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 03-08-2014, 10:54 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,572,548 times
Reputation: 4048

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy328 View Post
Detroit was a one industry town that came of age in the age of the automobile, like LA. So they never invested in public transportation to begin with. Detroit has since diversified, but none of those industries offer the opportunity that the automobile industry did back then.
Detroit was one of the 10 largest cities in the United States by the dawn of the age of the automobile, and had celebrated its 200th year as a city before Henry Ford opened his first factory there. They did have a streetcar network, and one of the best interurban networks in the country. Detroit actually had one of the earliest municipally owned streetcar systems in the country, back in the era when most cities' streetcar networks were operated by private, for-profit companies:

DETROIT TRANSIT HISTORY: The DUR Years (1901--1922)

Los Angeles was home to the biggest interurban electric railroad network in the United States, the Pacific Electric, better known as the "Red Car," which could get you from San Bernardino to Orange County, along with the Los Angeles Railway "Yellow Car," a local network that derived its profits mostly from the residents of densely populated downtown Los Angeles, when LA superseded San Francisco as the biggest city on the West Coast.

The leading Pacific Electric Railway and Los Angeles Railway historical image archive

Detroit started to retire their streetcars in the 1930s, in favor of buses built by Ford, who, obviously, had kind of a large amount of political pull in Detroit by the 1930s. Los Angeles' "Red Car" Pacific Electric was purchased by Southern Pacific Railroad, who maintained passenger service but were more interested in freight traffic, and the "Yellow Car" Los Angeles Railway was sold to National City Lines, a transit company owned by General Motors, who bought about 100 other cities' streetcar lines and converted them to buses. And before people start shouting about "conspiracy theory," it should be pointed out that National City Lines actually was found guilty of the crime of conspiracy!

The Great Transportation Conspiracy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2014, 06:06 AM
 
1,265 posts, read 2,153,303 times
Reputation: 1430
In Paris, the pattern is not rich center and poor periphery but more like rich=west/poor=east.
Obviously with the gentrification, the east part of the center have become wealthier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,764,950 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Vancouver may be rather inverted; I don't think it's poorer than many of it's auburbs
Yeah, Vancouver is pretty mixed.


http://www.vancouversun.com/Pete+McM...585/story.html
Some suburbs are wealthier like White Rock, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Tsawwassen and Port Moody, others like Surrey, Burnaby and Richmond are poorer. Within the city, the Eastern half is poorer, spilling over into Burnaby, while the West half is very wealthy.

East Vancouver is known for being somewhat crowded, and lots of duplexes, duplexed houses and basement apartments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 11:17 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,572,548 times
Reputation: 4048
I don't know, there are a lot of poor suburbs where I live, and downtown is mixed-income--there are poor and wealthy people in the same neighborhood. But wealthy suburb residents who come downtown assume it's poor because they don't see poor people in their wealthy suburb, and they never go to the poor suburbs, so they assume "downtown=poor, suburbs=rich."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 11:48 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,991 posts, read 42,018,377 times
Reputation: 14811
I think California and the west coast has a weaker income contrast between city and suburb. Maybe less former old blue collar to decay. The great lakes region probably has the most extreme contrast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,764,950 times
Reputation: 1616
Sacramento has a poverty rate of 21.5% while its suburbs have a poverty rate of 13.3%, for a ratio of 1.62, which is pretty low actually. The major cities with a lower contrast between city/suburb are Tampa, Seattle, San Jose, San Diego, Portland, Orlando, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Jacksonville and Charlotte. Mostly cities with big city limits or in the West and Sunbelt.

Cities with the greatest contrast (3.50+) are Hartford, Milwaukee, Rochester and Baltimore. Milwaukee surprised me, considering it's not associated with urban decay as much as the rest of the Great Lakes, and it has larger city limits. Nonetheless, with a ratio of 4.30 it has the biggest contrast in America, a fair bit worse than Detroit (3.02).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 05:03 PM
 
Location: East coast
613 posts, read 893,634 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Sacramento has a poverty rate of 21.5% while its suburbs have a poverty rate of 13.3%, for a ratio of 1.62, which is pretty low actually. The major cities with a lower contrast between city/suburb are Tampa, Seattle, San Jose, San Diego, Portland, Orlando, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Jacksonville and Charlotte. Mostly cities with big city limits or in the West and Sunbelt.

Cities with the greatest contrast (3.50+) are Hartford, Milwaukee, Rochester and Baltimore. Milwaukee surprised me, considering it's not associated with urban decay as much as the rest of the Great Lakes, and it has larger city limits. Nonetheless, with a ratio of 4.30 it has the biggest contrast in America, a fair bit worse than Detroit (3.02).
Is there any place in the US where poverty rate of suburbs > those of cities, or even possibly equivalent? Or the closest you can get is a city approaching but not reaching the wealth of its suburbs, let alone exceeding?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,764,950 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by markovian process View Post
Is there any place in the US where poverty rate of suburbs > those of cities, or even possibly equivalent? Or the closest you can get is a city approaching but not reaching the wealth of its suburbs, let alone exceeding?
The closest was Las Vegas at 1.09, at least among big cities. Poverty rate is just one metric though, I think in a lot of metro areas, the suburbs are homogeneously middle class while the city has more of board range from poor to rich. Toronto has proportionally a bit more >$2million homes on the market than its suburbs, but the average income is lower because it has more poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 06:06 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,572,548 times
Reputation: 4048
It also depends on how you define "suburb"--most of Sacramento is what just about everyone here would call "suburban" in form (single-family homes, strip mall shopping centers, little or no public transit) except it just happens to be in the city limits. And the problem with averaging "its suburbs" is that the wealth of the wealthy suburbs outweighs the poverty of the poor suburbs--suburban South Sacramento is poorer than Sacramento, but suburban Granite Bay is wealthier. Drawing the conclusion that suburb=wealthy and city=poor is inaccurate and incomplete--just as the reverse conclusion would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 07:58 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,764,950 times
Reputation: 1616
Basically, in Sacramento's case, it sounds like the difference between suburbs and between different parts of the city is likely bigger than the difference between the city as a whole and the suburbs as a whole.

Is there much suburban poverty outside of South Sacramento?
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