Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I would agree with Chicago. I lived in W. Lakeview for a year and it was like taking a step back in time. I would never see Black families. Most of the Blacks I would see lived in YMCA or where homeless. I would always be amazed at how Whites would talk about how bad the southern states where not realising how bad it was in Chicago. I was called the n word on several occasions in a threatening way. That had never happened in any other city Ihad lived in.
I currently live in St Louis. We are segregated here by the dissimilarity index. Never felt the tension that I felt in Chicago even in the all White suburbs. 30 years ago, that wasn't the case. Many suburbs in south St. Louis county are over 90% one race. Jefferson, Franklin and St. Charles county are over 90% White. West St. Louis county tends to be more affluent and educated so there are a lot of Asians and Indians with 5 to 10% Black. North county for the most part is well integrated some of the inner portions are mostly Black. Many times Whites won't come to the city except for pro sports and the zoo if they aren't use to living around Blacks. There seems to be a lot of fear involved. The northside of the city is overwhelmingly Black. The southside tends to be more balanced. 20% of the southside is Black.
Places like Charlotte, Nashville and many other new cities do much better with intergratio and is less polarized.
Last edited by mjtinmemphis; 05-04-2017 at 02:25 PM..
Metro Detroit has areas which are incredibly safe by the standards of even the safest metro areas. There are parts of Metro Detroit which have virtually no violent crime. There are also parts which crime is so prevalent that the name of city itself is often associated with violent crime. These two parts are so culturally polarized that if you visited them separately you would believe they were two different countries. If you were to look at the crime rate of all of Metro Detroit it would be about average with a typical large metro, this is despite the city being the second most violent city in the country and many of the suburbs being among the safest.
Were there less segregation and more opportunity created in all parts of the city by the influence of more business owners and investors, rather than these types only living/investing in the wealthy suburbs, there would be fewer people involving themselves in a life of crime, from a young age. As interest in the City is being shown by middle class and wealthy people crime is already falling significantly from its recession-era highs. The murder total so far for 2017 is ~30% below what it was at this point in 2016, which itself was even significantly below Pre-Bankruptcy years.
Maybe I misunderstood you the first time when you brought up assimilation.
However I disagree, integration isn't necessary. Why do you think that will improve conditions?
Dallas - Fort Worth, definitely. It's not so much a city vs. city issue. More like a city vs. suburb issue. I'm sure you'll have a few Fort Worth posters chiming in and saying it's a "Fort Worth vs. Dallas" issue, but it's really not to the degree of polarization like Plano/Frisco/Addison/Irving/Arlington (suburbs) VS. Dallas/Fort Worth (cities). Arlington has got to be the most revolting suburb we have, IMO. Irving is also embarrassing on the national level.
I don't know how people wouldn't say Detroit. It's gotten better over the last 15 years, but from the 70s-90s I don't think any single metro area could come anywhere close to it in this regard. Detroit lost 50% of it's population while it's suburban population almost doubled. Anyone who says Detroit's decline was due to the auto industry doesn't understand the history, or the collapse of the city after the 1967 riots. It's suburbs walled themselves off from Detroit and acted as if it didn't exist. If you were to tell a person from Farmington Hills they were from Detroit, they would quickly correct you and be offended. This is still somewhat the case today. The lack of regionalism and political warfare are the reason the area lacks amenities in comparison to other 4million+ metros. Although the region has started to figure it out and is shifting.
Yeah Detroit and Chicago seem like the two obvious answers. Memphis maybe.
I'm surprised by DFW, too. Yeah, there is a rivalry between Fort Worth and the Dallas side, but it's friendly and no one in Dallas really has any animosity towards Fort Worth. While it hasn't been embraced by everyone and is hardly a commercial success, many of the suburbs have signed onto DART with Dallas, which seems better than what people imply about some other metros like Atlanta.
Dallas - Fort Worth, definitely. It's not so much a city vs. city issue. More like a city vs. suburb issue. I'm sure you'll have a few Fort Worth posters chiming in and saying it's a "Fort Worth vs. Dallas" issue, but it's really not to the degree of polarization like Plano/Frisco/Addison/Irving/Arlington (suburbs) VS. Dallas/Fort Worth (cities). Arlington has got to be the most revolting suburb we have, IMO. Irving is also embarrassing on the national level.
Here is a story about Milwaukee. This was in 1974, hopefully things have changed. My parents were selling our house in a Northern suburb (Fox Point). One of the people who looked at the house was a black man. My parents then received several phone calls including death threats from neighbors telling them not to sell to the black.
This made me think of the "Sticks Downey" episode of Happy Days.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Atlanta. Northern Atlanta and Southern Atlanta feel like two different worlds in many areas.
I don't know many residents south of the city (south Atlanta, airport area, South Fulton, southern Dekalb, Clayton Co, etc) who venture into northern ends, and I definitely doubt many northerners (Johns Creek, Alpharetta, Marrietta, Gwinnett, Roswell, Brookhaven, etc) often find themselves in the southern area on purpose.
Part of that is distance - if you live in Peachtree City, going to Alpharetta could be a day trip. But then part of it is just socioeconomic stigmas.
Northern Atlanta is more white and wealthy while the south is more black and middle class. Roswell and Alpharetta are much different than Riverdale and College Park. Northern Atlanta appears more professional with edge cities and office towers and condos, while southern Atlanta is more service and not as dense, more single family housing instead. Apparently the northern areas are more republican, and the southern areas more democratic.
IDK if there is visible "animosity", but northern Fulton has continuously tried to succeed from the rest of Fulton for various reasons.
Chicago is bad, but Milwaukee has to be worse. Almost all the suburbs are 90%+ white, African Americans are entirely on the north side. and Hispanics entirely on the south side. There is almost zero integration.
One reason is the suburban counties bordering Milwaukee have no bus service. This was done by design.
Yeah Detroit and Chicago seem like the two obvious answers. Memphis maybe.
I can't speak for DTX, but Arlington is slowing down progress for public transportation.
Also, they want to be treated like a major city, but don't have any of the basics that would qualify it to be so...
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
