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, 07:30 PM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,877,128 times
Reputation: 4687

Advertisements

Neither of these studies support your point.

The second study compares the suburban rich and inner city poor so that doesn't prove your point at all.

The first study seems to be even worse; they're comparing large, aggregately poor cities to small, posh suburbs. It mentions poverty and ethnicity separate from the urban/suburban divide.

There has to be some study out there that answers our question. I have access to JSTOR so I'll look tomorrow.

Last edited by ElijahAstin; 03-20-2013 at 08:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2013, 08:22 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,635,306 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood View Post
Neither of these studies support your point.

The second study compares the suburban rich and inner city poor so that doesn't prove your point at all.

The first study seems to be even worse; they're comparing large, aggregately poor cities to small, posh suburbs. It mentions poverty and ethnicity separate from the urban/suburban divide.
The first study looks at both rural and suburban youth and explains why their habits differ from inner city youth. The second study is one in a long line of studies that examines youth according to their environment and affluence and is consistent with what has been posted so far. This is another one that looks at it again and examines the environmental and social factors that cause substance abuse and depression to be more prevalent:

http://www.tarleton.edu/Faculty/swor...l%20Wealth.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 08:35 PM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,877,128 times
Reputation: 4687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
The first study looks at both rural and suburban youth and explains why their habits differ from inner city youth. The second study is one in a long line of studies that examines youth according to their environment and affluence and is consistent with what has been posted so far. This is another one that looks at it again and examines the environmental and social factors that cause substance abuse and depression to be more prevalent:

http://www.tarleton.edu/Faculty/swor...l%20Wealth.pdf
The first study explains environment and affluence separately. It doesn't quantify them together, so again, supposition on your part.

The second study pits the extremes against the extremes, so again, separating each element and assuming some kind of correlation is completely unfounded.

I'll look at the other study in a bit, but based on everything else you've posted so far, I'm not awaiting it with bated breath.

Edit: alas, no handy dandy R sq. tables to make my life easier. I'll read it over in the morning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 09:11 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,635,306 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood View Post
The first study explains environment and affluence separately. It doesn't quantify them together, so again, supposition on your part.

The second study pits the extremes against the extremes, so again, separating each element and assuming some kind of correlation is completely unfounded.

I'll look at the other study in a bit, but based on everything else you've posted so far, I'm not awaiting it with bated breath.

Edit: alas, no handy dandy R sq. tables to make my life easier. I'll read it over in the morning.
The first study ties culture into the environment.

The second story compares low income households starting from 27k to middle class ones beginning with 80k from the Northeast and upwards according to his samples. Not exactly an extreme and less so when you take into consideration the cost of living in that part of the US.

And look at community level forces and culture of affluence in the article if you need to read it quickly. I'll be on in the morning, but I can't guarantee I can consistently post until the middle of next week due to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 09:14 PM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,877,128 times
Reputation: 4687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
The first study ties culture into the environment.

The second story compares low income households starting from 27k to middle class ones beginning with 80k from the Northeast and upwards according to his samples. Not exactly an extreme and less so when you take into consideration the cost of living in that part of the US.

And look at community level forces and culture of affluence in the article if you need to read it quickly. I'll be on in the morning, but I can't guarantee I can consistently post until the middle of next week due to work.
I'm tired of being a broken record.

I'll look at the third study in the morning and report back my thoughts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 10:20 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,635,306 times
Reputation: 1035
Okay. This is the last thing I'm posting for the night and I think you'll find it interesting. It's a paper from the University of Chicago

From the abstract:

Quote:
Many critics argue that America’s suburbs foster depression and mental distress, but researchers
have not sufficiently tested whether the characteristics that actually distinguish metropolitan
places (both cities and suburbs) correspond to any differences in psychological well being.

...


In conclusion, I suggest that the social
isolation that accompanies the economic segregation of many suburban communities is an
important source of suburban psychological malaise.

And later on in the paper:

Quote:
Looking at the data from the ACLS, two important characteristics that differentiate
metropolitan places are related to their residents’ self-reported psychological well being. The
first is population density. People in places with a higher population density report less
satisfaction with their surroundings, feel less safe, and are more likely to report feelings of
depression than people in less dense environments.

Quote:
The second, and by far, more consistent environmental determinant of psychological well being is place affluence, only the direction of this effect is quite surprising. Although it might be
expected that impoverished places would take the greatest psychological toll, the data here reveal
just the opposite – residents of affluent places reported the highest levels of depression, the
greatest dissatisfaction with life, and the lowest sense of self-efficacy and esteem

Quote:
Psychological malaise is only related to one characteristic that could be described as “suburban,”
affluence, and it is a characteristic relevant to only a minority of suburban places.
The interesting question to come from these findings is why are residents of more
affluent communities psychologically distressed and socially estranged?



http://www3.nd.edu/~adutt/activities...apconf_000.pdf


The whole paper is interesting since the author does mention some things I mentioned earlier when I was talking to you earlier about some of the things people on here mention when it comes to where they want to raise kids and isolation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 10:21 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,635,306 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
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.
I'll look at this later. I didn't post immediately because I didn't see it and when I did I was a bit lost since I know next to nothing about the communities in Colorado which is what I'm going to research when I get the free time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2013, 09:11 AM
 
Location: San Francisco
119 posts, read 159,634 times
Reputation: 43
Well I grew up in San Francisco and am also raising my daughter there because I think it's a great place. One advantage of course is that you use your car less and you have everything so near by when it comes to restaurants theaters museums parks etc. I can walk to many of these places and if they are out of walking distance I can take a bus. Because I'm in a city the buses run frequently like every 10 minutes. I do like that my daughter is exposed to other cultures at school. For instance one of my daughters best friends at school has parents from El Salvador and her other best friend of half Japanese half Chinese.

Disadvantages are that living in a city your kids going to be exposed to more grime in areas and things like the homeless. Although your probably going to have to talk to them about things like the homeless at some point anyway. Also your have less space around your home and probably no front yard. You'll know what school your child is going to because everyone in your neighborhood probably goes to the same school. You will drive more. I think your child's chances of getting abducted ( god forbid ) or something else horrible happening are equal in the city and the suburbs.

One thing I do think is likely worse is that teens are probably more likely to drive drunk they get into drinking during school. Also there is less for suburban teens to do in general in the burbs.

So I can't say that it's better or worse. Just different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2013, 09:23 AM
 
Location: San Francisco
119 posts, read 159,634 times
Reputation: 43
And by the way I grew up poor in the city during my younger years, ( like everything I wore came from a thrift shop and we were on food stamps), went to public school all the way through. And I didn't wind up joining a gang or become a drug addict or anything
By daughter is living a middle class lifestyle very different from the lifestyle I had as a kid. But she is also going to public school in the city and so far I love the school she's in.

P.S. I didn't get my first car till I had my daughter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2013, 09:37 AM
 
Location: San Francisco
119 posts, read 159,634 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
If suburbs were so bad for kids, then why would those kids, who eventually grow up and have kids of their own...raise their kids in the suburbs?

[]
You could say the same for parents that grew up in cities and raised their kids in cities.
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