"The White City"
A friend of mine emailed this article to me about so-called "progressive" cities. The ones labeled most progressive had one consistent feature: race. From New Geography:
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.
Then, the article calls out Portland specifically:
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.
and:
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?
What drove me to post this is the line, " It's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics."
I love Portland, as does the friend who emailed this to me. What we want is to increase diversity in Portland, not continue to lose it. The only thing arguably missing here - besides more bike lanes - is more people of color. So how do we as a progressive people make it appealing for people of color to want to stay here? Discuss.
|
October 27, 2009 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (127 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Carol Brown | Oct 27, 2009 12:01:31 PM
I dunno abt you, but I'm surrounded by color: brown. As in Hispanic. Of course, I do live in Milwaukie, but still. I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Oct 27, 2009 12:19:19 PM
Karol,
I think it's a stretch to argue that white artsy types come here as an alternative to dealing with home cities that are......er.....too colorful.
As a native Oregonian, my take is that there is a Myth of Oregon as Ecotopia and in-migration over the past 30 years is from people who buy into that myth and upon arrival work hard to erase any differences between their fantasy ideal and the actual state.
They've been pretty danged successful at it too. That there are fewer minorities here than elsewhere in the Urban Pantheon of Progressivity, has more to do with these drivers of midwestern and Californian immigrants, than with any sort of ingrained racism, IMHO.
Posted by: Jake Planton | Oct 27, 2009 12:28:44 PM
I posted his on my facebook a while ago, some interesting comments:
Aaron Renn says that "progressive cities" like Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver having less African Americans than the national average "raises troubling questions."
Seattle has a small black community, but very large Asian and Indian communities (from India). The conclusion that everyone who is not black is white makes his article not about diversity but his own narrowness of view.
Another writes:
Moved to a Seattle suburb two years ago from Nashville, TN. At first, I was struck by the lack of African Americans--and in particular, black-owned businesses. There is an odd, "let's not talk about race attitude here"...which comes from a "we're beyond it" place, but often smacks of "not wanting to deal with it." HOWEVER, Seattle has quite the diverse population: the 4th largest Asian population in the U.S. And, mixed marriage is so commonplace it goes virtually unnoticed. (Can't say that about the South--where "miscegenation" still turns heads). And speaking of diversity, estimates for Seattle's gay population vary but are placed as high as 12.9%.
According to these numbers from 2005, Seattle's black population is 8%, with an Asian population of 14% and Hispanic population of 6%. Another reader addresses the bigger picture:
The idea that all American cities should have a set percentage of blacks is not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the word “diversity,” as Joyner notes, but a surprisingly ignorant of history and people in general. Did I miss the part of my history class where there was a post-slavery migration of blacks to Denver (little more than a village of cowboys and railroad workers in the 1860s)? Or the part about the plantations in Minneapolis? Of course those cities don’t have as many blacks as Pittsburgh. There was no reason for freed slaves to travel to Seattle or these other cities – many of which were barely on the map at all in 1865. Like all migrating peoples, African-Americans followed geography, opportunity, and personal connections.
The pathways originally blazed by the underground railroad didn’t go through Austin or Portland, they went through what is now the rust belt, what was then the locus of industry. So, yes, if one ignores history, culture, community, economics, and physical geography, blacks should have spread out evenly throughout the United States. And Arizona and North Dakota should have the same number of Latinos, San Francisco and Des Moines should have proportionally sized Chinatowns, and St. Paul and New Orleans should have equal number of people with Scandinavian heritage.
Posted by: Russ Kelley | Oct 27, 2009 12:35:33 PM
The basic thesis of this article is:
"Portland has few minorities, so obviously their planning policies DO NOT benefit minorities; however, Atlanta and Houston have many minorities, so their planning policies obviously DO benefit minorities."
Correlation does not equal causation.
The article is thought provoking, to be sure. But there are too many holes in its logic to be the foundation for a serious discussion of whether Portland's planning and transportation policy is actually detrimental to diversity.
Posted by: Bill R. | Oct 27, 2009 12:39:32 PM
I don't think you can just make diversity happen. It happens because of economic conditions. The AA community in Portland is there largely because of World War II and the availability of employment at the shipyards for AA people. The growing Latino population is there primary because of the influx of migrants in Oregon agriculture who were the first wave of Latinos who eventually stayed and became upwardly mobile. The truth is Oregon was founded as a white supremacist homeland, changing that will only happen through economic development.
Posted by: ben | Oct 27, 2009 12:53:58 PM
Please consider me among those anxious to point out that strictly speaking, “non-white” ≠ “black.”
By my way of thinking, the article carries the same undercurrent of ignorant, latent racism that Portland does so well:
“Civic leaders in city after city duly make their pilgrimage to Denver or Portland to check out shiny new transit systems, but the resulting videos of smiling yuppies and happy hipsters are not likely to impress anyone over at the local NAACP or in the barrios.”
Putting aside for the moment the fact that scenes composed entirely of smugly satisfied white folks probably don’t do much for people of color on a visceral level, the quoted passage led me immediately to ask: why is the writer using race as an unqualified heuristic for the desirability of one planning policy over the other?
I was also rather dumbstruck by the fact that if you live in the ’burbs and use public transportation as a means of conveyance, you see plenty of faces that aren’t white — a fact the article fails to mention at all, and perhaps even avoids.
When you look at places where public transportation sucks out loud, there seems to me to be a strong correlation between the prevalence of car culture over other values. Since moving here I’ve heard lots of people point out enthusiastically that they cannot manage without their cars, and are completely mystified that anyone else actually could. More than any of the other facts and opinions babbled about here and in the article, I apprehend the issue of car culture as being the most ethnically neutral issue at hand.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Oct 27, 2009 1:20:28 PM
I'd like to see more workforce housing development and specifically more quality projects like the Shaver Green Apartments.
I live a few blocks away and have been watching the building go up most of last year. It's workfore housing, but it's also clear the architects and builders took pride in what they were doing. There's great attention to detail, and the folks from DECA (the firm who also did the swanky and fantastic Lincoln restaurant) gave some thought to how the building would hold up long-term.
It's not perfect -- not crazy about the windows -- but imo it compares very favorably with some of what's been built in the Pearl. Overall, it's a fantastic addition to the neighborhood -- especially given that it's built on a former brownfield site.
Another workforce housing proposal from WPA also builds on the idea that you can have affordable units that are beautiful, inspiring and of course, totally green. Gentrification is a complicated issue, but affordable housing plays a big role in all of this.
Posted by: Lilly | Oct 27, 2009 1:40:15 PM
Oh my goodness, Oregon certainly is white. I remember moving here as a small child from San Francisco in the 70's, and asking my father where all the brown people were?
As a child in San Francisco I had latino, african american, jewish, and asian friends.
I grew up here, but my parents had lived in New York, DC, SF, and sort of resigned themselves to the fact that the place they had settled into and began raising a family in -was white bread.
I know my Jewish mother has felt constantly annoyed by the overwhelming Scandinavian outlook/population here, having listened to her gripe about it all my life.
To my parents, Portlanders were insulated simpletons that weren't smart enough to integrate their lives and belief systems into a larger, all encompassing, more interesting world view.
I guess I have my own love/hate relationship with Portland.
Posted by: Bridget | Oct 27, 2009 1:43:46 PM
I moved here from Lincoln, Nebraska nine years ago, and I was shocked to find this city whiter than Nebraska.
I had to look for, apply and send my children to a school outside of my very white neighborhood of Hillsdale in order for them to have the same economic and cultural diversity that they enjoyed at their neighborhood school in Lincoln!
I didn't move to Portland for the large percentage of white people.
I don't know that African-Americans and Other People of Color want different public policy than White People.
How about we go ask some people? How about we ask some people of color in Atlanta, New York, Dallas, Chicago, about what stops them from moving here?
I used to live in Aurora, Oregon, which is near Woodburn. Woodburn's population is predominantly Mexican and Central American. They have a thriving downtown. They have neighborhoods that welcome people that look like them. If you go there on a summer Sunday, there's a mariachi band in the park.
We have a clash between culture and class here that the high cost of living contributes to. If you want to live in a neighborhood that is predominantly African-American, or Asian-American or Hispanic, you're not living in a neighborhood that speaks to the class distinction of educated people of color (the people most likely to move across the country to our fair city).
I don't think we have that here. I think that people from Atlanta would miss being able to go into a high-end hair salon that specializes in black hair.
I think they'd have the terrible choice of picking a school for their children that was either educationally excellent or had people of color in it.
But I don't know for sure because I didn't ask, and neither did this article. They just made the weird claim that we're all moving here to avoid people of color.
Posted by: Greg | Oct 27, 2009 1:49:18 PM
So Black people don't ride bikes, enjoy nature, like good beer and coffee, eat local, recycle, how come I didn't know that?
Posted by: Michael B | Oct 27, 2009 1:58:41 PM
This is utter nonsense. Read a few pages of history before you make these ridiculous claims. The whiteness of Portland is an aftereffect of our history, period. Demographic trends do not at all indicate that Portland is getting whiter. We just were very white to begin with.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Oct 27, 2009 2:02:26 PM
I advocate for a variation of “diversity” for Portland. Portland should become an “international city.” Portland should become a city where people of various colors, cultures, languages, and backgrounds want to live and work. In terms of values, it just makes a more vibrant, richer, and more interesting city. One I’d enjoy living in.
But the more serious public policy argument is that making Portland an “international city” is important for our economic future. With eighty percent of global economic growth over the next several decades forecast to come from emerging markets, and with one of them, China, forecast to have an economy twice the size of the US economy in 2050, our economic future hinges on how we change to sell more of our goods and services in those markets. I think we have a choice on whether to remain a pleasant regional economic center/city/state or whether to step it up to create the robust links of education and international trade that will make us a creative, competitive, cosmopolitan international city.
What we need to do, IMHO, is invigorate foreign language programs in our public education system and send many, many more high school and college students to study abroad. There were a half-dozen proposals before the 2009 session to do parts of such an effort. None passed.
Recall that the wife of NBA player Turkoglu turned Portland down because we did not have “international vibes.” See my blog post “Turkoglu: Portland lacks ‘international vibes’”
Posted by: Gretchen | Oct 27, 2009 2:04:02 PM
The answer is: good paying jobs and employers who are willing to hire people of color for good paying jobs. We don't have that now.
Posted by: Anne | Oct 27, 2009 2:34:14 PM
Whoa, wait. "Scandinavian policies"? What? I think I get that this phrase is trying to draw a sort of correlation between, say, Portland's bike culture and, umm, that of, maybe, The Netherlands? Maybe? Where people are blond? I'm just not sure.
But let's suppose that phrase means "Urban policies that kind of make Portland seem a little European--pro-density, good public transit, cycle-friendly, farm markets...". Which of those values is specifically racial in nature? Do I need to have a certain ethnic background to value a bike lane or a short commute to work?
I'm sorry--I'm entirely on board with you that Portland would benefit from greater ethnic diversity. But I really don't get the "Scandinavian" statement at ALL.
Posted by: Wendy Ann Wright | Oct 27, 2009 2:45:27 PM
Thanks for this post Ms. Collymore. I saw the New Geography article a few days ago & am happy to see others thinking about how to use it as a call to action. I love Portland too, but struggle with all the hype we get for the things we are doing right without an equal examination of where we have gone wrong, both historically and in our current practices. In response to your question about how we can make Portland more appealing to people of color, I think there are many arenas where we could work to improve on this, but I am going to respond to the one I know the most about, which is recognition of history.
I think if you were to poll most Portlanders about the local history of people of color, they wouldn't be able to tell you very much. As a community archaeologist I try to teach the history of Portland through material remains found in the ground, which along with oral histories, is often all that remains for the history of underrepresented groups. In Portland this includes, many Native American Tribes and peoples, African Americans who came to Portland in many unique ways, a range of Asian American communities, Native Hawaiians, Latino populations from many different countries, and a host of other immigrants of color who stories should be included in the dialogue of this place we now call Portland.
I believe we need our local leaders to more actively acknowledge the history of Portland, the good, the bad, and the ugly and develop policies and programs to engage our citizens with the history of this place. These policies and programs should
be used as a tool to encourage more cross-cultural dialogue through the topic of history & as a way to encourage people of color to believe they matter to Portland, both their history and their future.
Thanks again for encouraging this conversation. I look forward to hearing other people's ideas.
Sincerely,
Wendy Ann Wright
Posted by: paul g. | Oct 27, 2009 2:47:14 PM
When we moved here from Durham, NC, the whiteness of Portland was something of a shock to the system. We still have 5th grade pictures of my son in a desegregating system; the classroom of 15 has 3 white faces in it. Fast forward to Portland and my son's whole school has probably 30 non-white faces.
While I acknowledge history, it's just as naive to fail to recognize policies that make it difficult for non upper middle class folks to settle in Portland.
So yes, Greg, riding bikes, drinking overpriced coffee and specialty beer, and eating local are overwhelmingly upper middle class yuppie--and white--preoccupations.
For example, riding a bike to work is the province of someone who can afford to live within a few miles of their workplace and in the bike friendly parts of the city. Guess where that happens to be?
And yes, Russ, Portland planning policies, for all their positive effects, have made housing in the city expensive for many middle class and lower middle class families.
To raise one contentious issue, Karol: how about working to attract companies and industries that provide decent working class wages. How about some industrial development out along the open areas north of Troutdale? How about figuring out a way to get the Port back into a competitive position with LA and Seattle?
Maybe positioning ourselves as the greenest city in America also makes us the whitest city in America? Just wondering...
Posted by: John V. | Oct 27, 2009 2:47:39 PM
Aside from the fact that only albinos are truly white, I have to ask: What's wrong with being white?
I used to live in the flatlands of Oakland, so here's some advice to all you Portlanders who want to be surrounded by folks with dark brown skin: move.
It's not hard to find skin-tone diversity in America. It just depends on how much you really want it vs. how progressive you want to appear.
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Oct 27, 2009 2:53:34 PM
As someone who moved here from the Midwest 30 years over ago I can say that the demographics here are different from my birthplace. In the St. Louis area where I am from you are either Black or White with only the smallest smattering of other minorities in the mix. As a consequence everything there is viewed through the prism of Black/White.
Most people in the Midwest live in either Black areas of cities or in White ones. It's not the ideal but that's the way it is.
Oregon, for historical reasons that have been mentioned, has fewer Blacks than other areas of the country. However, other historical forces have blessed us with more Chinese, Japanese, Samoans, Vietnamese,Thai's, Russians, Koreans, Hawaiians, Filipinos, Mexicans, El Salvadorians, Pacific Islanders, Guatemalans, Peruvians, Argentineans, Native Americans and the list goes on and on of the 'not white.'
To be Black is to be just one of many minorities that make up this state.
Oregon is diverse. Just in a different way than the rest of the country. The more, the merrier.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Oct 27, 2009 3:17:37 PM
This is a problem for colleges, too. My alma mater, Lewis and Clark, was in constant churn to increase non-white attendance. (This is back in the day; maybe they've succeed by now.) The big problem was that the very whiteness of LC made it hard to lure non-whites; what, after all, did LC have to offer, other than the desperate wish it wasn't so white? Trying to diversify a white town isn't just a matter of wishing it were so.
I guess that's one reason I recoil at Paul's comment here:
So yes, Greg, riding bikes, drinking overpriced coffee and specialty beer, and eating local are overwhelmingly upper middle class yuppie--and white--preoccupations.
Two things. First, based on my informal surveys of the local coffee shops and particularly, the local pubs, drinking coffee and good beer appears as much a lower-middle class phenomenon as it does upper-. This is sloppy thinking. Paul, as someone who follows beer very closely in this town, I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate this claim with numbers that refute my (apparently lyin') eyes. Pubs are not populated by richies. Very upscale restaurants, similarly, are not populated with good beer. Bud is the choice of the rich. This isn't too important in your larger point, but it doesn't help matters.
The second point is a little more serious. The examples you cite in this part of the comment point to the private sector. So far as I know, pubs and coffeeshops aren't supported much by city planners. So if this is turning off potential non-white residents, what would you like to do about it?
A lot of what makes a city attractive or unattractive to people not characteristic of that city (whether that's young people, non-white people, rich people, whatever) is beyond the direct control of government. So what do you do about that? Chiding it because it offends you does little to move the ball down the field.
(Karol, nice post, btw.)
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 27, 2009 3:37:28 PM
The big problem I see with the article is the definition of "diversity". The author states that Portland is a white city, but then goes on to talk about the foreign born population and the Hispanic population as if they don't belong under the category of "diverse". I don't think "diversity" is all about skin color and ethnic heritage...and it certainly shouldn't be the only thing (or perhaps even main thing) we discuss when talking about cultural diversity. Certainly my cultural heritage (I'm Irish, French, Scot and Cherokee) isn't the same as my neighbor across the street who was an online bride from Eastern Europe. Or my daughter's friend whose parents are from India and invite us over for the monthly Hindu worship in their home. Or the Vietnamese family that lives about 3 blocks away and the dad makes amazing food...his dumplings are to die for. Or even the military family who live in the next block over that have essentially been gypsies until 3 years ago..who had us over for BBQ and beers and shared their adventures with us. This is is unincorporated Washington County--where the African-American population is virtually nonexistent as far as I know. All of these families come from places and cultures that are completely new to me.
Our beliefs and priorities are often VASTLY different, just in the 4 block radius around my house.
Setting that aside however, the piece does raise a series of interesting questions.
Why is it so much more difficult to get progressive policies in areas with larger African-American populations? Why is skin color the arbiter of "diversity"? Should it be? Should Portland adjust its outreach to appeal more to African-Americans? How do progressives engage more African-Americans into progressive policy discussions? Why does the author assign "progressivism" to the # of African-Americans when it's not about policy, but about race? Should it be about policy or should it be about race? Can it be about both?
Posted by: jamieee | Oct 27, 2009 3:40:44 PM
"So how do we as a progressive people make it appealing for people of color to want to stay here? "
A good start would be to QUIT DRIVING BLACKS OUT OF NORTH EAST PORTLAND by intentionally increasing the cost of housing with Meto's tight UGB.
Then quit subsidized rush to the high density which costs more than low density.
Restrictive land use laws, like Portland’s and Metro’s drive up prices. This is well documented by the Federal Reserve, Harvard, HUD, U. of Washington and others see list at portland facts.com/housing/housingcost.htm
Posted by: Jason | Oct 27, 2009 3:52:29 PM
"I don't think "diversity" is all about skin color and ethnic heritage...and it certainly shouldn't be the only thing (or perhaps even main thing) we discuss when talking about cultural diversity."
Carla, well said!
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 27, 2009 3:57:15 PM
We are losing people of color from the Portland area?
Let go to actual data as to trends, according to the census data, the percentage of the Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (i.e. Portland and suburbs) that is white:
1980: 92.3%
1990: 89.8%
2000: 81.6%
Wow, a 10%+ increase in the percentage of non-white people as percentage of the areas population in just 20 years.
When the premise of an article, and your off-base assumptions is simply not reflective of reality, perhaps you might want to re-think it.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Oct 27, 2009 4:07:35 PM
Jamieee- you make no sense. If our UGB was driving up home prices, it would make outer southeast and outer northeast (also in the UGB) pricey, too. We have 20 years of supply of buildable land within the UGB already.
For those who want to know more about UGBs and housing prices, see two fact sheets I created ten years ago. One is about the NAHB "affordability" rankings, and the other is a myth-fact about UGBs and Housing Prices.
Back to the topic - yes, housing affordability is a key goal, but it's not necessarily going to make us more racially diverse (though class diversity is valuable in its own right).
As people may be grouping more - that is, they're more mobile than they have been in the past - they're moving more towards people like them. I think that's true politically (who wrote that book about this?), and I would guess it's true racially and ethnically too.
So we need to get some first-movers who will create a draw for others, or to highlight the great people of color who already live here, to remind people who consider moving here that we're not just a bunch of wanna-be-Danes. Getting more people of color (like Karol, Lew, Eddie, etc.) into office, and in the news for other work, is critical.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 27, 2009 4:09:15 PM
Posted by: jamieee | Oct 27, 2009 3:40:44 PM
Yes, be sure to tell black homeowners in NE and N Portland that their home values have increased 20 gold since 1980 is a bad thing. I'm am sure they hate having the value of their homes be worth so much. I mean, how racist can you get to have black people's homes appreciate in value so much?
/snark
Posted by: Mizzz | Oct 27, 2009 4:09:57 PM
Fact is, the way of life in Portland will never really appeal to African Americans. It does appeal to other races, people from all over the world including Mexico, South America, Russia, China, Japan, India, Western Europe, Canada...etc -- No offense meant but - who cares what a small minority thinks when they are overwhelmingly small compared to the above list of places/people. Every part of the USA has different cultures who adapt and find it comfortable.
The whole article by Karol seems really ignorant. Portland is diverse, in many many ways. The real issue we should be talking about: running lower class people of ALL races out of the city center (meaning the 10-15 miles surrounding downtown in all directions.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 27, 2009 4:15:17 PM
Posted by: Mizzz | Oct 27, 2009 4:09:57 PMFact is, the way of life in Portland will never really appeal to African Americans.
I'll be sure to inform my upwardly mobile, micro-brew drinking black friends that they should hate their lifestyle and lives here in Portland.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Oct 27, 2009 4:27:52 PM
Hmmmm....topics for discussion come to mind.
Why eliminate the "top tier" cities like NY, LA, Chicago from consideration? Is there a reason other than stacking the deck to make the problem appear more severe?
Denver, Austin and Raleigh-Durham are very ethnically diverse. They're also the southernmost of the "cool" cities. Until recently, New Orleans would be included. The whitest cities (Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, maybe San Francisco) are all northern. All but Minneapolis are upper coastal. Is it a regional, as well as a racial, issue?
Oregon has a racist history, but nowadays Portland and Oregon (at least, urban Oregon) is not on the top 100 list of places in America associated with KKK behavior and sundown laws. The "uncool" Southern and rust belt cities have more recent, and more horrific, racial histories. Why then, would Portland be considered to deter dusky-hued people from residing, while Atlanta or Austin or the NC research triangle would not?
Does it have to do with college enrollment in cities with large liberal college presences? Do northwestern universities have enrollment discrimination that spills over as graduates reside and become influential in their cities? Again...why then not Austin and Durham, which have big name schools and diversity?
Why should cities like Portland more actively pursue racial diversity? What are some benefits that would accrue to Portland if we had a more racially diverse population? What are we missing by being disproportionally white?
Is there something that people of color, in particular, want in their communities, that white people don't want, or that Portland does not have? Some random brainstorming:
---is it social justice? Does Portland have less of that, or a reputation for less of a commitment to it, than the "uncool" Southern and rust belt cities?
---is it that people of color feel more comfortable in an environment where they are not such a small minority that they're singled out as "the other", racially profiled, etc.? Do they choose communities that already have a substantial presence of color, with the result that Portland's whiteness is a self-fulfilling prophecy? If so, what might Portland do to change that?
---are there ways white people might not have thought of, in which the cost of living is higher for people of color in our cities than for white people of comparable income? Is it harder for people of color to get employment here than in, say, Cleveland, maybe due to employment discrimination?
Posted by: Mizzz | Oct 27, 2009 4:40:48 PM
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 27, 2009 4:15:17 PM
I'll be sure to inform my upwardly mobile, micro-brew drinking black friends that they should hate their lifestyle and lives here in Portland.
Cool. Pass the word along. It may be noteworthy to let them know that generalizations aren't meant to be taken on a micro level.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Oct 27, 2009 4:54:50 PM
Maybe Latte swilling, Microbrew pounding Tree Huggers make up a smaller proportion of the national African American community than they do of the national European American community.
Occam's Razor and all that.........
This discussion is reminiscent of the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh Fallacy wherein the assumption is made that since Rush and Fox dominate their respective markets, their nattering must represent the majority opinion in the US.
Posted by: paul g. | Oct 27, 2009 4:58:25 PM
Jeff,
Bud the choice of the upper classes? Please. I have no better data than you do, but I strongly suspect if we compare the beer buying patterns in a Safeway or Plaid Pantry out at 102nd and Division and one at 43rd and Woodstock, we'll find a lot more microbrews move at the Woodstock safeway.
You really think that working class folks are out there buying $7.99 six packs of Deschutes?
As to the pubs and coffee shops, I guess I'll relax my claim to upper middle class and slackers. Head on down the Oaks Bottom on Bybee and compare to the crowd at the bar just around the corner and you can't tell me the crowds are very, very different.
Coffee shops? Like Albina? Stumptown? You really think those are working class folks headed to their construction job or bagging groceries at Wal Mart?
I said working class. Not lower middle. This is a lower middle town.
And I did make suggestions. Don't turn away major corporate employers because they don't fit our image of what a green Amsterdam on the West Coast should look like. Don't create a hub and spoke transportation system that only serves downtown while ignoring outlying areas. Don't starve downtown of its remaining light industrial base by trying to convert everything along Grand Avenue into a condo or loft.
And criminies, let's district the goll darned Council so East Portland and North Portland can actually elect someone that represents them, and we don't have a Council (with apologies to Amanda) filled with middle aged white anglo saxon men.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Oct 27, 2009 5:02:30 PM
This is a problem for colleges, too. My alma mater, Lewis and Clark, was in constant churn to increase non-white attendance. (This is back in the day; maybe they've succeed by now.)
They haven't Jeff. At least not these past 4 years when I was there, though I hear that the current freshmen class has had some major increases in diversity.
Posted by: nulwee | Oct 27, 2009 5:10:14 PM
Portland has one of the densest populations of Arabs (specifically, Lebanese Christians) of any urban area on th west coast. That all my favorite Arab cuisine (and Moroccan) restaurants-Petra House, Garbanzo's, Abu Karim and Casablanca--all went belly-up says more about the culture of the city than its sheer numbers.
We also have significant collections of Somalian and Ethiopian immigrants. And we can name the more obvious minority communities here.
The problem is that these communities are often "ghettoized". Most of the people I know--white or black--have never eaten at an Arab restaurant, despite the fact that they buy heavily-marked, lower-quality hummus or other Arab foods from supermarkets. Among the hipster/yuppie crowd, it becomes a "I (don't) feel like eating Lebanese" thing tonight--a cultural fetish.
Yet the last time I was out on the city I couldn't help but notice all the black people I saw working in retail, even if I didn't see many black customers. Adidas, Saucebox, Starbucks. Our metro area doesn't have a problem with what I've heard called the "Microsoft" version of diversity--different swatches that are obvious to the eye.
Being appreciative of strongly differing viewpoints and cultural differences is the real problem. And this is relative. E.g., despite the fact that I lived in an Orthodox neighborhood next to an Ethiopian neighborhood in Los Angeles (with one of the largest Thai communities in the US nearby) few of my friends were appreciative, adventurous or aware of the surroundings.
Posted by: nulwee | Oct 27, 2009 5:13:39 PM
To complete the thought--if we want to be a more racially and ethnically diverse area, we might want to pause at a) raising the price of housing through the roof--North Portland--and b) might need to create space for new communities to form, rather than try to hope a wide variety of people are going to be content going to the various establishments on Alberta/Hawthorne/23rd/in the Pearl.
Posted by: paul g. | Oct 27, 2009 5:15:15 PM
Jeff, I found one report that is a market analysis of beer consumption. It costs $4000. Care to spring for it? :-)
WOW. I found a source for coffee. Here is the average income of a McDonalds specialty coffee drinker vs. Starbucks in 2007:
"BIGresearch shows that McDonald's coffee drinkers are typically 47.7 years old, compared with 39.2 years old for Starbucks and that Starbucks drinkers are more likely to be single (29.1 percent vs. 19 percent). Customers frequenting Starbucks (27.2) are more likely to hold professional and managerial jobs than at McDonald’s (15.7 percent). They also earn more annually ($67,487 vs. $55,572)."
Median family income during the same period was $50,233. This puts the average Starbucks drinker well above the median.
Posted by: Michael B | Oct 27, 2009 5:26:23 PM
Thank you lestatdelc for proving that this entire discussion is based on false assumptions. Portland is already becoming more racially diverse at a very fast rate despite all our latte's and our microbrews and the Pearl District.
However, even if it were true that Portland's efforts to promote livability were causing blacks to live elsewhere, am I the only one who thinks we should continue promoting livability? Every place does not have to be the same, people. Portland can be what it wants, and if people don't like it they can move to Dallas or LA or New York or Peoria. People are always complaining that Portland isn't sufficiently concerned with the needs of families, and I think we do need to make sure people can raise healthy kids here. But can't adults get some love too? Does every place in the world have to be Familyville USA? What I love about Portland is that we value adult things like art and wine and beer and fun, which most places completely ignore in their quest to cater to kids. People who aren't raising kids people too!
While I feel for people who are displaced by urban renewal, where do people get the idea they are entitled to rent the same apartment/house forever? Do we really want to keep our city ugly and blighted just so the same people can continue living there forever? If people want to go to the effort to improve their houses or open new businesses we are supposed to discourage that? Come on. This is liberal guilt gone absolutely nutso.
We have a great city here because of all our efforts to make it great. We have become much less white than we were decades ago, but we are still whiter than cities in the South. Some may feel this is a problem, certainly it isn't an ideal situation, but God knows what anyone could do about it. Acting as though our efforts to make our city a great place to live are causing us to also be whiter is stupid, and even if it were true it is no reason to stop trying to make our city a great place to live.
Posted by: jamieee | Oct 27, 2009 5:56:11 PM
“We have 20 years of supply of buildable land within the UGB already.”
At what price? A couple years ago buildable land was going for close to a MILLION an ace in outlying Tigard! That is $250,000 for a 1/4 acre lot. A NEW 2000 sqft home on such a lot costs less than that in Houson or Atlanta. The one I saw in Houston included schools, roads, parks, water, sewer, lakes and churches IN THAT COST.
“For those who want to know more about UGBs and housing prices, see two fact sheets I created ten years ago.”
Your claims are ten years old and weak anyway. Take a look at the stuff I linked to from Harvard, HUD and the Federal Reserve.
“So we need to get some first-movers who will create a draw for others, or to highlight the great people of color who already live here, to remind people who consider moving here that we're not just a bunch of wanna-be-Danes.”
Why not just get rid of policies that are forcing young inner city minorities to move out when they cannot afford a home near their family?
“ Getting more people of color (like Karol, Lew, Eddie, etc.) into office, and in the news for other work, is critical.”
They don’t have a clue unless they look at actual data and few politicians bother to do that.
Posted by: jamieee | Oct 27, 2009 5:59:31 PM
“Let go to actual data as to trends, according to the census data, the percentage of the Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (i.e. Portland and suburbs) that is white:”
The issue is NOT the whole region - the issue is driving minorities out of inner neighborhoods.
It is well known that Portland style land use drives out minorities in city after city. These policies are making the inner cities more white as the minorities move outward. They are racist policies.
Posted by: George Anonymuncule Seldes | Oct 27, 2009 6:02:53 PM
Wow, a post by a writer wishing that there were more people who look like her around. Apparently that's ok for her.
Posted by: Tom S | Oct 27, 2009 6:11:49 PM
I and a lot of the other people who moved here in our 20s say we moved here for a myriad of reasons. The environment, outdoor rec, gay friendly, veg friendly, active and vibrant urban neighborhoods, a good job, etc. But maybe we are all just subconsciously racist. And that's the only reason we moved here. Because some blog commenters have thrown the first rule of statistics (correlation is not causation) out the window, and who are we to question them?
How offensive an assumption is that?
If the white city/livable enviro progressive city phenomena is related in any way other than coincidence, it's probably because a) lots of cities with more black people had a ton of white flight/rich flight out of their city, causing a lot of disinvestment, b) these cities lost their civic spirit (as people fragmented and flew into a myriad of faraway suburban jurisdictions) and their sense of urban dynamism as so many neighborhoods were physically and economically gutted out, causing c) the cities that could become all revived and dynamic as easily as pdx were the ones that didn't have all that wealth flight caused by the white flight.
Posted by: Tom S | Oct 27, 2009 6:13:59 PM
Also, if Pdx and other progressive hot spots in the same list are more racist, why are they also less residentially segregated than the southern and rust belt cities? They are, and the people making the article's assumptions have ignored this fact.
Posted by: PhedUp | Oct 27, 2009 6:23:23 PM
Is it just color we want? I mean, on its face, color is pretty meaningless. We could fly in thousands of incarcerated folks from California prisons...all people of color. Would that make Portland a better place just because they aren't white? It seems there should be some more questions we are asking before we start passing out labels. We should focus on attracting the right kind of people - of all colors to Portland - and we should start by making sure there are jobs for them to come to, instead of kowtowing to the severely un and underemployed creative class by having bike boxes, mixed recycling and drum circles for them to enjoy while collecting unemployment.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 27, 2009 6:27:59 PM
Posted by: Mizzz | Oct 27, 2009 4:40:48 PMCool. Pass the word along. It may be noteworthy to let them know that generalizations aren't meant to be taken on a micro level.
No, what is noteworthy is that your generalization is racial stereotyping crap from the get-go.
Posted by: Michael B | Oct 27, 2009 6:52:14 PM
jamieee, if what you say is true, that promoting urban density forces minorities out of the central city... too bad. Density is worth it. We should not sacrifice our quality of life so they can live in the same neighborhood forever. But I doubt you are right anyway. Plus, urban growth boundaries and other planning measures can be coupled with affordable housing. So rather than railing against good planning policy, why don't you just advocate for affordable housing?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 27, 2009 6:55:15 PM
Posted by: jamieee | Oct 27, 2009 5:59:31 PMThe issue is NOT the whole region - the issue is driving minorities out of inner neighborhoods.
It is well known that Portland style land use drives out minorities in city after city. These policies are making the inner cities more white as the minorities move outward. They are racist policies.
The data doesn't back that up. From the same census data on white population as a percentage:
Overall MSA
1980 92.3
1990 89.8
2000 81.6
Central city of Portland MSA
1980 85.3
1990 83.1
2000 75.5
Suburbs
1980 95.0
1990 92.6
2000 84.1
Your assertion that minorities are pushed out of the city is simply not borne out by the data. We have parallel increases in both in the city itself as well as in the suburbs of minority growth in population.
That you claim land-use policy is "racist" is not only not supported by the data, but patently absurd and pathetic, unsubstantiated guilty white "liberal" trope.
There are real issues of racism not just here in Portland and in Oregon as a whole, but the Urban Growth Boundary isn't one of them. But I am sure all the black homeowners in NE and N Portland really appreciate you screaming racism that their home values have had a 20 fold increase in value due to the UGB. I am sure they will thank you for fighting for the "right" that their home should go back to being relatively worthless like much of North and NE Portland was in the early to mid-80s. I am sure they will be SO happy that you want to make their homes that are currently worth $250k+ be $10k again. I am sure the rural communities will also appreciate you fighting for unrestricted urban sprawl wiping out farm-land and making everyones commute be hours long, not to mention and overbuilding home inventories so we can enjoy the luxury of being like many parts of CA where over 1 in 4 homes are in foreclosure and there is no bottom to the devaluation because of overbuilding.
BTW, I wonder how much tax base those worthless homes are when it comes to funding schools?
Yeah, but you are fighting the good liberal fight for us. With "liberals" like that, please go be a conservative, since we have more of your sort of help for minorities and for the overall health of the metro area and of the state than we can handle.
Posted by: blue collar libertarian | Oct 27, 2009 6:59:40 PM
Obviously some people need to get out more. Contrary to published reports Portland does not have a great, wonderful or even good transit system.
Try putting yourself in the shoes of an African-American or anyone for that fact living around Martin Luther King jr Blvd in NE Portland. You know that there are a number of places in the Rivergate Industrial Park some 6 miles away where you wish to apply for a job.
You plan on boarding the bus by the Safeway in the 5900 blk of MLK and go to the 6800 blk of N Marine Drive.
If you should get a job your time frame will be limited to working the day shift Monday thru Friday. Sorry no weekend service and nothing late at night. So no swing shift and no graveyard shift. And don’t plan on leave for work after 7:30 in the a.m. or having to come in late because you had to take your child to school or the doctors.
If you leave at 6:30 a.m. you will have to board 3 buses and it will take at least an hour or more. So plan accordingly.
In other words you are pretty much screwed by a system that likes to brag about itself and a city that likes to brag about its diversity. Course the politicians don’t give a damn.
By the way there are some great places to work in the Rivergate Industrial park. I suggest you drive out there sometime, take a look around and ask yourself if the job opportunities for those in N Portland would improve if there was a better transit program.
Karol may I suggest that you talk to your boss about this but double check my work first.
I may be wrong but I’ll let y’all tell me.
Posted by: paul g. | Oct 27, 2009 7:29:10 PM
Thank you lestatdelc for proving that this entire discussion is based on false assumptions. Portland is already becoming more racially diverse at a very fast rate despite all our latte's and our microbrews and the Pearl District.
I don't know if this is true or not true, but I know that that data presented above is not germane to the question.
The whole country is becoming more diverse. Whether or not Portland is becoming MORE diverse at a VERY FAST rate implies some comparison.
Posted by: Michael B | Oct 27, 2009 7:36:18 PM
paul g.
You may have a point, and I have to commend your attempt to bring logic into this debate. However, the data is germane. The post here claims Portland's policies are causing Portland to become whiter. The data prove Portland is not becoming whiter. It is an open question whether Portland's whiteness is waning slower, faster, or at the same rate as other cities. I suspect the rates are the same, and no one has presented evidence to suggest otherwise.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: paulie | Oct 27, 2009 11:59:11 AM
Sundown laws and an active KKK in Oregon made the state inhospitable for persons of color. My mother was a real estate broker who received death threats for selling a home to an Asian family in the early 60's. Louie Armstrong couldn't find a place to stay overnight.
An interview team came to Oregon from the East coast and every member remarked in one fashion or another, "This is the whitest state I've ever been in."
Take a hard look at the leadership in non-profits, civic organizations, even the DPO.
Keep Oregon Wierd.