U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-12-2013, 10:55 AM
 
1,232 posts, read 2,546,350 times
Reputation: 1490

Advertisements

In a small town lower classes interact and are visible as well as their wealthy charges. In a big city wealthy people do not have to see the poor in their enclaves if they do not want to, with the exception of their help of course. The topic of race has also been ignored in your post. In this country the top one percent is almost entirely white. What do wealthy white one percenters have in common with lower class blacks? Sometimes the upper classes make token gestures of philanthropy to the lower classes, but other than that these groups are not hanging out with each other at their homes having dinner and pool parties. Get real!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2013, 11:09 AM
 
2,145 posts, read 1,594,749 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by matzoman View Post
In a small town lower classes interact and are visible as well as their wealthy charges. In a big city wealthy people do not have to see the poor in their enclaves if they do not want to, with the exception of their help of course. The topic of race has also been ignored in your post. In this country the top one percent is almost entirely white. What do wealthy white one percenters have in common with lower class blacks? Sometimes the upper classes make token gestures of philanthropy to the lower classes, but other than that these groups are not hanging out with each other at their homes having dinner and pool parties. Get real!
When I was growing up in a small white town the few black people were members of the community just like anyone else, and were invited to dinner by all kinds of people. One of my best childhood friends was adopted from Columbia and I didn't even know he was of a different race until a fairly late age. My father who drove a forklift for 20 years and my mother who worked at mcdonalds to help put us kids through school lived 2 blocks down from a family of wealthy re-estate developers. They were good enough friends that they let us kids go over to play in their pool even though their kids were older and not really friends of ours. It was literally a post-racial utopia compared to the disgusting hell holes of our larger cities. Race is not the factor, only culture. We live in an age where inferior and destructive cultures, pathetic and offensive ones are accepted as being legitimate ways to live, even glamorized through the media in a twisted sense of 'inclusion' and 'cultural acceptance'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 11:13 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,730,517 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
Some of the nicest parts of Minneapolis are practically slums now where you could get far more for your money by rehabbing a grand stone mansion from the 19th century there and have the easiest access to downtown which exists, trees, parks, historic architecture and public buildings, you would be a fool to pay 10 times as much for your home in the rich neighborhood a mile out if not for the factor of your neighbors, who literally wander the streets in some kind of de-evolved stupor, yelling at each other like cave people, wallowing in their own filth and trash on the porches of the decayed brownstone mansions they call home.
OK - well, I don't have the advantage of having been in Minneapolis so I have no idea whether the nicest parts of Minneapolis are slums or not.

But I am travelled and I have lived in quite a few places and I take note of my surroundings I can say without a doubt that I've never seen the "nicest" parts of the towns and cities I've been in as anything like a slum.

If you mean there are some old buildings that could be rehabbed given millions of dollars. . . then sure, most every town has these. But it takes a special kind of person to take on a project like this, willing to sink unknown amounts of money (anyone who's ever rehabbed a building knows this), fight neighborhood associations, city bureaucracies and whatever else, all to have a "nice" house surrounded by squalor. BTW, these urban pioneers exist, but they're fewer and farther in between than people who have money and want to live in a nice place.

It's not just the lot, they most people want to live in a nice house on a nice block, in a on a nice street, in a nice neighborhood w/nice parks and nice schools, etc. Rich people have the means to do so. . .hence congregation.

I don't think there's any mystery here or you need to apply any fancy sociology. . .some things are self evident.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 11:21 AM
 
2,145 posts, read 1,594,749 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
OK - well, I don't have the advantage of having been in Minneapolis so I have no idea whether the nicest parts of Minneapolis are slums or not.

But I am travelled and I have lived in quite a few places and I take note of my surroundings I can say without a doubt that I've never seen the "nicest" parts of the towns and cities I've been in as anything like a slum.

If you mean there are some old buildings that could be rehabbed given millions of dollars. . . then sure, most every town has these. But it takes a special kind of person to take on a project like this, willing to sink unknown amounts of money (anyone who's ever rehabbed a building knows this), fight neighborhood associations, city bureaucracies and whatever else, all to have a "nice" house surrounded by squalor. BTW, these urban pioneers exist, but they're fewer and farther in between than people who have money and want to live in a nice place.

It's not just the lot, they most people want to live in a nice house on a nice block, in a on a nice street, in a nice neighborhood w/nice parks and nice schools, etc. Rich people have the means to do so. . .hence congregation.

I don't think there's any mystery here or you need to apply any fancy sociology. . .some things are self evident.
In minneapolis there is the cedar-riverside neighborhood which used to be a premiere residential center of the cities elite and middle class alike. It had direct access to the business district, still has parks and schools and public buildings, the river is close by, it was row after row of mansions with apartment buildings in between. It would be a perfect neighborhood, if not for the people living there, who are quite literally the scum of the earth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 11:30 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,730,517 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
In minneapolis there is the cedar-riverside neighborhood which used to be a premiere residential center of the cities elite and middle class alike. It had direct access to the business district, still has parks and schools and public buildings, the river is close by, it was row after row of mansions with apartment buildings in between. It would be a perfect neighborhood, if not for the people living there, who are quite literally the scum of the earth.
Ok, well, again not having been to Minneapolis, I don't take any issue with that.

I will say that I've seen plenty of mixed income neighborhoods in lots of different cities. And I've also seen formerly nice neighborhoods that had decayed in the middle part of the 20th century due to an amazingly backwards set of housing policies and have which rebounded or are in the process of rebounding in the late 20th century/early 21st.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 11:47 AM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,187,206 times
Reputation: 18058
I think if one beleives all moved from the country side to the large cities ebcause of choice we are fooling ourself. Most it was for econmic reasons. The rich have always had their estates to escape to. Now days what I see in peoples chocie to live is schools and the crime rate.They alos like people of comon interest just lookig at peopel who seek a more conservative or liberal area i social thinking in so many threads.Diversity is way over sold in what people seek:IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,494 posts, read 12,010,361 times
Reputation: 10581
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
They mixed more in the past because they shared a more common culture, the poor wore a suit and tie on their way to the meat packing plant, they went to church together every Sunday, they took pride in the furnishing and upkeep of their home or apartment, the bottom line is they were more civilized.
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Classes were residentially mixed, but not really socially mixed. In many cases the working classes were recent immigrants from Europe, and didn't even speak the same language as the bosses.

Or hell, let's look at the South. In the antebellum period, there was no residential segregation in the south. Free blacks lived completely interspersed with whites. But as the late 19th and early 20th century wore on, blacks started being clumped more and more in cities, until most southern cities had a definable "black side" and "white side." Southern blacks did not socially interact with whites more in the antebellum era than afterwards. It's just residential segregation increased over time, as neighborhoods in general became more monolithic. Arguably, as the legal rights of blacks increased, white fear and hostility also rose, which prompted racial segregation. Perhaps the same thing happened in the Gilded Age throughout the U.S., as bosses left mixed neighborhoods because they felt nervous living a few blocks from socialists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 11:57 AM
 
2,145 posts, read 1,594,749 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Classes were residentially mixed, but not really socially mixed. In many cases the working classes were recent immigrants from Europe, and didn't even speak the same language as the bosses.

Or hell, let's look at the South. In the antebellum period, there was no residential segregation in the south. Free blacks lived completely interspersed with whites. But as the late 19th and early 20th century wore on, blacks started being clumped more and more in cities, until most southern cities had a definable "black side" and "white side." Southern blacks did not socially interact with whites more in the antebellum era than afterwards. It's just residential segregation increased over time, as neighborhoods in general became more monolithic. Arguably, as the legal rights of blacks increased, white fear and hostility also rose, which prompted racial segregation. Perhaps the same thing happened in the Gilded Age throughout the U.S., as bosses left mixed neighborhoods because they felt nervous living a few blocks from socialists.
The bottom line is, they could stand to live next to each other, and now they cant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 12:05 PM
 
1,232 posts, read 2,546,350 times
Reputation: 1490
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
The bottom line is, they could stand to live next to each other, and now they cant.
And now you reach the topic of Social Politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 12:32 PM
 
2,099 posts, read 1,821,872 times
Reputation: 1372
As far as the mixing with others in small towns, well there is a problably an advantage to "everyone knowing everyone" in a small town--people have an idea if someone is from a "good family" irrespective of class in a small town, in a city or suburb folks know nothing of folks as indiviuals so they revert to stereotypes, because that is all they have--you are judging a lot of good poor people in the city and suburbs because of the "scary" poor people that you see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top