While Manhattan is the political and economic center of New York City, it is actually only the third most populous borough behind Brooklyn and Queens, with a population of roughly 1.58 million.
Although Manhattan is composed of dozens of unique neighborhoods, the island can be generally divided into three distinct demographic zones: Chinatown-Lower East Side, the “Manhattan core” (below 96th Street, not including Chinatown-LES), and North Manhattan beyond 96th Street.
The population of the Manhattan core is overwhelmingly high-income and college-educated. In contrast, most households in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan have annual incomes of less than $40,000 and the majority of residents do not hold college degrees.
The effects of this disparity in education are revealed in the employment data. While the vast majority of Manhattan core residents have “white collar” management or professional jobs, the majority of residents in North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES are employed in either blue-collar work (industry, construction, transportation) or the service sector (retail, hospitality, etc.).
The “three Manhattans” are also distinct in homeownership patterns.
While many core residents own their homes as condos and co-ops, renters form the vast majority in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan. This pattern is distinct from the outer boroughs where homeownership usually indicates low-density areas of single family homes. In Manhattan, the concentration of homeownership in the very high-density core is a sign of affluence.
Another contrast between the Manhattan core and the other two areas is the percentage of children in the population. There are more children in North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES than in the core, where the vast majority of households are composed of singles, couples without children, and unrelated roommates.
There are also many more immigrants in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan when compared to the core.
Concentrations of immigrants indicate the Chinese community in Chinatown and the Dominican population in the northernmost part of Manhattan; Washington Heights and Inwood.
Taken together, these socio-economic indicators suggest that Northern Manhattan and Chinatown-LES form communities of interest that are very distinct from the Manhattan core. In key policy areas like housing, education, economic development, and immigration, residents outside the Manhattan core have very distinct interests and priorities.
There are also sharp contrasts in race/ethnicity, and as we’ve seen in North Brooklyn, major changes occurring due to gentrification in Chinatown/LES and the neighborhoods of North Manhattan.
Comparing data from Census 2000 and Census 2010 allows us to measure the actual objective impact of the gentrification that has taken place under the Bloomberg administration and uncover the reality behind the perceptions of demographic change. The demographics suggest that North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES are slowly but surely becoming more like the Manhattan core.
Beginning by looking at total population change, the overall population of Manhattan grew by 3.2%
But looking at this growth in the context of the “three Manhattans” reveals that almost all of it took place within the Manhattan core.
Overall, North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES both declined in population while the Manhattan core grew by 8%, buoyed by new residential construction and conversion in the financial district and far west side.
The decline of population in North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES is due to a major drop in the population of children under eighteen years of age. The number of children declined by a shocking 21.5% in Northern Manhattan and 22.7% in Chinatown-LES. This indicates that family households with children are being replaced by singles and couples. In contrast, the number of children within the Manhattan core actually grew.
Changes in race/ethnicity also show the effects of gentrification.
Overall in Manhattan, the non-Hispanic white voting-age population grew by 6.8%, but this growth took place primarily in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan where the white voting-age population grew by 23.1% and 34.9% respectively.
On the other hand, there has actually been some white population decline in the most affluent areas of the Manhattan core – the Upper East Side and the West Village – as the affluent population of these areas is becoming somewhat more diverse.
The map of Census 2010 non-Hispanic white population indicates just how dramatic these changes are. Lines of Manhattan segregation that have been in place for many decades are rapidly breaking down.
But it isn’t only a story of whites moving into these neighborhoods. Longtime minority residents are also moving out.
Overall, the non-Hispanic black voting-age population of Manhattan declined by more than 7%, and this decline was centered in the historically black neighborhoods of Harlem. More than 10,000 black voters have left North Manhattan during the past decade.
While the breakdown of neighborhood segregation may be a positive in and of itself, the flight of black residents and children from Northern Manhattan indicates that the area may be becoming less hospitable for lower-income family households. And while the core of Harlem is becoming more diverse, other areas like the northern Upper West Side are actually becoming less diverse.
Trends in the Hispanic population are also suggestive of gentrification.
The overall Hispanic voting-age population of Manhattan grew by 3.2% during the past decade. As in Brooklyn, this growth must be seen in the context of 21% Hispanic growth overall in New York City. Areas of Manhattan where the Hispanic population declined are located on the borders of gentrification in East Harlem and the Upper West Side, as well as Washington Heights and the Lower East Side.
Hispanic growth in Manhattan is strongest in Central Harlem, another indicator of its growing diversity.
Hispanic voters continue to form significant majorities in East Harlem (also known as Spanish Harlem or El Barrio), the easternmost section of the Lower East Side (also known as Loisaida), and in Washington Heights.
As we’ve seen all across New York City, growth in the Asian voting-age population in Manhattan was strong, with a 27.2% increase taking place mostly in the core-area.
In Chinatown however, the Asian voting-age population declined by roughly 3,300 or 6.6%, with extremely heavy losses the two census tracts closest to the gentrified SoHo neighborhood.
Outside of the dense immigrant enclave of Chinatown, the Asian population is spread throughout the Manhattan core.
Now let’s examine the current districts.
Manhattan is currently split between four Congressional districts: District 15 (Rangel-D), 14 (Maloney-D), 12 (Velasquez-D), and 8 (Nadler-D).
As we’ve discussed before for Brooklyn, the options for drawing Congressional Districts in New York City are constrained by the Voting Rights Act. District 10 (Towns-D) and District 11 (Clarke-D) in Brooklyn are majority-black and have to remain so to avoid a reduction in minority voting rights.
District 12 is a Hispanic-influence district (not quite a majority) that combines the Hispanic areas of Ridgewood, Bushwick, and Williamsburg with those in the Lower East Side and further south to Sunset Park. The district also serves the purpose of uniting the two Chinatowns in Manhattan and Sunset Park. This district cannot be redrawn in any way that causes a regression in the ability of either group to elect a representative of their choice.
To the north, District 15 in Upper Manhattan is a traditionally black-influenced district even though the population of non-Hispanic blacks in the district form a minority (Hispanics form the plurality). District 16 (Serrano-D) in the Bronx is a Hispanic-majority district.
With the Manhattan core surrounded by Voting Rights districts, the options are limited. The only ways to extend districts from the Manhattan core are south through the brownstone Brooklyn area (e.g. the current District8) or east through Queens or perhaps part of Williamsburg (e.g. the current District 14).
The future of Congressional districts in Upper Manhattan will be a major question addressed at the LATFOR hearing. As we’ve seen in the above maps, the area of North Manhattan covered by the current District 15 forms a clear socio-economic community of interest within Manhattan.
But many Hispanic groups are demanding that a second Hispanic-majority Congressional seat be drawn to reflect the strong growth in the citywide Hispanic population, and they have the force of the Voting Rights Act behind them.. But how can you do this without also “retrogressing” the rights of the black community in Harlem and unnecessarily dividing neighborhoods?
Drawing new Congressional districts for Manhattan while attempting to balance these competing interests will be a considerable challenge.
The situation in the Manhattan State Senate is much less complicated than Congress. Manhattan is currently divided between six districts: District 25 (Squadron-D), District 26 (Krueger-D), District 28 (Serrano-D), District 29 (Duane-D), District 30 (Perkins-D), and District 31 (Espaillat-D).
District 25 straddles the East River and unites Chinatown-LES and the Financial District with the brownstone Brooklyn area and a small piece of Williamsburg. Within Lower Manhattan, Chinatown-LES is an island of working-class minority populations and is under considerable pressure from gentrification, so it makes sense for it to be in the same district as neighborhoods in Brooklyn undergoing similar pressures.
The major issue for the current State Senate districts is in the Upper West Side, where three Senate districts converge and divide the neighborhood.
District 31 extends all the way from Riverdale in the Bronx through Washington Heights down into the Upper West Side along the Hudson River in a shape that cuts out many individual blocks from their surrounding neighborhoods.
These lines were drawn ten years ago as a blatant political gerrymander and must be repaired in the new cycle. One can walk five blocks along Amsterdam Avenue from 85th St to 90th St and cross three districts.
District 31 can remain a Hispanic-majority district based in Washington Heights if it is joined with neighborhoods across the Harlem River in the Bronx where the Dominican population has been growing.
If a few of the other Manhattan district lines were adjusted, a new State Senate district based in the Upper West Side could be drawn.
In the Assembly, Manhattan is currently divided into a dozen districts.
One suggestion for improving the Assembly district in Manhattan is to draw them closer to the existing boundaries of Community Boards.
In North Manhattan, for instance, districts could be drawn to almost exactly match the boundaries of Community Board 11 in East Harlem and Community Board 10 in Central Harlem. The strange gerrymander of Washington Heights and Inwood in which District 71 (Farrell-D) wraps around both sides of District 72 (Linares-D) and divides communities from block to block should also be corrected.
In Lower Manhattan, it is possible to draw an Assembly district that contains all of Chinatown-Lower East Side as defined in the “Three Manhattans” map above. The current Districts 64 (Silver-D) and 74 (Kavanaugh-D) currently divide this clear community of interest right in two.
As we’ve seen also in Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, drawing districts in New York City is very complex and difficult work. But if districts are drawn with fair, non-partisan criteria rather than strategic political motives, the map and the quality of our representative democracy could be significantly improved.
