This post is a follow-up to an earlier post, you can look at this post from July 2nd where I discuss the different dimensions of residential segregation. That post discusses a few of the methodological issues, and it links to the Census Bureau report where the data comes from. So if you are confused about the differences, between clustering and exposure (for example), you can get more information from that post. If you link to the actual Census report, they show statistical formulas that are used in calculating segregation using each method described. They also discuss other issues related to measuring segregation.
You should also keep in mind this is only measuring segregation for Latinos, and it’s only measuring urban segregation. I am preparing future posts on Asians and Native Americans, and you can read the previous posts on
- The Dimensions of Segregation
- The most and least segregated cities for blacks.
- The most segregated cities for Latinos.
The analysis of Latinos only 36 metro areas met the Census criteria for analysis–the number was 43 metros for blacks.
All data comes from the US Census Bureau
5 Most Even Metro Areas (cities where Latinos are most evenly spread; the number is the percent of people who would have to move for the group to be evenly distributed across the metro area)
- St. Louis
- Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
- Fort Lauderdale, FL
- Portland, Vancouver
- Baltimore
5 Highest Exposure Metros (cities where Latinos have highest chance of having contact with whites)
- St. Louis
- Baltimore
- Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
- New Orleans
- Portland, Vancouver
5 Least Concentrated Metros (cities where Latinos are least densely concentrated/more spread throughout the metro area)
- Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
- Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater
- Orange County, CA
- Detroit
- Baltimore
5 Least Centralized Metros (cities where Latinos are least concentrated in the central core of the city)
- Oakland, CA
- Naussau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
- Orange County, CA
- Newark
- Baltimore
5 Least Clustered Metros
- St. Louis
- Baltimore
- Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
- New Orleans
- Portland, Vancouver
Overal Least Segregated for Latinos (Averaging ranks for all 5 major dimensions) Drumroll…..
- Baltimore
- St. Louis
- Fort Lauderdale, FL
- Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
- Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater
- Detroit
- Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
- Atlanta
- Oakland, CA
- Cleveland, Lorain, Elyria
A few points for discussion:
By this point in our analysis of the most segregated cities readers should notice a trend for the least segregated metro areas–the cities with relatively small percentages of a group tend to have lower levels of segregation for such groups. Of course this is not always true, but it is frequently the case. For example, St. Louis and Detroit aren’t well known for their Latino populations in part because they are relatively small. Just as the black population in Orange County, CA or Portland, Oregon are relatively small, but these cities all rank as less segregated. Of course, we have to ask, does less segregation necessarily mean that a particular city/metro would be a good place to live? Is St. Louis really that welcoming for Latinos? My guess is probably not. Same for Detroit. I attended school in Detroit, and I had several Latino friends and acquaintances, who were from other places like New York City or Texas. Many of these friends missed having the variety of restaurants, shops, dance clubs, and other places that reflected their ethnic backgrounds. I would not be surprised if a black person living in Seattle felt the same way. I bring this up because I think integration/segregation is just one factor that affects the well being of people of color.
Now whites are a different story, since we can generally access products and services that cater to us in almost any place in the US. This is why we really need to have data on whites that reflects white’s level of integration in these metro areas.
St. Louisans are more Latino-ignorant than Latino-hostile. There are both 3rd and 4th generation Mex-Am and new Mexican immigrants, perhaps in similar proportions, and the newbies cluster, but not the 2nd and up generation folk. There is one Mexican-predominant business strip and residential blocks (Cherokee St., for those who know the city), and one Illinois working class suburb (Fairmont Park area). There are a fair number of non-Mex-origin Hispanics from a wide array of countries, and a few Brazilians. What hostility exists is toward seasonal migrants and non-union construction workers. The Anglo community is aware of (ie, widely advertised in mainstream), and many attend, the Hispanic festivals in the summer – free entertainment.
On the other hand, St. Louis is very segregated for blacks (least even, most centralized end of ranges), but the ratio of black to non-black is 1:1 in the city, and 1:3 in the bistate metro media/ commute area (includes E. St. Louis and other suburbs, as well as MO suburbs).
I’d have to agree with Nancy.
St. Louis does have clustering of groups, including Asians (mainly on Olive Rd), but Asians and Latinos don’t really face hostility here, and are pretty well spread out as far as were they live.
Though segregation is a problem for blacks, St. Louis has made much progress in this area. Their moving into previously/currently anglo areas at increasing rates. Now granted, this has also lead to further expansion of “white flight” which has served to push the boundries of the city about as far as it can go in any direction except south, but eventually the city will end up more like the progressive area of University City.
St. Louis is a bit “behind the curve” from the last 40 years of depopulation that has finally shifted, so we have lots of problems, like the almost utter lack of public transit worth mentioning.