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.
How are incomes distributed geographically in different metropolitan areas? Some cities, particularly older, larger eastern cities are characterized by a "donut" income distribution where you have a wealthy core surrounded by a poorer inner city surrounded by wealthy suburbs. Newer western cities have more of a "wedge" distribution with the wealthy living more in a contiguous belt. Then there are some rust belt cities where virtually all of the inner city is poor and the wealth is all in the suburbs.
New York seems to be the classic example of the donut - affluent Manhattan and brownstone Brooklyn, the poor and working class in the outer boroughs and industrial satellites, then affluent suburbs again. It is not a metro where you can predict what direction the law firm partners who live in the suburbs live - they could be in Westchester to the north, Long Island to the east or New Jersey to the west.
Chicago is a good example of where you have both a "wedge" and "donut" distribution. You have the affluent core, a big poverty donut and affluent suburbs, but on the other hand, you can say it's a wedge as there's a clear north/south divide.
Dallas and Houston are good examples of a "wedge" distribution, as is Washington.
Detroit and Cleveland - not sure what I'd call it - but you have inner cities that have almost no affluent people in them and virtually all the wealth is in the suburbs, but there's a geographical concentration of wealth (i.e. the eastern suburbs of Cleveland and northwest in the case of Detroit).
I think Houston and Washington are increasingly headed towards becoming donuts though, with the cores gentrifying and middle ring suburbs getting poorer. And also with both of those cities, the centre is shifting towards the wealthy part of the metro area as much of the growth is in the western suburbs of both cities.
London is another "donut and wedge" city. On the one hand, you have a New York-like donut extremely desirable central London with boroughs like Haringey, Brent and Barking and Dagenham in the middle ring, surrounded by the outer ring "stockbroker" belt home counties of Surrey and Hertfordshire. On the other hand, you have clear east/west (i.e. Tower Hamlets vs. Kensington and Chelsea) and north/south (north is wealthier) divides.
The same can be said of the three biggest Canadian cities. Montreal and Vancouver historically have wealthier west sides and more working class east sides, but with gentrification of their cores have seen a donut pattern as well. Toronto has a more complex pattern, but certainly has a donut pattern (old city / outer 416 / 905) but also some wedges as well - it's wealthiest running north of downtown (North Toronto, central North York, York Region), eastern metro (Scarborough, Ajax running out to the industrial satellite city of Oshawa) is more working class than the western metro (central Etobicoke, Port Credit, Oakville), but you also have a large northwest/industrial working class zone (Weston, Downsview, Rexdale, Malton, Brampton) buffering the western and north-central/northern zones.
Last edited by King of Kensington; 08-10-2014 at 01:02 PM..
I think Houston and Washington are increasingly headed towards becoming donuts though, with the cores gentrifying and middle ring suburbs getting poorer. And also with both of those cities, the centre is shifting towards the wealthy part of the metro area as much of the growth is in the western suburbs of both cities.
I agree with this comment with regard to Houston. The city had a huge growth spurt in the late 70s and early 80s and lots of cheap construction was thrown up in the close in suburban neighborhoods to accommodate the influx of people. Fast forward to today, and once middle class areas like Sharpstown, Alameda and Greenspoint are, let's just say, "showing their age," and are high crime areas. In the meantime, while the core continues to improve, the farther-flung outer suburbs of gated communities located in places such as The Woodlands and Kingwood to the north, Clear Lake to the south and Sugarland to the southwest are are growing by leaps and bounds. These developments attract the affluent who do not want to pay inner loop prices. The "wedge" exception for Houston is its west side. There really is little decline as you travel from River Oaks all the way to Katy. Conversely, heading east from the CBD, there are few pockets of affluence as most of the oil and petrochemical manufacturing is concentrated there, rendering these neighborhoods fairly unappealing.
Houston is drastically different. It seems to be the only city left in the US without zoning laws, something I admire about TX, as they allow you to do whatever you want with your property.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57749
What I have noticed among the cities I'm familiar with, is that the poorer/higher crime areas are almost always at the south part. Seattle is a good example, but also Oakland, CA, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta and Detroit.
Not always though. In Calgary, Nashville, and I think Miami too, the wealthiest neighbourhoods are on the South Side. I guess at least part of it is that they're newer cities, so probably they've only had a significant amount of industry after regulations existed to limit pollution, so the whole "downwind from factories" wasn't a factor. Interestingly though, Winnipeg, which is an older city, has its wealthiest neighbourhoods on the South Side.
3 of the Canadian Prairie cities (Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina) have more affluent south sides. Calgary and Regina, as well as Edmonton, also have east/west splits with the west being more affluent. Saskatoon is unusual among Canadian cities in having an affluent east. Most Canadian cities have an affluent west and working class east including Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa and Hamilton.
It's true of Toronto as well, but with some qualifications. The western metro is certainly more affluent and west of the CBD is more yuppie condo while east of the CBD is historically the city's poorest area and has the most public housing. However the city's east end (east of the Don) seems more monolithically middle class/streetcar suburb-ish (Beaches, Riverdale) while west of the CBD is a bit more industrial/gritty (Trinity Bellwoods, Parkdale) and has more "inner city" characteristics. OTOH I think you do pay more for the equivalent house in the west end compared to the east (i.e. Trinity Bellwoods vs. Leslieville) though that probably breaks down in more mature gentrified or historically middle/upper middle class areas like the Beaches and Riverdale (I don't know if you get more for your money thre than High Park, for example). Before WWII, the "inner city" (more narrowly defined than city proper) I believe was thought to constitute from about Dovercourt to the Don River below Bloor.
What I have noticed among the cities I'm familiar with, is that the poorer/higher crime areas are almost always at the south part. Seattle is a good example, but also Oakland, CA, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta and Detroit.
That is definitely not true of Denver, and the southern suburbs are, as a whole, more affluent than the northern burbs.
How are incomes distributed geographically in different metropolitan areas? Some cities, particularly older, larger eastern cities are characterized by a "donut" income distribution where you have a wealthy core surrounded by a poorer inner city surrounded by wealthy suburbs. Newer western cities have more of a "wedge" distribution with the wealthy living more in a contiguous belt. Then there are some rust belt cities where virtually all of the inner city is poor and the wealth is all in the suburbs.
New York seems to be the classic example of the donut - affluent Manhattan and brownstone Brooklyn, the poor and working class in the outer boroughs and industrial satellites, then affluent suburbs again. It is not a metro where you can predict what direction the law firm partners who live in the suburbs live - they could be in Westchester to the north, Long Island to the east or New Jersey to the west.
Chicago is a good example of where you have both a "wedge" and "donut" distribution. You have the affluent core, a big poverty donut and affluent suburbs, but on the other hand, you can say it's a wedge as there's a clear north/south divide.
Dallas and Houston are good examples of a "wedge" distribution, as is Washington.
Detroit and Cleveland - not sure what I'd call it - but you have inner cities that have almost no affluent people in them and virtually all the wealth is in the suburbs, but there's a geographical concentration of wealth (i.e. the eastern suburbs of Cleveland and northwest in the case of Detroit).
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.
