Hmm, wow, pretty sure I accurately figured out our specific household dot which seemed to be colored appropriately...
At Fallows's place, he says
Among the interesting things about this approach ... is that each dot represents an individual household -- not a real, identifiable one but a "synthesized" but representative one derived from the data.
Neat, but that's just chance; ut they're working from a model (check the "errors" and "the data" part), not using 100% accurate data.
I don't know if it's due to their color choices or what, but it does seem that there are greater discontinuities in density than I'd expect in some places I know. The black background view gives a neat flying-at-night effect. And makes rural poverty obvious.
3.1: Darn. I was intrigued to learn that there's apparently a household of one 65+ white person with a $250k+ income living on the grounds of the National Zoo.
...The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.[3]
---
I checked my own neighborhood, which is younger, poorer, and more "ethnic" than most of what surrounds it. Basically a bunch of well-maintained starter homes & some rentals with a rapid (as in a decade or two) turnover. Imagine a blue-collar couple of color with three kids aged 5-10.
My impression that my (immediate) neighborhood is one of the very few well-integrated ones is borne out. I would never have picked out Swissvale as an integrated place.
It's interesting, and not that intuitive, where the clusters of larger families are.
Is there a weird gap between $75k and $125k, or does that shade of green just not show up much? My map looks to be all umbers and blues.
If your neighborhood is in the city between the tributary rivers, then that's the impression I've had about it, too. Any idea why that happened there and almost nowhere else?
I'm also seeing that weird gap. I think it's the coloring scheme.
Wow. DC sure is rich. And the pockets of lower income are surprisingly constant since my childhood there.
9: I really don't know how it happened - nor to what extent it will persist, although I think that there are signs that the new arrivals are more diverse and more pro-diversity than the legacy types, which bodes well.
In my particular area, I think that some of it came about because the combo of fabulous houses and sketchy adjacent neighborhoods led to a longterm, semi-stable condition of first stage gentrification - it was desirable to UMC types like my family, but a bit too scary* for a big sweep of incumbent residents (not that it was ever segregated, or at least not since the olden days - AFAIK, this area has been racially mixed for 40 or 50 years, to varying extents). Alas, I think that gentrification is finally winning, and there's very little left of the cheap housing that ensured diversity (not just racial - it was a very SES mixed area when we moved in, but a lot of the apartments that used to house working people now have been remodeled to attract students).
*as some of you may recall, we had a drug dealer next door for a number of years, and for awhile heroin dealing in our park was pretty flagrant. That's greatly declined (and the dealer's gone), but there was gunfire at our kids' bus stop last week (40 minutes before their bus arrived, thank god. We never knew until the crossing guard told us this morning).
Thank you for responding. We're looking to buy a house, and I like your area a lot but it's too far north for our tastes. Otherwise (well, and the lack of a full-size grocery store), I like it a lot there. I didn't know about the dealing--I love that park.
It never occurred to me that gentrification could be held in place for decades. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Pittsburgh's decline and relative rise in fortune, especially with the massive population decrease.