America's 'inner city' dichotomy

2016-10-17T14:00:00-04:00

In reality, the central neighborhoods of many major American cities are thriving. [...] “Inner city,” in short, is imprecise in describing today’s urban reality. It captures neither the true geography of poverty or black America, nor the quality of life in many communities in central cities. But politically, its 1970s-era meaning lingers. [...] But in any context, it is hard to shake the phrase’s association with an era when American cities looked very different from the way they do today.

Republican Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, in recent debates with Hillary Clinton, had referred to the "inner cities" as “a disaster education-wise, job-wise, safety-wise, in every way possible,” and as places that if "You walk down the street, you get shot."

In fact-checking response, the Times lays out the drastic improvements in safety and home values that have occurred in these areas since the 1960s and '70s, when the "inner cities" were tagged as centers of violence and drugs. "The inner city is the place that burned when King was assassinated. It was Watts. It was the place Ronald Reagan had to try to conduct the war on drugs,” as described by N. D. B. Connolly, historian at Johns Hopkins University.

Nowadays, the Times referred to a study by the Federal Housing Finance Agency that found an increase in home values in the middle of large cities over the last 25 years—an uptick happening at a faster pace than anywhere else in the U.S. The article also points to statistics ...

Archinect - News

America's 'inner city' dichotomy