Study now rates Dallas-Fort Worth the least segregated large U.S. metro area

[rriojas71]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Give it a rest.

On one hand we have your claims - claims with emotion that Dallas is much like early '60s Selma Alabama.

On the other hand we have census data and the interpretation of that data performed by demographers and statisticians whose work is subject to review and challenge.

You lose.

I wasn't trying to win. I have lived in both places so my interpretation, though unpopular with the locals, is valid and can't be discredited. Plus I made no reference to it being like '60s Alabama. I only stated my experience and observations from living there. Once again the people of City Data trying to twist peoples words so that they can digest them better.

DFW is making strides and that is great. It's about time in my book and somewhat Johnny-come-lately, but my initial post was in response to someone making a claim that it's less segregated & racist than SF which is laughable.

BTW... Statistics is the collection and analysis of data... You can crunch all the numbers you want, but they do nothing to disprove the cultural mindset of a community.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by rriojas71

I wasn't trying to win. I have lived in both places so my interpretation, though unpopular with the locals, is valid and can't be discredited. Plus I made no reference to it being like '60s Alabama. I only stated my experience and observations from living there. Once again the people of City Data trying to twist peoples words so that they can digest them better.

DFW is making strides and that is great. It's about time in my book and somewhat Johnny-come-lately, but my initial post was in response to someone making a claim that it's less segregated & racist than SF which is laughable.

BTW... Statistics is the collection and analysis of data... You can crunch all the numbers you want, but they do nothing to disprove the cultural mindset of a community.

Dallas is less segregated the SF. The data simply countervails your claim.

[rriojas71]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Dallas is less segregated the SF. The data simply countervails your claim.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Overcooked_Oatmeal]

To settle whether the Bay Area is more or less integrated than the DFW Metroplex, I found these demographic maps on the web based on the 2010 census.

Red -White,
Blue - Black,
Green - Asian
Orange - Hispanic,
Yellow - Other

Each dot is 25 residents:

SF/Oakland/Berkeley:

Race and ethnicity 2010: San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5560477152/in/photostream - broken link)



San Mateo Peninsula/San Jose/Silicon Valley/Fremont:

Race and ethnicity 2010: San Jose | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5559901477/in/photostream/ - broken link)



Dallas:

Race and ethnicity 2010: Dallas | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5559904955/ - broken link)




Fort Worth:

Race and ethnicity 2010: Fort Worth | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5560466366/in/photostream/ - broken link)



It depends on what part of the San Francisco Bay Area we're talking about...

If we're talking about the city of San Francisco itself, then yes, the city of Dallas itself is slightly more integrated. In general, in the city of San Francisco itself, White and Asian populations are mostly integrated in the Sunset and Richmond neighborhoods while blacks are generally cut off and isolated down in the southeastern part of The City down towards Hunter's Point with a few integrated areas here and there in Ingleside and Western Addition. However, Blacks have been leaving San Francisco for a number of years and their percentage has shrank the fastest of any major city over the last 20 years. Hispanics mainly live in the Mission District and Excelsior.

Most blacks in the Bay Area (well the ones who haven't moved the hell out of there) live over in the East Bay in Oakland, Richmond, Hercules, and Berkeley, which are far more integrated than anywhere in the Metroplex. However, there are other parts of the Bay Area with few Blacks and more Hispanics and Asians - The Silicon Valley for example, while other parts are not very diverse at all - Livermore/Pleasanton/680 Corridor and Marin County come to mind.

My Grandmother lived in East Oakland for many, many years and I have family who still live in Vallejo and Richmond and other parts of the East Bay, so I know what I speak of. (I got to know "The Grapevine" and the Altamont Pass all too well as a little girl). However, the black population in the Bay Area (and California in general) has been shrinking since the 1990's. For example, Oakland was once 48% Black as recently as 1980 and their share of the population is down to 27% according to the 2010 census.

Pleasant Grove, Arlington/Grand Prairie, Plano, Mesquite, parts of Irving and Carrollton and Garland are pretty integrated compared to other parts of the metro area which helps Dallas' numbers. There are still parts of the city where it's mostly black or mostly white though...

I agree it's absurd that posters in Dallas are trying to portray it as being "more integrated" than the Bay Area. However, as the map shows, it's not as segregated as it used to be, nor is all of the Bay Area some sort of racial utopia like the smug hypocritical liberal population who resides there in general like to claim it is. Honestly, it's a draw. Neither are as segregated as say, Milwaukee or Chicago.

The New York Times has a good demographic map based on these pictures with better maps, labels, and graphics:

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map and even shows which areas have had an increase or decrease of a particular demographic.

I don't know why in this day and age people STILL trip about White Flight, it's been pretty much ingrained in American Culture for the last 60 years.

[Overcooked_Oatmeal]

Originally Posted by kdogg817

I have been waiting for raw data for a while now and the truth is now starting to come out.
STATS DONT LIE


DFW Ranked 47th African Americans regarding racial equity

Houston Ranked 54th African American regarding racial equity

See for yourself....

Charts and Graphs | MetroTrends

This proves nothing.

Stats themselves don't necessarily lie, but can certainly be manipulated and adjusted for the benefit of the person depending on their hypothesis. As much as you brag about being an educated brother, you of all people should know that.

Houston:

Race and ethnicity 2010: Houston | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5560487046/in/photostream/ - broken link)




Dallas:

Race and ethnicity 2010: Dallas | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5559904955/ - broken link)




Ft. Worth:

Race and ethnicity 2010: Fort Worth | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5560466366/in/photostream/ - broken link)



The figures are skewed because the city of Houston itself [as opposed to the metro area] has larger neighborhoods that are predominantly Black or Hispanic, which affects the numbers overall. Considering that Houston is a much larger city than Dallas in population and covers more square mileage, no surprise there.

Third Ward, Sunnyside, and South Park on the South side of Houston, Acres Homes to the Northwest, and Fifth ward, Kashmere Gardens, and Forest Brook to the Northeast are predominantly Black, while the East End, Aldine, and Northline are predominantly Hispanic. Outside of those areas, the maps clearly show the Houston metro area is a lot more integrated overall than Dallas or Ft. Worth based on the metrics provided. Not to mention it's a better city overall for black people who have to live in Texas. Always has been, always will be!

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by rriojas71

Keep telling yourself that.

So the authors and experts involved in this research are liars or incompetent? Or is somehow possible you are full of beans holding on to old notions?

Sorry I'm siding with the experts.

[Darbro]

Originally Posted by Overcooked_Oatmeal

To settle whether the Bay Area is more or less integrated than the DFW Metroplex, I found these demographic maps on the web based on the 2010 census.

Red -White,
Blue - Black,
Green - Asian
Orange - Hispanic,
Yellow - Other

Each dot is 25 residents:

SF/Oakland/Berkeley:

Race and ethnicity 2010: San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5560477152/in/photostream - broken link)



San Mateo Peninsula/San Jose/Silicon Valley/Fremont:

Race and ethnicity 2010: San Jose | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5559901477/in/photostream/ - broken link)



Dallas:

Race and ethnicity 2010: Dallas | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5559904955/ - broken link)




Fort Worth:

Race and ethnicity 2010: Fort Worth | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5560466366/in/photostream/ - broken link)



It depends on what part of the San Francisco Bay Area we're talking about...

If we're talking about the city of San Francisco itself, then yes, the city of Dallas itself is slightly more integrated. In general, in the city of San Francisco itself, White and Asian populations are mostly integrated in the Sunset and Richmond neighborhoods while blacks are generally cut off and isolated down in the southeastern part of The City down towards Hunter's Point with a few integrated areas here and there in Ingleside and Western Addition. However, Blacks have been leaving San Francisco for a number of years and their percentage has shrank the fastest of any major city over the last 20 years. Hispanics mainly live in the Mission District and Excelsior.

Most blacks in the Bay Area (well the ones who haven't moved the hell out of there) live over in the East Bay in Oakland, Richmond, Hercules, and Berkeley, which are far more integrated than anywhere in the Metroplex. However, there are other parts of the Bay Area with few Blacks and more Hispanics and Asians - The Silicon Valley for example, while other parts are not very diverse at all - Livermore/Pleasanton/680 Corridor and Marin County come to mind.

My Grandmother lived in East Oakland for many, many years and I have family who still live in Vallejo and Richmond and other parts of the East Bay, so I know what I speak of. (I got to know "The Grapevine" and the Altamont Pass all too well as a little girl). However, the black population in the Bay Area (and California in general) has been shrinking since the 1990's. For example, Oakland was once 48% Black as recently as 1980 and their share of the population is down to 27% according to the 2010 census.

Pleasant Grove, Arlington/Grand Prairie, Plano, Mesquite, parts of Irving and Carrollton and Garland are pretty integrated compared to other parts of the metro area which helps Dallas' numbers. There are still parts of the city where it's mostly black or mostly white though...

I agree it's absurd that posters in Dallas are trying to portray it as being "more integrated" than the Bay Area. However, as the map shows, it's not as segregated as it used to be, nor is all of the Bay Area some sort of racial utopia like the smug hypocritical liberal population who resides there in general like to claim it is. Honestly, it's a draw. Neither are as segregated as say, Milwaukee or Chicago.

The New York Times has a good demographic map based on these pictures with better maps, labels, and graphics:

Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com and even shows which areas have had an increase or decrease of a particular demographic.

I don't know why in this day and age people STILL trip about White Flight, it's been pretty much ingrained in American Culture for the last 60 years.

Thanks for posting this OO. Very interesting and informative.