The real world is mostly made up of people whose skin is NOT pale. The whole world does NOT look like the inside of a suburban mall or a suburban childrens' sports field.

Teaching children by example that it's okay to run and hide from differences among people who look like you is not a good thing. It's sad.

Equipping kids with the skills to navigate a city, state, country, and world full of differences is the right thing to do.

Okay, I'll put the soapbox away now.

What's so sad about it? This has been validated via surveys. The book American Apartheid discusses this as part of a larger theme of racial segregation leading to economic and social exclusion.

Houston presents a similar picture to Atlanta, not emphasizing its African American heritage as much (it comprises a much smaller percentage) but the "growth for growth's sake" boosterism of the city seems distinctively Texan. Having lived in New Orleans in the past, though, I'm less convinced that they welcomed the Katrina evacuees with open arms; the entire city was significantly poorer as a result, and many of the stats by which Houston prided itself–high homeownership, better than average urban public schools, upward mobility of immigrants and newcomers–suffered because it took in a population that had never benefited from that culture: the entrenched, generational African American poverty of New Orleans. I think within a year, most Houstonians I were aware of only avoided saying "send them back to New Orleans" to avoid sounding racist, but few cities in the developing world would know how to handle such a generally educationally deprived population.

Spacialization of racial preferences seems to be what this blog post (and the ensuing comments) touches on most effectively. It's a hydra of a problem that plays out differently across the country. Some cities have been better at recognizing minorities on the same civic level as their white population, instead of cornering them into gerrymandered districts that become islands of sociopolitical hyperconcentration: the south side of Chicago and, perhaps, Prince George's County demonstrate this well. More effective have been Houston, Atlanta, and, I would argue, Indianapolis and Columbus–though all clearly show formidable room for improvement.

I agree with John that it is a bit unfair to say the Midwest never put a priority on education. I can scarcely think of an athletic conference that surpasses the Big Ten in terms of national and international reputations, with all public schools (sans Northwestern). These days even the Northeast kids are clamoring to get into Michigan and Indiana and Wisconsin, while Purdue has long been an established international destination. That the educational attainment levels of the Midwest fall behind the West or Northeast has more to say about the Midwest's ability to retain college graduates than anything, which has only become a policy priority of Midwest states/cities in recent years. From what I gather you've discussed brain drain at length with amazing insight.

I also agree that Atlanta seems to have plugged into something that completely escapes most other cities, in terms of its assimilation of the African American community into the cities broader civic culture. Suburban DeKalb County is majority African American, with median household incomes that surpass both the state and the nation. However, I'm not confident that the city doesn't remain highly segregated, with a black middle class on the outer southside where a white face can scarcely be seen. Also, recent demographic estimates predict that the city's demographics could shift it back to majority-white status within a handful of years; most of the influx of white professionals has taken place on the north side, in such widely known neighborhoods as Bucktown.

I agree that the tip points across the country are no doubt higher now than in 1970. They may be as high as 30% depending on the level of inequality.

In Cleveland, the East Side neighborhoods and one nice suburb (East Cleveland) flipped very quickly in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Several other eastern suburbs have been almost stably integrated for a few decades including Euclid, Cleveland Heights, and Shaker Heights.

Now I'm afraid there is white flight by attrition. The aging boomers aren't necessarily leaving, but not enough young couples planning to have children will buy a single family home in these cities. So the home prices drop until they are affordable for people coming out of Cleveland.

The result is that when we interview candidates, and they ask about lively, reasonably safe options for buying a home, we have fewer and fewer offerings. Now we have to find people who are talented, willing to shovel snow, and have a very high tipping points (50% ?). Its one more constraint we have to deal with in the global competition.

CH used to be a heavily African-American community, was decimated by the riots in 1968 and basically abandoned by the city for 30 years until a new Metro station opened in 1999. (Lesson One: Access to transit is a huge asset.) Between 1999 and 2007 the real estate boom in northern CH was astronomical, and it became the next up-and-coming housing market since Dupont Circle, Capitol Hill and Logan Circle had all become too expensive. The population mix shifted from majority-African-American to a 30-30-30 percent distribution of white, AA and Hispanic. Everyone, old-timers and newcomers alike, was terrified that gentrification would make it a majority-white neighborhood.

And then the recession hit. Housing development came to a screeching halt, housing prices stopped escalating, and the neighborhood is in some kind of economic and ethnic stasis that everyone really seems to love. We all hope it can be maintained.

Two problems: Property crime is rampant and the schools suck, so families that can afford to move usually do so in order to get their kids out of the 'hood and into a decent school. So the neighborhood is missing that crucial "middle" demographic stripe that can be the bridge between the old-timers and the newcomers. Right now the old-timers have no one to whom to pass on community values and responsibilities.

Additionally, the neighborhood immediately to the south (still CH) boasts the highest concentration in the city of project-based subsidized housing. That neighborhood is definitely NOT divided 30-30-30 along racial/ethnic lines; it's heavily minority. It has also become a place of concentrated gun violence, much of it drug-related. Many people see a strong correlation between the concentrated poverty and the crime and school problems, and because the face of that poverty is overwhelmingly black, they turn it into a racial issue.

So we're still a neighborhood that takes more resources from the city than we return, and I'm not sure how we're going to address that without taking on the race-poverty connection directly. And I don't see too many people willing to do that. Especially when we get all wrapped up in Marion Barry's ex-girlfriend drama (for those who have been following).

So — another data point for conversation. Thanks for raising this.

Chicago, which is in reality one of America's most segregated cities, has a tipping point value of 7%. That is, once the percentage of blacks in a neighborhood hits 7%, the percentage of whites will drop by more than 20% in short order. You can see that last finding here.

The good news is that other cities aren't nearly as bad as Chicago, and I think that attitudes are changing over time.

I lived in a South Evanston neighborhood that was very racially integrated, and stably so, for several years. It wasn't just black and white either, noticeable numbers of Latinos and Asians were around too. The examples of places like this show that it is possible.

Today in my Fountain Square neighborhood, I believe the population is majority white but about 15% African American. This has not caused any problems whatsoever in terms of tension that I can see.

If you think anything is true about Florida's thesis of amenities attracting entrepreneurs, then you have to pay attention to the dis-amenity created by anti-social behavior.

Yes, some college freshman and hipsters get a kick out going into the hood and seeing the wanna be pimps rolling just like in the videos, but sooner or later, it gets old. You want to be able to walk to the corner store without looking over your shoulder. If you have to drive everywhere for security, there is no point in living in the city.

In my neighborhood all the teenagers walk around with one hand on their waist because if they let go, their pants fall off.
In their other hand they hold their cell phone while they scream profanity at it.

Why on earth do I want to see this every day? I could move to the Twin Cities where these people are limited to one corner of town, and the rest of the MSA is a sea of friendly, smart yuppies.

Look at the migration numbers. Millions of people are revealing their preferences. Given the choice between urban areas with a lot of poor and urban areas with few poor people, they choose the later. How can my city offer that attractive product?

Growing up a white kid around a lot of poor blacks the most trouble I encountered were ethic white kids beating me up for being a "n****r lover" so I guess I see the problem as less coordinating, and more giving it a shot.

The last time I can recall a member of the "gentry" being killed at random in a marginal area in Chicago is a long long time ago, and having your car broken into is offset by the lower rent you pay.

That's what my father said after 20 years of living in the same area we suffered the monumental crime of someone breaking into the car and stealing a camera, my mother also had her bicycle stolen.

Furniture in our back yard was taken too.

Though that happened after the area started getting nicer, and prosperous non blight folks started leaving bars to fight one another and throw up on the street.

If they were black and playing "Work It" while having a cook out past nine at night they would've been _ghetto_ or _sketchy_ and my cousins would've been afraid of them.