Rather than congratulate the success of safe whitecities this egghead bemoans the fact that “smiling yuppies and happyhipsters are not likely to impress anyone over at the local NAACP or inthe barrios.”
by Aaron Renn (Email him)
Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there’s agenerally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best,the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sizedcities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin,Minneapolis, and Denver. In particular, Portland is held up as aparadigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system,excellent cycling culture, and a pro-density policy. These cities arefrequently contrasted with those of the Rust Belt and South, which arefound wanting, often even by locals, as “cool” urban places.
But look closely at these exemplars and a curious fact emerges. Ifyou take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago andLos Angeles you will find that the “progressive” cities aren’t red orblue, but another color entirely: white. (GASP!! — Ed.)
In fact, not one of these “progressive” cities even reaches thenational average for African American percentage population in its corecounty. Perhaps not progressiveness but whiteness is the definingcharacteristic of the group.
[snip]
The relative lack of diversity in places like Portlandraises some tough questions the perennially PC urban boosters might notwant to answer. For example, how can a city define itself as diverse orprogressive while lacking in African Americans, the traditional sinequa non of diversity, and often in immigrants as well?
Imagine a large corporation with a workforce whose African Americanpercentage far lagged its industry peers, sans any apparent concern,and without a credible action plan to remediate it. Would such acorporation be viewed as a progressive firm and employer? The answer isobvious. Yet the same situation in major cities yields a differentanswer. Curious.