Do you remember when "inner city" and "urban" were code words for "black"?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I highly doubt a meaningful number of black people are moving from Detroit to Milwaukee.

well, in milwaukee's case, i was obviously thinking about chicago driving some of that, MUCH more so than detroit, given their relative proximities.

but for indy, maybe some former black metro detroiters have moved down there looking for greener grass? has columbus seen a similar large increase? if so, maybe some of that is cleveland flight?

i really don't know if this kinda stuff is moving the needle or not, just wondering out loud. i mean huge losses in chicago and detroit coupled with huge gains in milwaukee and indy, is there maybe a connection? i dunno.....

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But Milwaukee has been much less black than Chicago or Detroit since the early 20th century. It seems like the growth in black population has picked up recently there for some reason.

well, milwaukee city proper just registered it's first decennial decrease in black population (-6.5%), so black flight is becoming a thing there now as well.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't disagree with your basic claim about the dominant drivers of Black suburbanization, but of the cities you cited, NYC, Milwaukee, Philly, and Indy all saw growth in their black populations, not decline. In some cases, such as maybe Indy and Milwaukee, I think having larger shares of suburban areas within city limits helps to explain this. Black people might have still been moving out from the inner cities to more suburban areas, but those suburban areas are still within city limits. Not sure that explanation works for Philly. NYC is different than the other cities listed due to the high number of black immigrants the city receives, as you note.

I think Indianapolis and Milwaukee are affected by Chicago nearby.

Many of Chicago’s suburbs are still rather expensive for starter homes, and the South Suburbs have property tax issues, so Indy and Milwaukee are good alternatives.

It’s possible NYC and Philadelphia are having a similar interaction? Suppose NYC also lost 30% of its non-immigrant black population since 1980. That’s a LOT of people who have to go somewhere, preferably nearby to be close to family. Philadelphia black population is so much smaller than NYC’s that only 10-20% would need to relocate to Philadelphia to keep the population stable.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I think Indianapolis and Milwaukee are affected by Chicago nearby.

Many of Chicago’s suburbs are still rather expensive for starter homes, and the South Suburbs have property tax issues, so Indy and Milwaukee are good alternatives.

It’s possible NYC and Philadelphia are having a similar interaction? Suppose NYC also lost 30% of its non-immigrant black population since 1980. That’s a LOT of people who have to go somewhere, preferably nearby to be close to family. Philadelphia black population is so much smaller than NYC’s that only 10-20% would need to relocate to Philadelphia to keep the population stable.

My guess is that much of NYC's black non-immigrant population that moved went to southern cities, especially Charlotte and Atlanta, and maybe some to DC. I doubt many went to Philly. I would guess that the smaller less heavy industrial cities like Milwaukee, Indy, Columbus and Minneapolis are more of a draw to blacks settling or relocating in the midwest than the traditional powerhouse industrial cities like Chicago and Detroit. It is surprising to me that Minneapolis and Columbus have more recent black immigrants, like Somolians, than Chicago and Detroit. And I would surmise that a greater number of Chicago and Detroit blacks also left for their suburbs than the blacks in other smaller cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by DCReid

My guess is that much of NYC's black non-immigrant population that moved went to southern cities, especially Charlotte and Atlanta, and maybe some to DC. I doubt many went to Philly.

Immigrant blacks in NYC move to Philly, though. There's an immigrant trend where families move close-by, but not exactly adjacent, as with Puerto Ricans in Hartford, Dominicans in Allentown and West Indians in Philly (yeah PRs aren't technically immigrants, but same general trend).

I suspect the positive numbers in Philly are largely due to NYC, and NYC's better-than-average performance masks the fact that AA migration patterns are the same as in other U.S. cities, but the huge black immigrant population makes up for it.

[L41A]

DCReid stated Black non-immigrant THOUGH.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Immigrant blacks in NYC move to Philly, though. There's an immigrant trend where families move close-by, but not exactly adjacent, as with Puerto Ricans in Hartford, Dominicans in Allentown and West Indians in Philly (yeah PRs aren't technically immigrants, but same general trend).

I suspect the positive numbers in Philly are largely due to NYC, and NYC's better-than-average performance masks the fact that AA migration patterns are the same as in other U.S. cities, but the huge black immigrant population makes up for it.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by DCReid

My guess is that much of NYC's black non-immigrant population that moved went to southern cities, especially Charlotte and Atlanta, and maybe some to DC. I doubt many went to Philly. I would guess that the smaller less heavy industrial cities like Milwaukee, Indy, Columbus and Minneapolis are more of a draw to blacks settling or relocating in the midwest than the traditional powerhouse industrial cities like Chicago and Detroit. It is surprising to me that Minneapolis and Columbus have more recent black immigrants, like Somolians, than Chicago and Detroit. And I would surmise that a greater number of Chicago and Detroit blacks also left for their suburbs than the blacks in other smaller cities.

You’re forgetting about natural growth.

The big flaw in the suburbs theory is that the black population in Chicago’s metro area is essentially unchanged since 1980 (+14,604, +1.04%) despite birth rates that have been well above replacement level for most of that time. If families were just moving to the suburbs instead of leaving the metro area altogether, the population trajectory would be more similar to the Hispanic population.

I think there’s strong evidence suggesting that maybe 30% of black families who leave the city of Chicago have been leaving for other Midwest cities instead of going to the Chicago suburbs. This has probably been going on for several decades, but wasn’t as apparent in previous years due to high birth rates.

There’s very little evidence of hundreds of thousands of black Southerners or immigrants moving to the Midwest. And there’s not a large rural black population that is urbanizing like in Atlanta, Charlotte, or Houston. Which leaves the old manufacturing cities, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland as the likely origin of people relocating to small and mid-sized Midwestern cities.

Change in Total Black Population

1980 to 1990
Chicago: -113,433
Suburbs: +103,478
MSA: -9,955

1990 to 2000
Chicago: -20,732
Suburbs: +151,618
MSA: +130,886

2000 to 2010
Chicago: -181,453
Suburbs: +109,336
MSA: -72,117

2010 to 2017
Chicago: -75,033
Suburbs: +41,022
MSA: -34,011

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I would guess that the smaller less heavy industrial cities like Milwaukee, Indy, Columbus and Minneapolis are more of a draw to blacks settling or relocating in the midwest than the traditional powerhouse industrial cities like Chicago and Detroit.

Milwaukee likely belonged in that first group in the past, but as i mentioned earlier, last decade it posted its first ever city proper decrease in black population (-15,052, -6.7%), whereas the black population rose within the city propers of those other 3 cities. and Milwaukee's MSA overall lost ~5,000 black people, unlike the others.

also, milwaukee was the only one to see its over all city population decrease (-3.0%), while the other 3 all saw very healthy city proper growth by midwest standards. and milwaukee also saw very slow MSA growth (+1.2%), again unlike the other 3.

over the last decade, milwaukee demographically fits in much better with its rustbelt cousins like detroit, cleveland & st. louis (losing black population at both the city and MSA level, losing overall central city population, and very slow MSA growth), than it does with "new midwest" cities like minneapolis, columbus & indy.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by DCReid

My guess is that much of NYC's black non-immigrant population that moved went to southern cities, especially Charlotte and Atlanta, and maybe some to DC. I doubt many went to Philly.

Yes, similar to what is happening in other northern cities. Some immigrants or first generation might have gone to Philly from NYC, though.

Originally Posted by DCReid

I would guess that the smaller less heavy industrial cities like Milwaukee, Indy, Columbus and Minneapolis are more of a draw to blacks settling or relocating in the midwest than the traditional powerhouse industrial cities like Chicago and Detroit. It is surprising to me that Minneapolis and Columbus have more recent black immigrants, like Somolians, than Chicago and Detroit. And I would surmise that a greater number of Chicago and Detroit blacks also left for their suburbs than the blacks in other smaller cities.

I think it's probably almost all driven by natural increase or immigration. I very highly doubt that there are a meaningful amount of American blacks moving between Midwest cities. The only city that might be absorbing a meaningful number of American-born black people from other midwest cities is Chicago, but that's being offset by losses of black Chicagoans. The ones going to Chicago would likely be educated and going there for high paying jobs.

[eschaton]

Due to black southerners tending to use the major railroad lines to migrate, NYC tended to get blacks from the Atlantic seaboard states like Virginia and the Carolinas, while Chicago got a lot of migrants from the interior South like Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi.

My understanding is North Carolina is a very popular place for black New Yorkers to retire, in part because a lot of them have extended family still in the region.

Finding true "native born" blacks in NYC is getting rarer and rarer however. Lots of them are half African-American, half something else. A former coworker who grew up in Harlem was 1/2 Gullah, 1/4th Trini, and 1/4th Jewish, for example.

[Crawford]

Yes, non-immigrant blacks in NYC are VERY heavily descended from the Carolinas.

But NYC's AA population is very much a mix, and the black neighborhoods have a different vibe, due to all the non-native influences. It's probably hard to parse out immigrant vs. non-immigrant migration patterns given that immigrants melt into the mainstream culture by the third generation.

Also, NYC has been getting a ton of West Indian immigration since the early 20th century. Even pre WW2, a large share of NYC blacks were descended from the islands.

Anecdotal, but Chicago seems to be very heavily Mississippi/Arkansas/West Tennessee, and Detroit seems to be very heavily Alabama, which makes sense given the midcentury rail system. East Coast cities will be Carolinas, Virginia or Georgia.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, non-immigrant blacks in NYC are VERY heavily descended from the Carolinas.

But NYC's AA population is very much a mix, and the black neighborhoods have a different vibe, due to all the non-native influences. It's probably hard to parse out immigrant vs. non-immigrant migration patterns given that immigrants melt into the mainstream culture by the third generation.

Also, NYC has been getting a ton of West Indian immigration since the early 20th century. Even pre WW2, a large share of NYC blacks were descended from the islands.

Anecdotal, but Chicago seems to be very heavily Mississippi/Arkansas/West Tennessee, and Detroit seems to be very heavily Alabama, which makes sense given the midcentury rail system. East Coast cities will be Carolinas, Virginia or Georgia.

I've also heard one of the reasons why - pretty uniquely in the Rust Belt - Pittsburgh really didn't experience the Great Migration in any substantive way (with the city black population topping out at only around 25%) is because we lacked a direct rail link to the South. Why transfer to Pittsburgh when you can just set up shop in Philly or Cinci or something?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Anecdotal, but Chicago seems to be very heavily Mississippi/Arkansas/West Tennessee,

yes, the illinois central railroad was by far the main conduit for great migrators that came to chicago, so mississppi, louisiana, arkansas, western tennessee were the biggest contributors to the city's exploding black population back in the day, but the IC also had a spur line that went east over to Birmingham, AL, so chicago got a significant number of great migrators from the cotton state as well.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, non-immigrant blacks in NYC are VERY heavily descended from the Carolinas.

But NYC's AA population is very much a mix, and the black neighborhoods have a different vibe, due to all the non-native influences. It's probably hard to parse out immigrant vs. non-immigrant migration patterns given that immigrants melt into the mainstream culture by the third generation.

Also, NYC has been getting a ton of West Indian immigration since the early 20th century. Even pre WW2, a large share of NYC blacks were descended from the islands.

Anecdotal, but Chicago seems to be very heavily Mississippi/Arkansas/West Tennessee, and Detroit seems to be very heavily Alabama, which makes sense given the midcentury rail system. East Coast cities will be Carolinas, Virginia or Georgia.

Yes, NYC pulled heavily from the Carolinas, but also Virginia, Georgia, and Florida. Detroit pulled substantially from both the interior states (Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana) and southern coastal states (Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida). Not so much from Virginia, though. California pulled almost solely from the interior states (Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas).

A lot of this is also influenced by the size of states during the era of the Great Migration. Despite Florida being the most populated state in the South today, Florida is not as represented as other states because it was the least populated state in the South at the start of the Great Migration.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But Milwaukee has been much less black than Chicago or Detroit since the early 20th century.

i never recognized the degree to which milwaukee largely missed out on the first wave of the great migration (1900 - 1940)


milwaukee went from 0.3% black in 1900 to only 1.5% black by 1940.

for comparison, here are some of milwaukee's great lakes cousins on that score:

cleveland went from 1.6% black in 1900 to 9.6% black by 1940.

detroit went from 1.4% black in 1900 to 9.2% black by 1940.

chicago went from 1.8% black in 1900 to 8.2% black by 1940.

buffalo went from 0.5% black in 1900 to 3.1% black by 1940.


even pittsburgh saw bigger gains at the time:

pittsburgh went from 5.3% black in 1900 to 9.3% black by 1940.


but milwaukee got healthy amounts from the second wave of the great migration, seeing its black population shoot up to 30.7% by 1990.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...rican_American)

[Steely Dan]

i came across an interesting Brooking Institute article about demographic trends from census 2020 in the nation's 50 largest cities.

article link: https://www.brookings.edu/research/2...g-their-youth/

in it, i found an embedded excel file that had black flight numbers for the 50 largest US cities from the past 3 decades. unfortunately, it only tabulates the 50 largest cities as they stand in 2020, so some still significant, but heavily-declined rustbelt cities aren't listed here (St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo), but it's still interesting data none-the-less.

the most interesting thing that jumped out at me: of the cumulative ~225,000 drop in black flight from the 50 largest cities between the '00s and the '10s, the MASSIVE black flight drops in Chicago (96,718) and Detroit (92,032) account for nearly 85% of it. they were still the two black flight numerical leaders in 2020, but dear god were they ever gut-punched back in the '00s. i would love to see both of them roughly halve their black flight numbers again this decade.

meanwhile, several other cities saw significant upticks in their rates of black flight, namely Philly, Baltimore, Boston, Miami, & KC, joined by two cities that saw their first black flight ever last decade, Memphis & Milwaukee.



Top 50 US cities that experienced black flight from 1990 - 2000:

1. Washington DC: -55,125
2. Los Angeles: -52,303
3. Chicago: -20,732
4. Oakland: -19,326
5. San Francisco: -17,552
6. Baltimore: -16,696
7. Miami: -16,129
8. Atlanta: -9,045
9. San Diego: -6,022
10. San Jose: -4,759
11. Seattle: -4,373
12. Detroit: -2,563
13. El Paso: -515

Total: -225,140






Top 50 US cities that experienced black flight from 2000 - 2010:

1. Detroit: -185,393
2. Chicago: -181,453
3. New York: -100,859
4. Los Angeles: -54,606
5. Washington DC: -39,035
6. Oakland: -33,502
7. Atlanta: -29,746
8. Baltimore: -24,071
9. San Francisco: -12,010
10. Dallas: -10,665
11. San Diego: -10,333
12. Miami: -7,197
13. Long Beach: -6,911
14. Austin: -3,499
15. Boston: -2,232
16. San Jose: -1,987
17. Houston: -1,895
18. Philadelphia: -1,836
19. Denver: -1,533
20. Kansas City: -1,005

Total: -709,768






Top 50 US cities that experienced black flight from 2010 - 2020:

1. Detroit: -93,361
2. Chicago: -84,735
3. New York: -84,404
4. Baltimore: -57,323
5. Philadelphia: -30,452
6. Los Angeles: -24,827
7. Memphis: -20,111
8. Washington DC: -18,987
9. Oakland: -15,076
10. Milwaukee: -15,052
11. Miami: -12,546
12. Boston: -8,809
13. San Diego: -4,955
14. Kansas City: -4,933
15. Long Beach: -4,031
16. San Francisco: -1,710
17. Nashville: -1,477
18. Tulsa: -725
19. Virginia Beach: -627
20. Wichita: -448
21. Bakersfield: -275
22. Fresno: -274
23. San Jose: -86

Total: -485,224


source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/2...g-their-youth/

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Top 50 US cities that experienced black flight from 1990 - 2010:


12 Detroit -2,563
[/B]






Top 50 US cities that experienced black flight from 2000 - 2010:

1. Detroit: -185,393
[/B]

OMG

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Top 50 US cities that experienced black flight from 1990 - 2010:


Top 50 US cities that experienced black flight from 2000 - 2010:


Top 50 US cities that experienced black flight from 2000 - 2010:


source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/2...g-their-youth/

I'm very confused by this whole post. Did you mean to post 1990-2000, 2000-2010, and 2010-2020? The way this data is currently organized doesn't make sense to me.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

I'm very confused by this whole post. Did you mean to post 1990-2000, 2000-2010, and 2010-2020? The way this data is currently organized doesn't make sense to me.

sorry about that.

copy and pasting shit fucked that all up on me.

decade titles have now been corrected.

[homebucket]

Any data on where the black community is flying to?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Any data on where the black community is flying to?

the burbs, mostly.

with some reverse great migration back south going on too.