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)
 
Old 03-20-2013, 02:55 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,636,686 times
Reputation: 1035

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood View Post
But that doesn't sound like an urban/suburban divide so much as a class issue. You yourself said that "The more affluent someone is, the higher their chances of their kid becoming depressed."
Yeah I was thinking that as well, but it always comes full circle to suburban communities for some reason. One of the conclusions at the end of the study from Columbia states that

Quote:
"The comfortable environment of a middle or upper class home can lull some parents into thinking that their children are sheltered from certain risks," says Luthar. She adds, "Complacency can lead some parents not to pick up on signs of distress until something major happens."

One thing I've noticed from reading topics like this on this forum is that usually people state a combination of these things when talking about children and urban/suburban environments:

1) They would send their children to private school after the elementary level if they lived in an urban environment
2) They would leave the city when their child is of age to attend school in the suburbs
3) They would want their child to live in a safe environment(the suburbs)
4) They would want their child to be an active participant in a multicultural & diverse environment(the city) and not just a bystander looking inwards from the suburbs.

I guess those responses kind of echo back to how we stereotype those environments with suburbs being safe and quiet and cities as loud and dangerous. I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that maybe how we assume an environment is like effects how a parent raises a child to react to that environment. For example a parent raising their child in the city might become alert about their child if their child comes home one night from a high school dance flashing colors. The suburban parent probably wouldn't even be aware of it or what it could possibly signal because it's a completely different environment. One environment is statically more likely to be physically dangerous while the other is less likely so we assume all is well because our child comes home in one piece every afternoon. That's my own personal theory as to why substance abuse and depression seems to target middle class teens in the suburbs more so than other groups for the time being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Maybe you could provide some links.
I did earlier. Feel free to respond to my comments above if you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,886,745 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
Yeah I was thinking that as well, but it always comes full circle to suburban communities for some reason. One of the conclusions at the end of the study from Columbia states that
Quote:
"The comfortable environment of a middle or upper class home can lull some parents into thinking that their children are sheltered from certain risks," says Luthar. She adds, "Complacency can lead some parents not to pick up on signs of distress until something major happens."
But the urban/suburban divide is notoriously absent from your quote, and for good reason. There are plenty of middle and upper class city neighborhoods, and families wouldn't be willing to settle there if they didn't think they and their children could remain safe from the more violent, drug-infested areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
One thing I've noticed from reading topics like this on this forum is that usually people state a combination of these things when talking about children and urban/suburban environments:

1) They would send their children to private school after the elementary level if they lived in an urban environment
2) They would leave the city when their child is of age to attend school in the suburbs
3) They would want their child to live in a safe environment(the suburbs)
4) They would want their child to be an active participant in a multicultural & diverse environment(the city) and not just a bystander looking inwards from the suburbs.
But most city neighborhoods are racially and socioeconomically segregated. They may appear integrated on a broader basis, but when you look block by block, the differences become dramatic. There are plenty of well-to-do urban families, are, in fact, "bystanders look in." So you're really missing a category here. In a way, it's worse to live on a white, upper middle class block, send your kids to private school with white, upper middle class peers, shuttle them to white, upper middle class extracurricular activities, and exclusively socialize with your other white, upper middle class friends, basically putting on blinders with respect to everything else. You can "build a bubble" wherever you go, and unfortunately, most people who can, do. Sadly, the truly multicultural and diverse environments you speak of (ones that are diverse by choice and which offer a high quality of life) are relatively rare. I can think of one section of Philadelphia, Mt. Airy, that fits that description, and at that point, your surroundings are similar to a high-density suburb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
I guess those responses kind of echo back to how we stereotype those environments with suburbs being safe and quiet and cities as loud and dangerous. I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that maybe how we assume an environment is like effects how a parent raises a child to react to that environment. For example a parent raising their child in the city might become alert about their child if their child comes home one night from a high school dance flashing colors. The suburban parent probably wouldn't even be aware of it or what it could possibly signal because it's a completely different environment. One environment is statically more likely to be physically dangerous while the other is less likely so we assume all is well because our child comes home in one piece every afternoon. That's my own personal theory as to why substance abuse and depression seems to target middle class teens in the suburbs more so than other groups for the time being.
But since the study didn't bother to stratify for class, your supposition, though certainly theoretically possible, is just as plagued with confirmation bias as anyone else's. You're willing to brush off the fact that inner city kids are less likely to graduate high school due to their families' lower aggregate affluence, and yet, you assume that suburbanites of all walks of life are more more prone to stress/substance abuse than their comparatively situated inner-city peers.

Last edited by ElijahAstin; 03-20-2013 at 05:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 04:57 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,636,686 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood View Post
But the urban/suburban divide is notoriously absent from your quote, and for good reason. There are plenty of middle and upper class city neighborhoods, and families wouldn't be willing to settle there if they didn't think they and their children could remain safe from the more violent, drug-infested areas.


But most city neighborhoods are racially and socioeconomically segregated. They may appear integrated on a broader basis, but when you look block by block, the differences become dramatic. There are plenty of well-to-do urban families, are, in fact, "bystanders look in." So you're really missing a category here. In a way, it's worse to live on a white, upper middle class block, send your kids to private school with white, upper middle class peers, shuttle them to white, upper middle class extracurricular activities, and exclusively socialize with your other white, upper middle class friends, basically putting on blinders with respect to everything else. You can "build a bubble" wherever you go, and unfortunately, most people who can, do. Sadly, the truly multicultural and diverse environments you speak of (ones that are diverse by choice and which offer a high quality of life) are relatively rare. I can think of one section of Philadelphia, Mt. Airy, that fits that description, and at that point, your surroundings are similar to a high-density suburb.
Yes you're right. There are plenty of middle and upper class neighborhoods in urban settings and if you can often look at maps that segment city neighborhoods according to income and while the people living in them might make the same, the environments are a lot different. Someone is much more likely to break into your home living in Dupont Circle,DC than in one of the many suburban neighborhoods in Fairfax, Va.

And I agree that a bubble can be built anywhere, especially from engaging in activities that favor the privileged and that is something I was thinking as I was typing it, but I was going what I see being posted on this sub-forum whenever this topic comes up.

Quote:
But since the study didn't bother to stratify for class, your supposition, though certainly theoretically possible, is no less plagued with confirmation bias as anyone else's. You're willing to brush off the fact that inner city kids are less likely to graduate high school due to their families' lower aggregate affluence, and yet, you assume that suburbanites of all walks of life are more more prone to stress/substance abuse than their comparatively situated inner-city peers.
I didn't brush off the fact, instead I confirmed it earlier since that's well known fact. The discussion began to head towards how the environment influences children as I began posting in this topic with many people saying it does not matter when I'm arguing it does. Socioeconomics is the biggest factor when it comes how well a child does academically. However when it comes to depression and substance abuse, I'm always seeing it linked to suburbanism and I want to know what about suburbanism that could possibly cause that as it is a negative outcome and affects a childs quality of life. Unlike things related to affluence such as possessions or education, a parent can't just buy their child out of depression or substance abuse as they are much more intrinsically based.

And no I didn't assume that they are much better off. I gave a possible explanation as to why it's always being linked to teens in the suburbs and not teens in urban environments as well since I have no possible way testing my theory. I'm not going to assume all these researchers conducting these studies are pushing some sort of anti-suburban agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 05:04 PM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,886,745 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
Yes you're right. There are plenty of middle and upper class neighborhoods in urban settings and if you can often look at maps that segment city neighborhoods according to income and while the people living in them might make the same, the environments are a lot different. Someone is much more likely to break into your home living in Dupont Circle,DC than in one of the many suburban neighborhoods in Fairfax, Va.
"Much more likely" on paper translates to the difference between a tenth of a percent and a hundredth of a percent in everyday practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
I didn't brush off the fact, instead I confirmed it earlier since that's well known fact. The discussion began to head towards how the environment influences children as I began posting in this topic with many people saying it does not matter when I'm arguing it does. Socioeconomics is the biggest factor when it comes how well a child does academically. However when it comes to depression and substance abuse, I'm always seeing it linked to suburbanism and I want to know what about suburbanism that could possibly cause that as it is a negative outcome and affects a childs quality of life. Unlike things related to affluence such as possessions or education, a parent can't just buy their child out of depression or substance abuse as they are much more intrinsically based.
And that's why a study that separates by both geography and social class would be valuable. Otherwise, it doesn't really paint all that big a picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
And no I didn't assume that they are much better off. I gave a possible explanation as to why it's always being linked to teens in the suburbs and not teens in urban environments as well since I have no possible way testing my theory. I'm not going to assume all these researchers conducting these studies are pushing some sort of anti-suburban agenda.
Everyone has an agenda. But that's beside the point. I wasn't asking you to discount the studies entirely. I was saying that you can't make inferences regarding very small, specific parts that have not been accounted for with respect to a very large whole. Whoever conducted that study would probably tell you that him/herself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 05:25 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,636,686 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Everyone has an agenda. But that's beside the point. I wasn't asking you to discount the studies entirely. I was saying that you can't make inferences regarding very small, specific parts that have not been accounted for with respect to a very large whole. Whoever conducted that study would probably tell you that him/herself.
I understand the point you're making and if it was only one study or a couple I wouldn't, but I'm making that judgement based off of multiple ones I've seen over the past couple years along with a few that do cross country comparisons since I do find it interesting that the rates are much higher in first world countries when one would expect the opposite to be true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 05:36 PM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,886,745 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
I understand the point you're making and if it was only one study or a couple I wouldn't, but I'm making that judgement based off of multiple ones I've seen over the past couple years along with a few that do cross country comparisons since . . .
Unless those multiple other studies you saw stratified for social class, your supposition isn't any less unwarranted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
. . . I do find it interesting that the rates are much higher in first world countries when one would expect the opposite to be true.
And sad to say, but ignorance is often bliss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 06:12 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,636,686 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood View Post
Unless those multiple other studies you saw stratified for social class, your supposition isn't any less unwarranted.


And sad to say, but ignorance is often bliss.
1) Multiple studies have stratified for class and environment since those studies look at not only income,but also family lifestyles and the results are consistent: well off suburban youth are the ones most negatively impacted. I even linked to two studies earlier. That's where I am making my conclusions and drawing my assumptions from. What I have never come across is something that studies how the environment impacts them specifically, but given how it is always being tied to the suburbs, it is not outside the realm of reason to assume and speculate on environmental factors such as physical isolation that could play a role. I don't think we're the first ones to speculate on this issue and I think if youth from other environments were just as negatively impacted then there would be more research about them as well and not just suburban youth.

2) I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I definitely don't think that's something most people would infer through reasoning alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 06:25 PM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,886,745 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
1) Multiple studies have stratified for class and environment since those studies look at not only income,but also family lifestyles and the results are consistent: well off suburban youth are the ones most negatively impacted. I even linked to two studies earlier. That's where I am making my conclusions and drawing my assumptions from. What I have never come across is something that studies how the environment impacts them specifically, but given how it is always being tied to the suburbs, it is not outside the realm of reason to assume and speculate on environmental factors such as physical isolation that could play a role. I don't think we're the first ones to speculate on this issue and I think if youth from other environments were just as negatively impacted then there would be more research about them as well and not just suburban youth.

2) I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I definitely don't think that's something most people would infer through reasoning alone.
1) Please re-link those studies.

2) Self-awareness is a double-edged sword. The more educated/well-off/"enlightened" you are, the more likely you are to pick up on problems to obsess over (whether real or imagined). If you're living in a tin-roof hut surrounded by other people with tin-roof huts, and things from heat and running water to a college degree or house in the suburbs aren't going to be on your radar. Not such a radical concept. The happiest people in the world, IIRC, are a group of hunter-gatherers in Subsaharan Africa who subsisted on a highly nutritious and perpetually plentiful nut that preempted the need to develop agriculture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 07:01 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,649,686 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
1) Multiple studies have stratified for class and environment since those studies look at not only income,but also family lifestyles and the results are consistent: well off suburban youth are the ones most negatively impacted. I even linked to two studies earlier. That's where I am making my conclusions and drawing my assumptions from. What I have never come across is something that studies how the environment impacts them specifically, but given how it is always being tied to the suburbs, it is not outside the realm of reason to assume and speculate on environmental factors such as physical isolation that could play a role. I don't think we're the first ones to speculate on this issue and I think if youth from other environments were just as negatively impacted then there would be more research about them as well and not just suburban youth.

2) I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I definitely don't think that's something most people would infer through reasoning alone.
First of all, I want to thank Heaven Wood for saying so well what I've been trying to say about this study Octa posted. In Denver, too, there are some urban bubbles. THE Denver city high schools are East (Chauncy Billups' old HS) and South. The others, not so much.

Now, let me say I never heard "well off suburban youth are the ones most negatively impacted".

Here is what a study that I found says:

Mental health in the suburbs: an investigation of differences in the prevalence of depression across Canberra suburbs using data from the PATH Through Life Study - Springer

Less than 1% of variance in the distribution of depression was explained at the area level. While area-level socioeconomic measures were associated with depression; this effect was weak and largely explained by the inclusion of individual-level income. Further analysis did demonstrate a non-linear relationship between area-level socioeconomic measures and depression, with some evidence of an association between the most disadvantaged suburbs and greater prevalence of depression over and above the effect of individual characteristics.
Conclusion

We found little evidence of variance in depression at the area level but did find that the prevalence of depression was elevated in the most disadvantaged suburbs. Individual risk factors appear to have the strongest influence on depression.


So we're talking in places like Aurora, CO, not the more affluent burbs.

This sounds much more in line with other professional literature I have read. Suburban residents do score higher on almost all health measures, especially compared to inner-city residents. I have posted links on this previously. Please do a search if you're interested.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 07:08 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,636,686 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood View Post
1) Please re-link those studies.

2) Self-awareness is a double-edged sword. The more educated/well-off/"enlightened" you are, the more likely you are to pick up on problems to obsess over (whether real or imagined). If you're living in a tin-roof hut surrounded by other people with tin-roof huts, and things from heat and running water to a college degree or house in the suburbs aren't going to be on your radar. Not such a radical concept. The happiest people in the world, IIRC, are a group of hunter-gatherers in Subsaharan Africa who subsisted on a highly nutritious and perpetually plentiful nut that preempted the need to develop agriculture.
1) Here ya go:


Middle-class bingers: Young teenagers in affluent areas 'are more likely to abuse drink and drugs' | Mail Online

Professor Luthar Finds Suburban Teens Prone to Substance Abuse and Stress | TC Media Center

The researcher in the second article has done research about youth from inner cities and suburban environments as well both rich and poor.


2) Unless you've been told that specifically, I don't think it's as eye opening you want to believe. Even in the US, less well off people believe themselves to be more well off than they actually are and vice versa. I imagine in third world countries where a lot of the population struggles to meet their most basic needs, they don't have a lot of time to compare themselves to other people. The social structures are a bit different with those societies being more centered around family unity compared to western nations which are much more individualistic.

Last edited by Octa; 03-20-2013 at 07:29 PM..
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