A Tale of Two (Segregated) Exurbs

A couple of weeks ago, Jamelle over at The United States of Jamerica offered an insightful commentary about the effects of baby boomer suburbanization. As most of us know, suburbanization was not a privilege enjoyed equally by all races. The growth of the ‘burbs throughout the latter half of the 20th Century was predicated on racial exclusion; federal subsidies and local level political mobilization ensured white racial homogeneity in rapidly expanding suburban enclaves. As these boomers grow older, it’s becoming increasingly clear that suburban development has its shortcomings. Jamelle astutely notes, “[T]he downside of designing neighborhoods in an exclusionary fashion is that it makes them virtually unlivable for someone who doesn’t own a vehicle or who because of age or infirmary, can’t operate one.”

This was exactly the topic of Ben Adler’s piece “A Tale of Two Exurbs” published last month at The American Prospect. Adler details life in two Washington, DC “exurbs”—suburbs so far from central cities that they are more like suburbs of suburbs—pointing out the pitfalls of suburban sprawl. In Leesburg, VA, the “archetypical American exurb,” transportation is deplorable. Roads are congested, walkability is absent, and the community is without "character." In short, Leesburg is where sprawl went wrong.

Oh, but this is not intrinsic to exurban living, Adler thankfully proclaims. Indeed, Gaithersburg, MD offers a fascinating counter-example. Gaithersburg has a quaint “downtown,” very few cars, lots of walking, and…wait for it…a wonderful sense of community. Adler explains the “community:”

“There are not only families with children living in detached homes, there are single people in their 20s living above stores and elderly people living in the taller apartment buildings. This kind of mixed-age development will be in especially high demand as demographic trends, such as the empty-nests of aging baby boomers lead to an increase in childless households.”

Look, I’m all for sustainable, walkable neighborhoods that are elderly-friendly. Cool. No complaints here. But is that the best suburban diversity we can hope for? A discussion of racial or class diversity is conspicuously missing from Adler’s piece—and there’s a reason for this.

Gaithersburg was designed by Duany Plater-Zyrbek, the nation’s leading firm in New Urbanist urban design. New Urbanism is kind of like a good, liberal-minded person’s vision of an urban utopia: mixed-use land zoning, local neighborhood stores and shops, extreme walkability, eco-friendly, and on and on. In short, New Urbanism is the urban planning/urban design alternative to suburban sprawl. A pretty good alternative, at least in theory. The head of Duany Plater-Zyrbek, Andres Duany, co-authored a book detailing New Urbanism’s manifesto. But, if you’re not the academic reading type, you can also check out Paramount Pictures’ 1996 science fiction comedy-drama The Truman Show. Truman’s fictional hometown in the movie is in fact a real town: Seaside, Florida, a master-planned community built by Duany and his colleagues that follows the principles of New Urbanist design.

The dirty little secret about Duany and New Urbanism is the design’s susceptibility to gentrification. A quaint little town with a thriving local economy is undoubtedly a hot commodity among young, affluent white folks. An influx in affluent folks typically precipitates raises in rents and property values, often resulting in lower-class displacement. Such is the potential effect of New Urbanism. It’s actually a little more than mere susceptibility to gentrification—Duany has been quoted in interviews pondering “What’s so bad with gentrification?” He even argued that the arrival of higher-income residents is “exactly” what some urban communities need.

There are plenty of problems associated with gentrification, some mentioned previously on this site. And I’m sure gentrification also has some positive effects on communities. But there’s something peculiar—or, suspicious—about a discussion of New Urbanism (an urban design susceptible to gentrification) that fails to mention racial or class diversity (a major casualty of gentrification). In our quest for walkable, eco-friendly built environments, are we willing to concede racial diversity? Is The Truman Show really our best crack at urban utopia?

The hyper-segregation of metropolitan America requires innovative urban planning, design that will induce—not deter—integrated neighborhoods. Adler’s discussion of exurban DC illustrates one version of an urban utopia. Too bad it’s a segregated one.

Our New Corporate Neighbor: Costco Comes to East Harlem

In Black on the Block, Northwestern sociologist Mary Pattillo analyzes black middle-class gentrification on Chicago’s South Side. In a strikingly poignant discussion of class-segmented public space, Pattillo describes the neighborhoods two main supermarkets: the Hyde Park Co-op and One Stop Foods. The two supermarkets are segregated by class; black middle-class newcomers are the only customers at the Hyde Park Co-op, while their working class counterparts are the only customers at One Stop Foods.

While the details may be different, this particular discussion points to common trend in cities across the country. Typically, a new Whole Foods in a depressed urban neighborhood signals encroaching gentrification. This development often precipitates the displacement of local corner stores or other cheap, bulk-food alternatives. Yuppie gentrifiers would rather shop organic at a Whole Foods than frugally at a Wal-Mart or Costco.

Gentrification in Harlem has dramatically impacted the community in the last five years. So when Costco announced plans to open a store on East River Avenue at 116th Street, many community members welcomed it as a positive development. Yet a baffling, elitist, and deplorable corporate policy has tempered initial optimism: Costco will not accept food stamps.

Say what you want about big-box development—the exploitation of workers, the displacement of locally owned business—but a Costco brings jobs and cheap food to Harlem. Yet when 30,000 East Harlem residents receive food stamps, Costco’s denial of their business is an emphatic dismissal of their very existence. Costco can exploit the physical space of the neighborhood, use residential streets to make midnight to 5 AM deliveries daily, but willfully accepts the increasing economic marginalization of the majority of East Harlem’s residents.

Costco responded with flippant arrogance that they simply couldn’t afford the technology needed to accept food stamps. Apparently they are unaware that the state provides all of the necessary equipment, free of charge.

The New York Times quoted Viveca Diaz, an East Harlem resident, on the situation. With striking clarity, Diaz astutely noted, “They were saying at one point they don’t have the technology. Very interesting. The corner bodega takes food stamps, and Costco doesn’t?” Well, Ms. Diaz, the former establishment cares about the needs of the community, and the latter…not so much.

Cultural Alienation and Gentrification in San Francisco

(Administrator's Note: This piece was written by guest blogger Steven Brown, an incoming graduate student in Harvard's department of sociology. He can be reached at ksbrown2@gmail.com)

San Francisco is currently engaging in an effort to keep black folks from leaving in droves. But apparently, this is now a new trend. According to this article published last Wednesday on TheRoot.com, this has been happening for quite some time.

The basic argument is two-fold. First, the author describes a common story of gentrification and under-resourced black folk getting pushed out by eminent domain, rising home prices, and shiny new luxury high rise condos. Secondly, and more interestingly, the author briefly mentions a sense of cultural alienation that black San Franciscans may feel.

Gentrification is happening, but that argument seems a bit too tidy. Just look at Philadelphia, New York, and especially Chicago where gentrification has displaced minorities on a very large scale for decades. Black people may be moving out, but they still represent significant percentages of those cities and most other major cities in the U.S. Using census data, a comparison between Manhattan and San Francisco highlights a few interesting points. Both are cities by the water of similar physical size and similar costs of living. Manhattan’s median home value is over twice San Francisco’s, and the cost of rental property for both places is about same, relative to cost of living. And the percentage of black people living in Manhattan remains steady, despite the fact that the percent of black people in poverty there is a lot higher than in San Fran (31% vs. 23%).

So why would Manhattan retain so many black folks even though may be financially just as hard, if not tougher to live there? Cultural and historical relevance. Harlem USA is right there at the northern tip of Manhattan, and Harlem will forever be associated with black cultural and political relevancy. And it's not just Harlem; there’s the Southside in Chicago and West Philadelphia (born and raised, on the playground is where…no?...okay, nevermind). To be clear, the numbers of black folks in all these places are steadily declining, but that cultural identity – one that is distinctly black – still strongly affects how we continue to think of these places.

Not to say San Francisco doesn’t have a black cultural center, but it’s not nearly as pronounced as in other places. This is complicated by the Bay Area’s history as a place where tolerance is more broadly defined, and not just so black and white (literally and figuratively speaking). And I imagine it would to difficult to establish such a strong presence when competing for resources, space, and attention with Latinos, the LGBT community, and Asians (Asians make up 31% of San Francisco’s population).

It can be lonely as one face in the midst of the crowd. And in such a small space, with a number of cultural and ethnic groups vying to establish their own thriving community, some groups will fail to be as strong as others, making the lonely face even lonlier. This isolation could be a pull factor exasperating the push factor of gentrification. Given the situation in San Fran, Oakland is looking pretty good nowadays.