Do places with much socio-economic segregation but little racial segregation exist?

[Capsicum]

Are there places where wealthy whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans etc. live together?

Are there places where poorer members of all these groups live together?

Due to the history of race and class and segregation, it doesn't seem like the US has many prominent examples but perhaps the UK does as I know I've heard that London has multi-racial working class places with white, black, Asian demographics and places where rich Europeans, Africans and Asians live together.

Perhaps even though it is overall less common, maybe cities where diversity changes are more "recent" are more like this?

[mhays]

Downtowns. In general.

The center of town will often have rich and poor on the same block as a common pattern. Probably not the same building typically.

[Capsicum]

Perhaps maybe also places with a lot of diverse students living near colleges or universities?

[mousquet]

There is at least one to my knowledge. Paris. My hometown.

You'll find the corrupt African oligarchy in the wealthiest neighborhoods of the metro area.

Once, when I was a tiny kid, my mom brought to us a lost female cat she'd found in front of Bokassa's former mansion. I think she found her in Hardricourt... mm, that's it.



While we already had too many lost cats at my home.

The only reason why our national government still looks so white is the retards from the regular establishment. I'd rather have Mourad Boudjellal as our president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourad_Boudjellal

He is dangerously pro-business. Actually, he would be a great kick to this country.

[Yuri]

Brazilian cities in general. People are divided along social lines only, not racial. For historical reasons, Whites form the majority of middle and upper classes while Mixed are the majority in the low classes, but there is no split along race. People will live side by side regardless their ethnic background.

[Crawford]

Aren't wealthier suburbs generally more integrated than poorer suburbs? That's been my experience. Outside of a few WASP suburban bastions, most wealthier suburbs have decent % of Asians, and usually have small but fast growing Hispanic and Black cohorts. There's also usually more religious/cultural diversity (more expats, more non-Christians, esp. Jews).

I would say wealthy city cores, if anything, are somewhat less integrated. Immigrant families seem to really like homeownership and sprawl. Usually the upper class Chinese, Indians, Cubans, Mexicans, etc. tend to be in sprawltopias.

[10023]

I would think that the wealthy mix across races more than the poor, but that is based on anecdotal evidence.

[dave8721]

College.

[xzmattzx]

Ironically, I think the Southeast is more racially integrated than the Northeast and Midwest. I read an article on the demographics of each region maybe over a year ago, but I can't find it at the moment.

[Chef]

The working class areas of Minneapolis and St Paul proper are fairly integrated. Segregation is largely due to the fact the overwhelming majority of rich and upper middle class people are white.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Ironically, I think the Southeast is more racially integrated than the Northeast and Midwest. I read an article on the demographics of each region maybe over a year ago, but I can't find it at the moment.

Yes, and I think a large part of that has to due with the fact that Southern suburbs often developed a generation later than the "white flight" era suburbs of the Northeast and Midwest.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Ironically, I think the Southeast is more racially integrated than the Northeast and Midwest. I read an article on the demographics of each region maybe over a year ago, but I can't find it at the moment.

The spread between cities in the Midwest is enormous. The old rust belt cities are probably the most segregated in the country. Less industrial cities that remained healthy like Columbus, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are more like the more progressive parts of the south. A lot of it is probably because the second group of cities got much of their non-white population after the civil rights movement - there were fewer established legacy ethnic/racially segregated neighborhoods for newcomers to move into.

[urbanadvocate]

With the exception of Oakland and Portland which are clearly not racially integrated, west coast cities do appear more integrated to me on a "perception" level.

Granted there are clearly African American neighborhoods in LA and latino neighborhoods in SD but as a whole are pretty integrated. I wonder how much of this is perception is skewed by a higher proportion of wealthy Asians.

I know many years ago, Sacramento, for example, was titled the most racially integrated US city by a Harvard study but I cannot recall how this was measured or determined.

[Omaharocks]

In my experience there are different types of segregation.

My hometown, Omaha, is unfortunately very segregated racially and economically. Nor is there much integration socially, but there is a bit.

Where I went to college, Madison and Milwaukee, the segregation came from all angles - economic, racial, and social. There were few places where people from different socio-economic or racial backgrounds mixed. Things will likely change though, as the public schools tell a very different story with lots of diversity.

Boston: similar situation as Madison, Milwaukee

DC: Socio-economically and racially very segregated, but there's a fair bit of social mixing of various ethnic groups (not economic mixing), particularly in the gentrifying hoods like U Street, etc

Albuquerque: Very little socio-economic or racial segregation. True melting pot, similar to Honolulu and many California cities.

Atlanta: Lots of economic segregation, but lots of racial integration in-town and in many of the wealthier suburbs. Lots of people of all backgrounds hang out socially.

The most segregated places I've been across the board have all been in the upper midwest and New England. California seems to be the most integrated overall.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

With the exception of Oakland and Portland which are clearly not racially integrated, west coast cities do appear more integrated to me on a "perception" level.

Granted there are clearly African American neighborhoods in LA and latino neighborhoods in SD but as a whole are pretty integrated. I wonder how much of this is perception is skewed by a higher proportion of wealthy Asians.

I know many years ago, Sacramento, for example, was titled the most racially integrated US city by a Harvard study but I cannot recall how this was measured or determined.

It is skewed by the fact that Oakland is the only city on the west coast that has anything like the sort of black population you would see in the rest of the country. Even Minneapolis, which is generally perceived as a white city, has a larger black population than any city on the west coast besides Oakland. Most of the non white population of the west coast comes from immigrants. Immigrant families eventually assimilate while the black/white dynamic is different.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Stab in the dark here, but Denver?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Chef

The spread between cities in the Midwest is enormous. The old rust belt cities are probably the most segregated in the country. Less industrial cities that remained healthy like Columbus, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are more like the more progressive parts of the south. A lot of it is probably because the second group of cities got much of their non-white population after the civil rights movement - there were fewer established legacy ethnic/racially segregated neighborhoods for newcomers to move into.

indy seems pretty segregated to me, lots of ragged (sub) urban fabric/missing neighborhood commercial. i never really bought the whole indianapolis thing.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Chef

The spread between cities in the Midwest is enormous. The old rust belt cities are probably the most segregated in the country. Less industrial cities that remained healthy like Columbus, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are more like the more progressive parts of the south. A lot of it is probably because the second group of cities got much of their non-white population after the civil rights movement - there were fewer established legacy ethnic/racially segregated neighborhoods for newcomers to move into.

Minneapolis? I've been out at night and not seen a black person. Looking at the data, both Minneapolis and St.Paul were 80-90% non-Hispanic white into the 1980s, so not only are they less racially diverse than most Midwestern cities but that diversity came later (after the era of white flight).

It's also inaccurate to say that those cities "remained healthy". Minneapolis lost 30% of its population between the 1950 census and 1990 census. That's more than Chicago (23%) in percentage terms.

[Capsicum]

Doesn't Minneapolis have a large proportion of its black population being of Somalian descent?

[Capsicum]

One thing brought up in this thread by me and others is that newer, more recently diversified or recently built places are more integrated by virtue of post-dating the era of (legal) segregation and the later white flight.

So, does diversification of newer suburban areas or newly built places more generally come mostly from newcomers like immigrants less burdened by the history of past segregation, or are there cases where white flight is actually reversed in that the native-born blacks and whites (and also native born Asian, Latino and other non-white groups if they had a history in the region in question) are choosing to live together.