Salon: Milwaukee is the new Portland

[dc_denizen]

NYC, like DC, also has more than its fair share of the middle class and affluent African American population also, compared to Baltimore and Philly.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

NYC, like DC, also has more than its fair share of the middle class and affluent African American population also, compared to Baltimore and Philly.

Yes, the DC area is very well known for affluent African American communities, and in the NYC area, too, the median income of African Americans in Queens is higher than that of whites in Queens (and same thing in certain communities on Long Island or in New Jersey).

[JoeMusashi]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Aesthetically..... jus sayin'

I was referring to the Rust Belt resurgence that has taken place in both cities. Pittsburgh is probably a better comparison and goal for a city like Milwaukee. Oakland, from what I have read, is another comparison.

I've never been to Portland but it strikes me as being more similar to Minneapolis.

[tablemtn]

Portland actually has the potential for a lot more industry in the future if it develops its port facilities in a more systematic manner, and if the Columbia River's shipping channels are dredged properly. Vigor Industrial (among others) has sizable operations in Portland:


Swan Island - From: http://vigorindustrial.com/facilities/portland

Portland has more industrial jobs and facilities than many people realize, but considering its location at the confluence of two fairly large rivers, its marine terminals and drydocks are undersized. Especially with trans-Pacific trade picking up with regard to outgoing American agriculture and commodities. Portland isn't a great location to offload incoming goods to the national "grid," but it does fine for export.

I guess that would be another similarity with Milwaukee - both cities have oceangoing ports, though Milwaukee's port isn't used as much for that purpose.

[Steely Dan]

Milwaukee's port, like all great lakes ports, is much more heavily oriented toward domestic intra-regional great lakes trade than it is to international ocean-going trade.

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

just off the top of my head, big players in town are intel, nike, OHSU (huge bio research compound), freightliner, mercedes trucks, precision cast parts, oregon ironworks (makes street cars now), port of portland, esco steel, pacificorp (in fact portland is home to three huge power companies). so yeah, there is alot of crap being designed and built here.

Intel is based in Santa Clara.

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

So basically, even more stupid of a statement.

This is not a stupid statement, its completely true. Its the biggest liberal conspiracy in the country. Young white indies who are purportedly sooooooo liberal actually prefer to be around only people like themselves, other young white indies. And Portland is their ideal place to do that.

[nonjokegetter]

Did I just read the crazy generalization "white people are racist" in a thread about Milwaukee and Portland?

[llamaorama]

Intel is based in Santa Clara.

Hillsboro, OR has three major campuses/plants including the giant new D1X fab to make 14 nm chips which guarantees it's future. These things bring in loads of wealth into a local economy.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

This is not a stupid statement, its completely true. Its the biggest conspiracy in the country. Americans who are purportedly sooooooo united actually prefer to be around only people like themselves. And America is their ideal place to do that.

Fixed that for you.

Just about everyone in America prefers to be around only people like themselves. There can be no other explanation for the widespread geographic segregation of people in America by class and income, family status, race, education levels, and increasingly, political views. The exceptions are exceedingly rare, and the places where people randomly mix face-to-face with lots of other, drastically different kinds of people are mostly found in central cities.

Holding out one group, like white urban hipsters, as if they're the only group engendering this dominant and widespread national characteristic is like pointing to someone and shouting "Ew, that guy's shit smells bad! He's gross! Shame on him!" The whole country's shit smells bad.

[oshkeoto]

I know this isn't quite the topic, but...

Because the far South side and portions of the Southwest side of the city are still mainly blue collar, middle class, whites unlike in Chicago where it is 90%+ impoverished blacks.

That's just not true. The South Side of Chicago is not 90% black, or anywhere close, nor are 90% of black people on the South Side impoverished, or anywhere close. Most black people on the South Side are working or lower middle class, with a large minority of more seriously impoverished people and another good chunk of solidly middle or upper middle class people. I know that statement wasn't supposed to be exact, but it's actually a problem for these neighborhoods that people assume they're all poor, terrible ghettos. They're not.

Fixed that for you.

Just about everyone in America prefers to be around only people like themselves. There can be no other explanation for the widespread geographic segregation of people in America by class and income, family status, race, education levels, and increasingly, political views.

Fflint, here's the thing: we don't have to guess about whether there's any other explanation. There are people who go around actually asking people about their preferences, and studying why things have become the way they are. Exactly zero of them agree with your conclusion. Most people of all ethnic backgrounds prefer to have some amount of their "own kind" around, but white people are unique in the high levels they demand, and in their sensitivity to even relatively small numbers of black neighbors. It's not an equal phenomenon.

The idea that economic and racial segregation happens because everyone wants it that way is simply not correct. *Some* people want it that way: most importantly, white people and people with money. That's not my wild leftism speaking; that's basically every urban historian, sociologist, economist, whatever. The extent to which there is not a debate about this conclusion among people who actually study it can't really be overstated.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by oshkeoto

Fflint, here's the thing: we don't have to guess about whether there's any other explanation. There are people who go around actually asking people about their preferences, and studying why things have become the way they are. Exactly zero of them agree with your conclusion. Most people of all ethnic backgrounds prefer to have some amount of their "own kind" around, but white people are unique in the high levels they demand, and in their sensitivity to even relatively small numbers of black neighbors. It's not an equal phenomenon.

The idea that economic and racial segregation happens because everyone wants it that way is simply not correct. *Some* people want it that way: most importantly, white people and people with money. That's not my wild leftism speaking; that's basically every urban historian, sociologist, economist, whatever. The extent to which there is not a debate about this conclusion among people who actually study it can't really be overstated.

^ Yes, there is a book I believe called What's the matter with white people? (or something along those lines) that I heard discusses these attributes, although I never read it myself.

However, I think it's important to emphasize that most whites (other than the really hateful rednecks, who are losers anyway and live in trailer shitholes) generally don't mind living around Asians/Indians, etc--lets be honest, the actual group they react most strongly to are African Americans and, to a lesser degree, Hispanics.

And they are not alone: the "fleeing from blacks" phenomenon is seen among Asians as well, and I'm guessing to some degree from Hispanics.

Every group in America has demonized black people, not just whites. If you look at the political climate these days (the incident in Missouri and the backlash) one almost gets the sense that things are getting worse. But this is getting a bit off topic...

[JoeMusashi]

I think it's a bit unfair to blame white people for everything in 2014. Latinos, at least in Milwaukee & Chicago, segregate themselves from African-Americans too. They make up a very large percentage of the city (17-20%) but get zero flak for doing essentially the same thing as the white people.



I also doubt true racism really even exists much anymore. There is a big difference between hating someone for their skin color and not wanting to raise a family in a ghetto. I'm guessing that the average white person would prefer to live next to the Huxtables than a trailer park filled with Honey Boo Boos, Westboro Baptists, and Eminems. Culture, values, and wealth are more important than race in 2014. These supposedly racist whites never seem to have an issue with people from India or elsewhere in Asia. Or most Latinos and African-Americans with similar values, from what I have seen. It's not as if middle-upper class black people want to live around poorer members of their race either. Here in Milwaukee, they live at the edge of the city in newer suburban style houses.

[dc_denizen]

Exactly ^

[Crawford]

The problem with black-white integration as an ideal is that blacks and whites have very different preferences for % integrated, so you get white flight.

When sociologists do those locational preferences studies, blacks prefer (and pay a premium for) neighborhoods with a roughly 50-50 black-white split. Whites don't necessary have a problem with blacks in proximity, but want to keep the % under 20%. Above 20% and you get white flight.

So you can see the obvious problem. Blacks will be attracted to areas that are getting closer to 50%, while whites will be repelled by the same trends. This is how you get white flight and racial turnover.

[tablemtn]

The problem with demographic "flight" analysis is that a lot of it is simply bad. It doesn't control for other variables, particularly ones that may be uncomfortable to deal with.

For example, how is demographic flight correlated to increases in crime in a particular area? That would seem like a critical factor to examine, but it is almost never done - and certainly not done systematically - in these kinds of papers.

[nonjokegetter]

One need only recall what Spike Lee said about gentrification in Brooklyn to get an idea of how anyone can be territorial about what they consider to be "theirs", for whatever reason they define: in that case about keeping neighborhoods of his choosing "black".

That said, before one comes to the conclusion that "white perils are racist", it'd be wise to consider, as many of that last few posts have, that while race is a factor, a much larger one is economic and social status. So you have a white middle class moving away from a black lower class and vice versa- sure, if you eliminate the economic issue it becomes racist on its face...but why would you do that? People with less moving into areas with people with more, and those later people, in turn, moving away is something that's gone on for a long time. It doesn't just predate Portland, but it predates Milwaukee, the United States, and the idea of white and black people in general.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if this is true, does that mean that chicago is the new seattle?

They do have Boeing now, so that does make sense.