5 ms·

Your summary misses an important point: I don't think you can totally discount the effect of "white flight" and the late 20th century perception of cities as be

Your summary misses an important point: I don't think you can totally discount the effect of "white flight" and the late 20th century perception of cities as being crime ridden places to avoid. The article references this indirectly as growth of car-centric suburbs, shrinking urban population, and the city's 1970s fiscal problems (caused in part by the loss of tax base from suburbanization).

ghaff 7y ago
>the late 20th century perception of cities as being crime ridden places to avoid Of course, a lot of cities really were, to at least some degree, crime-ridden places to avoid. The reality is complicated and varies by city of course, but it's still pretty accurate as a sweeping generalization to say that a lot of cities in the 70s and 80s wouldn't have looked all that appealing to the sort of college-educated professional class who want to live in cities today. As I was saying to someone the other day, with the exception of people in finance moving to Manhattan, very few of the people in my class in grad school went to live in a city when they graduated.
- asveikau 7y ago
  Violent crime was higher than today and there are theories as to the reason I am sure you are aware. However, I still say this was largely a matter of perception. The perceived issues can also be made closer to reality in a self a fulfilling sort of way when it is reenforced by the affluent avoiding the place, taking their tax base with them and leaving behind a higher concentration of less wealthy people in an area. But as you also no doubt are aware, the trend reversed itself in the current century with cities being desirable again. Part of this is reduced crime. But part is that perception, which kept newly educated people away as you say, simply being lifted.
drtillberg 7y ago
People go where transportation takes them; we built highways and they went. It's not easy to untangle cause from effect.

ghaff 7y ago

>the late 20th century perception of cities as being crime ridden places to avoid Of course, a lot of cities really were, to at least some degree, crime-ridden places to avoid. The reality is complicated and varies by city of course, but it's still pretty accurate as a sweeping generalization to say that a lot of cities in the 70s and 80s wouldn't have looked all that appealing to the sort of college-educated professional class who want to live in cities today. As I was saying to someone the other day, with the exception of people in finance moving to Manhattan, very few of the people in my class in grad school went to live in a city when they graduated.

asveikau 7y ago
Violent crime was higher than today and there are theories as to the reason I am sure you are aware. However, I still say this was largely a matter of perception. The perceived issues can also be made closer to reality in a self a fulfilling sort of way when it is reenforced by the affluent avoiding the place, taking their tax base with them and leaving behind a higher concentration of less wealthy people in an area. But as you also no doubt are aware, the trend reversed itself in the current century with cities being desirable again. Part of this is reduced crime. But part is that perception, which kept newly educated people away as you say, simply being lifted.

drtillberg 7y ago

People go where transportation takes them; we built highways and they went. It's not easy to untangle cause from effect.