I’m not talking about doing anything crazy — let’s just get people living again in reasonable ways in reasonable places. Blight, zoning codes, crime, bad traffic patterns. and broader cultural patterns left many urban neighborhoods with populations far, far below their historical norms. That has resulted in big trouble for locally-owned neighborhood retail and contributed to a broad range of other social ills.

Today’s column — What will increased density mean for three older Savannah neighborhoods? — takes a look at three major rental developments: One West Victory, The Savannah Lofts, and the Avenues on 61st. I planned many months ago to write a column discussing these three properties together, but I almost didn’t write it. That’s because Jessica Leigh Lebos wrote a column for Connect Savannah about those three properties back in June: High density housing on the rise. I was a little afraid that today’s column would just look like a copy of her idea, but even if it were, it’s a good idea! And I see some of the issues and properties, especially the Avenues on 61st, a bit differently than Jessica does. Her piece is well worth a read.

And I’ve written a lot over the years about the “D word” — “density”.

From my 2012 column Density in cities no longer a dirty word:

Those of us advocating for greater density arenâ€t calling for extreme changes to the city. I certainly donâ€t expect to see the urban population return to its peak of decades ago, when as many as three times more residents lived north of Victory Drive as do so today.

Advocates of increased density would just like to see appropriate infill housing in keeping with neighborhoods†historical norms and see thoughtful redevelopment of large underutilized tracts of land.

From 2011’s How public policy can fight population loss in Savannah:

We could also argue — as a couple of readers have done — that we shouldnâ€t worry about population loss in core neighborhoods. Local residents will make decisions based on their own best interests, so itâ€s inevitable that some neighborhoods will stagnate or even shrink while others swell.

I would counter with a number of arguments.

First, I believe cities matter.

Savannah, in particular, is the economic driver for the metropolitan area even though fewer than half the metro residents live within the city limits.

Also, there are far more costs to sprawl than most Americans seem to realize.

Denser neighborhoods in the core of a city require less infrastructure spending. And studies have shown that people living in proximity to jobs and services might spend about 10 percent of their incomes on transportation, while those in the most inefficient locations spend about three times as much.

Itâ€s also worth noting that Savannahâ€s oldest neighborhoods were built on some of the highest ground in the county. In the event of storm surge from a major hurricane, it makes sense to have as many residents as possible living at the highest possible elevation.

Here are some of my iPhone pics (used for reference in writing today’s column) of 1) One West Victory, 2) Avenues on 61st, and 3) The Savannah Lofts.

McBride’s optimism stems in part from the simple fact that right now and for another decade or so the American economy is in a sense top-heavy, with a relatively large percentage of the population in retirement, not in the work force, and in need of government support through Social Security and Medicare. But as this older cohort of baby boomers cycles out of the population, i.e. dies, the nation will have a higher percentage of the population at prime working age.

From McBride’s post about these trends:

What jumps out at me are the improvements in health care. And also that the largest cohorts will all soon be under 40 (I suspect more and more emphasis will shift away from the Boomers to younger generations). Heck, in the last frame (2060), any remaining Boomers will be in those small (but growing) 95 to 99, and 100+ cohorts.

Some people are concerned about supporting those older Americans. But the ratio of total Americans in the prime working age (20 to 55) will be about the same in 2060 as in 1900. The mix of dependents will change (fewer young, more old), but having fewer infant and child deaths, and a longer healthier life, seem like huge positives to me!

Contrary to the trends in the 2000 Census, the 2010 Census showed massive growth in Savannah’s District 1, which as you can see sprawls way out west.

That’s largely the reason for some major changes for District 1 residents in the downtown area, many of whom will move to District 2.

In the column, I argue that adjacent neighborhoods with similar historical development patterns are probably best served if they are in the same council district. One could make the opposite argument, of course.

In other words, I like the changes from the current map, although we’ll see what happens to it if political deal-making begins.

There’s more from Eric Curl’s original article — Racial makeup one concern as council develops new voting districts — and Eric’s followup blog post: Alderman Thomas toots his horn and other comments that didn’t make the cut.

As noted on Eric’s blog, the 6th District on the Southside is currently the most racially balanced in the city. There is little geographical change to that district under the new map, which would give the 6th District a white majority of 51.6 percent, with non-whites making up 48.4 percent.

I was struck looking at the numbers and the maps by the relative rapidity with which neighborhood demographics can change. In a matter of a decade or a generation, incremental shifts can produce dramatic outcomes in population, in racial and ethnic demographics, and so forth.

Given current trends, there seems little doubt that the non-Hispanic white percentage will fall below 50 percent for District 6 before the 2020 Census. On the other hand, we’ve been seeing an increase in the white population over the last couple of decades in some areas close to downtown that have long had non-white majorities, like the Metropolitan Neighborhood north of West Victory Drive.

When I bought my house on 32nd Street in 1996, the owner at the time told me with a straight face that everyone who lived south of me was black. That wasn’t even remotely true at the time, but the white population on some blocks was small enough to lead him to make that assumption. No one would ever assume that today.

I wrote a column recently about the waxing and waning fortunes of various neighborhoods. I hear a lot of folks generalize about specific neighborhoods, but in making those generalizations, they ignore history. The character and demographics of neighborhoods can and do change pretty dramatically over time, based on a wide variety of factors.

Here’s the draft map referenced in my column today and in the pieces by Eric Curl cited above:

Proposed City of Savannah Redistricting Map

About two in three eligible blacks (66.2 percent) voted in the 2012 presidential election, higher than the 64.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites who did so, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released today. This marks the first time that blacks have voted at a higher rate than whites since the Census Bureau started publishing statistics on voting by the eligible citizen population in 1996.[…]

Blacks were the only race or ethnic group to show a significant increase between the 2008 and 2012 elections in the likelihood of voting (from 64.7 percent to 66.2 percent). The 2012 increase in voting among blacks continues what has been a long-term trend: since 1996, turnout rates have risen 13 percentage points to the highest levels of any recent presidential election. In contrast, after reaching a high in 2004, non-Hispanic white voting rates have dropped in two consecutive elections. Between 2008 and 2012, rates for non-Hispanic whites dropped from 66.1 percent to 64.1 percent. As recently as 1996, blacks had turnout rates 8 percentage points lower than non-Hispanic whites.

Overall, the percentage of eligible citizens who voted declined from 63.6 percent in 2008 to 61.8 percent in 2012.

Both blacks and non-Hispanic whites had voting rates higher than Hispanics and Asians in the 2012 election (about 48 percent each).

The numbers were largely driven by black women, who turned out at a 70.1 percent rate. Black women over the age of 45 turned out at over 76 percent.

Many of us were dubious of the conventional wisdom (on the right, at least) that blacks wouldn’t show up last November because of the struggling economy, general disillusionment with Obama, Obama’s support for gay marriage, and so forth. But it’s certainly an interesting development to see the turnout among blacks actually increase from 2008.

Looking at the longer-term trend in a graph from The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections) is especially interesting:

Black turnout in 1996 was only 53.0 percent. It jumped 3.8 points in 2000, 3.2 points in 2004, 4.7 points in 2008, and another 1.5 points in 2012. So the rate was increasing pretty dramatically even before Obama appeared on the ballot in 2008.

Given the recent history of white voting patterns, one could argue that black turnout might be near a point of maxing out. On the other hand, we’ve clearly seen some incredible get-out-the-vote operations put in place by various Democratic organizations in the last couple of election cycles.

By the way, Obama took about 3/4ths of the vote among both Asians and Hispanics, where turnout remains quite weak.

Interesting stuff.

There’s much more in the report.