New Urbanization

[iheartthed]

Leaving aside the politics of why, do you think the decrease in crime in NYC [[and esp. the outer boroughs) has been a major factor?

No, I don't think it is much of a factor. This happening in Brooklyn because of zoning changes and ease of commute to Manhattan. These areas of Brooklyn have more favorable commute times to Manhattan's business centers than even some parts of Manhattan. Think of how Windsor is to downtown Detroit then add 10 subway lines and a couple more bridges and tunnels. Then, on top of all that, there just isn't much room left to build or gentrify in Manhattan. Anything built in Manhattan now is basically for people with net worths of 8 figures or more.

But, why do I really discount crime rates? First, NYC's crime rates dropped dramatically in the late 90s but haven't really moved significantly since. There is no real visible change in the perception of crime today than since the early 2000s. Second, NYC's population was increasing again for two decades prior to when the crime rate peaked. Crime decline has never led gentrification here. If there is any relationship at all then it is most likely the opposite: gentrification may lead to decreases in crime rates.

What did happen over the last decade is that New York once again started to set new peak populations. It lost a huge number of residents in the 1950s - 1970s and then took from the 1970s - 2010s to recover the lost population. Now it is at a point again where New York is "bigger than it has ever been before." Again.

[mwilbert]

I think that is a strange way to interpret the data. Murders in NYC peaked in 1990, and the population of NYC grew fastest in the 1990s, as crime was dropping. The increases in the decades before and after that were much slower.

[iheartthed]

I think that is a strange way to interpret the data. Murders in NYC peaked in 1990, and the population of NYC grew fastest in the 1990s, as crime was dropping. The increases in the decades before and after that were much slower.

The population also grew more in the 1980s than it did in the 2000s, even though the crime rate was increasing during the 1980s and decreasing during the 2000s. I don't think it is a defensible argument to say that there is a causal relationship between declining crime rates and population increases in NYC. The population has increased when the crime rate has been both increasing and decreasing.

[Bham1982]

The population also grew more in the 1980s than it did in the 2000s, even though the crime rate was increasing during the 1980s and decreasing during the 2000s. I don't think it is a defensible argument to say that there is a causal relationship between declining crime rates and population increases in NYC. The population has increased when the crime rate has been both increasing and decreasing.

This is true, and I agree with your basic premise [[crime isn't heavily linked to population growth), but the issue is that the Census used a slightly different methodology in the 1990 Census and the 2010 Census, so they aren't directly comparable.

It probably isn't clear whether NYC grew faster in the 1980's or 2000's, because demographers usually agree the 2010 numbers are an undercount, as they didn't use the same imputed numbers [[guestimates of homeless, undocumented, etc.) they used in 2000 and 1990. You can see this because almost every city saw a population bump in the 2011 estimates.

Speaking generally, areas with high crime in the U.S. aren't the same as those gentrifying, so I doubt it matters that much. Whether or not there's crazy crime on the South/West sides of Chicago [[and there certainly is) hasn't put much of a damper on reviltaization in the core and North Side.

In NYC wealth and poverty are somewhat more jumbled so I can see the massive crime drops in the 1990's/2000's in places like Harlem and Bed Stuy and Bushwick as aiding gentrification somewhat, but these are exceptions.

Keep in mind too that NYC is an outlier in that it doesn't need gentrification to grow. Much of the Outer Borough growth is due to immigrants and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews [[huge families). Even if there were no gentrifiers Bed Stuy would be growing whiter because the Hasids are massively expanding into North Bed Stuy.

Somewhere like Chicago they don't get much inner city immigration anymore, and no Orthodox Jews really, so if they don't get gentrifiers they'll basically be a giant Flint. It's gentrify or die.

[iheartthed]

Keep in mind too that NYC is an outlier in that it doesn't need gentrification to grow. Much of the Outer Borough growth is due to immigrants and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews [[huge families). Even if there were no gentrifiers Bed Stuy would be growing whiter because the Hasids are massively expanding into North Bed Stuy.

Somewhere like Chicago they don't get much inner city immigration anymore, and no Orthodox Jews really, so if they don't get gentrifiers they'll basically be a giant Flint. It's gentrify or die.

That was going to be my next point.

It was only in the last couple of years that NYC stopped hemorrhaging residents who were born here. Population growth in NYC is more driven by foreign immigration than it is by yuppies [[this is true of most, if not all, major cities that are experiencing a consistent population growth). My theory is that these people have been less concerned about crime perception and more concerned about access to jobs and community support systems.

[Wesley Mouch]

... access to jobs and community support systems.

Do you mean something by 'access to jobs' vs. jobs? Is this another way of saying 'subway'? Also curious what a 'community support system' means to you. Does that mean living near relatives? Or is this government programs of some kind?

Your main point that NYC growth isn't 'yuppie jobs' but is immigration is good. So what jobs are the immigrants getting 'access' to that they didn't have 'access to' in the past?

Perhaps 'access' is that sentence was just a fluff word, but I think there's something your trying to convey that I'd like to hear.

[iheartthed]

Do you mean something by 'access to jobs' vs. jobs? Is this another way of saying 'subway'? Also curious what a 'community support system' means to you. Does that mean living near relatives? Or is this government programs of some kind?

Your main point that NYC growth isn't 'yuppie jobs' but is immigration is good. So what jobs are the immigrants getting 'access' to that they didn't have 'access to' in the past?

Perhaps 'access' is that sentence was just a fluff word, but I think there's something your trying to convey that I'd like to hear.

Immigrants have largely always had access to jobs in NYC, which is why the city has grown more often than it has not. That's been true for centuries.

What I mean by "access to jobs" is having an economy that immigrants can participate in via the type of jobs, and, yes, having physical access to those jobs through a robust transit system. In addition to the subway, NYC's economy is just far more immigrant friendly than places like Detroit.

And by community I mean relatives and the community infrastructure [[neighborhoods where the churches, grocery stores, etc. speak a familiar language) in place. If all things are equal people would obviously go to a place where they could find a little familiarity versus a place where they feel like a fish out of water.