The influence of "white flight" on non-American cities?

[eschaton]

I'm sorry, but this discussion of suburban sprawl and has nothing to do with white flight.

As was noted, Canada, Australia, and the UK have tons of postwar housing which - broadly speaking - resemble U.S. suburbia. I'd add New Zealand to that as well, along with arguably some of the non-Anglophone countries of Northern Europe - postwar residential areas in Germany and Scandinavia are dominated by detached single-family homes with yards, and are often pretty car-dependent.

Yes, in general, U.S. suburbia has larger lots. But this is not universal by any means. Look at the average California or Florida suburb, and tell me where the large lots are. Further, large-lot suburbia means you have less room for suburban houses per square mile, which raises the cost to build suburbs overall. So all other things considered, smaller-lot suburbia should result in greater movement to the suburbs, as it opens up more supply within an easy commute.

The characteristic of white flight was not fundamentally growth of suburbia. It was decline of the urban core. "Suburbs" - in one form or another - have continually grown up as new transportation forms allowed. But the wholesale abandonment of the core cities in the 20th century - not just a relative level of decline - was a pretty unique dynamic to the U.S.

[mhays]

The tighter the sprawl restrictions, the more it's related. The ease and price of fleeing impacted how many people fled. This shouldn't be a controversial concept.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by mhays

The tighter the sprawl restrictions, the more it's related. The ease and price of fleeing impacted how many people fled. This shouldn't be a controversial concept.

It's true that in general Europe took a different attitude towards rural land than the U.S. In Europe, rural land was seen as worthy of preservation, which meant that development happened in a more constrained fashion, whereas in the U.S. land conservation outside of genuine wild areas like national parks is put at a low priority. Still, in areas like California, where agriculture is often for higher-yield crops and water scarcity helps shape land use, you do see more constrained suburban development which immediately gives way to farmland.

Regardless, the key isn't the amount of land being developed, it's the amount of units of newer housing available. If a European metro had less land available, but higher unit density and lower population growth, the difference should be canceled out.

I suppose one could argue that the U.S. had policies over the mid-20th century that so over-saturated the country with supply compared to Europe that demand for inner-city housing declined to the point that you couldn't even keep city-homes inhabited. But to the extent those policies existed, they did so in part due to racist policies to begin with. Not to mention that cities which weren't affected by the Great Migration to a large extent (Portland, Seattle, Denver, etc) didn't really see white flight. The core urban areas got a little shabbier, but they didn't become ghettos or lose a lot of units to blight and abandonment.

[mhays]

Yes, it's about the units. But it's also about price and commuting systems.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by pj3000

This sounds like the same old social equity "racial democracy" bullshit that Cuba has hilariously touted since Castro took over. Promoting this in contrast to awful segregation histories in the US was a popular political tool in Brazil from the populism of Vargas and fascism of the integral movement until present day, really. It makes white Brazilians feel good about themselves.

The fact that Brazil has such a high percentage of mixed-race population owes directly to the fact that nearly 6 million African slaves were taken to Brazil. I'm not trying to say that is the only reason, but it is a major contributing factor.

The fallacy of Brazil's "racial democracy" is exemplified by the fact that, as you state, "Whites make twice as much as Mixed/Black". This has its roots in societal racial division.

Sorry to bring back a post from the beginning of this thread, but your analysis and comparison here is completely wrong.

I am Brazilian, and I can comment on this. Yuri is correct in his explanations. Also, I don't understand how lots of studies say that 50% of Brazil's population is black, because that is incorrect. If we take the phenotypical descriptions of blacks in the United States, I'd say about 10% of Brazilians are ''black'', strictly based on United State's standards.

Lots of people have african ancestry, including myself, that would never be considered black in Brazil or the United States. What can be said is that Brazil has a very high rate of mixed race people, some of which look Black, some of which look mixed and some of which look white.

Please do more research and understand that other places in the world don't always have to follow the same rules as your own. That's very small minded.

Getting back to the subject, there has never been ''white flight'' in any Brazilian city to the extent that happened in almost every major American city. What do exist are neighborhood with predominantly white resident, and others with predominantly black resident. This is based on class, rather than skin color.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Getting back to the subject, there has never been ''white flight'' in any Brazilian city to the extent that happened in almost every major American city.

There has been extensive white flight in Brazil. Basically every Brazilian city center used to be the "prime area" with the white European upper class. Now, basically every "prime area" is outside the traditional core, and brown/black people have replaced the whites.

And it isn't just Brazil. The same happened in almost all of Latin America. Mexico City, Santiago, Bogota, etc.

No, there hasn't been the exact same scenario as in the U.S., but every country has unique peculiarities.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Great infographic!!! Elle Decor does such high quality stuff!


Australia actually takes the cake, with average houses nearing 2,500 square feet.

In fact, exactly 22.6 Hong Kong homes could fit into the average Australian residence.

So Hong Kong "houses" average about 110 sqft?


homes in China are the smallest, at just over 500 square feet.

You could fit approximately 11.2 Chinese houses in an American house.

So American houses average 5,600 sqft?

The sources were the following:

Japan Statistical Yearbook, European Housing 2002, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canadian Home Builders Association, Infometrics.

If you think demographia is more credible, here you go.

http://demographia.com/db-intlhouse.htm

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by mhays

We're discussing where sprawl has been easiest, because it's been a factor in white flight. Large lots are an indicator of easy sprawl. Small lots are an indicator of more limited expansion. For this thread that could be about whatever decades white flight has happened in the various countries.

Here's a sprawl lover with a chart suggesting that Toronto and Montreal were the densest Urban Areas in North America based on 2016 and 2010 numbers: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...-affordability

^ that links says nothing about the density of houses. given that Toronto is has many co-op city style apartment high rises, it's no wonder the urban area is somewhat dense.

meanwhile, the American cities densities are reduced due to a suburban fringe of low-population, low density (but large sq mile) housing belt.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

^ that links says nothing about the density of houses. given that Toronto is has many co-op city style apartment high rises, it's no wonder the urban area is somewhat dense.

meanwhile, the American cities densities are reduced due to a suburban fringe of low-population, low density (but large sq mile) housing belt.

Yes, Canadian cities have built comparatively more high-density multifamily housing and American cities comparatively more low-density exurbia, the end result being that the latter are more sprawled. Not sure what the caveat you're apparently trying to point out would be here.

Those "co-op city style" apartment blocks aren't some minor quirk that "unfairly" skews density numbers or something - they're the most common form of housing in Toronto. Most new suburban development is multifamily. Sprawling semi-rural exurbs are notably absent here. These are pretty fundamental differences to the built form.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Note that Australia (not Canada) has larger houses on average than the US; however Canada's average house is not noticeably smaller than the average american house.



https://www.elledecor.com/life-cultu...und-the-world/

so much for your idea of americans living in ginormous houses compared to canadians.

I'm typing this with hesitation . . . am I missing some very basic math here?

If according to this chart, the average HK house is about 500 sq feet, and the average Australian house is about 2300 sq feet, how the hell can you "fit 22.6 Hong Kong houses into an Australian house"??

2300 / 500 = 4.6, not 22.6.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I'm typing this with hesitation . . . am I missing some very basic math here?

If according to this chart, the average HK house is about 500 sq feet, and the average Australian house is about 2300 sq feet, how the hell can you "fit 22.6 Hong Kong houses into an Australian house"??

2300 / 500 = 4.6, not 22.6.

The math is also way off on the Chinese/American and UK/Canadian numbers.

[Jonesy55]

I think they outsourced the calculations to a 4-year old.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There has been extensive white flight in Brazil. Basically every Brazilian city center used to be the "prime area" with the white European upper class. Now, basically every "prime area" is outside the traditional core, and brown/black people have replaced the whites.

And it isn't just Brazil. The same happened in almost all of Latin America. Mexico City, Santiago, Bogota, etc.

No, there hasn't been the exact same scenario as in the U.S., but every country has unique peculiarities.

While the old centers of many Brazilian cities went through processes of degradation (which is being reversed now in most cities), this was absolutely not because of White Flight.

The centers tended to house commerical buildings that became outdated and undesirable as newer business districts were created in the surrounding areas. These buildings became degraded, lost value and sometimes were even abandoned. This would lower property values in the region, which in turn would empty out because it became undesirable. After this is when abandoned buildings became occupied by squatters, creating what we call vertical favelas.

This is a very different situation than ''white flight'', which was historically caused because whites in the US didnt want to have neighbors with other skin colors. Brazilian centers became less desirable by all, not just whites. That is the fundamental difference.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

This is a very different situation than ''white flight'', which was historically caused because whites in the US didnt want to have neighbors with other skin colors. Brazilian centers became less desirable by all, not just whites. That is the fundamental difference.

There's no fundamental difference. In both cases, the "nice white area" became a "not so nice non-white area", as whites moved to periphery.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Note that Australia (not Canada) has larger houses on average than the US; however Canada's average house is not noticeably smaller than the average american house.



https://www.elledecor.com/life-cultu...und-the-world/

so much for your idea of americans living in ginormous houses compared to canadians.

That's because Yanks, Canuks and Aussies have a lot land to sprawl around in. The others don't. Not even China which has relatively livable land despite it's huge geographic size...taken up largely by mountains, deserts and pandas. They live on the same percentage of their land as Japan: 10%

[mrnyc]

speaking of not so nice white areas, that reminds me of a classic 1970s underground comics harvey pekar story.

our harv, as he was known, was related to wally shawn by marriage. yes that wally shawn. back in the 1970s, wally came to cleveland for some family event, so harvey took him for a ride around town. now if you know of them, can you imagine driving around with harvey pekar and wally shawn in a cleveland beater work car? what a hoot.

anyway, harvey drives wally down broadway to the southside or somewhere like that and wally says, and you have to use the wally voice, "well, there's something you don't see everyday, a white ghetto."

* rimshot! *

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's no fundamental difference. In both cases, the "nice white area" became a "not so nice non-white area", as whites moved to periphery.

Ha, ok. The difference here, like I mentioned in my posts, was that these weren't residential neighborhoods to begin with. They were commerical centers that became degraded because of new buildings in other locations. They then became residential as squatters moved in after the fact. Very different than a white familiy moving away because a Black family moved in next to them.

It's an easy concept to understand, however if you don't see the difference I wont waste my time prolonging a discussion with someone who clearly can't notice nuances.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's no fundamental difference. In both cases, the "nice white area" became a "not so nice non-white area", as whites moved to periphery.

Just adding that this "white area" was not full white as in the US. Although a small minority, there were mixed people in the bunch, completely integrated with their white fellows.

That's why I downplayed the racial component in my first post.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Yes, Canadian cities have built comparatively more high-density multifamily housing and American cities comparatively more low-density exurbia, the end result being that the latter are more sprawled. Not sure what the caveat you're apparently trying to point out would be here.

Those "co-op city style" apartment blocks aren't some minor quirk that "unfairly" skews density numbers or something - they're the most common form of housing in Toronto. Most new suburban development is multifamily. Sprawling semi-rural exurbs are notably absent here. These are pretty fundamental differences to the built form.

the caveat, put another way, is that american cities appear denser on a weighted density basis than the raw density numbers suggest. Usually in our cities you have a low-density exurban fringe where few people live, but which takes up a large area. However, most Americans in major metropolitan areas do not live in sprawl, they live in postwar suburbs clustered around older towns, with smaller houses and denser lots.

If you review an aerial of Toronto (or take a drive through Mississauga, which FYI I have done) it is obvious that the vast majority of the land area is taken up by single family houses with decently sized lots, comparable to long island, SF, LA, and other American suburbs with above average density. meanwhile high-rise commieblocks (toronto built what, 1000 of these in the 1960s-1970s?) allow a big increase in density, and they take up little land. Isn't this obvious?

Conversely if you look at an aerial of the NYC urban area, places like northern Fairfield county, northern Nassau County, and Western Bergen County take up a huge amount of the urban area but house comparatively few people on large-lot forested sprawl, compared to the core of northern NJ, southern Nassau county, and southern Fairfield County and westchester.

and FYI, American metropolitan areas permitted 620,000 single family homes last year and 421,000 rowhouses/apartments (mostly apartments). In canada the numbers were more like 2/3 apartments and 1/3 houses, I believe--not surprising given a more urban population and the Chinese money inflow.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In Canada what has generally happened is that working class and lower middle class whites as they have gotten more prosperous over time have left the "inner ring" of cities for the suburbs and exurbs. These areas generally featured less charming and spacious forms of housing but they were not slums and still aren't slums today for the most part. And this migration was primarily socio-economically as opposed to racially driven.

These native-born whites were for the most part replaced in these areas by newly-arrived immigrants and in some cases (in certain Prairie cities) by aboriginal Canadians who have been migrating to cities from far-flung isolated reserves.

But the nicer affluent central core neighbourhoods in almost all Canadian cities have retained their traditional population makeup and prestige, with a trickle of newly-minted affluent people of non-white immigrant origin. So the face of these areas is very slowly changing but the apple cart is not being upset.

Canada I would say has not yet faced on a large scale the test of having a large wave of non-white but culturally integrated people of a similar socio-economic level of affluence, becoming a strong majority in very many areas. So we don't have much of an idea of how Canadians would react to what would simply be a difference in terms of appearance, skin tone, etc., but not in terms of actual differences in family values, how they raise their kids, or societal norms.

There is of course the special case of Vancouver which might merit its own distinct analysis. But none of the usual scenarios referenced above really apply to it.

It's been mentioned it's mostly a case of being priced out, but just as much as that it's also been a case of people cashing out.

You are correct your analysis does not apply to Vancouver:

...Through extensive research, Kaufmann and his colleagues have found that diverse cities, like Metro Vancouver, “tend to lose white populations at a faster rate, while less diverse cities gain them, or lose whites at a slower rate.” His findings could explain one of the reasons Victoria and Kelowna, which have far less ethnic diversity than Metro Vancouver, are growing as a result of inter-provincial migration.

Figures from the 2016 Canadian census show that whites recently became a minority in the metropolises of Toronto and Metro Vancouver. The relatively small Aboriginal population of Metro Vancouver, making up about 2.5 per cent of residents, is also declining proportionally.

In the Vancouver suburb of Richmond, the ethnic Chinese population has expanded in a few decades by more than 80,000, while the white population has declined by more than 30,000...

...Working with political scientist Gareth Harris, Kaufmann has tracked “white withdrawal” in Britain and Canada, monitoring how whites tend to “unconsciously” avoid neighbourhoods with a large share of non-whites..

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/colu...etro-vancouver