 for that introduction. So I'm going to share my screen here. Can you all see? Great. So I have a lot of slides in this introduction, but sorry, in this presentation. And if you've heard me present, you know that I really like to talk. But please feel free to interrupt if you have any questions. I do aim to kind of keep this a little bit more conversational. So with that, I'll get started. So this talk examines the decade-long use of redlining by federal institutions in the 20th century as an instrument to systematically and explicitly disinvest from urban neighborhoods in the United States, constraining mobility opportunities, perpetuating physical, social, and economic isolation and stratification, and enforcing the racialized residential stratification that continues to shape social inequalities and cities presently. I kind of have three big messages that are maybe not the typical narrative that you might hear about redlining that I would kind of like to emphasize today, which is that, first, it's not these maps or those maps. Redlining is an instrument of racial capitalism. And third, we've never properly reckoned with its legacy. So I'll continue here. A little bit about me, Juan already gave a very nice introduction. And so I'll just say that, yeah, I'm a planning student here at GSAP. I studied the legacies of institutional housing discrimination on a federal level. I also use big data and computational social science to discover ways of understanding neighborhood dynamics. And these are some pretty pictures that I've made in the past. So I kind of want to talk through, think through, what is redlining precisely? Do we really know its history? And why are its impacts still felt today? On the agenda is kind of the origins and history of federal redlining. And this is, of course, a focus on kind of US policies. Second, I want to talk about some of the ways that the federal government has tried to unwind some of these discriminatory policies. And third, I want to talk about its present-day legacies. So I'm focusing the talk on the bigger picture, the so-called bigger picture narrative of federal redlining. But then there are some other aspects that are not more widely addressed, which I just talked about. So first, these maps, the maps that you're familiar with seeing are probably not used for the bulk of the mortgage lending activities that we would consider federal redlining. I do still think that they're important because they're a reflection of the real estate and lending practices at the time. Second, the racialized targeting of urban neighborhoods through redlining is part of a larger ecological adoption of neighborhood decline and revitalization that prioritized economic development and investment, which was historically influenced by ties with the private real estate industry. And third, if we take redlining areas as historical indicators of housing discrimination against low and minority residents, there are clear relationships on a national level that describe socioeconomic stratification of neighborhoods over time. So the legacy of federal redlining as well as its continued practice of as well as the continued practice of discriminatory lending through more sophisticated means persists in shaping uneven social-statial outcomes. And this is just a timeline that roughly sketches out the periods of time that I'm going to be talking about today. Essentially, starting from about the early 20th century, there were two waves of what's called the Great Migration of about 6 million African-Americans from the rural south to more industrial north. The bulk of the HOLC and FHA's redlining activities occurred between about the mid 1930s to the 1970s. In 1968, we passed a Fair Housing Act, which I'll talk about in more detail, as well as legislation in 1975 and 1977 that attempted to reverse some of the redlining policies on a federal level. I'm not going to be talking about Chicago in particular, but a lot of my research does focus on Chicago. And so what are the origins in history of federal redlining? The motivation of the Federal Housing Administration, the FHA and the Homeowners Law Incorporation, the HOLC, were to bolster the economy through selectively encouraging the growth and decline of neighborhoods, with incidentally an eye towards their own fiscal survival. The HOLC and the FHA were created in 1933 and 1934 respectively, as the dual federal mortgage bailout and guarantor agencies created during the Roosevelt administration in the wake of the Great Depression. So between 1935 and 1962, the FHA issued, ensured 6.4 million new single family home loans nationwide, which amounted to about $56 billion. The overall U.S. home ownership rate increased to 65% by 1995, from I think about like 40% in the 1930s, or it might have been lower than that, as a consequence of what was essentially a government subsidy to homeowners. However, just 2% of government back loans went to black borrowers between 1945 and 1915. Both the FHA and the HOLC's refinancing and lending practices were racially contingent. The FHA had a very extensive underwriting manual that systematized mortgage risk predictions through a formula that contained four main categories. One, the condition of the property itself, to the quality of its location. Three, the rating of the potential borrower and then for the borrowers previous mortgage history. So these scores created by the FHA were subsequently translated into four lending categories, A, B, C, and D. And in the D category were areas that were, where the FHA would not guarantee any loans. Thus kind of, thus excluding essentially most of the inner city, much of which was minority income from access to the FHA market. In fact, the FHA actually explicitly encouraged racial covenants in its underwriting manual up until 1968. So like as a side note, this underwriting manual is like a 300 page document that had incredibly stringent property rating criteria that included such specific requirements as like the unit structural soundness, its livability, its layout and the arrangement of its rooms, its architectural attractiveness, like the ventilation of rooms, the size of floor joists, et cetera. If you can find this underwriting manual online and kind of read through it, there's some, there's some like very florid language about like the freakish nature of architectural design and the pleasing effects of fenestration, which I found to be quite amazing that I was doing this research. But all of which is to say that the goal of creating this underwriting manual was to create a set of stringent standards for new housing construction. So a set of stringent standards for the kinds of loans that the FHA would guarantee, but this was really targeted at new housing construction. And so, of course, this new housing construction was mostly in the suburbs and not in the inner city. So the HOLC, on the other hand, whose redlining maps I think are incredibly prevalent these days, they were not responsible for extending new loans, that was the FHA's role, but they were responsible for bailing out underwater loans between a very short time period, 1933 and 1935. The HOLC made over a million refinance loans, but the value of these loans were only about three billion. So really, it was the FHA's lending activities that accounted for the vast majority of government mortgage guarantees and government mandated federal redlining. So due to the high volume of loan applications and the FHA's confidence in its own appraisers were members of the local real estate industry to properly determine mortgage risk. And so, as I kind of mentioned previously, all the criteria for providing mortgage loans were very stringent. However, members of the local real estate industry would kind of first go out into these neighborhoods and make an overall assessment of the properties grade, and they did this using the FHA's own maps. And so this is an example, and these grades, by the way, they hardly change from the initial assessment using these maps. So we can properly consider these maps, these FHA maps to be kind of the actual redlining maps. However, most of these maps were actually destroyed in a court case that I believe was against the FHA's racially discriminatory practices. The one in Chicago is one of the few FHA redlining maps that I have found to still exist. And this is kind of getting more into my own research. There is a difference between the FHA and the HLLC maps, which I'm just kind of going to show you as a comparison. My own research suggests that the FHA maps may have actually been a little bit more stringent, where the impacts of the FHA maps were a little bit larger than what the HLLC maps might suggest. But I won't talk about my own research that much because it gets a little bit wonky. Yeah, sure. I actually really am curious why on your speculations or findings or thoughts of why, what drove that differences? Was it the engagement of the local real estate brokers or sector appraisers in the initial outset? I don't want to divert it too much, but I also... Yeah, so basically I think why you see more of an effect with the FHA maps is because they are actually used. And so they kind of like, there's more of a direct relationship between the lack of home, lower home ownership rates, lower home value, higher racial segregation in the FHA maps, right? So if we kind of wanted to assess the impact of so-called redlining, this is kind of like a more direct picture of what actually happened, whereas these are kind of more speculations. And so the reason why the impact is greater is because it was a thing that was actually used. Whereas if we do use these maps, they are more speculative. So for instance, like in Chicago and on the South side, I think there was like speculation that these neighborhoods would deteriorate more. But because you can see that like, these were like kind of rated better, there's like a divergence between what was speculated and what actually happened. Yeah. That's so funny. So all this policy talk about using redlining maps to kind of hypothetically, ideally maybe someday starts to connected to differential levels of subsidy and support or rebuilding, et cetera, would be using the wrong maps or not the strongest maps. Yeah. Precisely, precisely. I think there's only one map that I found in Chicago. We don't know like in smaller cities, for instance, there might be like a more, these two maps are more similar. I can only really say for Chicago that it's different and it seems like that difference matters. But I don't really know for other cities. But yes, I mean, so on the one hand, like if we're gonna talk about kind of direct causal relationships between like, you know, federal government redlining and kind of, and all the stratified impacts today, the HOLC map is a proxy, right? It's probably a good enough one. You can see these are probably similar enough. And also because they were created by kind of local real estate, you know, assessors, it does reflect something about, you know, about local real estate practices, right? It's just not the federal redlining maps. More questions? Go back to some of the history here. By the way, I love reading about kind of our US's real estate history. So I kind of like spent some time digging up these images. But basically, you know, so the origins of single family home ownership has its roots in the 20th century, like the early 20th century. Then secretary of commerce Herbert Hoover took advantage of an already existing own your own home campaign, which is created by the Department of Labor, but actually inspired by the National Association of Real Estate Boards, which is kind of like the, the association of like private real estate, of private real, realtors. And so this was a campaign created in 1917 and it aggressively pushed home ownership. The motivation of the campaign was twofold. First, it aimed to create an attachment to property in the nuclear family in order to dissuade citizens, communist sympathies, the fear of which was a wide spread during the period after World War I. Second, it aimed to bolster the construction of housing, especially in partnership with the private real estate industry. This, it was believed, could promote a modern technocratic and decentralized industrialization process and stem the economic downturn during the depression. So from 1924 to 1940, if you read, if you read article 34 of the National Association of Real Estate Brokers, a realtor code of ethics, it would read, a realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood a character of property or occupancy, members of any race or nationality or any individuals whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values in the neighborhood, i.e. minorities. Or actually, around this time, it wasn't just, it wasn't just kind of a black residents that were considered members detrimental to property values. It was actually also immigrants and like Jews and Italians as well. So what was considered kind of like a minority or an undesired population has, as shifted and ethnicity was a much more, was also an important factor in these designations. So redlining practices didn't originate from the federal government, but was largely influenced by existing private real estate practices and beliefs prior to the creation of federal mortgage underwriting institutions that the NAREB had already established their own guidelines and statistical maps for evaluating neighborhood character and its code of ethics. These guidelines were followed by local real estate boards and governments which disseminated local maps and other appraisal tools during the housing boom in the 1920s and into the Depression. So these tools and guidelines which influence later FHA and HOLC practices, again, originated from private interests. The driving principle was the preservation of neighborhood land value and an acceptance of the kind of urban ecology theories of neighborhood decline that was prominent at the time. So the goal of the FHA and the HOLC was to encourage home ownership because they believe that this nuclear family framework was actually as much more sound investment. So I'm gonna quickly just talk about urban ecology theories. So these urban ecology theories were adopted by the FHA's economist, Homer Hoyt, who was actually a real estate speculator himself and he was the principal architect of the FHA's appraisal methods. As a real estate economist writing his dissertation on land value change in Chicago, Hoyt's research, especially his interest in mapping city-wide racial economic and transportation dynamics, had the aim of developing future land value projections and identifying areas and stages of decline. So this justified racial housing segregation as a determining factor of real estate values kind of given its prevalence. And previous research by John Metzger who I think is a Columbia planning PhD grad suggests an explicit tie between race, land value and decline by suggesting the FHA and subsequent federal housing agencies accepted the inevitability of decline, employing a practice of so-called planned abandonment to catalyze faster devaluation of urban black neighborhoods and directing resources to support neighborhoods that were not already in decline. One of the reasons why a direct causal relationship between redlining and segregation and social stratification is complicated is because there are other large interventions that also targeted poor minority neighborhoods. So I feel like I need to talk about the roughly contemporaneous kind of urban renewal and public housing interventions that took place. So despite the kind of widespread impact of FHA's policies, systematic racialized system investment was not limited to federal redlining. The Housing Act of 1949 and the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 collectively formed the urban interventions considered as urban renewal. So the urban renewal's renewal efforts were largely considered uneven and a slow process with like a very limited physical legacy. There are general consensus regarding its use as a destructive instrument of negro removal. So well documented are its demolitions of existing neighborhoods in predominantly minority and low income areas, displacing residents and reducing the overall low income housing supply. And also its role in perpetuating racial segregation through the construction of public housing and mainly black neighborhoods. So using Chicago as a case study, Albert Hirsch argues that there was an explicit effort by city officials, business interests, civic leaders and white residents to address the issue of the growing black population during the Great Migration. And to contain these populations in existing black neighborhoods through public housing, which Hirsch calls a domestic containment policy. So this is kind of like our sordid history of redlining and federal disinvestment in our urban neighborhoods. The next section I kind of wanna talk about some of the policies to so-called unwind these discriminatory practices and how they've been quite messy and kind of heterogeneous. So first of all, we all kind of probably know about the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which legislatively banned discriminatory housing practices. There's actually a general consensus that it was either insufficiently stringent or actually encouraged poor lending practices in particular section 235 of the 1968 Housing Act, which was intended to supposedly intended to help middle and lower income buyers to revise FHA lending was considered a failure due to its lacks underwriting standards. So the lack of oversight over lenders and in particular the lack of attention on the racial patterns of their lending results in the creation of what Dan Emmerglock calls a dual market in which black borrowers have faced the same abuse of lending practices that they formerly faced through more kind of informal means, but they were just now institutionalized. And Kiana Yamada Taylor talks about that in her book as well. So one of the reasons why I'm studying Chicago and why Chicago is an interesting case city is that it's actually the birthplace and testing ground for some of the national legislation to reverse red lending practices. Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, organizations like Dr. Martin Luther King, Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Contract Buyers League in Chicago, this is an image of their protest outside of the real estate office, made extensive attempts to challenge discriminatory housing practices in Chicago on a local grassroots level. These efforts provided the first kind of like irrefutable evidence that demonstrated the housing discrimination in Chicago. And this evidence and the National People's Action Coalition and the National Training and Information Center provided a catalyst for the eventual passage of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, Juan. Thank you, I have a question. Yeah, you've talked about how these practices were both created by realtors and property investors, but the whole system to preserve property values centered around whiteness was also, well, institutionalized by the federal government to a very large extent, were these grassroots efforts directed at the two of them? Was that relation apparent at the time or this is an understanding that we have achieved with time? So are you saying like, was the recognition that this was existing on a federal level apparently? Yeah. Yes, very much so, right? It was very much apparent at the time. In fact, and I didn't intend to go into a lot of detail about this, but essentially the only way, because it was impossible to get a federal room to buy a home, the only way that a lot of these, I mean, in Chicago, mostly Black residents to buy a home was through contract lending, right? Which basically you, as a white person with means, could buy the home and then extend a so-called contract, which is basically this kind of like agreement between you and the Black borrower. So you could then extend a loan to the Black borrower and usually you would kind of, the quality of the housing stock wasn't great. You have no incentive to kind of maintain the home. You could basically recall the contract after you've decided that you've gotten enough kind of payments from the contract. And so these contracts were actually, there's kind of like an interesting parallel between these kind of earlier contracts and mortgage-backed securities and what's the thing? In that like, these contracts were essentially traded like bonds, right? So they were basically guarantees that you would get some payments or you could like extract some payments for a year or two and then you could just, for whatever reason, renege on the contract. And they're considered like investment opportunities. Which is all to say, the reason why this existed is because it was very apparent that this was kind of like a federal, government level institutionalized kind of racist practice against homeowners. And they were, they knew themselves that they had no access to these markets. Right, but I think it's so powerful at the same time that kind of despite these kind of like large scale efforts to shut out residents from home ownership and despite these kind of widespread practices of contract lending that nevertheless, there was enough kind of grassroots level organization in Chicago to eventually spur national level changes. I mean, this was not the only thing that created this kind of national level legislation to reverse redlining, but I just find that this is, yeah, it's powerful. So, yeah, so kind of as I was saying before, there are two pieces of legislation, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and then the Community Reinvestment Act. And the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 is considered like the redlining reversal legislation. And this is targeted at low income communities and requires banks to make loans where they take deposits. So it's considered that these two pieces of legislation has had significant impact on lending in these minority and low income neighborhoods. However, their overall effectiveness towards the goal of reversing residential stratification and segregation has kind of been very heterogeneous because first of all, because these laws have changed substantially over time. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act until 1990 didn't require banks to include demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. To this day, there's still significant parts of the data that are missing that demographic and socioeconomic information. And there is research showing that it's like missing more in black neighborhoods. The CRA has also not entirely been effective. First of all, bank regulators have differentially forced the CRA over time. And there's also like a lot of geographic variation in its enforcement. Furthermore, it also remains a question whether the CRA actually enabled the riskier subprime mortgage lending practices that caused the 2008 financial market crisis. The CRA also only applies to banks and not other non-bank mortgage lenders. And these non-bank mortgage lenders actually originate most of the subprime loans. What they originated, I should say, most of the subprime loans in the early to mid 2000s. And these non-bank mortgage lenders still represent like six of the top 10 mortgage lenders in the US. And furthermore, the penalty for a violation of the CRA is quite weak. So banks have to get these CRA bank readings, but they're actually only important when banks are applying for a merger. And so, I mean, it's still kind of debated to this day, like, how can we improve the CRA? But this is just to kind of show that the process of trying to, at least like the legislative process of trying to undo and reverse redlining has been messy and met with resistance. So what are some of the present day legacies? Kind of as I mentioned before, because there are all these like contemporaneous large scale government interventions between 1930s and the 1960s. So there was like redlining and urban renewal and public housing and et cetera. It's kind of difficult to isolate a direct causal relationship between redlining and kind of more contemporary racial stratification. There is some research that does show that using the HLLC map, that shows that the HLLC maps influence redlining and influence home equity, home values and racial segregation in redline neighborhoods. However, I think if we widen the definition or if we consider like a wider concept of discriminatory federal housing practices, I think it's pretty clear that there are links between these practices and racial and socioeconomic stratification. The clearest connection is probably through an examination of the racial wealth gap, according to the Brookings Institute, the average White household had a net worth of $171,000 in 2020, while the average Black household had only about $17,000. So that's almost 10 times as less. Housing is not only a family's largest asset, but also due to the nature of housing and kind of the long duration of mortgage loans. It's also an asset that homeowners keep for a long time. So the effect of differential access to housing naturally just has long-term consequences for residents and neighborhoods. So this can be especially amplified given the durability of housing, but also some moreover, housing discrimination has historically constrained mobility through the racial exclusion of Black and other minorities from the suburbs, which limited opportunities to kind of build home equity, but also secure employment in these areas as jobs migrated out to the suburbs and as kind of cities de-industrialized from the 1960s to like the 1990s. In terms of the impacts on neighborhoods, the exclusion of largely minority residents and neighborhoods from becoming homeowners, catalyzed processes of neighborhood disinvestment and the concentration of poverty to the lack of capital to invest in housing itself, but also the surrounding urban fabric. The economic isolation resulting from neighborhood segregation both causes and amplifies the effects of pre-existing economic inequality and the social isolation of poor Black residents leaves them without a social buffer, which is William Julius Wilson's term, which can support and affirm residents in the neighborhood. And this is typically, and these kind of social buffers typically exist in kind of more diverse communities, or at least I guess like, so socioeconomic diverse communities. This is just a chart, this is for Chicago, but this is a chart showing kind of throughout from the 1930s to 2010, the stratification along demographic and socioeconomic lines of the different red-lined neighborhoods, and these are FHA red-lined neighborhoods in Chicago. So you can see that for instance, this chart here shows home ownership between 1930 and 2010, and areas that were red-lined, the worst grade, D grade, have persistently had lower rates of home ownership. In this 80 year, 80 year, 90 year time span, the median home value of these neighborhoods have persistently been low. Until about 1980, my suspicion is that this kind of sharper rise in home ownership is actually due to gentrification, and so thus you're kind of starting to draw some links between historical red-lining and kind of more present-day gentrification. There are other factors that I can talk about a little bit more, but I'm gonna just skip that for now. I think that Bernadette, yeah. I just wanted to interject for all, and for you to clarify, this is your own findings in research as are almost all the slides that don't have an attribution below. So we are at the cutting edge of almost to be published research in a big journal. Thanks. So this is from my own research, yeah. But this is other people's research. So I just did like a quick, you know, Google search of the relationships between red-lining and kind of various impacts. So you can see that, and I think all of these are published in like the last year or two. But I think that, you know, off the top of my head, here are some of the various aspects of kind of long-term discrimination and disinvestment in neighborhoods, right? There are environment and health aspects there. Obviously the racial wealth gap and income, all the economic and social isolation, educational and kind of childhood outcomes, the constraints of economic opportunities, this creation and the continuation of a dual housing market, gentrification and displacement vulnerabilities, etc. And I just wanted to kind of end with kind of two resources, which I hope will allow you to kind of think about red-lining and its impact kind of on a more local level. So the first and two tools, two mapping tools. The first is a University of Richmond. They were the ones who digitized and geo-referenced all of these historical HLLC red-lining maps and have kind of created all the, you know, this kind of room of like red-lining research that you saw previously. And I think what's really, and maybe what I'll do here is I'll just, I'll go to this tool. I think what's really interesting about this tool is that not only does it have the original, not only does it have these original red-lining maps, so you can kind of like zoom around in Brooklyn. And I'm just gonna go here to Harlem and click on this neighborhood here. But not only does it have the original red-lining maps, you can kind of click through, but you can also see the area description. So these assessors went to every single neighborhood with this form and this form, so they had to kind of like fill out this form for all the kind of characteristics and aspects that would help you decide what grade to give this neighborhood. And you can see in kind of like detail the estimated annual family income, whether or not there was a black population, what they thought the black population was, the kind, the urban fabric of the neighborhood at the time. And then lastly, they have these kind of like clarifying remarks that I find totally fascinating because it provides like a window into how they thought about these neighborhoods. Rents are not low due to great crowding. Formally a good, so Harlem, formerly a good residential district with many well-built private homes, now practically entirely negro with many tenements. So I find that quite interesting. And then the second is just a tool that I have created and I'll just go there right now. And it allows you to explore the redlining maps as well, but the focus is more on looking at the socio-economic and demographic changes of these redlined areas over time. So for instance, this is the redlining map of Cleveland and you can see here that this is the 2016 breakdown or map of the black population in Cleveland. And you can see that they kind of map on to each other quite well. And here you can see this over time, these areas over time and how these census characteristics have just been persistently kind of stratified. And so if we look at median household income, for instance, over time, the areas that were redlined red have just persistently had lower levels of income, where the areas that were redlined green have just persistently had higher levels of income. So we can really start to understand how static, yeah, how persistent some of these characteristics can be. And I don't know about the kind of scientific, like causal impacts, but you can see that neighborhoods and neighborhood characteristics don't seem to kind of change very much often. And I would argue that this is a lot due to our governmental legacy of discriminatory housing in the US. So I think I'm just gonna end it there. I feel like I've talked a lot and I'm thankful for all the people who have asked questions and interrupted, but perhaps more of you have questions. Yeah, Bernadette's clapping and I applaud the sentiment as well. Thank you, Wenfei, for this wonderful talk. This last piece was amazing, I think, not only because of how you've created these visualizations, but because you've taken these maps that perhaps could be interpreted as you said at the beginning as some sort of speculative tool that was used during the 20th century, but to frame them in a way that they show, not only racial segregation, but they show the deep cracks in a system of social mobility that is not functioning and that in over time and over several decades has reproduced the same results, at least in terms of housing and in terms of chronic disinvestment at both the federal and the local levels. Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, that, and also like this is really just the beginning. These maps were only digitized a few years ago, right? And there are so many of them, but I find to be, what I like to do is to kind of really zoom in to neighborhoods that I know well and to kind of understand what are the kind of the local impacts and the local legacies of these kind of large scale. If anyone has questions for Wenfei, please feel free to just raise your hands. You can also type them in chat if you're more comfortable with that. I guess I have a kind of a reflection. Oh, Jenna, are you talking? No, go ahead, Bernadette. I was just gonna say, well, thanks for your presentation, Wenfei. This was super informative. I was just curious how in your current research kind of looking at, I guess, persisting effects of redlining in the present day, how you can account for other kind of large projects or investments that might have also shaped the trajectory of different neighborhoods like urban renewal projects or something that like clearly left a large dent on the urban fabric. That's a good question. And it's really hard, right? Because you kind of have to both have the data and you have to kind of do some causal analysis, which as you know, Jenna, in the social sciences is nearly impossible to really achieve. You kind of have to have the right experimental setting for that. But I think there's some ways to think about it. If we know that there are areas that were destroyed because of urban renewal, that's an intervention that you can get back. Obviously, this would be a lot easier to do if you just focus in kind of one city or one area. So if you know when and where these interventions happen, you can start to trace them out and then look at whether or not there were some changes, for instance, if you were using census data, for instance, whether or not there was changes in home value and population distribution. It's nobody that I know has thus far kind of successfully done this on a national level. I might try to attempt something like this in a future research project. This is kind of the question, like the question that I'm thinking about in my own research. Thanks. There was a question in the chat. Yeah. I think that the question is about rental markets versus home ownership markets. And I actually think that's also another one of the more important aspects of this question that are really difficult to answer. So essentially, this is kind of like a longitudinal historical research, which if you ask any of the historical social scientists, they'll tell you it's not easy. But right, so of course, a lot of the black minority kind of inner city residents that we're talking about, they did not live in homes that they owned. They mostly rented, right? The FHA did provide multifamily loans, but that was a much smaller portion of their loan guarantees. I know that there are some FHA maps in the National Archives that looks at rentals and the various kind of, there are like risk maps of rentals, but I don't really know if there's kind of like good longitudinal rental data, or at least that hasn't been an area of focus for me, but it is true that if you're for a kind of certain racial, like loan from the group, so you are not likely going to be homeowners. Yeah, Bernie, I'm done. All right, I'm full of questions. First of all, this is such a fascinating thing and I've heard you speak about your own research before and to hear you step back and to reframe the whole thing of everything you said was new to me and was pretty much, and it was just amazing and fabulous, so thank you and stay tuned for her articles and books and other websites, folks. But I don't know, just thinking and reflecting how you started speaking about how local practices were baked and crystallized into national policy and then how that national policy kind of reinforced and lasted and has had these impacts and much of the policy talk now is about national policy changes theoretically, like targeting formerly red-lined areas. And I wonder what ways we as researchers, as practitioners, can make clear the ongoing local practices that continue to intersect with national policy? So I don't know, it just occurred to me as you were speaking, what if we looked at it formerly red-lined area and got all the, her, Lance the non-fair housing ads on Craigslist in the ways that they say, students, welcome. And other things and the ways or languages that real estate agencies, you might wanna consider a family-friendly neighborhood or folks where you'll feel at home and all of these other things that are hard to capture but are super widespread still and map them onto a single area, like here's the stack right now and here are the historical traces from that stack. I'm sure people have done that, but I don't know, it makes me think, how can we do it in the housing lab to start to think about how to unpack and disassemble if we can be so bold? Red-lining, may just make it clear for our area right here, Manhattanville? I don't know. Yeah, actually, what can we do for you sometimes? Actually, when Juan and I were emailing a few days ago about the presentation, I was like, I'm going to talk about red-lining in Harlem. Actually, so most of my work is kind of on this large scale and it's quantitative and et cetera, but I find that, I can only get so far in terms of how I wanna describe neighborhood impacts and that's why I really wanted to kind of think very locally in terms of how some of these, like what is the trace of these policies not necessarily through like census characteristics, but what is the trace in terms of its impact on the social fabric or like communities? And so that kind of, I think, motivates my desire to kind of dig in more locally and kind of really study the history of how some of these housing practices have affected residents and communities like in Harlem, how has it changed some of the community institutions in Harlem, how has it changed some of the, some of the physical, like urban fabric of the neighborhood, what are some kind of like ethnographic stories that we can tease out from this kind of like this large scale legislation? So for me, like that's actually, like that's quite interesting. I don't personally, I feel like I have the capacity or the ability to kind of know where to start, but like that's where I ideally kind of like want to take some of this research. Well, again, Wangfei, thank you very much. I think in the interest of time, we need to finish the discussion here, but we invite you to keep tuning in to our weekly conversation series. Next Friday, we will be talking with Cecily King about affordable housing and equity. Also, if you want to get in touch with the lab, you can shoot us an email in a brand new email address, gshubhousinglab.columbia.edu. There is some publications that we have been putting up on the gshub website that you can also check out. And finally, we are receiving feedback on a website that we are collecting some resources called Housing and to try to map and understand all these concepts that keep popping up in our chats, I mean, the research that we've been putting out. So any type of feedback or comment or gap that you think we need to fill, we would be happy to discuss. So again, thank you very much. We'll see you next Friday. Thanks all, this was fun.