Chicago's Household And Income Growth Comes With A Good Deal Of Black Flight

There will be political, social and economic ramifications for Blacks throughout the Chicago metro area, and in other metros undergoing a similar transition.

Source: gettyimages.com

Sometimes you try to put a positive gloss on a situation, but the underlying concerns that cause the need for such spin come back to bite you.

Earlier this week I wrote an upbeat piece on Chicago that discussed two meaningful changes that demonstrate real growth occurring in the Windy City. I noted that last year Chicago reached its highest number of occupied dwelling units at 1.18 million, surpassing its previous high of 1.16 million in 1960. Total occupied households had fallen to 1.03 million in 1990 before steadily increasing in numbers since. Chicago has continued to lose population despite the household growth, however, due to declining household size.

I also noted that Chicago’s new residents were bringing higher incomes to the city, particularly in comparison to its suburban and exurban areas. Between 2010 and 2020 Chicago’s total household income grew by 21 percent, nearly doubling its suburban household income growth (11 percent). Exurban areas saw a huge 154 percent increase in household income, but its far smaller size (only 12 percent of the households in the metro area, compared to 32 percent and 56 percent in the city and suburbs, respectively) means it has a diluted impact.  

Anyway, I said all that to make the point that Chicago is transitioning to becoming an economically stronger city, despite its population loss. To me that’s a positive that rarely gets recognized. But I failed to mention the social and political implications of this transition, and two Corner Side Yard subscribers brought this up in the comments.

Subscriber Matt (@gypsy67) noted that the “ (Chicago Mayor) Brandon (Johnson) political coalition is a rearguard movement of those who feel they are losing from these changes, working class blacks in Chicago itself.”

Chicago is losing population principally for one reason – its Black population is fleeing. Since 2000, Chicago’s lost nearly a third of its Black residents, falling from 1.05 million in 2000 to just 729,000 in 2023. See here:

Black residents aren’t the only demographic group leaving Chicago, but we’re definitely leading the charge. All other things being the same, if Blacks left the city at the 7 percent rate that white residents did since 2000, Chicago overall would’ve grown by about 20,000 residents, on the strength of Latino, Asian and other ethnicities or mixed groups. Instead, Black demographic share has fallen from being the largest plurality in 2000 at 36 percent, to third behind whites and Latinos with 27 percent, in the span of a generation.

I’ve written about this many times, starting with a cover article for the Chicago Reader in 2019, and as an opinion piece for Crain's Chicago Business last March. It’s been clear to me for some time: Blacks aren’t seeing Chicago as the kind of destination that whites, Latinos, Asians and other racial and ethnic groups view it.

I’m also concerned about the political and social ramifications of this, which I wrote about back in 2022. Forgive me as I grab a huge quote from myself, but this sums up my thoughts on the matter:

“There will be consequences for Black suburban (and reverse Great Migration) flight. The first and perhaps easiest to see will be an erosion of the Black political base and support. Blacks moving to suburbia will take their votes with them, and move away from densely populated areas with concentrated districts to places that are diffuse by nature. This will not be immediately evident in the highest tiers of local government, such as a big city mayor, where successful candidates depend on their ability to build broad coalitions. Eric Adams of New York City and Lori Lightfoot of Chicago, for example, got into office on the strength of coalition building. Legislators elected from council districts or wards that will be redrawn based on the changing demographics, however, are the ones who stand to lose the most at first. In Chicago, Latinos and Asians are calling for City Council ward remapping that acknowledges their population gains and desire for greater representation. Black aldermen are seeking to hold on to something resembling the existing framework. Over time change would likely further filter up the tiers of government.

Black suburban flight will also lead to significant political realignment in suburban areas as well. The Atlanta metro area’s impact on statewide Georgia elections if often explained by the influence of recent transplants from the Northeast and Midwest, but the share of Blacks among the transplants is much higher in suburban Atlanta than in the city itself. It’s begun to blur blue and red political distinctions in metro Atlanta, and turn Georgia into a true swing state politically.

Black suburban flight has also sparked another movement in metro Atlanta, the “cityhood” movement. Throughout the metro, unincorporated areas are seeking to incorporate as new towns, and in some cases portions of existing towns are seeking to secede and form new communities. Perhaps the most high profile of these efforts is the Buckhead cityhood movement, an effort to carve out Atlanta’s Buckhead neighborhood as a separate municipality. Proponents of the movement say that overall rising crime in Atlanta and a desire for locals to exert more control over the community are reason enough for the movement. As Atlanta’s wealthiest community, its separation from Atlanta would result in significant tax losses.

Metro Atlanta may just be a harbinger of what’s to come in other metro areas.

Black flight could also lead to huge economic consequences as well. Moving to the suburbs may put more Black households further away from city job opportunities; indeed, businesses currently located in the suburbs may relocate to cities to be close to the rising demographic they desire – young, diverse and educated Millennials and Zoomers. New Black suburban residents may find themselves in suburban locations that don’t have the public infrastructure, amenities and services they’re accustomed to. Robust street networks with accompanying sidewalks and streetlights? Parks with easily available – and free – recreational activities? These are things built into the framework of our largest cities, but are often lacking in suburban areas. New residents may demand these, without access to the resources needed to gain them.

Perhaps most troubling, though, is that suburban housing values and rents may stagnate in places, even fall. One lesson learned from the Great Migration is that as Black residents attain a certain level in communities, housing demand from Whites, Latinos and Asians in that area begins to decline – and prices adjust accordingly. Fewer eyes on the housing inventory means the chance to gain the equity most want from homeownership diminishes.

If this sounds completely negative regarding Black residents and suburbia, I don’t mean it to be so. I am myself a Black man who’s lived comfortably in the suburbs for many years, and I don’t believe all suburbs will undergo this process. In fact, I envision suburbs developing the kind of patchwork pattern of affluence and poverty that we’ve generally associated with cities for years. Ironically, I see cities becoming more reliably and uniformly affluent – an outcome urbanists from decades ago may never have imagined, but coming at the expense of the vast suburban periphery.

The key difference lies in the fragmented nature of suburbia, especially as seen in metro areas throughout much of the eastern half of the nation. This fragmentation will play a role in identifying suburban “winners” and “losers”. Affluent suburbs will remain so because they have (or will have) commercial/retail hubs, office complexes and high-priced residential properties that will generate property tax revenue. That can assist in fending off decline; well-off suburbs will be able to use the resources to revitalize declining areas. The future could be quite different for communities that don’t remake themselves as desirable destinations within a new metropolitan context.”