The White City: Is St. Louis Too Black to Ever Be Considered "Progressive"?
{a view of "progressive" Portland, OR}
On the website New Geography, Aaron Renn (aka the Urbanophile) has an article titled "The White City." Renn looks at the metro area core county population of African Americans and asks whether the term "progressive" as used to describe such cities as Austin, TX, Portland, OR, Minneapolis, MN and others is synonym for "white".
Among other things, Renn simply shows that the core county population of places such as Cleveland, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Nashville and Kansas City have a much higher percentage of African American residents, well above the national average, than the aforementioned "progressive" cities. Without judging the validity of his argument, the idea introduces very relevant, interesting issues.
To re-frame the question: Why are some cities considered "progressive" while others are not? No definition will satisfy all, but if we define a "progressive city" as a city with more bike lanes than other cities, more comprehensive recycling programs, extensive transit options, pro-density policy, more awareness and protection of greenspace, cleaner and safe, we can begin to understand why some cities make the cut and others do not.
I do not think it's accurate to view "progressive" versus non-progressive cities as black versus white, but rather has homogeneous cities versus heterogeneous cities, especially in terms of economic segregation. What I do think is likely accurate is that homogeneity can help pass legislation. It's easier to agree on policy. Others will never see a place like St. Louis as "progressive" because we are not proactive policy actors. What we do typically follows policy in other cities and is rarely implemented to affect the entire region.
Another way to think about the issue is to consider what our region may be able to accomplish without race being such a divisive issue. If the city were 80% middle class (and the reality is that in St. Louis this means "white") you can bet that there would be city-wide historic preservation review. There would be more bike lanes too. And in the end what is typically labeled a "progressive" city is what "progressives" admire; mass transit, bicycles, sustainability etc. and some cities may be better able to implement such policies.
As a region we have twice failed to support public transit. The 90+ municipalities in St. Louis County are not in a hurry to give up their inefficient independence and fewer still want to meld with St. Louis City. A significant part of the history of our fragmentation is based on race. And here Renn's observations offer some food for thought.
Regardless, shouldn't spend much time seeking a "progressive" label, but instead work to create a government and community that serves those who live here. If there's an answer to the question in the headline it is: "St. Louis is too fragmented to ever be considered "progressive".
How is it that virtually all Americans came to think of themselves as "middle class" in the twentieth century? In this cultural history of real estate brokerage, Jeffrey M. Hornstein argues that the rise of the Realtors as dealers in both domestic space and the ideology of home ownership provides tremendous insight into this critical question.
It should be pointed out that many would take offense with the following statement from this post and view it is an inaccurate portrayal: "If the city were 80% middle class (and the reality is that in St. Louis this means "white")..."
Regardless, an interesting read touching on a theory between homogeneity and progressiveness.
Why in the hell would we worry about what perceptions labels confer onto other cities, or onto us from the perspective of other cities? Progressive means many things, and there is no reason to approach local solutions to local problems in a manner equivalent to solutions employed in Portland, where geographic features, demographics, climate, etc. are different to begin with. I'm not disheartened by this article at all, and if this is intended to be some sort of self-examining critique for those college educated, 'middle class' white people, then I'd submit that it is the insecurities of those people instead of the resultant physical environment that is what's worth reporting.
Dave - instead of only stating, "that many would take offense with the following statement..." can you explain why? Is it inaccurate? Or are you saying that some will take offense whether it's inaccurate or not. I'm open to changing/amending the statement if it is inaccurate and offensive.
John - exactly. That's more or less what I found in the article. The point being that a certain clique is self-defining "progressive" and then holding that up as the ideal.
To me, the article reads more like it's written by someone who resents and envies the successful implementation of what ALL progressives can agree is in the best interest of great cities, and seems to want to remind the rest that misery loves company.
So African Americans don't ride bikes nor do they like historic buildings? Lewis Reed, A BLACK GUY, came up with the idea of Bike St. Louis. He also played a large role in getting City Hospital rehabbed. Antonio French, A BLACK GUY, instated preservation review and will be doing an RFP for an historic district survey. Alderman Moore, A BLACK GUY, happens to be doing Wagoner Place on Dick Gregory -- salvaging almost an entire block of historic homes in order to preserve history, which he places very high value upon.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Doug, you're a smart guy and I appreciate a lot of your opinions, but you're just not being honest here. The stated point is that a whiter, more affluent population would mean more people on bikes. I'm open to someone showing that this is false. It's not a positive or negative, and it's even stated in this post as a crticism of the "progressive's" definition of "progressive cities". Your problem is that you read what you want to read and not what's written.
You have the burden of proof. Prove that whitey likes bicycles more than African Americans. I would love to see a planning article. I think I've done enough. I gave you an example of how you're wrong in that a person of darker complexion came up with the idea and implemented Bike St. Louis.
Doug- If you feel that you've done enough by naming a few African Americans you know who are involved in the cycling community then I do hope you're actually done commenting. Or should the contest be whether I can name more white cyclists than you can black? I've been a competitive cyclist since 1996, have literally raced all over the world and have been involved with many cycling projects from bike lanes to safety to working as a professional mechanic. It's my observation (and this is a criticism of cycling) that cycling is somewhat elitest, expensive and white. You, and others can disagree, it's just an opinion and one that I'm not going to dedicate much time attempting to "prove".
Using a bike in a city doesn't require a 3,000 investment and tight pants. It only requires bike lanes and a used POS that anyone can afford.
100% agree. I wish more people would realize this.