Join work with Brady Cassidy and Kate Pettinger
The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s was campaign that vastly helped fix racial inequalities that had been prevalent in the United States for hundreds of years. However, in the late 1970s, pundits began asking questions about racial segregation, and if discrimination had truly been eliminated in all facets of society. It had not yet been a decade since the 1968 Fair Housing Act had been signed into law, and many scholars were wondering if empirical evidence could prove that positive changes in racial segregation and discrimination had been made. Examining these concerns through the lens of racial distribution as impacted by new housing construction is imperative when considering the policy goals of creating equitable cities that close disparity gaps that exist in communities of color.
In his 1977 paper, Impact of New Housing Construction on Racial Patterns, Erber seeks to discover if the highly projected number of new housing starts will impact urban and suburban racial patterns in a significant way in the coming years, given that there has been a little reduction in housing segregation since the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that sought to end all racial discrimination in America. Motivation for this goal was brought about by two new factors that were anticipated to heavily change the relationships affecting upward racial mobility: (1) the existence of, as previously mentioned, the federal fair housing law signed in 1968 and (2) the sharp increase within the past decade of minority households with income in the professional, mechanical, and managerial ranges (Erber 1977, p. 314). In light of these factors, Erber seeks to analyze minority access to new housing developments, as well as the impact on their access to “filtered units” in moving chains initiated by new housing starts. Filtered units, in this context, describe housing units that are made available via moving chains. A filtered unit is a unit whose previous tenants immigrated to a newer, and presumably nicer, unit, paving the way for other, presumably poorer, tenants to move into the abandoned unit. This starts a chain of moving, and these chains are usually initiated by the construction of new residential properties. This is an important concept to grasp, as Erber refers to filtered units and moving chains often throughout his paper.
Erber used several metrics in his analysis of new housing construction’s impact on racial distribution. He first cites an index created by a researcher named Karl Taeuber, which shows that 99 out of 109 cities analyzed by Taeuber and his associates experienced a decrease in segregation between whites and blacks over the 10-year span of 1960 to 1970 (see Sorensen et al., 1974). Important to note in this index is that ten cities’ segregation index actually increased, despite the Civil Rights Movement being in full swing. Erber notes, however, that Taeuber only examined segregation in central cities and not the suburbs, which were expanding heavily at the time.
Erber also examines the median incomes for black and white households in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although blacks’ median annual income rose by 31 percent between 1965 and 1970, it subsequently dropped by 2.1 percent from 1970 to 1974. However, despite the overall absolute increase in blacks’ income, Erber points out that, in the competitive and segregated housing market, an increase in absolute income for blacks holds less significance in determining their ability to compete for housing than an increase in their relative income to whites, their primary competitors. This is an important distinction, because in contrast with blacks’ median annual income, whites’ income increased by 2.7 percent between 1970 and 1974 (Erber 1977, p. 325). Black median income is, on average, only about 60 percent of white median income (Erber 1977, p. 326).
Another data metric that Erber examines involves Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), which are simply urban areas considered representative of the majority of metropolitan areas in general. He cites a study conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Census, showing that the percent of black households in 1974 that occupied units built between 1970 and 1974 is much higher than it was in 1956.
The last piece of data that Erber examines in his analysis is an index constructed by the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing (NCDH) in 1970. The index lists 46 selected housing marketing areas, and rates them on criteria including: existing patterns of segregation, minority income, educational level, automobile ownership, and characteristics of housing occupied by minorities. This index was used to measure the probability of minority homeseekers responding to housing opportunities away from current racial concentrations; a higher score indicates that the corresponding metropolitan area would have a higher probability of success in marketing newly built housing units to minorities away from the outstanding racial concentrations. Erber was able to conclude from the index, by comparing the individual scores of all 46 housing areas, that “newly constructed housing occupied by blacks is likely to have no impact on racial patterns, or an effect that is minimal, incremental, and marginal.” (Erber 1977, p. 328)
Of crucial importance in examining this data and understanding its impact on racial distribution is the comprehension of the contemporary city, a phenomenon that has appeared and become common since the industrial revolution. Erber notes that industrialization and urban development, while not necessarily codependent, are highly correlated. Industrialization’s need for manpower created a “. . .vortex that drew itself humanity from far and near” (Erber 1977, p. 317). Immigrants moved to these developing urban areas by the thousands, renting cheap, inner city units from where they could easily access their place(s) of employment. In his analysis, Erber brilliantly describes the nature of the contemporary city: “The city’s vortex, unlike nature’s, plunged the newcomer in at the center and moved him outward by successive stages. As economic growth propelled him upward socially, the urbanization process drew him outward spatially. He passed through houses previously occupied by others on their way upward and outward. The ultimate goal was a newly constructed house at the city’s edge. . .” (Erber 1977, p. 318). This goes to show that, historically speaking, inner city housing units were filtered, cheap, and generally for people of lower socioeconomic status, while peripheral housing units (i.e., suburbs) were new, expensive, and indicative of wealth and superior social status.
The results of Erber’s analysis confirmed the concerns that were being manifested by scholars: racial distribution has made marginal progress in the 10 years since the Civil Rights Movement. Blacks, centrally located in cities (as the historic nature of the contemporary metropolis predicts), were still limited in their access to new housing starts, relative to whites. New housing developments were primarily taking place in the suburbs, while blacks were primarily living in inner cities. Expensive suburban houses were not conducive to black tenants, whom on average had 60 percent of the median income of whites. As a result of this disparity, blacks’ main pathway away from the central city is through filtered houses that were previously inhabited, instead of a new housing unit. This does not fix the discrepancies in racial distribution, and whites and blacks are still segregated, even if it is over larger geographical areas. In addition to these results, Erber’s review of survey compliance tests, conducted by select fair housing groups from 1970 to 1976, revealed that flagrant disregard for the law was still widespread (Erber 1977, p. 322), indicating that newly constructed housing laws for racial minorities has not been assured by the mere passage of the law.
It is from these results that Erber concludes racial distribution in America still has a long ways to go before it can be considered fully integrated. He predicts that blacks will continue to live in cities for many years to come, and blacks’ income relative to whites’ is a significant limiting factor. Erber concludes that new housing starts have had a very limited, if not insignificant, effect on racial distribution in the contemporary cities of America, despite nearly a decade having passed since the Civil Rights Movement and the passage of the federal fair housing law.
One of the weaknesses of Erber (1977) was that it really only examined developing urban areas, and didn’t expand its scope beyond the suburbs of select major cities. If perhaps Erber had expanded the parameters of the study, trends may have been noticed in other parts of the United States. The cities used were seemingly picked arbitrarily, as their qualifying attributes were not enumerated to the reader. It is possible that a more random sample, of a larger sample size, would have yielded statistically different results than what were presented.
It would be very interesting to have a similar analysis done today in 2015, nearly 40 years later. A prospective scholar could perhaps examine the largest city in each of the 50 states, and analyze whether racial distribution has made significant progress or remained a part of the contemporary American city. A suggestion is to examine more than just the disparity of blacks and whites: involving other races and ethnicities as well could provide fascinating insight into modern day segregation and even possibly discrimination in evolving American cities.
Multiple Choice Questions
-
1. According to Erber (1977), filtered housing can be best described as:
a. Housing where landlords rigorously screen tenants before offering leases
b. Housing made available through “moving chains” initiated by housing starts
c. Housing that undergoes inspection from a federal housing agency
d. A housing practice that slows urban growth and development
Explanation: The correct answer is (b): Housing made available through “moving chains” initiated by housing starts. Filtered housing is a term that describes a house that essentially is “not new.” For example, say a middle-class family’s income is doubled due to a promotion at work. This family, with increased income, decides to build a new house. They pick a spot in the suburbs with available land, build the house, and move. Their previous house is vacant, and considered “filtered.” A family from the inner city, coincidentally, has also just received an increase in their disposable income. They decide to move to the recently vacated “filtered” house, and a chain of moving “upward socially and outward spatially” has begun.
-
2. According to Erber (1977), how is the contemporary city most like a “reverse vortex” in nature?
a. Immigrants rent houses on the outskirts of the city and slowly migrate inwards
b. The wealthy elite rent inner-city units before slowly migrating outwards
c. It put the newcomer at the center and moved him outward by successive stages
d. The modern city was considered harmful to economic productivity
Explanation: The correct answer is (c): It put the newcomer at the center and moved him outward by successive stages. Erber (1977) likened a contemporary city to the opposite of a natural vortex (like can be witnessed in bodies of water). In a natural vortex, things are captured by the outward-most forces/arms of the vortex and slowly dragged inwards toward the eye. In the contemporary city, it is the opposite: the “newcomer” (immigrant) is started right in the middle (inner city) so that he can work at his industrial/manufacturing job. As time goes on, he elevates his socioeconomic status (by working/increasing income) and can afford to move into nicer, newer houses that are being built on the outskirts of the city, due to the economic and geographical expansion of the urban area.
-
3. According to Erber (1977), why was racial distribution in urban areas slow to improve, despite heavy economic growth?
a. New houses were built in the suburbs, while blacks lived in the inner city
b. Blacks lived in the suburbs, while new houses were built in the inner city
c. Whites’ median income, relative to blacks’, was very low
d. Recurring natural disasters stunted economic growth and development
Explanation: The correct answer is (a): new houses were built in the suburbs, while blacks lived in the inner city. Due to the contemporary city as described by Erber, people with low income (in the case, blacks) lived in the inner city, where housing units were cheaper and working was easier. New housing construction was primarily happening in the suburbs, as cities expanded geographically. Therefore the racial segregation persevered.
References
Erber, E. (1977), “Impact of New Housing Construction on Racial Patterns,” Journal Real Estate Economics 5, 313–336.
Sorensen, A., K. Taeuber and L. J. Hollingsworth (1974), “Indexes of Racial Residential Segregation for 109 cities in the United States, 1940 to 1970,” Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin: Madison.