> This definitely isn't the case where I grew up, in New Jersey, and is absolutely incorrect for New York City.

It's not something that's nearly as sharply defined in NYC, but there's definitely some racial separation by neighborhood if you look at statistical maps on the subject.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/map-segregation-ame...

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1321377/original.jpg

I dunno man, the racial makeup in neighborhoods in NYC changes fast, like cross the street fast: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/08/us/census-race...

> absolutely incorrect for New York City

This is a very, very untrue statement. I grew up in New York and both the city and Long Island are pretty heavily segregated by race. Yes, there are areas where there is more integration but by and large blacks live in one area and whites live in another. Housing costs in the city have made it so that integration happens for a while in some neighborhoods but really only when that neighborhood is gentrifying. Post gentrification it ends up being pretty much just white or, if you're lucky, a mix of upper middle class people of varying ethnicity but still majority white.

I always kind of assumed there was a constant gentrification effect in cheap NYC neighborhoods because young people are price sensitive, no matter what their race or profession.

Ethnic neighborhood is cheap -> Young professionals start to move in -> Integration begins -> Businesses that cater to young professionals establish themselves in the neighborhood -> Landlords slowly but steadily increase rent -> New immigrants and children of existing ethnic tenants move to a different, less expensive neighborhood

They might be mixed better overall in specific areas, but there's some significant segregation... anecdotally you can look at Boston and see very clear cross-neighborhood divides.

Some mixed areas like the South End (50% white), but also the North End (90% white) and Roxbury (8% white). Roxbury and the North End are only 4 miles away from each other.

Not to mention the fact that the fact that Roxbury is only 8% white is primarily due to a huge wave of white flight to the metro Boston suburbs. This happened within our parents' lifetimes. In Boston one of the largest periods of white flight happened to coincide with forced school segregation (bussing).

The east coast may be liberal politically, but it's still also racist. You can see similar themes reoccurring with the rate of gentrification and the rise of charter schools in the city.

Nitpick: "White" is too coarse-grained for the North End; it's an ethnically mixed area near the end of gentrification, with SWPL elites displacing the native South Italians...

A bit shortsighted that you'd call Italians 'native' to the North End — even if we disregard Native Americans, The North End began with Irish immigrants (who managed to push out a small African community in a section called New Guinea).

The Irish were ultimately pushed out by a mix of Jewish and Italian immigrants (the Jews ultimately shifted to Roxbury and the Italians took hold and established the North End as 'Little Italy').

I don't think gentrification is any more over than it was 100 years ago. It simply cycles.

> absolutely incorrect for New York City.

I disagree. NYC is the same, just at lower resolution. The segregation happens along small blocks and avenues rather than towns. I live along the "tracks" on 4th Ave in Brooklyn. The difference is stark-- both in terms of demographics and steep drop-offs in property prices and rents.

Segregation is not good, but having it at low resolution at least allows some interaction across lines, which is positive. Such interaction is more unlikely when the segregation is at the town or village resolution.

You have a point -- I note that you did not argue that there is complete mixing in other cities, just that the examples chosen for the OP are particularly stark.

A larger assortment of maps is here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/721576248126749...

They generally show more mixing than the cities featured in the OP. (Cold comfort if you happen to live in Kansas City, Baltimore, St. Louis, or Chicago.)

I have lived in Kansas City and in St. Louis, and I agree that they are both more segregated than their peer cities in the, say, top 50 US cities. Certainly in Kansas City, the racial covenants highlighted in the article were very much in force when large land developers expanded the city into its suburbs.

It's worth remembering that the racial covenants in force at the time were very popular. Proposition 14 in California, which was specifically written to allow redlining to continue, passed with 65% of the vote in 1964 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(196...).

You kiddin'? NYC is a massively segregated city, essentially whole neighborhoods are defined by race.

>and is absolutely incorrect for New York City

NYC is 14 million people -- bigger than lots of whole countries. There are tens of states smaller than it.

Think instead of this trend in NYC as divided into boroughs and neighbourhoods. How many blacks with 5th avenue apartments overlooking the park?

why would this be incorrect for nyc?

isnt harlem, the bronx, spanish harlem parts of NYC?

i agree nyc is extremely fast in gentrification - but that doesnt make it mixed on the long run

I have relatives who have lived in Harlem and Bronx. I'd say that NYC and NJ aren't separated by race but by economic status.

from my exp in the us this is extremely close correlated

I don't know about NYC, but in terms of east coast, I've noticed my neighborhood in Philadelphia is incredibly racially diverse. I honestly can't say I see more of any one race than another here. I can only speak for one neighborhood, however.

Yes that is where my comment stems from: my personal experience. On my street alone I have black, Hispanic, Italian, Muslim, and Asian neighbors of approximately even distributions. In my school the mix was similar.