, exactly, they mean by “smart growth,” offering no empirical examples except for an attempt to validate the Atlanta model and invalidate Portland. It’s absurd when you compare the quality of life indexes between the two cities.
You’ve given me much more to think about. More later…
My reasons for moving to an “urban” neighborhood, at least by BR definitions, include first, not having to deal with traffic, which is a pain in the ass at best and possibly deadly hazardous at times…being able to walk isn’t a bad thing.
I’m also close to museums, and, at last with downtown redevelopment, bars, restaurants, a farmer’s market…hopefully before too long, retail, and, if I’m lucky, a grocery.
I find it interesting that downtowns around the country began to go into a state of decline at roughly the same time that the civil rights movement began. While I don’t think racism was THE reason, it might well have been a contributing factor in suburban flight, along with policies promoting parkway/highway construction, multiple-car families, the fact that, at least at the time, it was probably cheaper and more lucrative to construct and/or purchase surburban housing as opposed to renovating urban homes or apartments, etc., etc.
For the record, as a kid I lived in a typical suburban house in Chesapeake, VA., while my dad was still in active military service…interestingly, my mom recently told me that, when they put the house up for sale prior to moving back to Louisiana, our next door neighbor–a minister at the local Baptist church–quietly informed them that it would not be acceptable to sell “to blacks or Jews.” Nice, eh?
Also for the record, I’ve lived in what amounted to rural conditions, (a few miles outside of the New Iberia “city” limits), as well as typical student ghettos here in BR and up in the frozen north (Madison, WI). All things considered, my preferences are definitely urban.
And perhaps others are feeling the same: get out of, or at least limit the time spent behind the wheel, have a community that’s reasonably walkable (hell, there are neighborhoods here that don’t even HAVE sidewalks), etc.–and, more important, HAVE a community. Surburban isolation can be as maddening as urban alienation…plus, the yard work takes time or money.
Years ago someone pointed out to me an interesting fact: notice how in “historic” or old neighborhoods, the houses, if detached, are on small lots, that is, they’re very close together…and yet, at the time, there was PLENTY of land available. If people had wanted to, they could’ve easily created the equivalent of a suburban yard (without making transportation any more problematic)…but instead, they chose the opposite.
Hmm…
Lamar,
It is unfortunate that this local anonymous blogger is using the banners of anti-racism and anti-elitism as a convenient tool to defame you. I have known you personally for over a decade (wow!) and I cannot recall at time when you were being racist or elitist. What you have always decried is ignorance, and that’s why I respect you greatly.
Although the article in the New Republic that the anonymous blogger cites is adding to the complicated dialogue concerning gentrification and urban revitalization (regarding which i have also commented on your previous posts on this subject), this blogger is not attempting to add to the discussion. Some people don’t understand the difference between the politics of personal attack and honest disagreement about issues. They can be indentified by their constant derision of the position of others without actually putting forth a well reasoned alternative.
Anyway, as someone who has recently purchased and moved in to a modest historic home in a mixed income and mixed race neighborhood in Mid-City New Orleans, I appreciate your continued honest and open discussion about these topics. I myself, from the ‘suburbs of Alexandria’ (Clermont) chose that particular neighborhood to live and invest in because of the sense of community there. I know my neighbors, they walk around and talk to me asI am sitting on my front porch and I walk around and talk to them as they sit on their front porches. We share tools. They bring me extra crawfish from the boil. I play with their kids in the park. There is crime and misunderstanding, but at least we have real relationships. I know more of my neighbors after one year of living in the city than after 12 years of living in the suburbs. Go figure, my friend.
Keep up the good work!
Michael and Michael,
I recently picked up a book called The Big Sort by Bill Bishop. I think it’s a much more nuanced argument than the one presented by the National Review. The book concerns the way in which Americans have clustered into like-minded communities.
We’re more transient now than we ever have been; between 4 and 5% of Americans move to a different county (parish) every year, but we’re finding that people aren’t simply moving where they can find the best job or the best house. They’re moving into communities that share their own social and political beliefs. The author makes the point that the community’s constant reinforcement of these shared beliefs can sometimes prevent the open exchange of diverse ideas. In other words, using the author’s example, if you live in Travis Heights in Austin, your neighbors may ostracize you if you decide to brandish a McCain yard sign. Similarly, you can face the same type of ostracizing if you brandish an Obama sign in the suburbs.
Here in Rapides Parish, I’ve definitely noticed an urban/rural divide on certain issues, and I think it’s funny that some people seem perturbed about reinvesting in the inner city– as if anyone actually believes that Alexandria can be transformed into an Austin or a Portland.
Someone responded on the other blog and said Alexandria should let its downtown remain a government hub and focus infrastructural investments only on the “corridors” experiencing growth (which, I suppose, would be sprawl corridors).
Missing from this discussion is an honest appreciation of the ways in which government incentives and taxpayer-funded infrastructure have actually facilitated and guided sprawl growth AT THE EXPENSE of investing in the inner city. The fringes remain healthy and wealthy; the inner city dies. And the self-fulfilling prophecy of sprawl somehow looks like it’s simply the result of market demand.
We’re spreading ourselves thin.
It’s sad that anyone would raise the specter of racism and elitism in order to undermine desperately need investments in the inner-city, but this isn’t a serious argument. No doubt, some people simply don’t like the notion of an urban community that values its urban neighborhoods.
They can couch their argument in flimsy “free market” language, but ultimately, they misunderstand the investments as a political strategy; perhaps they simply don’t like the concept of an urban community and, with it, all of the young and progressive people such an environment seems to attract.
But before anyone takes my point the wrong way, in Alexandria, no one is focused on such pursuits. Instead, we are focused on much-need INFRASTRUCTURAL reinvestments– roads, sidewalks, greenspace, increasing traffic connectivity, as well as human infrastructure– police and fire protection, etc.
“They’re moving into communities that share their own social and political beliefs.”…my neighborhood is one of the few here in Red Stick where you’ll see Barack Obama yard signs.
Anyway…I still think that, particularly for those slightly younger than myself (I’m forty-three), at least some are finding that a more urban existence has significant benefits…well, that AND they don’t stigmatize the urban core/center the way that, well, my generation and my parents’ generation did. It seems as if a LOT of people in their late 20s-early 30s have either purchased or are renting around here…and over in Spanish Town, the other old neighborhood (which, by the way, is both more “bohemian” and economically desirable: when I bought, I looked at places in both Spanish Town and Beauregard Town, but couldn’t afford prices in the former.)
Again, I go back to what my friend told me all those years ago, and it’s perhaps a corollary to Bishop’s point: people WANT communities, whether or not they’re bound by social norms, political preferences…or even simple geography.
Oh, sure, there will always be Greta Garbo types who just want to be left alone…and there will also be those who prefer the predicatable quantities and qualities of suburbia with generic, could-be-anywhere houses…McDonalds, Chilis, Applebee’s, and a Sonic Drive-In just up the street…and, of course, a Wal-Mart off the highway exit.
Fortunately, I think for all of us, that sort of “ideal” is no longer a universal, even though your common wingnuts will often insist otherwise.
Michael:
Yes, I think the problem arises whenever communities become too homogeneous. Bishop mentions a handful of really interesting social psychology experiments in order to demonstrate the point that like-minded communities often reinforce polarization.
If your only experience in life is living in a rural community around the same type of people who all go to the same church and who all vote for the same political party, you’re more likely to misunderstand and even radicalize people who live in urban communities and attend different churches (or, gasp, belong to a different religious tradition altogether or don’t practice religion at all) and vote for another political party.
And the same can be said even for people who live in urban communities: They can become polarized as well, though, personally, I don’t think it’s as pernicious– because urbanity inherently possesses diversity. But still, just as there are Republicans who believe all Democrats are “liberal socialists,” there are also Democrats who paint all Republicans with the same type of broad brush.
It’s one of the funny things about engaging with people on that other website– a website that was founded by a member of an organization that seeks to elect Republicans to office.
Most of the folks there aren’t interested in a real discussion on community issues; they’re more concerned with radicalizing, insulting, and even defaming anyone who possesses a view different than theirs. And they end up looking much more radical than the people they ostensibly detest… But just as in real communities, virtual communities can also become overrun by groupthink and the notion that the only way to stand out is to be rabid in your approach, especially if you believe your rabidness helps to buttress an ideological perspective that is shared by the group at large.
Most of the naysaying is seated in ignorance. Thanks for your refreshing blog.
Talking above about socialist communities, I have thought about (more so this past week) throwing my hands in the air and moving up East to a more preservation minded community who values what they have. 🙂 Just kidding…of course.
Things will come around, it just takes time — and much of it is spent informing the ignorant.