Last week in class, we discussed urban poverty and the persistence of the ghetto in U.S. cities. Although measures were taken by the government in the 1960’s to support desegregation and to prohibit discrimination in real estate, they were not a enough. We discussed three theories that could explain the persistence of urban inequality — Massey and Denton’s racial discrimination theory, William Julius Wilson’s economic structure theory, and finally Patrick Sharkey’s inheritance of the ghetto theory.

Our main focus was on Sharkey’s Stuck in Place: Urban neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality. These excerpts relied heavily on statistical analysis of urban data to demonstrate “the cumulative effects of a family’s neighborhood environments experienced over time” (133). In doing so, Sharkey demonstrates the complex, multigenerational effects the ghetto has on families.

After reading Sharkey’s work, I was left wondering what could be done implement positive, effective change that accounts for familial and community history. While the obvious answer seems to be increase diversity within the inner city and in suburbs outside the city, this sparks another important question. By “diversity” do we mean racial or economic? Although it is clear that race and economic status are extensively interconnected, which aspect should be our initial focus? How can either racial or economic diversity be implemented without creating inequitable amenities (e.g. “The Poor Door”) or gentrification? Perhaps this leads us to education.

By improving educational opportunities without relying on tax money (e.g. charter schools, curriculum changes, school voucher programs), children living in the ghetto could have improved opportunities to gain the personal agency and capital to achieve their own financial stability as an adult. While acknowledging access issues is important, some would argue that even small changes are better than no change. However, Sharkey demonstrates that middle class African Americans tend to remain in the ghetto despite personal attainment. Therefore, their children may continue to play with less educated friends, create emotional ties with their community despite the impoverished conditions, or even prioritize forms of “organic capital” and resistance as described by Rios.

Clearly, there is no clear, comprehensive solution. However, if schools are progressively improved in these areas, even if middle African American families continue choosing to stay in these neighborhoods, would the education level of the residents not collectively improve? I would think that the reproduction of culture could work in that vein as well. Therefore, smaller, localized structural changes could help catalyze change that’s better catered to specific communities.

In conclusion, examining statistics and quantitative data cannot be the only approach in addressing the persistence of urban inequality and the American ghetto. As shown throughout our class discussion, statistics may uncover surprising patterns and shed light on the true extent of inequality, but they do not lead us to feasible, holistic conclusions. In fact, policy makers who rely on statistics and lack personal attachment or firsthand knowledge of urban communities have repeatedly reinforced segregation and inequity. In order to break the pattern of detached officials, often with self or party-serving bias, constructing largely inefficient policies, more qualitative information needs to be taken into account. The opinions and experiences of African American residents, educators, and business owners would be invaluable in developing future modes of change.

In our class discussion “Urban Policy and the Rise of the Suburb,” we discussed Herbert Gans’ “Social Life: Suburban Homogeneity and Conformity” and Kenneth Jackson’s “Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream: How Washington Changed the American Housing Market.” These readings focused on the federal policies that accelerated the inequitable formation of the suburbs and the role of homogeneity in suburban life.

Jackson discusses the role federal policies played in shaping the housing market. The inherent bias of these policies had many effects. First, the Federal Highway Act of 1921, 1924, and 1956 provided the funding to create the extensive highway systems we know today. This, in conjunction with increased automobile use made previously uninhabitable lands accessible and feasible for everyday residency. Secondly, the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) in 1933 set up appraisal guidelines that laid the groundwork for racist redlining practices while the Federal Housing Administration in 1934 removed the financial risk of home ownership and standardized construction practices. Finally, the Veterans Administration Mortgage Guarantee in 1944 accelerated mass contraction of homes in the suburbs which were easily attainable only for the homogenous demographic of veterans.

Gans then goes on to discuss the myths of homogeneity in the suburbs, arguing that they were both more diverse and less detrimental than commonly thought. However, what was an important point in our discussion was not about whether his argument was logical and accurate, but highlighting the fact that homogeneity itself isn’t the issue. Rather it is the stark inequity between the groups’ living conditions. Connecting back to the results of the federal policies, neighborhoods with African American residents and older buildings were marked as undesirable, resulting in the divestment of funds from the area. This financial divestment had numerous deleterious effects on the minority populations living there.

The questions that are lingering with me have to do with Gans’ claim that “suburban life (and life of the outer city) is more reliant on quasi-primary ties” and the effects of suburban life on the residents (Class lecture slides 9/11).  While “relationships between neighbors are more intimate than secondary ties”, the transient nature of them make them less intimate than primary ties (Class lecture slides 9/11). Historically, such relationships are often considered to be negative, fostering hyperactive and superficial social lives. However, I found it very interesting to think of such relationships as a continuation of urban anonymity into suburban life. It could be argued that a commuter that leaves each morning and comes back to the privacy of their individual housing unit could be afforded a similar level of privacy and anonymity as an city dweller. Additionally, the proximity of suburban residents does not necessarily indicate shared values or a sense of community beyond child rearing, which is also shaped by differing belief systems. This argument can be furthered in considering how the opportunity for young married couples to move away from family residencies to create their own life through suburban home ownership. Not only does it demonstrate that the desire for autonomy and privacy was pervasive, but it also shows how these populations fulfilled these desires in the suburban setting.

However, I do agree that the lack of heterogeneity in suburban areas, even if less severe than originally thought, has drawbacks. While there is some truth to Gans’ claim that exposure to diversity does not necessarily translate into relationships and tolerance, the persistent segregation that results from 20th century housing policies and the development of the suburbs perpetuates a cycle of racial turnover, racial covenants, and redlining practices. These processes then maintain racial segregation which has significant negative impacts on African Americans in the U.S.. Overall, I am left wondering where we can start to begin fixing the long, complex history of institutional racism, segregation, and the American ghetto.