Get ready for a very long thread. I want to talk about Chicago's black population loss, its significance and the city's future. 1/
Chicago's population loss, while almost every other major city has turned the corner, has garnered some attention. It's led to some angst among those who care about the city. 2/
Most people say it's because Chicago's economy isn't as strong or dynamic as NYC, or SF/Silicon Valley, or DC. And they'd be partly right. 3/
There are those who say changes in immigration policy that started under the Obama Admin and accelerated under Trump have slowed Latinx growth, holding down pop. growth in Chicago. That would also be partly right. 4/
But neither tells the whole story. As I've shown, black population in Chicago is declining while increasing in other major cities. It's declining in Chicago as other groups are increasing. 5/
To drive this point home: Chicago's population would be increasing, if not for the black exodus. 6/
And let's be clear about this, too: the black population of Chicago is declining both at the city *and* metro level. This is unparalleled. 7/
This has been noted locally, pretty much since 2010. But it results in more bafflement than anything. Our power brokers don't seem to know why this is happening, local media is unsure, academics have lots of reasons. 8/
How is it explained? Well there's the lack of a dynamic economy theory and slowed immigration theory, already explained. They explain part of Chicago's overall population decline, but not the specific aspect of black population loss. 9/
There's also the "crime and schools" theory. Chicago's violent crime rate became a national issue as the Obama Admin wound down, as did its many school closures (50+ schools closed, largely in black nghbds). 10/
Without a doubt there are many blacks who feel they are being pushed out of Chicago by its crime challenges, and that the school closures were an indication of a lack of investment in critical local institutions. 11/
There's also the economic restructuring theory, which says that Chicago's transition from a manufacturing-dominant economy to a service or tech-based one creates new winners and losers, and we shed the losers. Also partly true, but pretty Darwinistic. 12/
But I stress that Chicago is losing blacks at the city *and* metro level. Why are black Chicagoans not choosing the suburbs as earlier groups did? 13/
That's why I come down to Chicago's legacy of segregation as the biggest driver of this pattern. This is still being practiced. And it's created 3 factors that fuel this. 14/
First is lack of economic mobility. I'd argue that Chicago is economically stratified to the extent that upward mobility for blacks here is particularly difficult. Networks are hard to penetrate. The power structure is rigid. 15/
The second is a lack of residential mobility. Chicago and its burbs are more open to POC than ever before, but blacks here are acutely aware that people still attach stigmas to places we move to. 16/
This stagnates or lowers property values/rents where we move in large numbers, often wiping chunks of the region from the minds of many. For example, the South Side and south burbs are an untouchable, ambiguous void to many whites otherwise seeking affordable options. 17/
The "crime and schools" theory is, IMO, related to an even broader concept - displacement by decline. A lack of investment in parts of the city leads to destabilization, and ultimately their abandonment. 18/
When the time is right - values are at their lowest, or the social stigma is lost - revitalization can take place under a new regime. 19/
@Metroplanners did an excellent two-part, multiyear report on the impact of segregation on Chicago. They found that it's had a considerable dampening impact on wealth, education, crime and other factors. Segregation has a cost. 20/ metroplanning.org/costofsegregat…
@Metroplanners has also put together an agenda for inclusive growth to eradicate segregation locally. But my sense is that it hasn't gotten the support to move it forward. 21/ metroplanning.org/costofsegregat…
Why? I think local power brokers view inclusive policies in a zero-sum fashion - if one group gains, another group loses. I think that thought process is difficult to overcome. 22/
I think that's also why the discussion on black population loss in Chicago ends with bafflement and befuddlement - and makes "displacement by decline" the default policy in Chicago. 23/
The hallmark of Chicago (and Rust Belt) segregation has been black avoidance. Since the Great Migration the policy has been to explicitly or implicitly contain blacks within certain areas. But as metro areas got bigger, transportation more of a challenge... 24/
...and city living more desirable, new attention was given to long forgotten places. Here in Chicago that started with former white ethnic areas (Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, etc.). 25/
That later expanded to include largely Latinx areas within the last 10-20 years (Logan Square, Humboldt Park, Pilsen). But for the most part the pattern of black avoidance remains. 26/
In places with stronger economies and greater transportation challenges (NYC and DC come to mind) there was direct conflict between white newcomers and black longtimers. But the Rust Belt pattern is one of indirect conflict. Places collapse until new groups come in. 27/
Strangely, Detroit might be one of the best examples of "displacement by decline" in action. No American city has been more of a pariah than Detroit. Stigmatized by its suburbs and the national consciousness. 28/
But Detroit is now in the midst of a major transformation *exactly* in the areas that were once abandoned. What was once the vaunted Cass Corridor is now Midtown. 29/
In both Detroit and Chicago it appears the near future is the continued loss of black residents, and continued gains in whites, Latinos and Asians. At some point in time, population loss in both cities will become population gain again. 30/
As the economic restructuring continues in both cities, we'll see both becoming wealthier at the same time. Why? The city/suburb imbalance that was big in Rust Belt cities finds a new equilibrium. 31/
As for me? I'm frustrated. This is a missed opportunity for policies of inclusive growth. For the kinds of cities we've wanted to see. I've wanted to see. 32/
I truly think by 2050 we'll be talking about the incredible transformation of former Rust Belt cities. But I believe the blacks who contributed mightily to their growth in the 20th century won't be able to share in the new prosperity. 33/
Instead, they'll largely be living in Sun Belt cities dealing with urban challenges largely solved in the Rust Belt, and climate change impacts increasing in scale every day. END. 34/34
