The Most Integrated Cities of Detroit

[Retroit]

I composed this list a while ago and came across it today. I thought it might be of interest to some of you. Perhaps there is one out on the internet somewhere that we can compare it to to see how far off I am. It uses data from the 2000 US Census.

I've measured integration based on how much each cities population is reflective of the metro Detroit's population. I've only considered blacks and whites. Hispanics are a "gray area" with the Census, and since they are not a large percentage in Detroit, they were not included. Nor were those of mixed race, nor the many other ethnic groups. This may have skewed the results of some cities a bit.

The formula calculated the combined variation of each race's representation from their metro area representations of 68.7% white & 25.1% black. Metro area is defined as the tri-county region.

[P.S. This list also doesn't take into account that there may be segregation within a city.]

I was hoping to include more data, but my frustration got the best of me so I will just list the cities. Also, I had to break the list into 2 posts due to length. The list is from most integrated to most segregated [[I'm speaking of voluntary segregation, of course).

Romulus
Mount Clements
New Haven Village
Lenox Twp
Hamtramck
Auborn Hills
Van Buren Twp
Sumpter Twp
Wayne
Harper Woods
Ecorse
Taylor
River Rouge
Farmington Hills
Redford
Belleville
Westland
West Bloomfield
Canton Twp
Melvindale
Franklin Village
Bloomfield Twp
Troy
Bingham Farms
Northville Twp
Farmington
Clinton Twp
Brownstown Twp
Oak Park
Eastpointe
Romeo
Orchard Lake Village
Novi
Ferndale
Rochester Hills
Southfield Twp
Lake Angelus
Dearborn
Wixom
Leonard Village
Warren
Plymouth Twp
Grosse Pointe Park
Madison Heights
Waterford
Beverly Hills
Cesterfield Twp

[Retroit]

Lake Twp
Center Line
Dearborn Heights
Bloomfield Hills
Rochester
Roseville
Woodhaven
Sterling Heights
Hazel Park
Lincoln Park
Harrison Twp
Southgate
Riverview
Holly Twp
Oakland Charter Twp
Lathrup Village
Royal Oak
Bruce Twp
Utica
Flat Rock
Orion Twp
Pontiac
Sylvan Lake
Grosse Pointe Shores
Grosse Pointe Twp
Keego Harbor
Shelby Twp
Livonia
Huron Charter Twp
Garden City
Walled Lake
Allen Park
Birmingham
Springfield Twp
Macomb Twp
Rockwood
Clawson
Addison Twp
Fraser
Berkley
Grosse Ile
Pleasant Ridge
Richmond Twp
White Lake
Grosse Pointe Woods
Northville [[Oakland)
Rose Twp
Richmond
Novi Twp
Plymouth
Wyandotte
St. Clair Shores
Grosse Pointe City
Huntington Woods
Gibraltar
Commerce Twp
New Baltimore
Northville [[Wayne)
Oxford Charter Twp
Oxford Village
South Lyon
Grosse Pointe Farms
Washington Twp
Trenton
Clarkston
Lyon Twp
Milford Twp
Brandon Twp
Wolverine Lake
Milford Village
Lake Orion
Armada
Memphis [[Macomb)
Ray Twp
Armada Twp
Ortonville
Southfield
Inkster
Royal Oak Charter Twp
Detroit
Highland Park

[lilpup]

What was your formula?

[Retroit]

What was your formula?

I was hoping you wouldn't ask because I don't know how I am going to post the numeric formula in a deciferable way, so I'll try to decribe it.

I took the difference between each city's percentage of each race and the metro's percentage of each race and divided that by the metro's percentage of each race. Then I took both of those factors [[one for each race) and added them together.

I'm not sure how statistically accurate that is, but the results seem about right. If anyone else has another formula or would like me to "manipulate" the data in any other way, I'm willing to try.

[Johnnny5]

Something is not quite right with your list. Last time I checked Milford Twp was about 97-98% white, yet if ranks on your list as less segregated than Detroit and Southfield?

[Retroit]

Something is not quite right with your list. Last time I checked Milford Twp was about 97-98% white, yet if ranks on your list as less segregated than Detroit and Southfield?

But remember, each city is measured against the metro, and the metro is not 50% white / 50% black, but rather 69% white / 25% black. So while Milford seems heavily weighted white, Detroit & Southfield are much more heavily weighted black.

In other words, the ideal percentage for each city would be 69% white / 25% black [[assuming integration is desired), and Milford is more representative of that than Detroit or Southfield.

[EastsideAl]

It looks like your formula really overweights majority black cities as "segregated." I notice that the bottom 5 places in your list are all majority black, but certainly both Detroit and Southfield contain significant white minority populations. They would seem to be much more "integrated" in any rational sense of the term than many of the almost entirely white-populated communities further up your list. What you're measuring sounds more like the deviation from a rather arbitrarily defined "norm," rather than actual integration in any real sense.

[6nois]

This is bunk. The first reason is although people do choose were they live, choices are dictated by a variety of things, and I doubt that most of those times the dominating factor is race. Factors include price, can one afford to live in said community, I think looking at economic indicators may show you more about the region than race, the region is extremely divided on the basis of income. Another factor is commute time where do you work in relation to where do you live. Lifestyle do you fit in socially with your neighbors, do you have similar beliefs and do you practice similar actions. Amenities access to city services, as well as establishments that you frequent. These are all huge factors. As well as power, will you be full represented in the city you live in.

Really when it comes down to it as others were saying the key is looking at smaller land areas, neighborhoods to see integration. A city may be statistically correct but that really doesn't mean anything. Also I am not sure achieving total statistical balance is the key to improving race relations or providing any sort of change in terms of race issues in the Detroit Metro region.

[Retroit]

^ If what you said is true, I think Detroit would be more integrated than it is. But let me discuss each of your points:

1. That the region is extremely divided in terms of income. I don't think that is the case. Yes, we have ultra-wealthy areas [[Grosse Pointe Shores, Bloomfield Hills) and ultra-poverty areas [[inner-city Detroit), but I think as a whole, the region could be described as middle class. Same could be said for housing prices. Yet, it is more likely that a black person would buy a $120,000 home in a black area [[or close to a black area) than a $120,000 home in a white area. The same could be said for a white person.

2. Commute time. There are a lot of black Detroiters that work in the [[white) suburbs due the lack of jobs in Detroit, yet they don't live there. Likewise, most of the white people that work Downtown do not live near their place of work.

3. Lifestyles, fitting in, beliefs and actions, establishments frequented. This may actually prove my point, more than disprove it, i.e. these factors are more uniform within a race than inter-racially.

4. Amenities, city services, power, representation. I can't think of any that wouldn't be equally desirable to both blacks and whites no matter where they live. So the only reason black people would choose to live in a city that lacks those, like Detroit, would be because they chose not to have them, which I don't think is true.

5. Neighborhood as opposed to whole city. I totally agree. But this is not possible to do with the Census data and a couple hours of spare time. Since most cities, especially the smaller ones are fairly well integrated, I thought a simple disclaimer would save me an inordinate amount of time canvasing every street of metro Detroit.

6. Statistical balance. But isn't integration a matter of statistical balance though?

7. Total statistical balance. Of course, I don't think we should start forcibly relocating people till every street is 69% white and 25% black, but I think it is a noble goal to work toward accepting diversity and even seeking diversity.

So, I am not sure if we are more in agreement or disagreement, or if I am just "bunk" for bringing up the subject, but I do think you brought up some interesting points.

[lilpup]

Retroit, I think you should take a look at Olivier Zunz's book The Changing Face of Inequality: Urbanization, Industrial Development, and Immigrants in Detroit, 1880-1920.

One of the things Zunz discusses is what holds communities together and what happens when those commonalities break down. Zunz's work shows that historically the final thing that separates people in the Detroit area is socio-economic status.

In the past immigrant neighborhoods were unified by their cultural, and particularly language, differences from others. The neighborhoods held all income and status levels - menial worker to esteemed professional. However, once the cultural differences between neighborhoods faded the separator became socio-economic status as those with money moved away, historically north out of the city. This is what we are seeing now in the black community - those with financial standing are separating themselves from those without. The factor of skin color is becoming less relevant than financial and quality of life issues.

[detmsp]

the flaw with your model is that it uses the metro as a whole as the optimal point [[ie, 100% integration). With your model, you can't have a city that is more integrated than the metro area is as a whole, and that is ridiculous.

[lilpup]

the flaw with your model is that it uses the metro as a whole as the optimal point [[ie, 100% integration). With your model, you can't have a city that is more integrated than the metro area is as a whole, and that is ridiculous.

Not entirely, because when one city is "more integrated" another is "less integrated" and that's exactly what he is measuring. It's not unsound to assume a uniform distribution of all peoples across the metro area as an indicator of color blindness.

[Retroit]

Thanks lilpup, that book sounds interesting. I'm downloading my "free sample" from Google Books as we speak. I was motivated to make my "Most Integrated Cities" list while reading the book "Detroit, Race and Uneven development" by Dearden, Hill, Thomas and Thomas. But the book you recommended will give me some insight into a period I haven't delved much.

And thank you for understanding what I was try to measure with my list!

...and thank you to others that disagree, as well!

[detmsp]

Not entirely, because when one city is "more integrated" another is "less integrated" and that's exactly what he is measuring. It's not unsound to assume a uniform distribution of all peoples across the metro area as an indicator of color blindness.

well that works IF metro detroit is a vacuum, with no people moving in and out. I mean think about this.... let's say the metro area was 90% white and 10% black. A city that was 92% white and 8% black would be considered more integrated than a city that was split 70/30. ridiculous!

[Retroit]

well that works IF metro detroit is a vacuum, with no people moving in and out. I mean think about this.... let's say the metro area was 90% white and 10% black. A city that was 92% white and 8% black would be considered more integrated than a city that was split 70/30. ridiculous!

But you are assuming that the entire human population is split 50% white / 50% black and that it would be possible for every sub-grouping to be 50% white / 50% black. If the world's population was 90% white and 10% black, it would be impossible for the world to fully integrate [[to your standard).

[EastsideAl]

But it's not really a measure of "color blindness." Unless you truly believe that Dearborn, say, is more "color blind" than Southfield. And there's nothing in the actual history of either community that would likely convince anyone of that.

All it is a rather blunt measure of deviation from the overall racial composition of the three counties. This is pretty meaningless as a measure of racial integration though, since, as has been pointed out by others, a city that is over 90% white shows as more "integrated" under this measure than a city that is 40%/55% white/black, which is clearly nonsensical.

[Retroit]

Let me use an illustration to try and explain this better:

If you were going to create an Integrated Street of 100 homes, you would get 69 white families, 25 black families, and 6 "other". If you instead got 47 white, 47 black, and 6 "other", you would in fact be creating an imbalance on the other streets in that area because they have too few blacks and too many whites with which to try and achieve integration [[by your standard).

[detmsp]

Let me use an illustration to try and explain this better:

If you were going to create an Integrated Street of 100 homes, you would get 69 white families, 25 black families, and 6 "other". If you instead got 47 white, 47 black, and 6 "other", you would in fact be creating an imbalance on the other streets in that area because they have too few blacks and too many whites with which to try and achieve integration [[by your standard).

you are ignoring the world outside the detroit area. If metro detroit were 90% white, it would be a poorly integrated area as a whole. But according to your logic, any city that is as poorly integrated as the metro as a whole would be considered well integrated, and any city that showed racial diversity more akin to the rest of the country would be poorly integrated.

[EastsideAl]

Another thing that's been pretty much ignored in this entire discussion is the long history of mortgage policy, real estate practices, and housing discrimination which, along with historic migration patterns and economic/occupational disparities, have been the true determinator of racial population patterns in the Detroit area, and pretty much every other city in the country. The legacies of these factors are finally breaking down, but they form the basis of most of what's happened to form the racial population patterns that we still see today. To treat these things as merely a legacy of choice is to ignore most of American racial history.

[Retroit]

Another thing that's been pretty much ignored in this entire discussion is the long history of mortgage policy, real estate practices, and housing discrimination which, along with historic migration patterns and economic/occupational disparities, have been the true determinator of racial population patterns in the Detroit area, and pretty much every other city in the country. The legacies of these factors are finally breaking down, but they form the basis of most of what's happened to form the racial population patterns that we still see today. To treat these things as merely a legacy of choice is to ignore most of American racial history.

I didn't mean to imply that my list will explain the entire racial history of metro Detroit. It is just a "snap-shot measure" of current [[2000) data. I fully realize that we are living at just one instant in a time-line that stretches from the "forced" segregation of the 1950's to the "voluntary" full integration of the 2050's [[or pick your own future year).

[HazenPingree]

I think that for measuring how each city compares to the metro, your work is spot on. However, to measure "integration," there must be something else that could be done.

Intuition would tell me that the most "integrated" cities in Metro-Detroit are Hamtramck and Dearborn, but this is not reflected in the list. To find this, perhaps one could look for cities where no one ethnic group is a majority. I am just pulling numbers out of thin air here, but perhaps Hamtramck is roughly:

25% Middle Eastern
25% White
25% Black
25% Other, including West Asian

[Retroit]

andylinn, I completely agree, and I struggled with this when I made the list. I finally decided that since the other "non-white-non-black" ethnic groups were such a small part of the overall population, and since areas such as Hamtramck and Dearborn are exceptions to the rule, and since I don't think that either whites or blacks are as "uncomfortable" with non-whites-non-blacks as they are with each other, I took the easy way out.

However, since you asked, I went back and put in an "other" column in my chart to take account of the non-white-non-black variance, but this actually drops Hamtramck further down the list because they have such a large "other" population that that overweighs them. Hamtamck is 24% other, but metro Detroit is only 6% other. So while it is true that Hamtramck is more diverse, if we desired to have each city within metro Detroit to have an equally diverse population, we would have to import approximately 1.36 million "others".

If anyone is interested in which cities have the highest non-white-non-black populations [[of more than 5%, to limit the length), here is a list from highest to lowest

Hamtramck
Lake Angelus
Troy
Pontiac
Dearborn
Farmington
Canton Twp
Auborn Hills
Novi
West Bloomfield
Farmington Hills
Lake Twp
Rochester Hills
Madison Heights
Bloomfield Twp
Sterling Heights
Bloomfield Hills
Inkster
Melvindale
Ecorse
Brownstown Twp
Oak Park
Wixom
Southfield
Hazel Park
Northville Twp
Dearborn Heights
Detroit
New Haven Village
Warren
Westland
Royal Oak Charter Twp
Grosse Pointe Shores
Grosse Pointe Twp
River Rouge
Rochester
Van Buren Twp
Utica
Keego Harbor
Novi Twp
Franklin Village
Taylor
Ferndale