Atlanta's Unmatched Gentrification
June 30, 2008 | 3:27 pmOver at CL, Thomas Wheatley recently linked to an interesting article at Governing.com that cites Brookings Institution data that shows Atlanta’s white population having grown at an unmatched rate since 2000 (from 31% in 2000 to 35% in 2006). According to the article, that’s the fastest white population increase in the nation…only D.C. is competitive.
However, while the city is becoming more white, the collective metro area is becoming less so.
“For if the city itself is growing whiter, the Atlanta region is growing less white. The Atlanta Regional Commission reports that in 2000, the white, non-Hispanic population of the 20-county Atlanta metro region formed 60 percent of the total population; by 2006, that had shrunk to 54 percent, not so much because whites were leaving — although four counties did see absolute declines in white numbers — but because of the arrival in the suburbs of African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Africans and Caribbeans. Of the 10 counties in the nation with the largest declines in white percentage of the population from 2000 to 2006, six are in the suburbs of Atlanta.”
So, what’s the reason? Well, to make a long story short, the article’s author thinks its traffic. And that “Commuting distance has become inversely proportional to class” in Atlanta. He predicts a similar trend the nation over.
Quite coincidently, Atlantic Monthly recently investigated another aspect of this very trend. A July ‘08 article entitled “American Murder Mystery” investigates the crime explosion in city suburbs and points the finger at one of the most celebrated antipoverty initiatives in decades: the destruction of the projects and the dispensing of Section 8 rent-subsidy vouchers to its tenants.
It’s an interesting and slightly troubling read, as entire inner city communities are torn apart and sent packing into the unknown ‘burbs. On top of that, these poorer populations are now spread out in the lower-density areas, where walking anywhere is nearly out of the question. So now $4 gas or a bus/train ticket figures into an already difficult financial equation. Coupled that with a loss of community, and the future of the outer suburbs looks very real and very bleak.
For better or worse, cities are being redefined…and Atlanta seems to be on the cutting edge.
![Picture of the day [34]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2766/4328709238_033fd33ecc_t.jpg "Picture of the day [34]")
It sounds like we have similar reading lists – I love the Atlantic Monthly, and that article on the spread of crime to the suburbs was fascinating, although maybe a bit sensationalist. It did not seem to address the central question, which is whether the breakup of concentrated public housing projects is, on net, a good or bad thing.
My take has always been that these housing projects created critical mass for a persistant cycle of crime, poverty, low education, etc. Sprinkling public housing throughout a variety of communities is bound to provide more opportunities for those on assistance to break the cycle. Naturally, the criminal element will be part of the displacement, but would be diminished in scope.
It will be interesting to see how Decatur handles the turnover of the housing authority properties on Commerce in the near future.
Gentrification in Atlanta is marked by younger whites returing inside 285 and younger blacks buying homes in south Fulton, east DeKalb, Henry, Douglas and Clayton. To a large extent young African Americans have not participated in the recent rebirth of Oakhurst, Kirkwood, Cabbage Town, East Atlanta, west Midtown, Castleberry, Edgewood and Midtown. They have chosen the more traditional suburban housing with larger lots and all new construction. And yes with higher commuting costs.
Although the loss of community (if it really is lost or just diluted) may be regrettable (maybe not), it is far outweighed by the gains in public safety and decorum – essential foundations of any community. Is anyone really going to try to say that the redevelopment of East Lake (a.k.a. Lil’ Vietnam), Caver Homes, Cabrini Green, etc… in sum was not a net positive outcome? Yesterday’s public housing model is the essence of good intentions gone bad via the Law on Unintended Consequences. The current direction of mix-income redevelopment with stricter “good citizen” screening is far superior to yesterday’s ideas. The critics of the new direction do not seem to have even the beginning of better suggestion – only criticism.
There is no doubt that Atlanta will be a safer more interesting and better place through its current growth patterns.
I don’t know what the solution is unapologetic, but I think there’s value in having the discussion if this highly praised method is in fact, flawed.
For one thing, according to the article, folks with the Section 8 vouchers aren’t mixing with other income brackets…
“Studies show that recipients of Section8 vouchers have tended to choose moderately poor neighborhoods that were already on the decline, not low-poverty neighborhoods. One recent study publicized by HUD warned that policy makers should lower their expectations, because voucher recipients seemed not to be spreading out, as they had hoped, but clustering together.”
…so the program is not having its intended consequences.
And no one is arguing that East Lake isn’t better off now…but apparently there are now some suburbs that are a lot worse off. Focusing on one side of the story and ignoring the other seems to only tell the bright side of a complex story.
This is actually two issues, not one. The first is rightfully acknowledging that the previous “project” system of warehousing the poor was a failed experiment. That one is a done deal. There are limits to how many desperate circumstances you can concentrate in one place.
The second issue is what is the workable alternative? One thing to note. While some may immediately identify it as a negative that Section 8 recipients are clustering rather than spreading out, it’s worth noting that, when presented with choice, they’re simply behaving as the vast majority of Americans have always done: Gravitating to environments where they feel comfortable and connected to people of similar circumstances, problems, attitudes, incomes, etc. The entire pattern of suburban development — as well as the way it’s marketed — is predicated on this reality. Right or wrong, it’s a very real phenomenon that the majority of people gravitate to “folks like us.” So I tend to get a bit queasy at any suggestion that we need to “save” the poor from making decisions that we consider perfectly normal for the rest of America.
It’s clear that monoculture is unsustainable but there’s nothing inherently wrong with communities forming over shared interest or need. What’s most important is that our neighborhoods and towns be designed to include a wide range of housing types and entry level price points so that such communities are effectively connected to opportunity rather than existing in vacuum of poverty. Finding that balance between social support networks and economic opportunity is the key, but experience has clearly shown it ain’t easy.
I think that the choice of neighborhood by Section 8 recipients is not entirely their own choice. Landlords decide whether they want to undergo certification for Section 8, which involves jumping through some administrative hoops and guaranteeing certain standards for their properties. From my experience, landlords don’t generally do this unless they are having a hard time getting non-Section 8 tenants. Sought-after, gentrifying neighborhoods are therefore, in general, de facto off-limits to Section 8 tenants.
That may be true of some sought after, gentrifying neighborhoods but the Atlantic Monthly article referenced in the post referenced numerous cases of people landing in what they considered to be good places to live. So just because there may be an dearth of Section 8 in a “hot” area, it certainly exists in decent areas.