Go to Social Explorer (the link is on the right side of this page). Play around with the site, comparing Charleston in the 2000 census to Charleston in the 1990 census and the 1980 census. Look at difference demographic factors, such as race or income or age. What do changes do you find? Can you speculate about what public policies might (at least partially) account for such changes?
Academic Writing
Iconic One Theme | Powered by Wordpress
First, the most obvious trend dealing with race is that along the water, the white population far outweighs any other race. Whether we are dealing with 1980 or 2000, this trend persists. Next, we look at income. In 1980, the majority of higher level income occurs in the mount pleasant area with the downtown part of the inlet also included. Moving into 1990, we see a shift of lower income in the mount pleasant area and higher income moving into the sullivan’s island/Isle of palms area. Still, in 1990, the lowest point of the inlet is occupied by the higher lever of income. In 2000, we see that the highest level seems to have moved away from the inlet (I don’t understand this trend). They have moved more inland. We also see the inlet as a whole, has moved to a lower economic level. Finally, I looked at unemployment. We see a huge increase in the unemployment percentage of the inlet as we move through the years. With the movement of the higher income population moving away from the inlet, I believe this has to do with the school zoning.
I choose to look at the age demographic and how it’s changed over time, focusing specifically on youth. Based on the 1990 census it’s very evident that the upper peninsula is home to greater percentage of children under the age of children under the age of 14, the notable trend being that the younger the age demographic of children the greater their concentration on the upper peninsula and the lower their concentration in the lower peninsula. Looking at the 1980 census data it’s clear that the concentration of children and adolescents at the time was more uniform, without the clear upper/lower divide that was present in 1990. Now jumping forward to the 2000 census which is the most recent data available, you can see that the divide in the percentages of children in the upper and lower parts of the peninsula is still present, but the percentages of young children in general have declined in all parts of charleston between the 1980 and 2000 census. I believe the two separate trends here have distinct, but related causes. The increasingly higher percentage of young children in the upper part of the peninsula I believe to be caused by a disparity in available social services (i.e. planned parenthood) and jobs from one half of the peninsula to the next as well as a difference in residences (for example people tend not to want to raise children in the city). The second trend is that the relative proportions of young children from one year to the next is indicative of a large nationwide trend in which young adults are waiting longer to get married and start families in favor of furthering their careers and prosperity, resulting in fewer children.
I focused on poverty and education while looking at this map, and I chose to look into the correlation between the two. And in fact, they seem to directly rate to one another. Consistently from the 1980s-2000s, the most poverty stricken areas of Charleston were on the upper part of the peninsula. Only the tip of the peninsula, as well as a north-western section, saw areas with very low percentages of poverty, which spread slightly up the peninsula by 2000, but not by much. The surrounding regions of Mt. Pleasant and West Ashley also had very low rates of poverty throughout this time period. I also looked at income levels, and naturally, the corresponded directly with these poverty percentages. However, despite the poverty levels, in the 1980s, all of these areas had very similar rates of high school education completion. By 1990, all but the lower tip of the peninsula had very low rates of four-year high school education completion, and Mt. Pleasant as well as West Ashley continued to have high rates of high school completion. In 2000, this trend from 1990 continued with education percentages spreading slightly north from the tip of the peninsula. I would wager to guess that school choice has directly affected these statistics. Families with more money can afford to send their children to private schools if their districted schools do not measure up to the education they desire for their students, but families in poverty cannot. Their children are stuck in lesser schools because they cannot afford private education, nor do they have the means to transport their kids to a better school. I would think students would be less likely to complete their high school education in a school that does not foster a very academic environment, therefor contributing to the low rates of education.
Though much has changed since 1980, a lot, demographically speaking, has stayed the same in the Charleston area. For example, the outskirts of the peninsula have grown considerably in the past 20 years, but the poverty rate in these areas has stayed the same and is rather minimal. In contrast, the peninsula shows a consistent trend of whites and upperclass living in the southern tip, but the northern end is starkly different. The northern region of the downtown area is prominently African American and has the highest poverty rate and the lowest education levels. Looking through different demographic factors also shows this area has the highest number of single moms. In conclusion, the biggest changes I have seen over the 30 years is the suburban sprawl and expansion. After WW2, the suburban movement prompted many to move outside of the city and into neighborhoods. This is very evident on this map. The Mount Pleasant and West Ashley area exemplify this.
To begin, the first demographic factor I looked at was race. In 1980, the majority of white residents lived on the tip of the peninsula. As you traveled up the peninsula the percentage of white people began to decline while the percentage of African American residents began to increase. The line dividing these two populations was much closer to the tip of the peninsula than compared to the map for 1990 and 2000. In 1990, this divide moved further up the peninsula, and in 2000 it moved even further inland. The next demographic factor I looked at was income. In 1980, the highest income households were on the very tip of the peninsula where the white residents lived, around $35,000 to $75,000. In 1990, more higher income families began appearing in the middle of the peninsula pushing this divide of low income v. high income further up the peninsula. In 2000, this divide moved further inland. The final demographic factor I looked at was education in particular high school education. In 1980, the percentage of Charleston residents that completed high school was fairly even throughout the peninsula. In 1990, the majority of people who completed high school lived on the tip of the peninsula; once past the tip the percentage of residents who did not complete high school rose dramatically, from 5% to 40%. Again a divide between those who completed high school and those who did not complete high school appeared. In 2000, this division moved further inland. Looking at all three factors, race, income, and education, a correlation can be seen. The majority of people, not all, who lived in high income families that completed high school were white. Whereas those who lived in low income residences that did not complete high school were mainly African American. When looking at the maps for each demographic factor a line separating, low income v. high income, high school ed v. no high school ed, and African American v. white, is seen and as the years went on this divide can be seen moving more inland. Throughout the years Charleston has evolved and will continue to evolve. Houses and apartments on the lower peninsula have gone up in costs, and now as Charleston continues to change real estate continues to rise in price. Now homes and apartments further up the peninsula are beginning to become more expensive driving out lower income families. This can be seen in these demographic maps, the divide between low income and high income moves further up Charleston as the years go on. As real estate prices rise, lower income families will have to continue to move inland.
While looking at the race map and the census tracts since 1980, it is obvious that the peninsula of Charleston has become increasingly segregated throughout the years. The White (Non-Hispanic) population has been consistently large close to the coast, while the Black (Non-Hispanic) population has declined in that area. This is most likely due to the cost of living near the battery and near the beach, even though economics are not necessarily related to race. Unfortunately, the average family incomes seem to correspond to the changes in race. The highest incomes are near the water, while almost everything but the tip of the peninsula has an extremely low income. This demographic has remained fairly consistent over the past few decades, according to the map. Mt Pleasant has maintained a fairly high income level with some slight shifts downward, and is the exception to the trend seen across the rest of Charleston. Overall, the demographics in Charleston concerning race and income have remained consistent over the 20 year gap. Age has also remained consistent, with the oldest age group hovering around the tip, and a cluster of young adults in downtown Charleston. This is most likely due to the high cost of living near the water, and the College of Charleston Campus downtown.
The distribution of blacks and whites was mainly the same in the different censuses, the blacks occupied the upper peninsula and the whites occupied the lower end, West Ashley, and Mount Pleasant. In terms of income levels, the highest average family income was heavily concentrated in the lower end of the the peninsula in 1980. By 1990, West Ashley and Mount Pleasant were characterized as having the highest average family income and this continued into 2000. The lowest income levels were seen in the upper part of the peninsula, which also had the highest unemployment rates. The public policies that might have accounted for these changes could be school choice because schools in West Ashley and Mount Pleasant are known for their high academic achievement, so more families would move into these areas for their children to get a better education. Also, because of the high prices of houses in the lower peninsula, only those who have sufficient incomes are able to live in lower Charleston.
If you look at the census map of 1980 as it relates to median household income and you compare it to 2000, there is a stark contrast, as median income levels have risen quite significantly. In 1980 six of the ten districts that make up the lower peninsula had a median income level of less than $15,000 a year. Contrarily in 2000 only one of those six districts remained in that income demographic, while all the other districts had moved up. This trend represents the gentrification that has taken place in Charleston over the past 30 years. As more affluent citizens move onto the peninsula, those living in poverty are squeezed out of their present location and forced up towards North Charleston. I would argue that the low tax rates in Charleston, in comparison to other major cities, have attracted wealthier citizens. I have observed a certain paradoxical social trend; the more money someone has, the less willing that person will be to put up with taxes. Wealthy citizens are attracted to Charleston because it allows them to live in a city while also holding onto their hard earned dollars. Thus the peninsula becomes a haven for the rich, and those who lived there before pack up and say goodbye to their old home because they do not fit in with the new level of income moving into their local area.
After playing around a little with the Social Explorer I noticed some obvious trends and made connections to historical events with those trends in mind. First of all, when it came to income and its change over time, the overall trend seemed that the higher incomes lied in states bordering oceans and large bodies of water. from the 1990 to 2000 census, there is a huge jump in the number of people with an income anywhere above $45,000. My instinct is that rather than people becoming richer in general, I think that the census does not necessarily account for inflation and that is the reason for the huge spike in income. When it came to age, the % of people below 5 and the % of people above 65 are inversely proportional as the years go on. I think that this is because the legalization of birth control in the mid-1960s, which would then logically decrease the amount of infants in the population. Also, the elderly people can most logically be explained by the aging members of the baby boom between 1940 and 1960. When I looked at the censuses with respect to race, I noticed the Hispanic population grew northward from the united states-mexico border as time went on. This makes sense because of the influx of immigrants in recent decades. Also, the African American population is mainly retained in the south east throughout the years, which also makes sense because of their use in the south for slavery and the fact that many of them remained in the south even after emancipation.
While looking at the map, I chose to first look at poverty. It’s true that the highest percentages of poverty exist in North Charleston. I found it odd, however, that it seems as if the surrounding areas are becoming less and less impoverished, while North Charleston’s percentages seem to rise every decade. I wanted to see if I could find the same trend with any of the other factors, and education was the one. In 1980, the percentage of people who didn’t go to high school was close to equal across all of Charleston. By 2000, there was a much higher concentration of non-high school graduates in the North Charleston area, and the rest of Charleston’s percentages had reduced noticeably; much like the trend with poverty. I think one thing that affects these trends are new developments, commercial and residential, springing up all over Charleston, increasing land prices and driving the lower class out. School choice could also play a roll, with the impoverished areas having underfunded schools, causing students to be more likely to drop out.
When playing with social explorer, I looked at the change in race in the peninsula and the surrounding areas. I started in the year 2000 and worked my way back to 1980. As soon as I saw the map of 1980 I was astounded; more on that later. In 2000, I saw many pockets of race, but Charleston is definitely becoming more diverse. South of Broad has been historically white across all 3 census terms analyzed. However, the North Eastern section of the peninsula displayed a large density of African American people. The percentage of African Americans in this area increased exponentially each census term. The North Western quarter has a mixed spread of African American and White citizens; slightly more white.
However, when I reached 1980, the entire city of Charleston and the surrounding area where completely White. This was the most astounding thing. Not even a pocket of another race existed in the area. This must have changed in 1990 due to some sort of policy shift. Another reason would be a change in price of housing. Making more affordable housing typically brings a more mixed community into any city. Stigmas about the racist south were more prominent even 35 years ago, so that could have influenced anyone not of Arian decent to stay away from the southern city.
The most interesting part about the social explorer to me was the trend of growth from 1980 to 1990 and the change from 1990 to 2000. In 1980, older wealthy white people dominated the southern tip of the peninsula around the battery. Throughout the rest of the peninsula, it was still primarily white with affluent pockets here and there, but the majority was between the ages of 18 and 34. Around Cannon Street is where the white population shifts to primarily African American. In 1990, this trend continues where whites dominate the southern tip and past Calhoun, the race majority shifts to African American. The ages typically stayed the same and the whole peninsula became slightly wealthier as a whole. Following this trend, one would think that in 2000, the wealthy became slightly more wealthy, whites become even more suppressed to the battery and younger people start to spread out more, but this is not the case. A shift in these trends occurred and whites started expanding northward, the battery slightly loses the wealthy and the younger populations centralized in the middle lower portion of the peninsula. I would assume the reason for this is because all of Charleston is starting to become more and more expensive, so people have started expanding outward to find affordable residencies, the Battery residents are either retired or have passed their homes down and the residents no longer need high paying jobs because their old money sufficiency, and the abundance of college students living downtown accounts for the strange concentration of young people in heart of the peninsula.
In looking at the changes in racial population during the last two decades it is apparent that the white population began concentrated in the lower tip of the peninsula, the waterfront and market areas and has since moved up and is now majority on over half of the Charleston peninsula. Meanwhile the African American population began concentrated on the upper half of the peninsula and has been gradually y pushed out although most of their population remains where is was originally. This change may have occurred because of urban and commercial development in the upper peninsula attracting more affluent buyers and pushing out the lower income residents. Charleston has been growing rapidly and it continues to do so, as a hot tourist spot many people from the north choose Charleston as their retirement home, this influx of outsiders displaces the residents as they are forced off their properties for the extensions of bridges, widening of roads and the placement of new high class apartments.
After looking at the different features of Social Explorer, I chose to explore the racial and income demographics in Charleston. It was very evident that the more affluent and wealthy lived towards the harbor, with the poorer population living towards N. Charleston. The closer to the tip of the peninsula, the wealthier the population seemed to be, no matter if it was 1980, 1990, or 2000. However, it became more clear in 2000 that there was a less wealthy population along Calhoun St., which can perhaps be attributed to the college and its students with low income. After exploring the income status of the population, I inspected the racial demographics of Charleston. From 1980 to 1990, the racial segregation proved to be more apparent, as the black population seemed to have moved more North, away from the harbor. In 2000, the racial segregation was even more distinct than the previous years. The trend seemed be that the whites tended to live more towards the south of the peninsula (towards the harbor) and the blacks tended to live more north as each year passed. The findings of income and racial demographics of Charleston are correlated in the sense that the wealthier section of Charleston tends to be the area where mostly whites live, and the lower- class northern parts of Charleston tends to be mostly inhabited by blacks. Historically, whites tended to control shipping near the harbor and bought houses that were near the water, thus passing down their homes in their family. Blacks as workers at the harbor most likely couldn’t afford to live near the water, leading them to buy homes more towards N. Charleston. The cost of living is greater towards the water, so perhaps this is why these demographics have remained the same. Also, the education system has perhaps kept the wealthier whites towards the choice schools (and private schools), attributing to the segregation since the lower- class blacks might not be able to have this opportunity.
Not much has changed in Charleston in the past few decades. There seems to have always been designated areas for various races and income levels. However, it has recently become more pronounced. The lower area of the peninsula is dominated by the highest levels of income, as well as the lowest unemployment. The further up the peninsula there is the lowest levels of income as well as the highest unemployment rates. As years progress, the lower income group is driven further out of the lower peninsula and has made its way to areas outside of the peninsula. As far as the factors driven by economics, I was interested to see how different the year 2008 was in comparison to years previous and the years following. The recession of 2008 raised the unemployment and lowered the income levels throughout for the most part although there was significant increase in unemployment in the upper peninsula. In addition, from what I have learned through the Honors Engaged project, the areas of most poverty look to be the areas that have the worst school districts. This could also be due to the concept of school-choice that we have discussed in class.
When playing with social explorer, I first noted race, specifically the black population among the Charleston peninsula. I noticed in 1980, that the black population of 90-100% African American people lived on the east side of the peninsula. In North Charleston as the years went on, the more black people have moved up the peninsula. I then looked at levels of poverty throughout Charleston. As seen in 1980, levels of poverty in Mount Pleasant have lowered. This also applies to the areas of West Ashley. Over three decades, levels of poverty decreased as well. This does not apply to Folly Beach. Levels of poverty increased in 1990, yet lowered in 1980 and 2000. This could account for some changes because of the school systems in Charleston. People usually pick places to live based off of their ability to provide a proper education. So, if the public school systems are failing, people might move away. Also, property taxes have increased especially over the waterfront, so obviously less well off people can live there.
Looking at the Census map of Charleston and comparing the years 1980 and 2000 there are not many major changes, however there are some minor changes that can be noticed. I decided to focus on poverty and race and whether or not there is a correlation between the two. From 1980s towards the year 2000, there is a trend of poverty moving up the peninsula, showing that more affluent people came to the areas most prized, the battery and the waterfront, pushing out worse off families and pushing them up along the peninsula. There is also a weak correlation between race and poverty that is visible from the data. As the poverty line is moving up the peninsula, the movement of the percentage of African Americans on the peninsula is also decreasing in the south of the peninsula and slowly moving up the peninsula, possibly being pushed out by the richer population moving into the areas beside the water, on the battery and near the beach. These changes demonstrate how the Charleston peninsula is slowly developing to become more and more segregated as the value and prices of the “prestigious” area continue to rise.
I chose to pay attention to primarily income, and what was noticeable was that between 1980 and 2000 there was a large increase in income for the city and surrounding towns. In a short 20 years, the median household income went from roughly $30,000 to $50,000. 20 years led to a $20,000 income gap, and what is more fascinating is the fact that the major increase was where there are predominantly white inhabitants, whereas blacks’ income increased at a much lower rate. Inflation could be a leading cause of the rapid increase, considering that as prices increase so does yearly income to match the rise. Also, Charleston has been an up-and-coming city, attracting wealthier and wealthier individuals. With an increase in wealthy people moving to the area, incomes will naturally increase not due to inflation. Wealthy people also tends to mean an increase in nicer jobs and restaurants, leading to an overall nicer city with more money flowing in.
The first demographic factor I looked at was the percentage of the white population in Charleston. From 1980-2000, there was a high density of whites around the historic Charleston district but once you pass that it immediately changed racial makeup. The next factor I looked at was median household income. The Charleston peninsula is covered with low-income housing and a strip along the battery of high-income housing, but once you go into the suburbs or Mount Pleasant and West Ashley you will find higher income households. The cluster of higher income housing and lower income housing has remained constant through the years, but the average income has steadily increased in these areas. The reason for the cluster of high-income households in the suburbs is due to the glamour, ease, and low-crime rate of living in a suburb. The last factor I looked at was the percentage of married couples. The percentages throughout Charleston have steadily declined over the years. The majority of married couples live in the suburbs because of the healthier environment and better schools for their families. Living in the city would give their children a higher chance of experiencing crime, and not receiving the education they need to get into college.
The 2000 census shows similar data to what we saw previously about the Peninsula. Whites dominate the lower peninsula, especially around the battery, and the highest concentration of blacks is the upper right corner of the upper peninsula. If you look at the census from 1980, you can see how much things have changed. It shows that the concentration of blacks was much higher on the peninsula, and North Charleston was underdeveloped compared to the present. This change in racial demographic in downtown Charleston may be a result of gentrification, spearheaded by Mayor Riley. Since he has done a lot in office to make Charleston a world class city, it has made it exponentially more expensive to live on the Peninsula. As a result, people of lower income are being forced to move to the upper peninsula and North Charleston.