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.
Regarding Europe, the suburbs and inner cities, and obesity...
Most of my remarks about Europe are tongue-in-check references to people who believe that the suburbs are the cause of obesity.
In some ways, it is actually apples to oranges. Why? Demographics. Most European cities (at least ones west of the Iron Curtain) follow the historical trend of the wealth/upper class/elite living in the central city and the poor living on the fringes. (Of course, many wealth Europeans may live in a "railroad suburb" instead of the city, or they own both a place in the city and a country home, usually visiting the latter on weekends and vacations. Their country home might actually be a vacation home.)
The reason why many inner city school districts are so poor is because the city is short on tax revenue... particularly because the neighborhoods the middle and upper class moved out to wasn't annexed by the city.
I covered that issue in an earlier post.
If it wasn't for white flight/low tax advantage of the suburbs, then the "wealth in the center with the poor on the fringes" would apply to most American cities.
An interesting side note....
The trend for the wealthy (or "important people") in Europe living the cities instead of the country began during the Renaissance, when cities were growing and the Church was expanding. Church officials were a part of these people living in the cities, and their wealth was becoming more visible to the average observer. This combination of opulence clashed with the Church's spiritual mandates, angering many people. This would help sow the seeds of discontent that would lead to the Protestant Reformation.
/tangent
That combined with rigorous investment into mass transit, thus allowing less sprawling development (not that they have none).
Canada is still sprawling by European standards, and desolate by Asian Megacity standards. It's about as sprawly as the Northeast United States.
(Sizable city cores, relatively-well developed transit systems in major cities, corridor level intercity rail. At the same time, most post-WWII development is still low density sprawl and large freeways.) Vancouver is a bit of an exception to this, as it's like a combination of Seattle and The Bay Area in terms of development and some political attitudes.
The fact that suburban sprawl occurred in Canada without "white flight" helps the argument that people moved to suburbia for economic, rather than racial reasons.
The reason why European cities didn't sprawl to such a large degree was that the major cities had to be rebuilt before new developement could be built. This would have been complete by the mid/late fifties and early sixties. If it wasn't for the 1970s oil crisis, then it's likely that western Europe would have moved towards a more auto-dependent sprawl matter.
Some people would cite environmental concerns in Europe, but as we've seen in America, environmental concerns during the 60s and 70s didn't stop suburban sprawl.
At least that's what I see...
The fact that suburban sprawl occurred in Canada without "white flight" helps the argument that people moved to suburbia for economic, rather than racial reasons.
Racial and economic reasons were not separable issues. Under FHA regulations, non-white neighborhoods were the highest credit risk, white neighborhoods the lowest (a policy called redlining.) Thus, having nonwhites move into a neighborhood meant the neighborhood immediately became harder to sell and property values dropped--racism was effectively built into the system that judged property values. In response, racial exclusion covenants were used to keep property values high as well as to keep neighborhoods white.
Other government policies and subsidies also had racial as well as economic effects: in addition to FHA loans, VA loans were generally only available to whites. The number of black veterans was comparatively small after World War II, and like FHA loans, VA loans could only be used in new growth areas--most of which had racial covenants, and thus were not open to nonwhites. I'd agree that economics was probably a bigger factor than racism in driving white flight, but the economics were driven directly by racist policies, and resulted in pronounced racial divisions between the new suburbs and the older city centers.
Racial and economic reasons were not separable issues. Under FHA regulations, non-white neighborhoods were the highest credit risk, white neighborhoods the lowest (a policy called redlining.) Thus, having nonwhites move into a neighborhood meant the neighborhood immediately became harder to sell and property values dropped--racism was effectively built into the system that judged property values. In response, racial exclusion covenants were used to keep property values high as well as to keep neighborhoods white.
Other government policies and subsidies also had racial as well as economic effects: in addition to FHA loans, VA loans were generally only available to whites. The number of black veterans was comparatively small after World War II, and like FHA loans, VA loans could only be used in new growth areas--most of which had racial covenants, and thus were not open to nonwhites. I'd agree that economics was probably a bigger factor than racism in driving white flight, but the economics were driven directly by racist policies, and resulted in pronounced racial divisions between the new suburbs and the older city centers.
I'm glad to hear that the towns of Appalachia and the Midwest, lacking any African-American population, didn't have residents flee to the suburbs. Oh wait. They did.
I'm glad to hear that the towns of Appalachia and the Midwest, lacking any African-American population, didn't have residents flee to the suburbs. Oh wait. They did.
Umm. The cities of the Midwest have large African-American populations. See Cleveland, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh (not as much; 27%).
Umm. The cities of the Midwest have large African-American populations. See Cleveland, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh (not as much; 27%).
Notice the word towns. That would refer to cities with populations around 15,000 to 50,000. These towns, as I've pointed out before, have African-American populations of less than 10%, many less than 5%. The population of the towns have shrunk by half or more. Retail establishments have abandoned these towns and migrated to the suburbs. The surrounding townships have seen population increases. That means that people and businesses left the core towns for the surrounding suburbs. And it wasn't white flight. Nor did it have anything to do with redlining, the FHA or the VA. See Butler, Warren, Bradford, Oil City, Meadville, Greenville, Toronto, Somerset, Waynesburg, Weirton, Wheeling, Clarksburg, Gallapolis, Marietta, Fairmont...
Racial and economic reasons were not separable issues. Under FHA regulations, non-white neighborhoods were the highest credit risk, white neighborhoods the lowest (a policy called redlining.) Thus, having nonwhites move into a neighborhood meant the neighborhood immediately became harder to sell and property values dropped--racism was effectively built into the system that judged property values. In response, racial exclusion covenants were used to keep property values high as well as to keep neighborhoods white.
Other government policies and subsidies also had racial as well as economic effects: in addition to FHA loans, VA loans were generally only available to whites. The number of black veterans was comparatively small after World War II, and like FHA loans, VA loans could only be used in new growth areas--most of which had racial covenants, and thus were not open to nonwhites. I'd agree that economics was probably a bigger factor than racism in driving white flight, but the economics were driven directly by racist policies, and resulted in pronounced racial divisions between the new suburbs and the older city centers.
Please provide some links to verify the bold. According to this wikipedia article:
However, recent research has indicated that the HOLC did not redline in its own lending activities, and that the racist language reflected the bias of the private sector and experts hired to conduct the appraisals.[12]
The reason why many inner city school districts are so poor is because the city is short on tax revenue... particularly because the neighborhoods the middle and upper class moved out to wasn't annexed by the city. I covered that issue in an earlier post.
If it wasn't for white flight/low tax advantage of the suburbs, then the "wealth in the center with the poor on the fringes" would apply to most American cities.
Well, that is not the correct assessment in many states. Many states, Colorado among them (and I think CA too) have school equalization laws to attempt to reduce the disparity between "rich" and "poor" school districts.
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.
