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.
Look at the link posted for NYC on the first page. Hold your mouse over all the patches where there are various colors and it should say Jackson Heights, Flushing etc. Pretty simple process to grasp really. In NJ, the only city I have personally been spent a decent amount of time was Elizabeth and that was pretty integrated as well.
You clearly have not been to Oakland or anywhere in the East Bay lol. I've been to Flushing... You seem to have integration confused with diversity. It's definitely less segregated than a lot of neighborhoods in New York but that's not saying much.
You clearly have not been to Oakland or anywhere in the East Bay lol. I've been to Flushing... You seem to have integration confused with diversity. It's definitely less segregated than a lot of neighborhoods in New York but that's not saying much.
Are you losing your vision or did you just lose your glasses? Tell me where in SF metro do you see far more of larger patches of integration. In fact how about you answer your own question and give some examples of such as.
I have been to majority of the SF metro area that's worth seeing. I will admit I was distracted by the number of sketchy areas in Oakland though. But I fail to see what makes them "definitely more integrated" than the NY metro considering it's just as segregated if not more.
And I am wondering if you went out much when you were in NYC. Flushing has mixes of Asians, Hispanics, and Whites. It's not even on the most integrated places in the metro really I was just giving an example.
Are you losing your vision or did you just lose your glasses? Tell me where in SF metro do you see far more of larger patches of integration. In fact how about you answer your own question and give some examples of such as.
I have been to majority of the SF metro area that's worth seeing. I will admit I was distracted by the number of sketchy areas in Oakland though. But I fail to see what makes them "definitely more integrated" than the NY metro considering it's just as segregated if not more.
And I am wondering if you went out much when you were in NYC. Flushing has mixes of Asians, Hispanics, and Whites. It's not even on the most integrated places in the metro really I was just giving an example.
If anyone should be making accusations of blindness it should be me... You'd have to be blind not to notice said "patches" in Southern SF (not South San Francisco), Richmond, Pinole, Pittsburg, Hayward, East Oakland, Berkeley, etc. The map isn't even showing the whole Bay... Said patches are also in Vallejo, Suisun City, Fairfield, Rodeo, Antioch, etc. The Inner East Bay and the Vallejo-Fairfield-Suisun City area are arguably the most integrated regions in the country. The southern half of San Francisco below Cesar Chavez Street is more integrated than anywhere I've seen in New York.
As far as New York, I've been just about everywhere in Manhattan aside from Washington Heights, a sizeable part of Brooklyn and some of Queens. I haven't been to The Bronx or SI. I've seen enough of New York to understand that integration is the exception, not the norm. JC is far more integrated than anywhere I've personally seen in NYC.
I think it depends on the parts of the city and suburbs that you are talking about for both areas. Queens is the most diverse county in the US and the zip code for the Dorchester section of Boston is one of the most diverse zip codes in the US. There is some degree of integration in both of those areas. Boston's Northern suburbs tend to continue the urban character of Boston and tend to be more diverse and integrated(i.e.-Lynn, Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Chelsea, Medford, Malden, etc.). In the NYC area, places like Nyack, Peekskill, the Haverstraws, Ossining, New Rochelle, White Plains, Elmsford, Valley Stream, Elmont, Elwood, Baldwin, Freeport, West Hempstead, among others in NY State; Montclair, Jersey City, Linden, parts of the Oranges, Hackensack, Englewood, Bloomfield, Belleville, Maplewood, etc. in NJ have a good amount of diversity and some integration as well. So, it is a matter of finding that place and knowing where to look.
If anyone should be making accusations of blindness it should be me... You'd have to be blind not to notice said "patches" in Southern SF (not South San Francisco), Richmond, Pinole, Pittsburg, Hayward, East Oakland, Berkeley, etc. The map isn't even showing the whole Bay... Said patches are also in Vallejo, Suisun City, Fairfield, Rodeo, Antioch, etc. The Inner East Bay and the Vallejo-Fairfield-Suisun City area are arguably the most integrated regions in the country. The southern half of San Francisco below Cesar Chavez Street is more integrated than anywhere I've seen in New York.
As far as New York, I've been just about everywhere in Manhattan aside from Washington Heights, a sizeable part of Brooklyn and some of Queens. I haven't been to The Bronx or SI. I've seen enough of New York to understand that integration is the exception, not the norm. JC is far more integrated than anywhere I've personally seen in NYC.
I see nowhere in that map that has larger patches than NYC. You really do need to get your eyes checked. And you have to be one big hypocrite to tell me diversity and integration is different and than naming area that are just known for being diverse like Vallejo-Fairfield. Really show me some evidence like a map, articles or whatever that says they are interrogated because I would like more than just your words and fanboying about the Bay area.
Like I said did you ever go out of your room when you were in NYC or did you just look out of the window of your room or look outside from a tour bus? Something seriously has to be wrong with a part of your body if you didn't notice integration in places like Kew Gardens, Woodhaven, Elmhurst, Richmond Hill etc. Then again you claim there wasn't any integration in Flushing so I don't know why I'm surprised.
If we're talking about the city proper, I'd say the following is true. NYC is more diverse, but also more segregated.
Looking at Boston by 2010, Asians are not segregated at all. O course there is a population around Chinatown, but a lot of Asians are in coastal Dochester, the South End, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, etc. In contrast, NYC has huge areas in the outer borughs (Elmhurst, Flushing, Sunset Park) which are mainly Asian, although admittedly, Asians are fairly well integrated.
For Latinos, there is a large ethnic enclave in East Boston. However, Latinos are otherwise spread pretty haphazardly across much of Roxbury, Dorchester, Roslindale, and parts of Jamaica Plain. In contrast, Latinos are hugely segregated in NYC, confined in large parts to the Bronx, Upper Manhattan, and a few areas of northern Queens and Brooklyn.
Even the black population in Boston isn't as segregated as in NYC. Dorchester and Roxbury are just barely majority-black neighborhoods - they have lots of Latinos,W Whites, and Asians in the case of the former. Even most of the "black" segments of these neighborhoods don't exceed 60%-70%. Mattapan is the only overwhelmingly black neighborhood in Boston, and even there, there's no part of the neighborhood which is over 90% black. In NYC, places like East Flatbush in Brooklymn, and Laurelton in Queens, are way, way blacker.
The bottom line is that while the gentrified parts of Boston are more white than the gentrified parts of NYC, the "ghetto" of Boston actually fairly racially mixed. Hence, I'd argue across the city as a whole, there's less residential segregation.
I see nowhere in that map that has larger patches than NYC. You really do need to get your eyes checked. And you have to be one big hypocrite to tell me diversity and integration is different and than naming area that are just known for being diverse like Vallejo-Fairfield. Really show me some evidence like a map, articles or whatever that says they are interrogated because I would like more than just your words and fanboying about the Bay area.
Like I said did you ever go out of your room when you were in NYC or did you just look out of the window of your room or look outside from a tour bus? Something seriously has to be wrong with a part of your body if you didn't notice integration in places like Kew Gardens, Woodhaven, Elmhurst, Richmond Hill etc. Then again you claim there wasn't any integration in Flushing so I don't know why I'm surprised.
Vallejo's "just known for being diverse"? Where do you make this **** up? I hope you're from New York because otherwise it's really pathetic how butt-hurt you are that New York is a segregated city.
If we're talking about the city proper, I'd say the following is true. NYC is more diverse, but also more segregated.
Looking at Boston by 2010, Asians are not segregated at all. O course there is a population around Chinatown, but a lot of Asians are in coastal Dochester, the South End, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, etc. In contrast, NYC has huge areas in the outer borughs (Elmhurst, Flushing, Sunset Park) which are mainly Asian, although admittedly, Asians are fairly well integrated.
For Latinos, there is a large ethnic enclave in East Boston. However, Latinos are otherwise spread pretty haphazardly across much of Roxbury, Dorchester, Roslindale, and parts of Jamaica Plain. In contrast, Latinos are hugely segregated in NYC, confined in large parts to the Bronx, Upper Manhattan, and a few areas of northern Queens and Brooklyn.
Even the black population in Boston isn't as segregated as in NYC. Dorchester and Roxbury are just barely majority-black neighborhoods - they have lots of Latinos,W Whites, and Asians in the case of the former. Even most of the "black" segments of these neighborhoods don't exceed 60%-70%. Mattapan is the only overwhelmingly black neighborhood in Boston, and even there, there's no part of the neighborhood which is over 90% black. In NYC, places like East Flatbush in Brooklymn, and Laurelton in Queens, are way, way blacker.
The bottom line is that while the gentrified parts of Boston are more white than the gentrified parts of NYC, the "ghetto" of Boston actually fairly racially mixed. Hence, I'd argue across the city as a whole, there's less residential segregation.
But the thing is Boston has a significantly few amount of minority groups so I just can't be more integrated. Unless your claiming Boston has more integrated neighborhoods than what they have which I just don't believe at all. There plenty of neighborhood in NYC that are integrated Jackson Heights, Richmond Hill, South Ozone park, Ozone park, Flushing, Woodhaven, Ridgewood, Kew Gardens, Jamaica (not South Jamaica but Jamaica itself), Fresh Meadows, Astoria, etc that are integrated. Now they are not all living in equal conditions but that's not what we are talking about. Boston can't just match NYC in numbers because it has places that's just mostly white after white for miles and miles.
And Elmhust and Flushing has more than just Asians. Asians make up the largest group there but it doesn't mean that's all they have.
If we're talking about the city proper, I'd say the following is true. NYC is more diverse, but also more segregated.
Looking at Boston by 2010, Asians are not segregated at all. O course there is a population around Chinatown, but a lot of Asians are in coastal Dochester, the South End, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, etc. In contrast, NYC has huge areas in the outer borughs (Elmhurst, Flushing, Sunset Park) which are mainly Asian, although admittedly, Asians are fairly well integrated.
For Latinos, there is a large ethnic enclave in East Boston. However, Latinos are otherwise spread pretty haphazardly across much of Roxbury, Dorchester, Roslindale, and parts of Jamaica Plain. In contrast, Latinos are hugely segregated in NYC, confined in large parts to the Bronx, Upper Manhattan, and a few areas of northern Queens and Brooklyn.
Even the black population in Boston isn't as segregated as in NYC. Dorchester and Roxbury are just barely majority-black neighborhoods - they have lots of Latinos,W Whites, and Asians in the case of the former. Even most of the "black" segments of these neighborhoods don't exceed 60%-70%. Mattapan is the only overwhelmingly black neighborhood in Boston, and even there, there's no part of the neighborhood which is over 90% black. In NYC, places like East Flatbush in Brooklymn, and Laurelton in Queens, are way, way blacker.
The bottom line is that while the gentrified parts of Boston are more white than the gentrified parts of NYC, the "ghetto" of Boston actually fairly racially mixed. Hence, I'd argue across the city as a whole, there's less residential segregation.
I'd argue that blacks in Boston are actually more segregated because the overwhelming majority of them live in one corner of town. That corner of town might be fairly diverse but native black Bostonites generally don't live outside of that corner with the exception of a couple projects in South End and Charleston.
Vallejo's "just known for being diverse"? Where do you make this **** up? I hope you're from New York because otherwise it's really pathetic how butt-hurt you are that New York is a segregated city.
Instead of crying about it how about you show me some proof now. The fact that I'm not from New York kind of spares me from the bias. Unlike you who seems like your prepared to make love with the sewers of your city.
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.
