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.
One of my focuses in college was on the development of different housing developments. It was so fascinating to me how our urban development has such an affect on our social interactions. For instance, one of the sociologists, I believe it one of the 19th century sociologists, talked about crime in housing developments. It talked about where do you think most of criminals were in a high rise. It was in fact the top of the building where no one focused on what was going on. It also talked about in lower income neighborhoods there is less focus on keeping your front yard nice because it is seen as a public area that will always get dirty.
I notice that anytime new development occurred, white middle class families could afford to move there. The old developments turned into working class neighborhoods.
I have noticed in more liberal areas, there tends to be a large divide between working class and upper middle class. I have seen some communities that still have middle class neighborhoods and working class neighborhoods in the same community. It's seems that upper middle class communities tend to be exclusive.
My area still has a healthy middle class, but it is definitely separated from the working class. In my area, richer families live in the suburban neighborhoods or close to jobs. The working class family is on the outskirts and those families r actually closer to work as some of the families work in the fields.
Seems like upper middle class and middle class families are finding jobs in the urban centers and tend to live closer to it.
However, that is not always the case. Sometimes the urban center is the poorest part and the burbs are the nicer part like Oakland.
Anyone want to think of names of development that would cater to certain classes? I can think of fancy developments with names like the "The Legacy" and section 8 housing projects with names like "The Avenues"
People create segregation, either by separating themselves from the "other," or by separating the "other" from themselves. To suggest that development creates segregation would be to suggest that development is sentient and acting of its own accord. That said, we can talk about how patterns of development and segregation are intertwined and how those patterns can reinforce differences and segregation.
People create segregation, either by separating themselves from the "other," or by separating the "other" from themselves. To suggest that development creates segregation would be to suggest that development is sentient and acting of its own accord. That said, we can talk about how patterns of development and segregation are intertwined and how those patterns can reinforce differences and segregation.
New construction comes with modern amenities which are attractive and command higher prices and rents; thereby creating economic segregation.
Economic segregation is involuntary for those who did not choose it, e.g. I do not choose to live in ghetto neighborhoods.
New construction comes with modern amenities which are attractive and command higher prices and rents; thereby creating economic segregation.
It is by the choice of renters who can afford higher rents in exchange for preferred amenities that we create such economic segregation. It is developers giving people what they want and are able to pay for. Again, it is the sum of the choices of individuals to live in A instead of B that we face segregation.
The form of development is a choice by those with some kind of power--political, financial--to separate themselves from the "other" or the "other" from themselves.
The form of development does not, except in the extreme case of block housing, necessarily dictate who lives there. What may be dominated by a certain class in one era may be dominated by a wholly different class in a different era.
19th century tenements had lower rents on the upper floors because walking up all those stairs took longer. With the invention of the elevator, suddenly the upper floors were more desirable because of views and distance to the street, and lower floors became cheaper and less desirable--and the ground floor least desirable because it was easier for burglars on the street to break into a window.
the city, you mention your perception of "liberal" areas but you seldom mention your perception of "conservative" areas. What do you consider a "conservative area" and how does the divide between rich and poor differ there, vs. a liberal area?
19th century tenements had lower rents on the upper floors because walking up all those stairs took longer. With the invention of the elevator, suddenly the upper floors were more desirable because of views and distance to the street, and lower floors became cheaper and less desirable--and the ground floor least desirable because it was easier for burglars on the street to break into a window.
This setup still exists in Manhattan, plenty of "walk-ups" left. The upper floors are often a good deal for Manhattan. Ditto with Paris. Not all old buildings were retrofitted with elevators.
In any case, areas that have seen less recent development (old northern cities, maybe 50s era suburbs such as much of Long Island) tend to have more residential segregation by race — a relic from previous times.
I think development plays a role but it isn't a primary cause. I think gerrymandering is the prime culprit. You can have race and class mixed in the same representative district which will help solve issues but you can't force them to live on the same block. So development just exacerbates it.
I don't think the wealth of development necessarily correlates with its age. In philly many PHA projects have been demolished and rebuilt recently, leading to new developments for low income residents. On the other hand, some of the most affluent neighborhoods in the metropolitan area are on the main line with old housing stocks.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57728
Quote:
Originally Posted by thwanko
I don't think the wealth of development necessarily correlates with its age. In philly many PHA projects have been demolished and rebuilt recently, leading to new developments for low income residents. On the other hand, some of the most affluent neighborhoods in the metropolitan area are on the main line with old housing stocks.
Home prices are affected by proximity to high paying jobs, the quality of the schools, and the crime rate. Age of the home has little to do with it. Here in our city the median home price is $700k, in the new developments they are starting at $900k because the cost of labor and land is higher than when the oldest ones selling for $600k and up were built in the 70s and 80s. We are far less segregated than when we moved here 20 years ago when the population was pretty much all white, now only 75% white with 19% Asian and the rest other races.
It is by the choice of renters who can afford higher rents in exchange for preferred amenities that we create such economic segregation. It is developers giving people what they want and are able to pay for. Again, it is the sum of the choices of individuals to live in A instead of B that we face segregation.
The form of development is a choice by those with some kind of power--political, financial--to separate themselves from the "other" or the "other" from themselves.
The form of development does not, except in the extreme case of block housing, necessarily dictate who lives there. What may be dominated by a certain class in one era may be dominated by a wholly different class in a different era.
But developers are not giving the bottom 50-75 percent what they want and can pay for. In my world, housing would be scalable so that what people want and can pay for would be within reach of almost all.
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.
