U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 08-17-2011, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Near Chicago
3,108 posts, read 4,968,296 times
Reputation: 1473

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Aguilar View Post
It's funny (and ironic) that you used a random example that just happens to be about 50% white and 50% Native American. In that area, minorities can live wherever they want, as there are no segregated neighborhoods (and no segregation, for that matter) to feel obligated to. You'll miss that town if you blink, and there's only like 200 people there, contained in a small area.


OP, I don't know if this will be any help to you, but here's some diverse and educated areas that also have educated blacks (at least, as they were in 2000) (I don't know Chicago or these areas, so pardon me if my geographical descriptions are off, I'm just providing the numbers):

-Census tract 2819, an area west of the Loop, bounded by W Madison St on the north, the Chicago River on the east, W Van Buren St on the south, and Halsted St on the west.

-Census tract 3205, basically just east of ^ (looks like the southern 2/3 of the Loop), bounded by Monroe St on the north, State St on the east, Roosevelt Rd on the south, and the Chicago River on the west.

-Census tract 3907, an area of Kenwood between E 47th and E 51st, east of Dorchester to the lake.

-Census tract 4110, the SE portion of Hyde Park.

-Census tract 4107, another area of Hyde Park between 52nd/55th, and S Woodlawn and S Dorchester.

Source:
American FactFinder

Good luck OP, in situations like this I feel as though "being yourself" is the best way to get through feelings like this, either people will warm up to you or not, and if they don't, it's probably their loss if they don't warm up to you because of superficial reasons.
Here is the 2010 map
Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2011, 10:28 AM
 
5,034 posts, read 5,868,355 times
Reputation: 3218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorielicious View Post
Race and ethnicity 2010: Los Angeles | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5560490330/in/set-72157626354149574 - broken link)

Try an updated map, for one. For another, someone is looking at all the pretty colors again and having no idea what areas those represent. Most of what's on that map isn't even Los Angeles. That's a general map of Southern California. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd see that *much* more of the city of LA is racially inegrated than Chicago, including nice areas where educated professionals work and play. Do you want me to circle them for you?
I would say the areas, where there are big clusters of dots that represent white population are the very wealthy areas where people with customs homes are tucked away in the canyons in the Santa Monica mountains.

Those areas are naturally going to have people priced out and therefore are going to be more white. Those areas have no apartments only houses hidden in the pocket are only going to be the very wealthiest, which generally means white, as anywhere. And then of course you have the huge port-of-entry neighborhoods of east LA, south LA, and the cheaper parts of the Valley. Those areas yes, are going to be almost entirely hispanic, since LA is the top destination.

But, as far as I can tell, I will agree with you, that the famous, vibrant, and fun west side, the side where people go to experience LA, stretching from Santa Monica, Westwood through Miracle Hollywood and West Hollywood to Silver Lake, that actually looks relatively integrated to me. A lot of different colored dots in those areas.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Chicago
847 posts, read 725,767 times
Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
I would say the areas, where there are big clusters of dots that represent white population are the very wealthy areas where people with customs homes are tucked away in the canyons in the Santa Monica mountains.
Most of the red dots (white people) are along the coastline (expensive) or the suburbs. The red space up north is the burbs and Valley, so I don't think it should come as a surprise to anyone that those are mainly white areas.

Quote:
But, as far as I can tell, I will agree with you, that the famous, vibrant, and fun west side, the side where people go to experience LA, stretching from Santa Monica, Westwood through Miracle Hollywood and West Hollywood to Silver Lake, that actually looks relatively integrated to me. A lot of different colored dots in those areas.
Yes, within the city itself, many of the more desirable areas are well integrated. Santa Monica I've found, though, is fairly white with a somewhat reasonable sprinkling of non-white faces thrown in, but it's not what I would call a mixed city.

But that's the whole thing - or the thing that prompted my entry into this little trainwreck, anyway. Pretty much everywhere in this country (NY, SF, LA, Chi, whatever) you're going to find the very wealthy areas are almost exclusively white. Most non-whites, unfortunately, cannot afford to live there. Hell, most whites cannot afford to live there, but of the people who do have that kind of money, most are white. And so, it's not unreasonable to expect that the ultra ritzy places will be mostly white. Still, there are trendy neighborhoods where educated professionals live who make good livings but aren't uber-rich (WLA would be a good example for LA) where people of the same socio-economic class live together regardless of race. The moderately-priced places also tend to be well-integrated, as people aren't being priced out.*

Here, nope. Like someone drew lines on a map and said "You guys here and you guys there."

But we're beating a dead horse. I'm going to get a Fresca.



*And then to finish this off, poorer places tend to be mainly full of non-whites, which is sad but true.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 07:57 PM
 
Location: International Spacestation
5,208 posts, read 3,116,987 times
Reputation: 1415
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptug101 View Post
I dont mind going to a hood crowd in fact,I just went to a hood party recently.
but I like to go to other places well. the African American scene can get redundant.
Boooy do I know the feeling.....I think you are wishing on a star though. Whites do whatever, but Blacks only do Black activities...and yea the same old thing all the time can get real lame.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2011, 09:56 PM
 
8,018 posts, read 5,872,882 times
Reputation: 3546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
I would say the areas, where there are big clusters of dots that represent white population are the very wealthy areas where people with customs homes are tucked away in the canyons in the Santa Monica mountains.

Those areas are naturally going to have people priced out and therefore are going to be more white. Those areas have no apartments only houses hidden in the pocket are only going to be the very wealthiest, which generally means white, as anywhere. And then of course you have the huge port-of-entry neighborhoods of east LA, south LA, and the cheaper parts of the Valley. Those areas yes, are going to be almost entirely hispanic, since LA is the top destination.

But, as far as I can tell, I will agree with you, that the famous, vibrant, and fun west side, the side where people go to experience LA, stretching from Santa Monica, Westwood through Miracle Hollywood and West Hollywood to Silver Lake, that actually looks relatively integrated to me. A lot of different colored dots in those areas.
I really wish we could get a few more essays on CA in the Chicago forum. That would really make this place even more enlightening.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2011, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Chicago
847 posts, read 725,767 times
Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
I really wish we could get a few more essays on CA in the Chicago forum. That would really make this place even more enlightening.
Well the guy has spent whole days there, which not only makes him the foremost expert, but one whose expertise cannot be contained to CA forums. Don't hate knowledge.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2011, 10:03 PM
 
8,018 posts, read 5,872,882 times
Reputation: 3546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorielicious View Post
Well the guy has spent whole days there, which not only makes him the foremost expert, but one whose expertise cannot be contained to CA forums. Don't hate knowledge.
Good point
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2011, 01:15 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
88 posts, read 61,015 times
Reputation: 69
I've been lurking this forum for a few weeks because I just recently moved to Chi-town and thought this forum was full of useful information. After, reading through this thread, I felt compelled to make a profile and chime in.

I used to live in California, grew up in different parts, and know a decent amount about the cultural make-up of Los Angeles. Here's my two cents on the race/ethnic comparison between LA and Chi.

LA, in general, can be said to be more ethnically integrated than Chicago. I wouldn't say more ethnically DIVERSE because both cities are plenty diverse. I will also say I've noticed more different types of cultures and ethnicities around Chicago, though they exist in smaller groups and are less integrated into the city as a whole.

However, on the issue of integration, there are things that make LA seem more integrated. One major factor is class. There are alot more say, Latinos, in Southern California who are college educated, or of middle-class or higher, and are integrated into the predominant mainstream culture (i.e. aren't culturally rooted). As for African-Americans, there are ALOT less of them in Southern California than Chicago and in general, there isn't the "ghetto" aspect you have in Chicago. South-Central does not even compare to the stories I hear about the South Side and driving here, I made the mistake of taking Cicero through Austin and was shocked at how rundown some areas were. Even in the worst parts of LA, you don't find that kind of ghetto living.

Because there are more Latinos, Asians, and other ethnicities in the middle class, you'll find them more integrated into the middle class areas of LA. LA still has the class segregation aspect of Chicago. Poorer first-generation Latinos are still concentrated in areas such as East LA, but you'll find more racial integration in WEST LA due to the greater presence of ethnic people in the middle and upper class. AAs are a strange comparison because there are much fewer of them in LA than Chicago, but all in all, reactions will be the same based on how a person dresses, acts, and carries his/herself. Black guy in a suit is welcomed, black guy dressed like Lil Wayne will have people annoyed, black guy in rags will have people avoiding him.

I think the problem as to why Chicago seems so much less integrated is because there are a lesser proportion in the ethnic groups who are middle class and who can and would be willing to integrate into mainstream type areas (i.e. the "white", middle class neighborhoods). If you actually took a cross-section population from the South Side and tried to drop them into Lincoln Park, you'll have some serious issues, whether culturally, economically, or psychologically. Inversely, it would be just as bad without the whole gentrification bit. It would be harder to integrate Chicago than LA because trying to do so with the current racial makeup with the way it is culturally and economically would create a maelstrom of fear, tension, and class complexes. The same would be true for LA if you dropped the poorer South-Central or East LA population into West LA. But in Chicago, it seems there is a greater presence of poverty and crime in the lower class that happens to be predominantly AA. Until you starting getting alot more AA into the middle class, the middle class neighborhoods will stay predominantly white.

It does seem like there are more people here fitting stereotypes, especially in the AA community. Gang violence and poverty is alot more of a problem in Chicago. There's less poor and violent people in and around LA because all the poorest people live outside of LA, in cities like Riverside and Bakersfield. It's cities like these in California that have major issues with poverty and class-related crime. Since Chicago is such an isolated epicenter, you'll have more of these problems hang around the city. Hence more class tension and class fear.

It's also worth noting that LA is also alot less dense than Chicago (neighborhoods cover more ground), has more of a service-industry (which is normally the industry where poorer people or recent immigrants start off to make a living these days), alot less affordable (poorest are priced out to neighboring cities), and has more weekend escape routes for people to blow off steam (makes neighbors and city life more bearable).

I went for a walk in Lakeview a few days ago (that's where I'm going to be living). The area reminds me alot of Santa Monica, geographically and people-wise. Lots of white people, some Asians and Latinos, and a few AAs, all dressed pretty casually and looking like they're heading somewhere. In reality, most of the hardcore racists from the past can no longer stand the city and its "liberal" atmosphere. They mostly live in the suburbs now. You might still encounter some people in the city who still has illusions about race culturally, such as latent stereotype assumptions about what you are like, your beliefs, and what you're into. But you get that anywhere, whether LA or Chicago.

With that said, the concerns of the OP may be very real to him. It sucks to not be able to socially connect with those around you. And in reality, he very well could just have met a string of people who don't really want to be friends with a black guy. But it could also be personality differences, or the fact alot people in the city aren't really looking to make any more friends to occupy their schedule.

Last edited by SalingerBananafish; 08-22-2011 at 01:45 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2011, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Chicago
847 posts, read 725,767 times
Reputation: 1081
^^Spot on, for the most part. I'd also attribute the larger integration of Los Angeles to larger number Blacks and Latinos in the middle and upper classes. People like that in Chicagoland may be reluctant to live in the city, as there really aren't that many good places for us to live. There aren't upper-class black neighborhoods here, and mid-to-upper class black people certainly do not live in racially integrated communities of the same class. There doesn't seem to be a Ladera Heights of Chicago, or an equivalent of the West Side. (And if there is, someone please let me know, and I will break my lease and move there today.)

If you're well off and black in Chicago, your choices of desirable places to live are extremely limited. The city is rather segregated racially, so your options are (with a pocketful of exceptions) to live on the South side, and be surrounded by people you have absolutely nothing in common with other than skin tone, or go North and be given the cold shoulder. People here seem to want to sweep the hostility under the convenient rug of "class hostility" but that's silliness and unfettered denial. Perhaps the problem would be solved by middle+ class black and brown people moving in, but I could see why they wouldn't want to. The problem just compounds itself.

Ah well. C'est Chicago.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2011, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri (tower grove)
3,236 posts, read 2,409,882 times
Reputation: 2029
There are many professionals that live in the city and have very good lives. I dont want to repeat myself but the ones that have the toughest time are the ones that try to fit into the lvlp community. It ain't happening.

Don't throw away the entire southside of as being bad. I think Hydepark is a wonderful neighborhood for young professionals that want to embrace racial and cultural diversity. Oakpark (not in the city limits) is another great option. The center core of the city like the south loop is another.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top