Mapping the Gay Hood

Queersetti

Bastardo Suave
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Posts
37,288
Mapping The Gay Hood
by Doreen Brandt
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau

(Washington, D.C.)_How does your city rank in the gay hierarchy? It's no surprise that San Francisco is at the top of the list._ West Hollywood and New York City up there too. So is Provincetown._ Those are givens._ All are high profile gay meccas. But, what about the rest of the country.

That's what Urban Institute demographer Gary Gates and researcher Jason Ost set out to determine._ Mining data from the 2000 Census they've developed the first Gay and Lesbian Atlas.

The census did not ask specifically about sexuality, so it does not have information on the total gay community, but it did enquire about same-sex households, and that has provided Gates and Ost with a wealth of information.

"For years we've been saying that counting matters in debates about lesbian and gay issues. Now Gary Gates and Jason Ost have used the biggest and best dataset available on same-sex couples to show why in this remarkable book," says M. V. Lee Badgett, author of Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men._

"In addition to being incredibly useful for researchers, policymakers, businesspeople, and activists, The Gay and Lesbian Atlas has some fun surprises tucked inside its rankings that will challenge many stereotypes."_

Among those surprises:_ Vermont leads all states in the concentration of gay and lesbian couples. California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon rank second through fifth. Desert southwest states like New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona also appear in the top ten.

Among large metropolitan areas, San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle, Fort Lauderdale, and Austin rank highest in the concentration of same-sex couples. Smaller metropolitan areas of note include Portland, Maine; Asheville, North Carolina; Bloomington, Indiana; and Iowa City, Iowa.

The Cape Cod tourist destination of Provincetown claims the title of "gayest" town in America and also has the neighborhood with the country's highest concentration of same-sex couples. Neighborhoods in the California cities of San Francisco, Guerneville, and West Hollywood, along with areas in Fort Lauderdale, New York, Boston, and Houston, also rank among the top-ten neighborhoods.

While San Francisco; Fort Lauderdale; Santa Rosa, California; Seattle; and New York top the list of metropolitan areas in the concentration of gay male couples, the leading areas for lesbian couples are Santa Rosa; Santa Cruz, California; Santa Fe; San Francisco; and Oakland.

Gay and lesbian couples appear to be "urban pioneers," willing to live in and possibly transform distressed urban areas. They are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to live in racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods that have more college-educated residents, older housing stock, and both higher crime rates and higher property values.

Same-sex couples with children often live in states and large metropolitan areas not known for large gay and lesbian communities. Mississippi, South Dakota, Alaska, South Carolina, and Louisiana are where same-sex couples are most likely raising children.

The South dominates the rankings of states by the concentration of African-American same-sex couples among all households and among other gay and lesbian couples. Texas's metropolitan areas (with their large Hispanic communities) feature prominently in similar rankings by the concentration of Hispanic gay or lesbian couples.

For each of the 50 states The Gay and Lesbian Atlas presents a two-page spread with colorful maps and charts showing the geographic distribution of same-sex couples and highlighting their demographic characteristics, including age, race and ethnicity, and the proportion raising children._

Twenty-five cities are also profiled with similar maps and charts-the 20 cities with the highest number of same-sex couples along with five cities chosen for geographic diversity or to acknowledge a particularly high concentration of gay and lesbian couples (Orlando; New Orleans; Nashville; Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri; and Albuquerque).

Published by the Urban Institute Press it will be available to the public on May 3.
 
Queersetti said:
So is Provincetown._

The Cape Cod tourist destination of Provincetown claims the title of "gayest" town in America and also has the neighborhood with the country's highest concentration of same-sex couples.
Yeah P-town! I've never actually been there, but with living on the Cape my whole life (of course till I went to college), I hear a lot about it. They definitely have the best theater life up there. They have their film festival, and they're almost always opening a brand new play (like one that has never been done before). If it wasn't so far away from where I live on the Cape, I would go there for the theater life. The fact that it's a "gay town" almost comes second when I think about it. Maybe it's because it is just a given.
 
Gay neigborhoods? What's next, gay volcanoes? "Oh, isn't this fault line just darling! Oh and look! I'm oozing lava...isn't that FABULOUS?" :rolleyes:
 
Stuponfucious said:
Gay neigborhoods? What's next, gay volcanoes? "Oh, isn't this fault line just darling! Oh and look! I'm oozing lava...isn't that FABULOUS?" :rolleyes:

There is nothing new about "gay neighborhoods", there have been such neighborhoods for many years, Greenwich Village in NYC, the Castro in San Francisco, Boystown in Chicago, etc. What's new is the recognition of such areas in so many other areas of the country.
 
Re: Re: Mapping the Gay Hood

College_geek said:
Yeah P-town! I've never actually been there, but with living on the Cape my whole life (of course till I went to college), I hear a lot about it. They definitely have the best theater life up there. They have their film festival, and they're almost always opening a brand new play (like one that has never been done before). If it wasn't so far away from where I live on the Cape, I would go there for the theater life. The fact that it's a "gay town" almost comes second when I think about it. Maybe it's because it is just a given.

I never knew about the theater life up there. We should take a bus up over the summer to see one, besides P-town is fun to visit. ^_^ it's quite pretty.

-Zergplex
 
Queersetti said:
There is nothing new about "gay neighborhoods", there have been such neighborhoods for many years, Greenwich Village in NYC, the Castro in San Francisco, Boystown in Chicago, etc. What's new is the recognition of such areas in so many other areas of the country.

That's what I'm talking about. Talk of "gay neighborhoods" is ridiculous. Why should they be singled out as any better than other areas? Do they even have "gay" tourist attractions, with the extra revenue going to local "gay" businesses?

By the way, I'm pretty sure most people recognize all of San Fransisco as "gay," or rather it has a high homosexual population.
 
Stuponfucious said:
That's what I'm talking about. Talk of "gay neighborhoods" is ridiculous. Why should they be singled out as any better than other areas? Do they even have "gay" tourist attractions, with the extra revenue going to local "gay" businesses?

By the way, I'm pretty sure most people recognize all of San Fransisco as "gay," or rather it has a high homosexual population.

When a particular city or neighborhood acquires a reputation for being gay friendly, it's only reasonable that more gays will move there. For those who are openly gay, living in such a place can certainly be preferable to living somewhere that is not as welcoming.

Treat yourself to a Saturday night in the Castro or Boystown some time and you'll see the answer to your question about tourism. Gay tourists do, in fact, flock to those locations and spend a lot of money at businesses that specifically cater to a gay clientele.

And while you are correct that most people think of San Francisco as a gay mecca generally, nonetheless, within the city, particular neighborhoods have a much higher concentration of gays than others.
 
Queersetti said:
When a particular city or neighborhood acquires a reputation for being gay friendly, it's only reasonable that more gays will move there. For those who are openly gay, living in such a place can certainly be preferable to living somewhere that is not as welcoming.

If a certain neighborhood advertised as being 'straight-friendly' there'd be a backlash faster than you can say 'acceptable double-standard.'

Queersetti said:
Treat yourself to a Saturday night in the Castro or Boystown some time...

I already have, although not those specific areas, but various "gay" neighborhoods around the country. I did not enjoy it once the word got around that I was "one of them" and I doubt I'll try it again. We won't have true equality or anything close to it until discrimination against anyone, whether or not they are a minority, is no longer tolerated.
 
Stuponfucious said:
If a certain neighborhood advertised as being 'straight-friendly' there'd be a backlash faster than you can say 'acceptable double-standard.'



I already have, although not those specific areas, but various "gay" neighborhoods around the country. I did not enjoy it once the word got around that I was "one of them" and I doubt I'll try it again. We won't have true equality or anything close to it until discrimination against anyone, whether or not they are a minority, is no longer tolerated.



Are you saying that you think it is discriminatory for gays to want to live in neighborhoods where they feel welcomed?
 
Queersetti said:
Are you saying that you think it is discriminatory for gays to want to live in neighborhoods where they feel welcomed?

It is if it is unacceptable for anyone else to do the same and/or if these "gay" neighborhoods/cities make others feel UNwelcome.
 
Stuponfucious said:
It is if it is unacceptable for anyone else to do the same and/or if these "gay" neighborhoods/cities make others feel UNwelcome.


So is it your contention that there is a moral equivalence between a minority group seeking out the comfort of it's own kind and a majority group excluding the minority?
 
Queersetti said:
So is it your contention that there is a moral equivalence between a minority group seeking out the comfort of it's own kind and a majority group excluding the minority?

You twist my words (again). IMO there is nothing wrong with anyone seeking out thier own kind, but I do take issue with anyone exluding anyone else based merely on race, gender, sexual preference or any other personal attribute.

Thus I believe there is a moral equivalence between a majority group exluding anyone and a minority group exlcuding anyone.

Many people believe (or are pressured in our politically correct times to say they believe) that some deserve certain benefits because they are statistically fewer (a minority) while others do not deserve them. And by the same token they also believe that these minority groups, having been so horribly oppressed by the Fascist, white, 'heteronormative,' Christian masses, they deserve to discriminate with impunity.

I, on the other hand, believe in true equality. No one should be mistreated (or given special treatment for that matter) based solely on thier race, gender, etc. whetehr or not that attribute happens to put them in the statistical minority or majority.
 
Stuponfucious said:
You twist my words (again). IMO there is nothing wrong with anyone seeking out thier own kind, but I do take issue with anyone exluding anyone else based merely on race, gender, sexual preference or any other personal attribute.

Thus I believe there is a moral equivalence between a majority group exluding anyone and a minority group exlcuding anyone.

Many people believe (or are pressured in our politically correct times to say they believe) that some deserve certain benefits because they are statistically fewer (a minority) while others do not deserve them. And by the same token they also believe that these minority groups, having been so horribly oppressed by the Fascist, white, 'heteronormative,' Christian masses, they deserve to discriminate with impunity.

I, on the other hand, believe in true equality. No one should be mistreated (or given special treatment for that matter) based solely on thier race, gender, etc. whetehr or not that attribute happens to put them in the statistical minority or majority.


Can you present any evidence of a community in the United States which has excluded heterosexuals from residence?

I'll link you to Google, if that will make your search easier.

http://www.google.com
 
Washington DC's gay neighborhood is Dupont Circle. It's sort of moving east, though, more toward Thomas and Logan Circles. Even the new HRC building is to the east of Dupont. What's been happening is that Dupont has long been considered a very hip area, and so there are more and more straight hipsters moving in, and the gay community is moving east.
 
Queersetti said:
Can you present any evidence of a community in the United States which has excluded heterosexuals from residence?

I'll link you to Google, if that will make your search easier.

http://www.google.com

Who said anything about excluding homosexuals from residence? You commented on gay tourism and I responded by saying I was not welcome in the establishments I patronized. Neither of us said anything about residences.
 
Stuponfucious said:
Who said anything about excluding homosexuals from residence? You commented on gay tourism and I responded by saying I was not welcome in the establishments I patronized. Neither of us said anything about residences.

I was working under the assumption that neighborhoods contain "neighbors". But, of course, I don't know what it's like where you live.
 
Queersetti said:
I was working under the assumption that neighborhoods contain "neighbors". But, of course, I don't know what it's like where you live.

I was working under the assumption that "tourism" involves the exchange of currency for goods/services and has little to do with neighbors, but I don't know how the economy works where you live.
 
I did not get the impression from the article, nor from my friends' experiences, that "gay neighbourhoods" accommodated any sort of exclusion at all. I have a few friends-all straight- who live in The Village quite happily. Of course this is just anecdotal evidence, so I don't know if any heteros have generally encountered negative feelings in those areas.

If a neighbourhood was promoted as being "straight-friendly" there would be a backlash, but I think the backlash would be coming from the POV that this place was formed due to negative feelings toward homosexauals. Take, for instance, that town in the US who wanted to pass some kind of law that would make homosexuality a criminal offence in their town. They wanted to keep their neighbourhood "straight-friendly". To the best of my knowledge, many homosexuals prefer to live in gay-friendly areas to avoid homophobia. This distinction highlights the different dynamics of how majority and minority groups often operate, regardless of anyone's vision of "true equality".
 
Back
Top