Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Some are certainly worse than others, but I wager the majority are going to be substantially worse than the sort of suburbs I mentioned, on almost any metric that's universally cared about (e.g., crime, income, jobs, stable families, etc.), and casually browsing ACS data on policymap.com will certainly back that up.
It's possible I'm missing something (and it's one of the reasons I'm here asking), but I haven't been able to find it despite a wealth of ACS data to go off of. And given how social ills tend to correlate with each other, I would expect it to be noticeable somewhere.
A few things:
ACS data on median home values lags present data. The most recently published ACS data is an average of 2016-2021. But the home value increases since then apply across cities, not just to these suburbs. So to the extent these white suburbs have gotten more expensive, so has everywhere else. And even if that wasn't the case (and Zillow's graphs of home values over time indicates it is), it doesn't explain why so few non-whites moved to these cities before the most recent ACS data.
Your source includes only current listings, which may not be representative and/or have small sample sizes.
Zillow data is pretty consistent with ACS data.
I'm not sure where you're from, but I live in Pittsburgh and a lot of areas in the Rust Belt just have an ineffable shittiness about them that isn't necessarily reflected by statistics, other than, of course, property values. A lot of these are technically suburbs but were built out prewar due to some local industry that isn't there anymore and had little to offer during postwar suburbanization, with more attractive alternatives nearby. Now they just sort of exist, with no hope of gentrification or investment. Mediocre housing stock, lack of local amenities, and distance from major employment centers often aren't enough to make up for relative safety and low housing costs. These places are also filled with white trash, though that hasn't necessarily stopped black people from moving into other places with low housing costs. It's also worth noting that a lot of urban violence, isn't as widespread as it can seem by crude zip code maps. I can only speak for Pittsburgh, but the areas with the most random pedestrian violence tend to be the ones with the most pedestrians, not the ones that are the most violent. Downtown and the South Side (the biggest nightlife district) take the cake when it comes to crime stats, even though no one really thinks of them as high crime areas. That perception is changing somewhat as Downtown has a problem with homeless addicts and the South Side has had a few prominent incidents, but these were the highest crime areas by volume long before such perceptions existed, and they are both still high-value areas as far as housing is concerned. In the actual poor areas, most of the violence is relegated to bad housing projects or areas with high drug activity, and is usually limited to those in gangs. These places aren't great but grandma probably doesn't have much to worry about walking down the street in the daytime. Leaving a place like Homewood to move to a place like Whitaker is probably going to be a step down in quality of life for someone with connections to the former but not the latter.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sure they are, but your premise was not that they are worse, but rather that they are "awful." That's not the same thing!
Do you have data re jobs?
And, again, if prices are low in those places, that can only be because 1) supply is high; or 2) demand is low. Based on realtor.com listings, I don’t see much evidence of the former, though maybe there is evidence elsewhere. If the latter is true, then those places must be undesirable for some reason.
.>Zillow data is pretty consistent with ACS data
And yet the Zillow current listings are much higher. Is it possible that the Zillow average includes vacant lots and the like?
All they need to be is worse to raise the question of why people don't move out of them when there are affordable alternatives.
These suburbs are within commute distance of major metros. I think it's safe to say there are jobs galore, and I won't believe you if you claim to doubt it.
I agree! That's why I'm asking. But the consistency of this phenomenon across metros seems to demand an explanation beyond some idiosyncrasy of one place.
You're right, and that is curious. While I would expect listings to be a bit more valuable than the median home value, simply because nicer ones are more likely to be for sale, the disparity here is too great to be comfortable with that explanation. But while I don't know enough about that particular market to hazard any guesses, I will say that this is one thing that doesn't seem to generalize to other metros' white suburbs. A few more examples:
Greenfield, Indiana (20 miles east of Indianapolis, 96% white) has a Zillow median value of $244k, there are many homes listed for less than that.
Indianola, Iowa (20 miles south of Des Moines, 95% white) has a Zillow median value of $272k with many homes listed for less than that.
Pretty much all the suburbs of Cincinnati are ~95% white, and there are plenty of non-dilapidated homes for <$250k.
Who said anything about idiosyncrasies of one place? The access to jobs issue could easily be common to all.
Here is another problem: It looks like currently about 72% of whites are homeowners but only 43% of blacks are. The Greater St. Louis area is 77% white and 18% black. So, if my math is correct, one would expect a place that is almost all homeowners -- which I think describes the places highlighted on the map -- to be about 88% white. That is little different than several of the places onthe map, and for others, you are essentially asking, why are these places 95% white instead of 88%? A pretty small discrepancy, perhaps so small that it is not worth wondering about, and one which could easily be explained by the fact that most urban black people dont live in awful neighborhoods.
That doesn't really address the question, it just changes it to "why are whites more likely to be homeowners". It's not straightforwardly obvious to me why Hispanics and blacks would prefer to rent rather than own.
Yes, that is my point: The initial conundrum that you present does not seem to be a conundrum at all, at least based on the initial evidence you presented.
Who says that they prefer to rent? It is hardly surprising that Hispanics and blacks have lower rates of home ownership, given their lower income and lower median age. They would have lower rates of home ownership even if they were equally desirous of owning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link