American Urban Renissance

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by fflint

That is not obviously true for San Francisco, which absolutely tanked in population and residential investment until about 1980, and stabilization was spotty and slow. Whatever 'yuppie gentrification' existed before 1980 paled in comparison to the growing rot.

Missing the point. I wasn't saying that the decay didn't outweight gentrification in the 1970s and 1980s in the cities I listed --- arguably (and its not a hard argument), such decay still outweighs gentrification in Chicago, for instance. I was only pointing out that the rise of the "yuppie" demographic, which had basically never existed prior to the 1960s, was very clear by the 1970 census: in those cities, many old inner neighborhoods were already in the upper income brackets relative to the rest of their respective cities.

The point of this is that the "urban renaissance" being discussed can be largely described in demographic terms, with the socioeconomic/age groups that are likely to form yuppies being larger than they've ever been. This is very different from the argument that there's been a fundamental cultural shift in what people in general value.

[10023]

Originally Posted by fflint

That is not obviously true for San Francisco, which absolutely tanked in population and residential investment until about 1980, and stabilization was spotty and slow. Whatever 'yuppie gentrification' existed before 1980 paled in comparison to the growing rot.

That doesn't mean there wasn't a "back to the city" movement among a certain demographic already.

By all accounts, Chicago's South and West sides are still losing people to this day, but the city grew between the 2000 and 2010 census counts because of the growth on the North side and downtown.

[pdxtex]

and lets not forget the even more obvious, there are sh!t ton of people livingi n this country. sure its a huge geographic area but its extremely easy to overlook the fact that the U.S. still has the third largest population in the world.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I was only pointing out that the rise of the "yuppie" demographic, which had basically never existed prior to the 1960s, was very clear by the 1970 census: in those cities, many old inner neighborhoods were already in the upper income brackets relative to the rest of their respective cities.

That's not clear at all--can you please produce these 1970 Census stats you are using to support your claim?

San Francisco (along with Chicago, DC, Boston and Philly) began to shrink after WWII, from 775,357 people in 1950 to 740,316 in 1960. SF's decline continued through the 1960s, despite (and perhaps because of) the arrival of a polarizing wave of penniless hippies after 1966. The 1970 Census showed San Francisco with 715,674 people, and stabilization was more than a decade away. Even as yuppie gentrification really did start to make an impact on parts of the city during the 1970s, the 1980 Census showed an intensification of the overall decline--some 5.1%--to 678,974 residents. Where is your demographic-driven argument for a pre-1970 yuppie-driven inner-city renaissance here? I don't see it.

Yuppie gentrification absolutely kick-started the ongoing urban renaissance in SF and many other cities, but you're placing it a full decade ahead of its actual arrival. Indeed, that wave was only possible around 1980 because places like the Castro and Soho and the South End had been run-down, half-occupied and crime-ridden for so many years--and were priced accordingly.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 10023

That doesn't mean there wasn't a "back to the city" movement among a certain demographic already.

By all accounts, Chicago's South and West sides are still losing people to this day, but the city grew between the 2000 and 2010 census counts because of the growth on the North side and downtown.

Uh, no--Chicago lost population between the 2000 and 2010 Census counts.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by fflint

San Francisco (along with Chicago, DC, Boston and Philly) began to shrink after WWII, from 775,357 people in 1950 to 740,316 in 1960. SF's decline continued through the 1960s, despite (and perhaps because of) the arrival of a polarizing wave of penniless hippies after 1966. The 1970 Census showed San Francisco with 715,674 people, and stabilization was more than a decade away. Even as yuppie gentrification really did start to make an impact on parts of the city during the 1970s, the 1980 Census showed an intensification of the overall decline--some 5.1%--to 678,974 residents. Where is your demographic-driven argument for a pre-1970 yuppie-driven inner-city renaissance here? I don't see it.

Gentrification often correlates with smaller household sizes, which were also a big factor nationally in the 60s. Maybe (well, certainly, somewhere) there are stats about number of households in 1960 and 1970.

[10023]

fflint, you're still missing the point.

Just because the overall city lost population between 1950 and 1980, doesn't mean that there weren't small enclaves that began attracting a new demographic (i.e., yuppies) during that time period.

If the yuppies weren't numerous enough to offset the loss of families from the same areas, which wouldn't surprise me, then you'd still see population decline.

The point is that it's probably not true that 20-something college grads suddenly decided they want to live in the middle of the action in the 1990s. But that's when the population drain among families and older residents subsided enough for the yuppie trend to reverse the overall direction of the population. And then the other big factor has been more people staying in cities, rather than thinking of them as somewhere you go for 5 years after college before buying a house.

[fflint]

Average household size in SF:

1930: 3.55
1940: 3.08
1950: 2.71
1960: 2.44
1970: 2.34
1980: 2.19
1990: 2.29
2000: 2.30
2010: 2.26

Let's agree for the sake of argument that smaller household sizes are indicative of gentrification. The smallest average household size in SF was in 1980, which is when gentrification was unquestionably in full swing; the 1970 stat, on the other hand, shows the smallest decade-to-decade decline until that of 2010. If we were looking to prove gentrification was in full effect by 1970, these household size statistics are nothing better than a wash.

[10023]

^ You cannot address this question with city-wide statistics. That's where you are going completely wrong. VivaLFuego was talking about enclaves within cities attracting gentrifiers earlier, whether or not that showed up in data covering all of SF's 50 square miles.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 10023

Just because the overall city lost population between 1950 and 1980, doesn't mean that there weren't small enclaves that began attracting a new demographic (i.e., yuppies) during that time period.

Agreed--there is no disputing yuppies had arrived in parts of US cities by 1980, and especially so in San Francisco, Boston, New York, and DC.

What is in dispute is VivaLFuego's claim "New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston were all seeing inner city gentrification (specifically, growth of the yuppie demographic group choosing to live in and invest in core neighborhoods) as early as the 1950s. The trends toward gentrification in these cities were absolutely unmistakable by the 1970 census." That is not obviously true.

His claim was made in the context of a direct reply to mhays' observation "In many cities, things started to go northward by the early 80s. New York bottomed out in the 70s. San Francisco I'd guess about the same." This is my understanding as well, but perhaps that isn't the case--if anyone has "unmistakable" proof of yuppie gentrification in these cities in the 1970 Census figures, then let's see it.

[mhays]

Yes some gentrification earlier, but on average NY for example bottomed out in the 70s by most reports.

Odd that SF has larger households than Seattle, which is right around 2. SF probably has a very large amount of roommates. I believe there are fewer kids than Seattle.

To reiterate part of my household size point, gentrification is part of it...the other part is that today families are smaller, and a lot of people live in non-family households.

[Dralcoffin]

Originally Posted by fflint

What is in dispute is VivaLFuego's claim "New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston were all seeing inner city gentrification (specifically, growth of the yuppie demographic group choosing to live in and invest in core neighborhoods) as early as the 1950s. The trends toward gentrification in these cities were absolutely unmistakable by the 1970 census." That is not obviously true.

I'd say Chicago didn't have clear gentrification in the 1970s either. There were a few pockets -- Lincoln Park's Old Town was picking up around this time -- but they were far and few in between. The 1970s saw 350,000 people leave a gritty, post-industrial relic of a city, and while San Francisco and Boston were on the upswing in the 80s, that decade wasn't much kinder to Chicago. As recently as twenty years ago, the Loop was ringed by vacant lots and abandoned warehouses and track yards, the vast majority of the city ebbing population. Chicago has come a long, long way since the dark days of the late 1980s, but outside of the better areas it is still struggling with urban decay and poverty on a scale that few other cities in the country, if any, must deal with. The South Side has a similar population to Detroit and Baltimore combined, and most of it seems a different city altogether from the Clark Street corridor.

However, I am confident that Chicago will keep turning itself around and that gentrification will continue to slowly creep outwards. Its size means that while there is both a larger basis of stable neighborhoods to anchor the city's stability (the North Side is similar in population to the city of Boston), there also are vast areas still to be renewed. But as the urban core of the interior of the country, I hope it has too much momentum and draw to regress to the shape the city was in during the 1980s.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by fflint

Agreed--there is no disputing yuppies had arrived in parts of US cities by 1980, and especially so in San Francisco, Boston, New York, and DC.

What is in dispute is VivaLFuego's claim "New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston were all seeing inner city gentrification (specifically, growth of the yuppie demographic group choosing to live in and invest in core neighborhoods) as early as the 1950s. The trends toward gentrification in these cities were absolutely unmistakable by the 1970 census." That is not obviously true.

His claim was made in the context of a direct reply to mhays' observation "In many cities, things started to go northward by the early 80s. New York bottomed out in the 70s. San Francisco I'd guess about the same." This is my understanding as well, but perhaps that isn't the case--if anyone has "unmistakable" proof of yuppie gentrification in these cities in the 1970 Census figures, then let's see it.

I'll see what I can dig up --- I did a fair amount of analysis on this a while back using tract-level historical census data and GIS layers from www.nhgis.org but can't seem to find anywhere I stored the output maps and summary tables. Unfortunately that was 2 computers ago, at least.

In a nutshell, by 1970 one could already identify particular neighborhoods in each of those cities that were gentrifying as measured by increasing median incomes in both absolute and relative terms. Again, this is only referencing particular neighborhoods --- as you note, the cities as a whole generally reached their points of maximum population loss sometimes around 1970, so clearly the overall trend was negative, but by then there was already gentrification taking place. I absolutely don't dispute that circa 1970 all of those cities were, overall, in a bad place. Did every single neighborhood in SF decline between 1960 and 1970? Fast forward 40 years, and the demographic groups responsible for urban gentrification --- namely, a combination of artists and yuppies --- are larger than they've ever been for a variety of reasons. Thus the higher demand for urban living today as compared to say, 20 years ago, is not surprising.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

I'd say Chicago didn't have clear gentrification in the 1970s either. There were a few pockets -- Lincoln Park's Old Town was picking up around this time -- but they were far and few in between. The 1970s saw 350,000 people leave a gritty, post-industrial relic of a city, and while San Francisco and Boston were on the upswing in the 80s, that decade wasn't much kinder to Chicago. As recently as twenty years ago, the Loop was ringed by vacant lots and abandoned warehouses and track yards, the vast majority of the city ebbing population. Chicago has come a long, long way since the dark days of the late 1980s, but outside of the better areas it is still struggling with urban decay and poverty on a scale that few other cities in the country, if any, must deal with. The South Side has a similar population to Detroit and Baltimore combined, and most of it seems a different city altogether from the Clark Street corridor.

However, I am confident that Chicago will keep turning itself around and that gentrification will continue to slowly creep outwards. Its size means that while there is both a larger basis of stable neighborhoods to anchor the city's stability (the North Side is similar in population to the city of Boston), there also are vast areas still to be renewed. But as the urban core of the interior of the country, I hope it has too much momentum and draw to regress to the shape the city was in during the 1980s.

Yeah, the new big shiny globalish chicago was like a miraculous rocket from the crypt somewhat more recently from the bones of the old school chicago "at the last hour." at least that's my feel of the city.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by 10023

That doesn't mean there wasn't a "back to the city" movement among a certain demographic already.

By all accounts, Chicago's South and West sides are still losing people to this day, but the city grew between the 2000 and 2010 census counts because of the growth on the North side and downtown.

No it didn't. Chicago lost 200,000 between the 2000 and 2010 census.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Did every single neighborhood in SF decline between 1960 and 1970?

Yes, I realize it sounds histrionic, but I do believe every district in SF was in decline by 1970 in comparison to 1960, including Haight Ashbury, North Beach and the Castro. But I'm willing to learn the truth if I am wrong--teach me.

My parents bought a dilapidated Victorian house in the 1970s, which we restored over many years. As a family, we toured Victorian neighborhoods in SF, Alameda, San Jose and Oakland to discover "best practices" in restoration, style tips and connections for boutique manufacturers for things like light medallions and mouldings. I remember widespread decay in every single Victorian district. Perhaps there are statistics that can prove I was mistaken.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by fflint

Yes, I realize it sounds histrionic, but I do believe every district in SF was in decline by 1970 in comparison to 1960, including Haight Ashbury, North Beach and the Castro. But I'm willing to learn the truth if I am wrong--teach me.

My parents bought a dilapidated Victorian house in the 1970s, which we restored over many years. As a family, we toured Victorian neighborhoods in SF, Alameda, San Jose and Oakland to discover "best practices" in restoration, style tips and connections for boutique manufacturers for things like light medallions and mouldings. I remember widespread decay in every single Victorian district. Perhaps there are statistics that can prove I was mistaken.

If memory serves, it was basically the areas just east of the Presidio (Pacific Heights, Cow Hollow, and Russian Hill) that were already clearly on an upward trajectory by 1970 --- measured by stats such as increasing median incomes, reduced unemployment, increased owner occupancy, increasing rental rates, etc. as compared with 1960.

Not that those areas ever got particularly bad or anything, but they were the first beneficiaries of the growing yuppie demographic driving gentrification... young and active, high education, high disposable income, with relatively low demand for public services.

[iheartthed]

This conversation seems to be placing way too much emphasis on yuppie migrations for rebounding urban populations. I think foreign immigration has had much more of an affect, especially for the older, colder cities in the northeast that have stabilized over the past 20-30 years.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

I'd say Chicago didn't have clear gentrification in the 1970s either. There were a few pockets -- Lincoln Park's Old Town was picking up around this time -- but they were far and few in between.

I know that SSP skews young, but this is ridiculous.

Gentrification was going on all over the place in the 70's, in Chicago and in many other cities. The idea that gentification is some recent, Gen-Y thing is an odd assumption.

In Chicago, Old Town, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and the whole Near North Side area had tons of gentrification throughout the 70's. Lakeshore Drive and Sheridan Road on the Northside were basically totally rebuilt with luxury towers during the 60's and 70's.

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Chicago has come a long, long way since the dark days of the late 1980s,

Has it? Chicago had a half million more people in the 80's, and significantly more jobs than today. It had far less decay than today. There were more jobs downtown, and manufacturing still existed.

Downtown and environs overall are certainly far better now than then, but I don't think most people would argue the city overall wasn't a healthier place 20 years ago. You had massive swaths of strong middle class neighborhoods.

And none of this is limited to Chicago. The "old days" weren't necessarily worse than today. Maybe cities were less optimistic places and trending downward, but they had many strengths relative to today.

[Dralcoffin]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In Chicago, Old Town, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and the whole Near North Side area had tons of gentrification throughout the 70's. Lakeshore Drive and Sheridan Road on the Northside were basically totally rebuilt with luxury towers during the 60's and 70's.

Hence "my few pockets" statement. That's what, five square miles or so in a city of 220?

Originally Posted by Crawford

Has it? Chicago had a half million more people in the 80's, and significantly more jobs than today. It had far less decay than today. There were more jobs downtown, and manufacturing still existed.

Downtown and environs overall are certainly far better now than then, but I don't think most people would argue the city overall wasn't a healthier place 20 years ago. You had massive swaths of strong middle class neighborhoods.

Chicago has about 87,000 fewer people than in the 1990 Census, which I would say was the bottoming out of Chicago. The momentary state of the city may have been slightly better, but the trends were much more foreboding in the 1970s and 80s. Those middle class neighborhoods were retreating and shrinking in size, immigration was basically over, the economy was battered, and the rot of the West and South Sides was picking up steam.

Talk of an urban renaissance isn't so much about the momentary condition of a city, but the trends. There still are a few worrisome trends, like the flood of people out out of the poorer neighborhoods and the resulting overall population drop, and heaven knows the schools are still horrendous. But I'd say the indicators for the future are more positive than they were twenty years ago, and to me, that's what entails a renaissance. I'm hopeful my generation can correct the sins of their grandparents fleeing for the suburbs, and continue the trends started, hesitantly but started, by their parents' generation in the 1980s and 1990s.