Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anyone thought that every single person living in that zip code made exactly $31,000 a year. There's a difference between analyzing data and splitting hairs, which is what you're doing. The Gulfton (or whatever it's called) is what it is. No matter how hard you try, you can't change what the statistics prove. I could say Englewood is one of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago, BUT ONE PERSON MAKES $100,000 A YEAR SO OBVIOUSLY IT'S A DESIRABLE AREA!!!!
Dude, my point is the statistics don't really say crap other then 31k is the medium household income and the average household has 2.8 people. That does not tell me how many of those people are single making that much, how many have kids, how many are multiple college students living in a 2 or 3 bedroom or anything that can tell me the real demographic and "plight" of the area. The statistics you are giving is not detailed enough to "prove" anything aside from what they immediately show.
and the media infrastructure to propagandize America with scenes of New York=Manhattan) Its pretty safe to say that brooklyn has a bigger presence in pop culture today than houston.Whats the last movie set in houston-Apollo 13?
Actually, the last MAJOR movie set in Houston was Friday Night Lights..... even though in real life, the '88 5A State Championship Game took place at DKR Memorial Stadium in Austin (why'd they do that?).
There's no question that Brooklyn on its own has a HUGE presence in pop culture. But Houston's no sleeper.... (Geto Boys, Beyonce, Slim Thug, Reliant Stadium, the Astrodome, two Super Bowls, two Wrestlemanias, the "Clutch City" Rockets of the mid 90's, "Phi Slamma Jamma", Enron, Apalo 13, Arlington Road, Reba, Jason's Lyric, Reality Bites, Armageddon, RoboCop 2, and.... sadly, home to George Bush Sr.)
Actually, the last MAJOR movie set in Houston was Friday Night Lights..... even though in real life, the '88 5A State Championship Game took place at DKR Memorial Stadium in Austin (why'd they do that?).
There's no question that Brooklyn on its own has a HUGE presence in pop culture. But Houston's no sleeper.... (Geto Boys, Beyonce, Slim Thug, Reliant Stadium, the Astrodome, two Super Bowls, two Wrestlemanias, the "Clutch City" Rockets of the mid 90's, "Phi Slamma Jamma", Enron, Apalo 13, Arlington Road, Reba, Jason's Lyric, Reality Bites, Armageddon, RoboCop 2, and.... sadly, home to George Bush Sr.)
George the first (well he wasn't technically the 1st) wasn't all that bad. George the 2nd, the Connecticut Yankee, on the other hand...
Dude, my point is the statistics don't really say crap other then 31k is the medium household income and the average household has 2.8 people. That does not tell me how many of those people are single making that much, how many have kids, how many are multiple college students living in a 2 or 3 bedroom or anything that can tell me the real demographic and "plight" of the area. The statistics you are giving is not detailed enough to "prove" anything aside from what they immediately show.
The statistics are incredibly detailed. You just cant accept them
stop going on about this. My earlier years of undergrad I lived marvelously on half that amount.
Rent an bills were 450 TOTAL!!!!!!!!
It was an apartment in a nice area and I didn't have roommates. That left 400 bucks A WEEK for clothes, food and fun. That is more than most people have now.
so don't give me that nonsense. 31K amounts to 2.5 a month. which would leave 2k after rent.
You know darn well that apartment living is much cheaper than home living. In an apartment area in Houston 31k a year is not poor. If you made 10K more than that you would be moving on to a new area.
Interestingly this dynamic was also true at one time in cities that are more mature and unfortunately more expensive today. America is very pioneering and in many ways areas like this exhibit that spirit (meaning Houston as one example as the whole) and that with time the disparity between the wealthy and not wealthy become more evident. But this is also part of the excitment of America the growth and exceleration that is our country moving ahead. And in 50 or 80 years there will be another Houston or Atlanta or Dallas of today, just as there were the Bostons and Phillys and then Chicagos and Detroits and LAs and etc. We have a pretty cool country though not without ills but on the whole an exciting place...
Interestingly this dynamic was also true at one time in cities that are more mature and unfortunately more expensive today. America is very pioneering and in many ways areas like this exhibit that spirit (meaning Houston as one example as the whole) and that with time the disparity between the wealthy and not wealthy become more evident. But this is also part of the excitment of America the growth and exceleration that is our country moving ahead. And in 50 or 80 years there will be another Houston or Atlanta or Dallas of today, just as there were the Bostons and Phillys and then Chicagos and Detroits and LAs and etc. We have a pretty cool country though not without ills but on the whole an exciting place...
omg you are finally catching on to what I have been pounding into your head these last 4 months.
Philadelphia was the original US city, then some upstarts came along ranging from NY to Charleston to Providence. Some made it big some slowed down.
New York became King and had competition from Boston , New Orleans and Baltimore. Some made it big, some slowed down. New York Held on.
New York Saw new Challengers in Cincinnati, Brooklyn and St Louis. One was swallowed, the rest made it and then slowed down. New York held on.
100 years in, and The US saw the rise of some of its most promising cities. Chicago, San Fransisco and Cleveland, Joined the race. New York Held on.
At the start of the last century a new type of growth started. Transit was greatly improved and city limits got bigger than ever before. New York consolidated into the boroughs, Pittsburgh annexed Allegheny and was propelled into the top ten, the automobile industry began picking up, Detroit started to Boom, LA began to rise. New York Held on.
By the mid century mark the future of US cities had changed dramatically. Air Conditioning made the south much more attractive, and the automobile made accessible all the available land. The suburban culture was born and cities like LA, Houston, and Phoenix started booming, while the Northeast (Starting with Philly) started declining. New York stumbled, but held on.
By end of the last century most of the top ten biggest cities were in the sunbelt, with NY, Philly and Chicago holding down the fort.
Recently there has been a switch from suburban to a more urban style of living. who knows how the next major upstarts will develop and where they will develop.
Things change, but they all follow cycles.
Like I always say, the only thing you can count on is NY being number one.
Philadelphia was the original US city, then some upstarts came along ranging from NY to Charleston to Providence. Some made it big some slowed down.
New York became King and had competition from Boston , New Orleans and Baltimore. Some made it big, some slowed down. New York Held on.
New York Saw new Challengers in Cincinnati, Brooklyn and St Louis. One was swallowed, the rest made it and then slowed down. New York held on.
100 years in, and The US saw the rise of some of its most promising cities. Chicago, San Fransisco and Cleveland, Joined the race. New York Held on.
At the start of the last century a new type of growth started. Transit was greatly improved and city limits got bigger than ever before. New York consolidated into the boroughs, Pittsburgh annexed Allegheny and was propelled into the top ten, the automobile industry began picking up, Detroit started to Boom, LA began to rise. New York Held on.
By the mid century mark the future of US cities had changed dramatically. Air Conditioning made the south much more attractive, and the automobile made accessible all the available land. The suburban culture was born and cities like LA, Houston, and Phoenix started booming, while the Northeast (Starting with Philly) started declining. New York stumbled, but held on.
By end of the last century most of the top ten biggest cities were in the sunbelt, with NY, Philly and Chicago holding down the fort.
Recently there has been a switch from suburban to a more urban style of living. who knows how the next major upstarts will develop and where they will develop.
Things change, but they all follow cycles.
Like I always say, the only thing you can count on is NY being number one.
Re: the first paragraph
Technically, Albany (1652) and New York City-New Amsterdam (1653) became cities 30 years before Philadelphia was even founded. In 1690 NYC had a population of 6,000 while ten years later in 1700 Philadelphia still only had 2,500.
But in the 1700s Philadelphia not only passed in population the other colonial cities but became the SECOND LARGEST CITY IN THE ENTIRE BRITISH EMPIRE!!! That means that colonial Philadelphia must have been larger than older cities in England and Scotland like Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, etc. Only London was larger than Philadelphia.
What special advantage did Philadelphia have in the 1700s to grow so fast?
Technically, Albany (1652) and New York City-New Amsterdam (1653) became cities 30 years before Philadelphia was even founded. In 1690 NYC had a population of 6,000 while ten years later in 1700 Philadelphia still only had 2,500.
But in the 1700s Philadelphia not only passed in population the other colonial cities but became the SECOND LARGEST CITY IN THE ENTIRE BRITISH EMPIRE!!! That means that colonial Philadelphia must have been larger than older cities in England and Scotland like Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, etc. Only London was larger than Philadelphia.
What special advantage did Philadelphia have in the 1700s to grow so fast?
a couple of things, one religious tolerance, some key leadership and ready access to a safe shipping port and fertile lands for crops to the west.
Technically, Albany (1652) and New York City-New Amsterdam (1653) became cities 30 years before Philadelphia was even founded. In 1690 NYC had a population of 6,000 while ten years later in 1700 Philadelphia still only had 2,500.
if you look throughout the post I never once mentioned what dates any of the cities were founded. We are talking about rises in US cities here. Philadelphia was the original US city. The others were not on Philly's level at the time.
Quote:
But in the 1700s Philadelphia not only passed in population the other colonial cities but became the SECOND LARGEST CITY IN THE ENTIRE BRITISH EMPIRE!!! That means that colonial Philadelphia must have been larger than older cities in England and Scotland like Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, etc. Only London was larger than Philadelphia.
What special advantage did Philadelphia have in the 1700s to grow so fast?
Again, I am not talking about Colonial times. I am only familiar with 1750 Americas and later.
I am familiar with Caribbean Colonial history, however, and many colonies outgrew their European counterparts. Mainly it was quick wealth. Why live in poverty in frigid European cities when you can live like a king in the warmth of the Caribbean.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
