Multipli-city

But in looking at these trends, we ought to remind ourselves what the big deal over diversity is really all about. Why should we want a diverse city in the first place? The easiest answer is that a diverse city is a more interesting one. Conversations at the local bar or coffee shop may be more inclusive of a wide range of experiences, the range of restaurants or cultural performances available will be more eclectic, and ultimately cultural fusion may generate an organic and unique cultural creole, incorporating pieces of all the groups living in the area.

More tangibly, a diverse metropolis should be a sign of a healthy, economically mobile population base. Since income is so often a force for the sorting of neighborhoods, diversity is a testament to success in reducing racial and ethnic barriers on the economic ladder.

It also seems that a diverse and tolerant society tends to be a richer one, and not because the rich can more easily afford to put up with other racial and ethnic groups. Instead, it appears that tolerant societies are more successful economically. It’s hard to figure out exactly how this works; it could be that tolerant individuals are better at embracing change and innovation. It could be that tolerant groups prize economically beneficial policies over those protecting the status of one group over another. Or it could be that, a la Richard Florida, the types of people that make for economic growth prefer interesting and diverse environments, and are therefore attracted to tolerant places, which subsequently become rich. (In all of these explanations, there’s the follow-up question—what makes someone “tolerant?” That’s more than I’m willing to get into in one column.)

In practice, the actual mechanism whereby diversity comes to be associated with growth probably includes aspects of all of the above explanations at one time or another. For a look at some of the above factors at work, we can observe Prince William County, where leaders have diverted time, money, and attention away from solving pressing infrastructure problems and toward enforcement of strict anti-immigration laws, in the process stripping away much of the economic energy of the place.

What I find interesting is the effect that these policies have had on the Latino community here in Washington. My sample size is admittedly small, but I have been surprised by the extent to which young Latinos dream of a future that includes a house and yard in the suburbs, and by the extent to which the attitudes of the area’s exurban counties have been felt by the local community and have affected their outlook. Yes, space in Washington is dear and getting dearer, but it’s hard to put a price on tolerance. Accepting communities in the District might well hold onto racial and ethnic diversity longer than they otherwise would if housing costs alone were the determining factor in location decisions.

Here in D.C., the concerns about diversity don’t come from the white west, where any addition of upper income minorities makes the city less monochromatic. They don’t come from the east, where development has not yet pushed neighborhood change above other pressing social issues in the minds of the local community. They emanate primarily from the rapidly growing center, where rising property prices and the specter of national retail generate concerns among all residents that neighborhoods are losing their edge.

But are these concerns fair? Yes, national chains have taken a greater interest in the center city, but they have done so in response to population growth, which has also made local retail profitable again. Commercial properties that have been long boarded up or occupied by businesses surviving on a shoestring are now thriving, and when pressure on them does come, it’s not from chain competition but from foolish city policy. For proprietors of all backgrounds, growth in the city has meant success, and Washington is now home to a growing community of minority and immigrant entrepreneurs. In assessing the effects of growth, we can’t just ignore the ways in which development has been a boon for the city’s non-white residents.

This, I think, is where the public discussion about neighborhood change suffers. What is the real issue here? Washington has a progressive attitude toward groups like immigrants and gays and is much the better for it. Washington has gotten more ethnically and racially diverse in recent years, and is much the better for it. It’s understandable that declines in the black population are controversial, but I don’t see how blaming development is the correct way to approach the issue.

Affordable housing is part of the problem, but if we’re serious about slowing growth in housing prices, we need to be serious about adding housing stock, a lot of it, and fast. I’m continually surprised by neighborhoods that restrict the growth of new apartments or prevent subdivision of large row homes and then fret when old residents of the neighborhood can’t keep up with rising housing costs. Failure to add new units just accelerates the rate at which turnover takes place in old ones.

Just as important should be a focus on helping poorer residents benefit from growth. Poor conditions for youths east of the Anacostia today will make handling neighborhood change more difficult in those neighborhoods tomorrow, since young Washingtonians there will be less prepared to participate in the city’s thriving economy. Maintaining a thriving African-American community in the District over the long term will be impossible without success in schools and on crime. It’s worth remembering that development has been a catalyst for improvement on those counts, allowing the city to slowly but surely serve its most vulnerable youths better.

And the expectation that Washington can or ought to solve these problems all by itself is not appropriate. Certainly, many issues pertaining to income inequality cannot be addressed without help from the federal government. But we should also remember that suburban and exurban counties around the area are happy to attract middle class families of all races, and middle class families are happy to move to them. It’s impossible to understand the loss of black families in the District without taking into consideration the willing movements of many middle and upper income blacks to the suburbs, and particularly to those in southern and eastern Maryland. The District faces too many constraints on its land, laws, and revenues for us to expect it to tackle affordable housing without a regional commitment to keep the metropolitan area affordable.

Personally, I think it’s hard not to feel good about the District as a center of diversity. The city has done a remarkable job allowing individuals from a large array of backgrounds to feel at home. Recent growth has enabled many of these individuals to find success and improve their lives. And while the population is shifting, it’s difficult to imagine that Washington will not remain home to a strong concentration of black families and culture decades down the road. Change need not mean failure, in any sense. When we’re choosing the problems we ought to solve, we should keep that in mind.