I found some really incredible maps of racial distribution in most of the major American cities.  Here are some of the more interesting maps, IMO, and all of Ohio's cities that were included.

 

Columbus: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4982028510/#in/set-72157624812674967/

 

Cleveland: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4982012306/#sizes/z/in/set-72157624812674967/

 

Cincinnati: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5010389993/#sizes/z/in/set-72157624812674967/

 

Toledo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5010995882/#sizes/z/in/set-72157624812674967/

 

St. Louis: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4988537059/#in/set-72157624812674967/

 

Chicago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4982044660/#in/set-72157624812674967/

 

Los Angeles: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4981441877/#in/set-72157624812674967/

 

New York: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4981444199/#in/set-72157624812674967/

 

 

 

 

I'm an idiot and can't figure out how to post the images, so just click on the links.

Whats' does the colors mean? nvm found it.

About as I expected for Cleveland.  Anything revelatory here?

I think these maps are totally interesting, especially how easily they let you compare metro areas to one another so easily.  You can see them all lined up side by side (including many others not on edale's list) here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/72157624812674967/detail/

 

I find the Detroit map totally amazing- that southern part of the City of Detroit/ Gross Point boarder is like a brick wall when looking at it on googlemaps.  Anyone have thoughts about that border specifically?  It's not like it's mansions right on the Gross Pointe side of that border.

The west side of Cincinnati still looks very white, although you can discern slightly some blue trailing up what I assume is Glenway Avenue.

 

What is striking about the Cincinnati map, particularly compared with Chicago, Columbus or Cleveland is that Cincinnati lacks a hyper-segregated zone that all these other cities clearly have.  The closest thing Cincinnati has to such a zone is the Walnut Hills/Avondale/Mt. Auburn cluster, but those neighborhoods are actually broken up by natural barriers.  I don't know the geography of Cleveland, but Columbus and Chicago are pretty flat.  It's quite striking.

This was posted on SkyscraperPage not too long ago and there are some fascinating maps (particularly Houston, Detroit, and Los Angeles).

 

For edale ;)

 

Red = White

Blue = Black

Orange = Latino

Green = Asian

 

 

Cincinnati

 

 

 

Cleveland

 

 

 

Columbus

 

 

 

Toledo

 

Not much green or orange.

I'm pretty sure he is using the 2000 census data and the dot equals 25 folks, which generally biases it toward white/black in most cities.

^ Exactly. This data is over 10 years old now. I envision these have changed quite a bit over the past 10 years.

Hopefully someone will do this with 2010 data next May or whenever the data will be released.  The comparisons should be pretty interesting.

 

  Even if you ignore the racial component, these maps are interesting from a density point of view. There is a very noticeable boundary line in Toledo, for example.

 

    These maps remind me of the nightime aerial photos were cities are defined by lights - but these maps show only residential population density. In effect, the Census measures where people go to bed, not where they spend the day.

There might be an uptick in racial diversity but probably not a significant increase.  Maybe in the 2020 census.

What is striking about the Cincinnati map, particularly compared with Chicago, Columbus or Cleveland is that Cincinnati lacks a hyper-segregated zone that all these other cities clearly have.  The closest thing Cincinnati has to such a zone is the Walnut Hills/Avondale/Mt. Auburn cluster, but those neighborhoods are actually broken up by natural barriers.  I don't know the geography of Cleveland, but Columbus and Chicago are pretty flat.  It's quite striking.

Agreed, it's really interesting to see, especially having heard remarks about Cincinnati being "one of the most segregated cities" in the country or some such. (No citations; it just seems to be something that comes up now and again.) I would believe that neighborhood-by-neighborhood the city does exhibit a lot of segregation, but it lacks the stark geographical segregation patterns of many (most?) other cities.

No Dayton map.

 

  Even if you ignore the racial component, these maps are interesting from a density point of view.

 

Agreed.  Cleveland's 'emerald necklace' and the Cuyahoga Valley really stand out when the population is seen in this format.  For those not familiar with the geography, that big gap right down the middle of Cleveland's map is the Cuyahoga River's valley.  The Cuyahoga dumps into Lake Erie on the western border of Downtown and winds down south towards Akron.  The valley is heavy industry in the City and then becomes what I believe is the only national park in the State, 50 sq miles of some of nature reservation.  The emerald necklace is a system of metroparks (also nature reservations) which surrounds the City, based around other rivers like Rocky River (on the west) and the Chagrin River (on the east).

 

  Even if you ignore the racial component, these maps are interesting from a density point of view. There is a very noticeable boundary line in Toledo, for example.

 

These maps remind me of the nightime aerial photos were cities are defined by lights - but these maps show only residential population density. In effect, the Census measures where people go to bed, not where they spend the day.

 

Exactly. It's amazing how arbitrary political boundaries; whether it be state, county, or municipal play such a huge role in population.

 

That line on the Toledo map is the Ohio/Michigan state line.

 

If you look at the Detroit map, you can clearly see that the blue and red follows the exact borders of the Detroit.

 

It truly is amazing that someone's often arbitrarily drawn straight lines on a map centuries ago still defines how people live today.

 

Even if you ignore the racial component, these maps are interesting from a density point of view. There is a very noticeable boundary line in Toledo, for example.

 

These maps remind me of the nightime aerial photos were cities are defined by lights - but these maps show only residential population density. In effect, the Census measures where people go to bed, not where they spend the day.

 

Exactly. It's amazing how arbitrary political boundaries; whether it be state, county, or municipal play such a huge role in population.

 

That line on the Toledo map is the Ohio/Michigan state line.

 

If you look at the Detroit map, you can clearly see that the blue and red follows the exact borders of the Detroit.

 

It truly is amazing that someone's often arbitrarily drawn straight lines on a map centuries ago still defines how people live today.

 

And some people called me nuts (either on here or C-D) when I pointed out, as an argument against regionalism, that these arbitrary lines prevent the spread of blight. :)

Whats suprising is how dense Lakewood is vs some of the other areas in Cleveland (and in other Ohio cities).

 

OSU and vicinity stands out for Columbus.

 

Even if you ignore the racial component, these maps are interesting from a density point of view. There is a very noticeable boundary line in Toledo, for example.

 

These maps remind me of the nightime aerial photos were cities are defined by lights - but these maps show only residential population density. In effect, the Census measures where people go to bed, not where they spend the day.

 

Exactly. It's amazing how arbitrary political boundaries; whether it be state, county, or municipal play such a huge role in population.

 

That line on the Toledo map is the Ohio/Michigan state line.

 

If you look at the Detroit map, you can clearly see that the blue and red follows the exact borders of the Detroit.

 

It truly is amazing that someone's often arbitrarily drawn straight lines on a map centuries ago still defines how people live today.

 

And some people called me nuts (either on here or C-D) when I pointed out, as an argument against regionalism, that these arbitrary lines prevent the spread of blight. :)

 

Man, I hope that blight comment is just some advanced form of sarcasm that I can't detect.

bumsquare, meet Clevelander17.

Is it just me or does Cincinnati look more "mixed" than Cleveland?

 

  It's not just you. To my eyes, Cincinnati looks the most "mixed" of the Ohio cities shown.

 

    Funny thing is that Cincinnati has a reputation for being racially segregated, moreso than other cities. I even knew a real estate instructor who had lived in both Cincinnati and Columbus who said that Cincinnati was more segregated than Columbus; the maps seems to show otherwise.

 

  It's not just you. To my eyes, Cincinnati looks the most "mixed" of the Ohio cities shown.

 

Funny thing is that Cincinnati has a reputation for being racially segregated, moreso than other cities. I even knew a real estate instructor who had lived in both Cincinnati and Columbus who said that Cincinnati was more segregated than Columbus; the maps seems to show otherwise.

Right.  Maybe there's more friction because there's greater "mixing"? At least that's what I think Robert Putnam came to conclude in his study of diversity and community "E Pluribus Unum".  Here's an article about it: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

 

I really don't know but I've always thought Cincinnati was less segregated than Columbus and more racially charged for whatever reason(s).

I'd say the West Side of the City of Cleveland looks to be the most diverse and mixed with white, black and Latino interspersed over a large area. All are fascinating maps though. I'm surprised to see how densely populated Columbus' Short North area is compared to Lakewood in Greater Cleveland. And the Kentucky-side neighborhoods from Covington east are also surprisingly dense to me, too.

I find the Detroit map totally amazing- that southern part of the City of Detroit/ Gross Point boarder is like a brick wall when looking at it on googlemaps.  Anyone have thoughts about that border specifically?  It's not like it's mansions right on the Gross Pointe side of that border.

 

well, technically, that's the east side of Detroit.  What you see there is Alter Road and just like 8 mile is more than a figurative boundary, Alter doesn't have a lot of through streets.  As you drive across that border the change is almost as stark as that map would imply.  It's quite amazing.

 

(and don't forget the e's on Grosse Pointe  :-P)

A flat map can make Cincinnati look more integrated than it is. The hills make neighborhoods more self-contained than they appear from the sky - the best example is where Clifton and Avondale touch. That map also shows a number of neighborhoods in transition that have likely completed their racial transformation. As to Cbus, I'd say that the NE section of the city is quite a bit more 'integrated' than when that data was created.

I've always heard that Cleveland and St. Louis were two of the most segregated cities in the country.  I think Cincinnati is known more for racial tension rather than racial segregation.

Outside of the near west side of Cleveland (including Lakewood) and the inner ring east side suburbs, Cleveland definitely is racially segregated.  But I would venture to guess that those two areas are as diverse as any in the State or the entire midwest, and they are sizeable areas.  And it is not just that those general areas can show diversity on a raw statistical breakdown, the individual neighborhoods and streets are very diverse.  I'd say my street in the east side inner ring is about 50% white, 40% black and 10% Asian, which would be pretty much representative of the overall neighborhood.  The Asian population is rather new, but booming (mostly Indian), so I expect to see a bit more green next time these maps are done

A flat map can make Cincinnati look more integrated than it is. The hills make neighborhoods more self-contained than they appear from the sky - the best example is where Clifton and Avondale touch. That map also shows a number of neighborhoods in transition that have likely completed their racial transformation. As to Cbus, I'd say that the NE section of the city is quite a bit more 'integrated' than when that data was created.

 

I was going to say something to that effect.  You can see the same thing in the Pittsburgh map.

A flat map can make Cincinnati look more integrated than it is. The hills make neighborhoods more self-contained than they appear from the sky - the best example is where Clifton and Avondale touch. That map also shows a number of neighborhoods in transition that have likely completed their racial transformation. As to Cbus, I'd say that the NE section of the city is quite a bit more 'integrated' than when that data was created.

 

Bingo on both parts.

 

I'd say the West Side of the City of Cleveland looks to be the most diverse and mixed with white, black and Latino interspersed over a large area. All are fascinating maps though. I'm surprised to see how densely populated Columbus' Short North area is compared to Lakewood in Greater Cleveland. And the Kentucky-side neighborhoods from Covington east are also surprisingly dense to me, too.

 

I believe the University District through the Short North is Ohio's densest population tract (there was on old Data map on erygs [sp?] that showed this back in 2005 but the site is now defunct) and that doesn't even include the temporary students at Ohio State!  Also, Covington, Newport, and Bellevue are ultra-dense structurally (townhomes, rowhomes, etc) so that makes sense their population density is relatively high for old ass suburbs.  Much like Lakewood and Cleveland Heights is high for Cleveland.

 

I think what IS interesting is that the hilltop neighborhoods in Cincinnati have a higher population density than the basin neighborhoods which typically have a higher structural density.

Is the scale the same on all of those maps?

Appear to be.  Remember, though, that Cleveland's MSA is half the size of the MSAs of Cincy and CBus in terms of square mileage.

I've always heard that Cleveland and St. Louis were two of the most segregated cities in the country.  I think Cincinnati is known more for racial tension rather than racial segregation.

 

Racial Segregation for Blacks or African Americans in Large Metropolitan Areas, 2000

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/pdf/ch5.pdf

 

Most segregated:

1. Milwaukee-Waukesha

2. Detroit

3. Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

4. St Louis

5. Newark

6. Cincinnati

7. Buffalo-Niagara Falls

8. New York

9. Chicago

10. Philadelphia

 

(22. Columbus)

 

Least segregated:

43. Orange County, CA

42. San Jose

41. Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News

40. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater

39. San Diego

 

Note: Includes 43 Metropolitan Areas with 3% or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980.

Residential Segregation for Hispanics or Latinos in Large Metropolitan Areas: 2000

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/tab6-4.html

 

Most segregated:

1. New York

2. Providence-Fall River-Warwick

3. Phoenix-Mesa

4. Los Angeles-Long Beach

5. (Tie) Chicago

5. (Tie) Newark

7. Denver

8. (Tie) Riverside-San Bernardino

8. (Tie) Houston

10. Dallas

 

(27. Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria)

 

Least segregated:

36. Baltimore

35. St. Louis

34. Ft. Lauderdale

33. Nassau-Suffolk, NY

32. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater

 

Note: Includes 36 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980.

---

Similar data for segregation of Asians/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans do not include any Ohio cities.

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/papertoc.html

Appear to be. Remember, though, that Cleveland's MSA is half the size of the MSAs of Cincy and CBus in terms of square mileage.

 

While true, one has to go by urbanized area (1,000 per sq mi) to get the true reflected number as many counties in Cincinnati and Columbus' MSA are mostly rural and only add a VERY minimal population amount to the MSA total versus core counties.  For example, Dearborn County, Indiana is in Cincinnati's MSA yet is mostly rural and has a puny population except for a very small portion bordering Hamilton County (core county).  Likewise, Pickaway, Fairfield, Union, and Madison Counties (which all border Franklin, the core county) are mostly rural.  Most of Metro Columbus lives in Franklin County and southern Delaware County.

 

I equate this to city square milage.  For example, New York City is 469 square miles while Indianapolis is 372 sq mi.  Yet, New York City's true square mileage (meaning land) is 305 but since water is included in the total, the population density is lower than it actually is.  Now imagine water = farms.  That's Columbus' MSA.  If Franklin County extended itself about 2ish miles more in any direction, than Columbus' MSA square milage would drop significantly (sans Delaware County). 

 

But even WITH urbanized stats, it STILL can be inaccurate.  For example, Charlotte (758,927) has an urbanized area near that of Dayton's (703,444).  Now even though I may be a Dayton booster and love the Fly City and all, I know damn well Charlotte is a significantly larger populated center than Dayton.  But because Charlotte sprawls more than Dayton and has areas that may contain 900 per sq mi, then it gets screwed.

 

So really, no matter what way you look at this, somebody's gettin' screwed!

I took water out of the equation when I broke down the densities in another thread.  I only counted land size.  It's hard to pin down, though, what is and what is not an urbanized area.  Tough questions arise like, does the Cuyahoga Valley count?  I did not elminate that or the metroparks, even though you can see from the map that those account for the major holes in Cleveland's MSA density.

 

But I get what you are saying.  Cleveland just does not have nearly as much farmland/rural areas in its MSA.  Geauga County and Medina County being the two biggest exceptions.  But if you drive 15 minutes from downtown Cleveland, you will either be in a nature reservation, industrial area, or highly populated residential neighborhood.  You won't hit farmland (in most directions) until you are about 30 minutes out, much more if you are traveling along the lake.  A big reason for that, I suppose is the lake being to the north precluding sprawl in that direction, whereas CBus and Cincy can grow in all directions.

 

Question: what is the deal with the area just east of downtown Cincy?  I was rather surprised to find it to be so rural, yet so close to downtown, when I went exploring last time down there.  I forget what road I was on (maybe 50), but it wasn't more than 5-10 minutes outside downtown that I started to hit what I would consider 'the country'.  Is there some reason that area is not desirable for more development? 

East...?  The only area that may be rural from perception east of downtown in such close range is Indian Hill (suburb about 10 miles east of downtown) but that's because it's an affluent area (much like a Gates Mills).  The area east along Rt. 50 is mostly watershed (Little Miami and Ohio River).  Maybe that's what you saw?  Perhaps Cincinnati's version of the Cuyahoga Valley?

 

Question: what is the deal with the area just east of downtown Cincy? I was rather surprised to find it to be so rural, yet so close to downtown, when I went exploring last time down there. I forget what road I was on (maybe 50), but it wasn't more than 5-10 minutes outside downtown that I started to hit what I would consider 'the country'. Is there some reason that area is not desirable for more development?  

 

You might be looking at the flood plain for the Little Miami River

^Yeah, and it actually floods pretty regularly, since there isn't quite as much flood control upriver on the Little Miami.  The whole plain is just a few feet above flood level.

That makes perfect sense.  It was raining and I nearly stalled my car driving through a pond that was forming on the road.  It was along the river somewhat. 

 

Question: what is the deal with the area just east of downtown Cincy? I was rather surprised to find it to be so rural, yet so close to downtown, when I went exploring last time down there. I forget what road I was on (maybe 50), but it wasn't more than 5-10 minutes outside downtown that I started to hit what I would consider 'the country'. Is there some reason that area is not desirable for more development?  

 

Driving along the river can be decieving in Cincinnati.  While driving east or west it kind of appears that there is not much around, sparse housing, etc.  However, if you venture up the hills, that is where most of the population and action is.  Driving east on Riverside Dr. you go past the newly constructed town homes and park, then pass through the old, kind of gritty East End, and eventually you hit Linwood, Columbia Tusculum, and the base of Mt. Lookout.  From Riverside, one would naturally wonder where the city is, however if up the hills from those areas are Mt. Adams, East Walnut Hills, Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, etc.  I would say a drive West would get you the rural feeling more quickly than East.

^Yeah, that's exactly why I was confused why he said "East."  West on Rt. 50 you get a more rural feeling quicker than going east.

It doesn't take much for me to get a rural feeling.  I'm a city boy, through and through :).  But, yeah, it was definitely east... although I am not sure it was on 50.  I just started driving around after a nice meal at Jeff Ruby's (or something with a name like that - Crosby, Stills and Nash were at the table right next to me).

Were you at Jeff Ruby's downtown or Jeff Ruby's restaurant called the Precinct which is located out east and went further east from there?

It doesn't take much for me to get a rural feeling. I'm a city boy, through and through :). But, yeah, it was definitely east... although I am not sure it was on 50. I just started driving around after a nice meal at Jeff Ruby's (or something with a name like that - Crosby, Stills and Nash were at the table right next to me).

 

As thomasbw said, you probably were at The Precinct, a Jeff Ruby restaurant off Rt. 50 and went further east and went into the watershed.  It'd be like taking E 49th St south of Newburgh Heights where you pass all that valley industry stuff.

The view of Cincinnati can be quite confusing if you don't know what's going on.  Terrain is obviously a big factor.  The river valleys and floodplains, industrial corridors, and unbuildable hillsides all cause abrupt changes in density and racial makeup.  It's encouraging to see that the city/suburb divide isn't also a big racial divide too.  The map of Detroit is frightening in that respect.  It also shows that while there are many predominantly white and predominantly black neighborhoods, they're all scattered around without any real pattern.  I'd say in the absence of true integration that's better than nothing. 

 

Aside from the variations in density from the aforementioned physical constraints, some other interesting patterns do show up, which you can sort of see in some aerial photographs too.  One thing that jumps out on the map, which is also very evident in aerials, is the very low density of the Grandin Road corridor in Hyde Park.  Amberly Village and Indian Hill are also noticeably less dense than surrounding suburbs.  It's also interesting to see how some of the densest suburban development moves due north from downtown rather than following the easterly bend of I-75 and I-71.  Part of that is due to a big hole in density caused by the huge industrial park between Fairfield and West Chester, but it's still intriguing to see how built-up Fairfield and Forest Park are. 

 

It is also interesting how you do get a very different feeling traveling along the river valleys.  As mentioned already, River Rd. to the west or Columbia Parkway/Riverside Drive/Kellogg Avenue to the east present a very rural feel.  Route 8 in Kentucky is even more like that.  Go west of Bromley and it's countryside, same with going east of Dayton.  You only notice something isn't right when you look across the river.  Of course, going up the hill in any of those locations takes you to much more sprawling locales.  The place I find it the most interesting (and abrupt) is how completely the city ends at Camargo Road in Madisonville.  As soon as you take that left off of Madison onto Camargo the city just vanishes.  Of course the sprawl of Madeira and Indian Hill is up at the top now, but it's rare to find such a well-defined boundary to the city like that anymore.  It used to be much more common.

^^it was definitely Jeff Ruby's downtown.  I was staying at the Cincinnatian downtown, met up with my group at Fountain Square and walked from there to the restaurant from there.  Great hotel, GREAT public square and great restaurant.  I had walked around downtown earlier so I had the valet grab my car and I just started driving east, quickly came into this rural area so turned left and headed back into civilization ;)  stumbled upon some neighborhood that reminded me of Coventry here in Cleveland while on the way back to Downtown

bumsquare, meet Clevelander17.

 

:roll:

 

We'll never make progress if we ignore reality.

Interesting, though I'm not surprised (of course) by the Columbus map. Northeast of Downtown, the Near East and Near South sides are all heavily black and then bam: you have Bexley/the opposite. Very easy to read even without any labeled streets. Also interesting is how underfunded the blue neighborhoods are when it comes to neighborhood org/revitalization funding: Linden got a measly $28,000 for revitalization efforts throughout the entire neighborhood (much larger than Columbus'/Cincinnati's/Cleveland's downtown); Victorian Village got $182,000 for a new Goodale Park entrance on the SE corner of the park. Just saying.