Im amazed to see how divided Cleveland is by race. Whites mostly on the westside, blacks mostly on the eastside.

 

Look at these neighborhood breakdowns.

 

Westside:

 

 

Eastside:

 

 

Child it's been like that since the 60s.  Most neighborhoods that are black on the eastside were perdominately white.

 

Cleveland historically is a very white city/metropolitan area.

Child it's been like that since the 60s.  Most neighborhoods that are black on the eastside were perdominately white.

 

Cleveland historically is a very white city/metropolitan area.

 

Almost all of the neighborhoods on the east side are black by a huge, unhealthy margin. There are some neighborhoods on the west side that have that unhealthy margin going the other direction but in general the west side is more diverse. But also mostly white. And todays Cleveland is mostly black, largely carried by the east side neighborhoods.

How old is this data? I don't live in Cleveland but visit often and some of this info is not reflective of what I see. Cudell, Broadway, and Collinwood do not appear to be as white as the numbers say. Possibly Detroit-Shoreway as well (not sure of the exact boundaries of that area).

How old is this data? I don't live in Cleveland but visit often and some of this info is not reflective of what I see. Cudell, Broadway, and Collinwood do not appear to be as white as the numbers say. Possibly Detroit-Shoreway as well (not sure of the exact boundaries of that area).

 

I would guess the 2000 census but im not sure.

Child it's been like that since the 60s.  Most neighborhoods that are black on the eastside were perdominately white.

 

Cleveland historically is a very white city/metropolitan area.

 

Almost all of the neighborhoods on the east side are black by a huge, unhealthy margin. There are some neighborhoods on the west side that have that unhealthy margin going the other direction but in general the west side is more diverse. But also mostly white. And todays Cleveland is mostly black, largely carried by the east side neighborhoods.

 

Yes but up until the '50/'60s blacks residents were in only a few neighborhoods.  Those listed below they were the majority.

 

My father grew up in Forest Hills, it was damn near all white when they were there.

 

• Central
  
• Woodland Hills Side (this was considered a upper middle class black neighborhod until the mid/late 80s')
  
• Fairfax
  
• Hough
  

There was a recent thread with charts, graphs and discussion on this very subject.

 

The unfortunate truth is that truly diverse neighborhoods are a rarity in America.

 

Countless essays and books have been written about the causes and effects of white flight.  It always reminds me of what Eddie Murphy sang in his SNL parody of Mr. Rogers, which I believe was called Mr Robinson's neighborhood - (to the tune of Mr Rogers theme music) "Its a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day for a neighbor...... I'd like to be your neighbor... someday.... Problem is when I move in, y'all move away"

You also a significantly larger population of hispanics on the west side.

You also a significantly larger population of hispanics Latinos on the west side.

 

^ These are from the west side of Cleveland and are just for you (and I can find many more too).

 

 

 

 

I love to crunch numbers, so here's some more.

 

Using the breakdown above (which doesn't include Downtown as an east side neighborhood) the totals for each side are:

 

 

 

Care to guess the neighborhood whose demographic breakdown most closely matches that of the rest of Cleveland? 

 

Answer

This neighborhood was 53.0% african-american, 44.1% white and 1.1% latino. Incidentally, numbers for Downtown also show a similar demographic breakdown to the city as a whole: 37.8% white, 55.4% black, 2.9% latino

 

Least diverse neighborhood: Forest Hills (98.0% African American).

Least diverse neighborhood (white): Kamms Corners (94.7% white).

Four west side neighborhoods have a percentage of hispanic population that is greater than the Asian population of Goodrich-Kirtland Park (25.8%), which incidentally has the highest population of non-whites and non-blacks, with 38.7%

 

 

I also want to write a movie called "The One Asian in Kinsman"

^my guess is someone filled in the wrong bubble.

 

Of course, these numbers are hopelessly outdated at this point.  I'd wait for 2010 numbers if I wanted to have this conversation.

 

^ These are from the west side of Cleveland and are just for you (and I can find many more too).

 

 

 

 

 

Those signs are not going to change how I feel.  It's Latin!

Interesting bit I will post below that may help clear up the Latino/Hispanic thing. It was interesting to note that according to this, "Latino" generally refers to regions once under Roman rule, while Hispanic....well, here is an excerpt.. "It is important to understand that the definition of Hispanic varies widely depending upon the source you use. Some say that “Hispanic” refers to race, but this is not true. Hispanic defines a region of origin, not a person’s race." Was Puerto Rico ever under Roman rule....Or are many of the citizens of decent from areas that were?

 

As for the diversity thing... If any given area is mostly one or two backgrounds ( I will refrain from using the wrong references) then in my opinion, it is not very diverse. If a given neighborhood is is mostly "black"/"African American" (by the way, I have a distant Caucasian cousin born in Africa and who now lives here and is seeking citizenship so I guess he can be considered "African American?") then again, this does not exude "diversity" Just my opinion. Anyway, here is the article. http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/businessetiquette/a/pc-hispanic.htm

^I just know that the New York Times always uses "Hispanic," and gosh darn it, don't they know everything?

^I just know that the New York Times always uses "Hispanic," and gosh darn it, don't they know everything?

 

I don't think anyone in the United States of America would consider a French person to be "Latino."  Latino for purposes of the US census must certainly mean individuals who identify their ethnic background as having roots in Latin America, not countries that once were under Roman rule.  That actually excuses Spain, which is a word that, as I understand it, IS included as a region of origin when using the term "Hispanic."  It also, I think in the U.S., excludes Brazil.  Of course, for the sake of brevity it seems ridiculous to me that one would be corrected for using one term over the other since both are widely used and accepted among the group of individuals that self-identify as such.  If I'm going to have to write or say "Hispanic/Latino" every darn time I want to refer to this ethnic group, just because someone doesn't like one or the other, then god help us all.

MTS-Your pictures crack me up. That Michelle Obama picture reminds me of the look my would give me when I used to run around the house as a kid.

 

Even as a half Panamanian person, that whole "Hispanic/Latinio" confuses the heck out of me. I usually just fill in the Black/African-American bubble to make things easier.

MTS-Your pictures crack me up. That Michelle Obama picture reminds me of the look my would give me when I used to run around the house as a kid.

 

Even as a half Panamanian person, that whole "Hispanic/Latinio" confuses the heck out of me. I usually just fill in the Black/African-American bubble to make things easier.

 

Estas Panamena? Por favor no me mates! Ya es bastante malo que tiene el bajo presupuesto de los trabajadores migrantes,  ahora tenemos a un hombre culo loco aqui!

 

More Latino's!  YEAH!    :clap: :clap: :clap:

MTS es el unico loco aqui.

MTS es el unico loco aqui.

 

I know what I am talking about.  Those Panamanians will hurt you.  I know, I'm related to a bunch.  They will put a hurtin' on you!  Colombians aint got nothin' on them!

^my guess is someone filled in the wrong bubble.

 

Of course, these numbers are hopelessly outdated at this point. I'd wait for 2010 numbers if I wanted to have this conversation.

 

Or in the mean time, look at the 5-year 2005-2009 ACS sample averages... knock yourself out everyone:

 

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?hp?hp

 

^ The NYT map is pretty neat.  I like the census tract-level break down.  Looking Cleveland on that map, it's amazing how integrated the west side is.

Interested to see the new census results:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/12/new_census_survey_reveals_how.html

^The immigrant populations in the eastern suburbs at the fringe of and just beyond the inner-ring is encouraging.  Mayfield Hts has had a heavy former-USSR influence for some time, but it appears that is spreading into places like Richmond Heights, which according to the article now contains one of the higher immigrant concentrations in the state at nearly 20%.

^my guess is someone filled in the wrong bubble.

 

Of course, these numbers are hopelessly outdated at this point. I'd wait for 2010 numbers if I wanted to have this conversation.

 

Or in the mean time, look at the 5-year 2005-2009 ACS sample averages... knock yourself out everyone:

 

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?hp?hp

 

 

Awesome find

Thanks, now I'll have to spend at least a whole day poking around that map!

And this is why diversity will continue to have its limits. 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/12/rta_enforcement_of_fare_evasio.html

I was shopping in Mayfield (or whatever area is out by 271 and mayfield rd.)  last winter and it felt like I was in New Jersey.  What I mean by that is that most people were speaking foreign languages in a few of the stores I went to.  I know that a lot of the ex- USSR immigrants are older jews that came in in the 70's 80's and 90's because of discrimination.  Because many of them were older when they got here they didn't have kids so in 15 or 20 years this population might not really exist there any more. 

^ yeah i think that ex-soviet jewish immigration dried up quite a while back. hopefully the city can rope in the next immigrant wave (or three).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15census.html?_r=2&hpw

 

^This is a really interesting article about how immigrants are settling in suburbs first, and bypassing the traditional urban ethnic ghetto.  You see this demonstrated in the two cities I am most familiar with, Los Angeles and Cincinnati, and it sounds like the same is happening in Cleveland.  LA's San Gabriel Valley has become the defacto hub of Chinese immigration to Southern California, while Vietnamese are settling in Orange County.  In Cincinnati, the largest Hispanic/latino concentrations are found in the northern suburbs of Fairfield and Hamilton, and to a lesser degree, some of the Northern Kentucky cities.  An interesting trend, that has possible implications for urban redevelopment.

shs96, how bout we leave that debate for the RTA thread.  Very loose connection, if any at all, here.

 

^ yeah i think that ex-soviet jewish immigration dried up quite a while back. hopefully the city can rope in the next immigrant wave (or three).

 

It's not Jewish immigration anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15census.html?_r=2&hpw

 

^This is a really interesting article about how immigrants are settling in suburbs first, and bypassing the traditional urban ethnic ghetto.

 

Cleveland is attracting a lot immigrants from Belarus, a former Soviet republic. In fact, it's second or third in the nation in this regard. But rather than settle in the city, most Belarusians are settling in the southwest suburbs like Strongsville, which is where the nation's second-largest Belarusian church and cultural center are located!

 

Bet ya didn't expect to learn that when you woke up today!