Segregation in US cities visualised (high crime, how much, law)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by 5Lakes

It's not changing. The types of neighborhoods are just shifting as they become more gentrified (and whiter) or more Hispanic. The black neighborhoods probably still cover the same area for the most part.

Most U.S cities are segregated though, so it's not just Chicago that is like this. These lines are usually more apparent in more urbanized cities like Chicago.



Houston's relative lack of density helps blur those lines. The divides appear much darker on those other cities because of the population density. Not saying that Houston is particularly segragated, but there is a difference between having dense urban blocks forming neighborhoods divides as opposed to to a more suburban style where there is more space.

its not anything to do with divides, there are dots from all colors living together while in the other cities they are not. you guys are always using density as an excuse. why does the northern cities not have other colors interspersed to form a dense block of multiple colors? why does it have to be a block of solid red or solid blue? it is clear segregation, density has nothing to do with it

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by ckzona

that chicago map is crazy. Why does it surprise everyone to see cities, that are segregated into different parts of the city. I for one know that me and a lot of people do not want to move to the south side. Its not being racist but i don't want to move to an area where its dangerous.

Well, I live on the south side in Woodlawn. I never seem to have a problem with safetly. Honestly, I'm just as likely to have a confrontation with a racist white person on the north side as I am with a black thug or gangbanger on the south side.

It's amazing that many ordinary whites living on the north side think that they are better than any minority living on the south side, regardless of socio-economic status. A white guy living from check-to-check on the north side will look down on a black millionaire living on the south side. It's funny.

[NatashaH]

Even though the data is 10 years old, the Nashville map is still correct.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by west336

Show ATL too.....completely split!

No it isn't, at least not in the stark contrast of other cities, but there are some divisions. First the map:



So at a quick glance it appears to be a clear differentiation from the black central city, and the white suburbs. And it is true, central Atlanta and Dekalb county are majority black by a wide margin, and the northern burbs are majority white. This largely occurred because unlike other Sunbelt cities, Atlanta encountered significant white flight in the same vein as places like Detroit. Between 1970 and 1990, over 100,000 residents left the city and they were largely white residents headed to the suburbs.

However, beginning in the 1990s two things started to occur in Metro Atlanta that bucked the trend of the previous 20 years. First, African-Americans, Latinos and Asians started to move en masse to the Metro. The majority of them ended up in the burbs. If you look at the map, the Northern Burbs are now pretty well integrated (and will be even more so when the Census comes out) where as in the 80s and 70s they would have been bright red like Detroit's suburbs.

Secondly, people began moving into the city proper again and the population exploded. Atlanta experienced its first peak population peak in 1970 with 496,000 residents, hit it's low in 1990 at 394,000, and has now reached 550,000 in 2010. The majority of this growth has been fueled by white residents returning to gentrify urban neighborhoods. On the map, you can see the beginnings of this with streaks of red in the northeast section of the center of the map. But, as was mentioned this map is based on 2000 Census data when the city only grew 20,000 form 1990 to 2000. Since 2000, the city has grown by 140,000. When this year's Census is released, the larges swaths of blue will be peppered by red and orange.

Lastly, the southside suburbs have always remained integrated. They experienced white flight too, but not to the same degree as the city proper. Looking closely at the map you will see that while African-Americans dominate the area, Whites remain there in large numbers, and it is peppered with Asian and Latino immigrants who started arriving in the area in the 1980s.

So there are clear lines of separation that can be seen in Atlanta, but those are more so historical echoes rather than a continued separation.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

Actually, it was more complicated than that. For example, my grandmother's neighborhood went from blue collar ethnic white to majority black within a decade. Some whites moved out undoubtably for racial reasons, but others stayed until the schools declined and crime rose. My grandmother stayed put until she died, but her last few years she didn't feel safe venturing out of her apartment. At one point, the cops picked her up as she was walking to the grocery store and drove her home. They warned not to walk in the neighborhood any more (the neighborhood she was born and raised in). It really wasn't about "diversity" at all, it was about crime.

That does sound like how it is in most major Upstate NY cities. What's interesting about Syracuse is that you can still find a decent amount of Whites in predominately minority neighborhoods. I'm sure you can still find some in that neighborhood you are talking about in that Upstate NY city you are talking about. Some are just old timers that will hold it down to their death because it is where they were born and raised, while some are just too poor to move. Sometimes, it could actually be a neighborhood that is mostly minority, but still of decent to high quality. Parts of the 19th Ward close to Chili and Brighton are examples in your hometown and the Salt Springs neighborhood around Mountainview Drive in Syracuse.

[brattpowered]

It looks like California has the most integrated cities. Some southern cities are more integrated than some northern cities (like Detroit) but for the most part the spreading out of the dots just makes a segregated city look more integrated because the dots aren't all together in blocks. But they are adjacent to each other in huge swaths.

[oakparkdude]

Once a metro area has established a pattern of segregated housing, it is very difficult to undo that pattern. Younger cities which grew primarily in the days after 1964 have the advantage of not having this legacy of segregation to overcome. Especially when the growth is fueled by transplants who have no connection to traditional residential housing patterns.

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

Once a metro area has established a pattern of segregated housing, it is very difficult to undo that pattern. Younger cities which grew primarily in the days after 1964 have the advantage of not having this legacy of segregation to overcome. Especially when the growth is fueled by transplants who have no connection to traditional residential housing patterns.

Right. You can see this when you look at photos of Houston versus New Orleans. So much of it is independent of North vs. South. California really looks like the main standout when it comes to integration.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

Right. You can see this when you look at photos of Houston versus New Orleans. So much of it is independent of North vs. South.

I agree with this too. It doesn't matter if the city is in the North, South, Midwest, or West. It all comes down to when their populations boomed. Even though the South was well known (and rightfully lambasted) for their de jure Segregation, the city in all other cities in the other regions of the country had sotto voce segregation. Since the midwest and northeast had the largest and most booming populations during this period (and have not had a similar movement of new residents since) these housing patterns remain the same. An exception to this rule are former boomtowns in the south such as New Orleans and Birmingham.

In big cities in the South and West, the only time you will see this type of segregation is at a more granular level in cities, but not in suburbs as they saw the majority of their growth post Civil Rights era.

Originally Posted by brattpowered

California really looks like the main standout when it comes to integration.

I agree that California cities are integrated, but in an odd way. If you look at the suburban areas of cities in the Sunbelt (this includes San Francisco and Los Angeles FYI) you will see what I call a common "Fruit Loops" mixture of residents on these maps. But if you look closer at both the Los Angeles and San Francisco maps some very odd happens in their central cities and inner suburbs. I'll use Los Angeles as an example:



While the City of Los Angeles is pretty integrated, you will still notice sections of the city dominated by one ethnic group. When integration does occur it is usually not of the "Fruit Loops" variety. If you look closely at the map, areas dominated by Asians will typically only mix with Whites or Latinos or both but not Blacks in large numbers, the same patter shows itself again for Latinos however there is a large section almost completely dominated by Latinos. On the coast and in the hills it is almost exclusively White with only small pockets of mixing (with Asians for the most part) in this area. Central LA is dominated by Blacks and in only one area do they mix with another group (Latinos) in a significantly large number but in no area do Blacks and Asians or Blacks and Whites mix individually in the same way.

I don't say this to rag on Los Angeles as I believe they overall have a very diverse and cosmopolitan population, but there are very well known cases of segregation that still persist in Los Angeles. Some of this is due to the fact that it was already a big city during the era of sotto voce segregation, and because of the tumultuous period during the Civil Rights movement and the 1980s and early 90s.

[ckhthankgod]

I wish this guy did more cities. It would have been interesting to see what Syracuse's map would have looked like. Most likely it would have been similar to most other Northeastern cities.