U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [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)
View Poll Results: Is the inner city worse than the suburbs?
Yes, I associate "inner city" with negative image, which is seen as worse than "suburbs". 17 22.97%
Somewhat negative image of "inner city" compared to suburbs but not especially so. 13 17.57%
No, there is no difference, or no large positive/negative difference in image between "inner city" and "suburbs" to me. 13 17.57%
No, in fact I associate the "inner city" as actually having a positive image, more than the "suburbs". 31 41.89%
Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 04-02-2012, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Leeds, UK
22,256 posts, read 26,784,875 times
Reputation: 8761

Advertisements

Camden and Islington are good examples of relatively wealthy suburbs but also affordable (generally speaking). Both are full of yuppies though. But Camden is awesome, so it's okay!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2012, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Paris
8,196 posts, read 7,779,008 times
Reputation: 3519
Quote:
Originally Posted by britinparis View Post
My experiences are for Paris and London
Great post, from my experience it's pretty much that, at least for Paris. As you said that the situation in London resembles moves closer to the one in France, I would add that in Paris the dichotomy between the city and the "suburbs" wasn't traditionally as high as it is today. Before 1968, a department called "Seine" encompassed the city of Paris and most of the three current surrounding departments (92, 93 and 94). The périphérique beltway was also built around this date. Before, the transition between the inner city and the surrounding municipalities was much smoother.
In the same way, before gentrification took place Paris city had large swathes of lower class and even poor neighborhoods. If one followed one direction from the city centre to the open fields, the main socio-economic class of the crossed areas was most likely the same: working class in the north and northeast, middle class in the southeast and south, upper class in the southwest and west. Now it's less true as most of the inner city has gentrified, though I'd still say that the main "social divides" are radial, not concentric. I see a continuum between places like Paris's XVIth arrondissement, Neuilly-sur-Seine and Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Same can be said for Paris's northern (and only northern) XIXth arrondissement, Aubervilliers and Clichy-sous-Bois.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 05:33 PM
 
1,318 posts, read 2,383,423 times
Reputation: 1540
Many inner suburbs see gentrification, by exemple Clichy, Pantin, Saint Ouen or Montreuil become more attractive.
Those areas are well served by public transportation and have a decent activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by britinparis View Post
The suburbs of Paris to the immediate north and east of the city are extremely deprived and impoverised - think 1970 South Bronx style deprivation.
Honestly I never saw anything close to 1970's South Bronx in Paris area.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Vancouver, Canada
1,255 posts, read 2,467,763 times
Reputation: 816
I generally associate the inner city with where the interesting things are happening, more venues, more restaurants, more culture, generally lots of good transit links, but on the down side, high rents, less good views, slightly higher rates of petty crime, and sometimes, more expensive shopping. For me it's mostly positives, but some negatives, too. Where as suburbs n my mind is mostly negatives in my mind... I'm thinking boredom, bad transit, big box stores.

However, another term, "inner suburbs", has a more positive spin for me, meaning more heritage houses, fewer high-rises, greater walkability, and easier accesss to downtown. I don't generally like living right at the center of the city but I like living near it.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 12:45 AM
 
13,507 posts, read 16,308,046 times
Reputation: 37885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumbler. View Post
Just wondering. It seems because of the particular urban pattern in the US (though it exists to an extent throughout the English-speaking world if Wikipedia's article on "inner city" claims), the "inner city" or even "urban" itself has taken on a negative connotation as being crime-ridden, unsafe and poor while the suburbs are rich, safe and far from all that. But this might not be the case in many cities around the world or a trend in many countries.

If you like, it would be interesting to mention the city in the world you live in and where you formed your impression of inner cities vs. suburbs. I asked this question/poll in the world forum since it'd be interesting to see how impressions compare in many areas.
I lived in Manhattan (NYC) for more than forty years (beginning in 1959, so I am not talking about the present plastic paradise), and for part of that time worked in the suburbs. For the first fifteen years I lived in rundown neighborhoods considered undesirable by most whites because of the large poor non-white populations in them and the generally old housing stock. I was perfectly happy and had no problems. One of these neighborhoods, where I lived for about 25 years became gentrified, many of the changes were of dubious worth - not the least being that the neighborhood became flooded with former suburbanites who now felt that it was enough like the suburbs not to frighten them..

Aside from the affordability of these neighborhoods, they were within minutes of of New York City's major cultural attractions - and these two factors put them miles ahead of the suburbs. Also the mix of people in my inner city neighborhoods was for more interesting than the uniform white bread society milieu of the suburbs. It was a great experience.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 02:21 AM
 
Location: Paris, France
327 posts, read 953,563 times
Reputation: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here View Post
Camden and Islington are good examples of relatively wealthy suburbs but also affordable (generally speaking). Both are full of yuppies though. But Camden is awesome, so it's okay!
Camden and Islington are not "suburbs": they are very much part of London's "inner city".

I would disagree also that they are affordable. A modest three bedroom family house or flat in either will cost you over £1m. To rent a one bedroom flat can easily cost £1,400 per month. To get affordable, you need to go further north (Finsbury Park, Hornsey) or all the way south of the river.

I agree that both areas - at least in the victorian streets - are extremely gentrified. Some parts of Islington, at least, have become seriously bankerised - and feel as wealthy as Chelsea or Kensington. However, both areas still have some seriously poor estates - often mere meters from a posh townhouse owned by some corporate lawyer!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 03:00 AM
 
Location: Paris, France
327 posts, read 953,563 times
Reputation: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato ku View Post
Many inner suburbs see gentrification, by exemple Clichy, Pantin, Saint Ouen or Montreuil become more attractive.
Those areas are well served by public transportation and have a decent activity.

Honestly I never saw anything close to 1970's South Bronx in Paris area.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=...w=1097&bih=731

Or ride the RER B out from the Gare du Nord and just look out the window. Witness the graffiti covered half abandoned tower blocks and gypsy shanty towns huddling under bridges.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 03:17 AM
 
Location: Paris, France
327 posts, read 953,563 times
Reputation: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu View Post
I lived in Manhattan (NYC) for more than forty years (beginning in 1959, so I am not talking about the present plastic paradise), and for part of that time worked in the suburbs. For the first fifteen years I lived in rundown neighborhoods considered undesirable by most whites because of the large poor non-white populations in them and the generally old housing stock. I was perfectly happy and had no problems. One of these neighborhoods, where I lived for about 25 years became gentrified, many of the changes were of dubious worth - not the least being that the neighborhood became flooded with former suburbanites who now felt that it was enough like the suburbs not to frighten them..

Aside from the affordability of these neighborhoods, they were within minutes of of New York City's major cultural attractions - and these two factors put them miles ahead of the suburbs. Also the mix of people in my inner city neighborhoods was for more interesting than the uniform white bread society milieu of the suburbs. It was a great experience.
I see exactly the same occurring in London. Whereas from the 1960s to the early 1990s, middle class professional young people would all move en masse to the suburbs when they had families, many are now choosing to stay on in the city, and put up with less space/higher rents in order to not have the miserable commuter lifestyle and stuff to do in evenings and on weekends. It's a cultural shift that's occurred in the last 20 years.

Combine this with a general drop in crime (the riots excepted), and govt-backed urban renewal and instead of automatically moving to Surbiton or Chigwell, people are gentrifying previously undesirable areas like Hackney that are close to the city and have plenty of attractive victorian housing.

Like Manhattan, central London (zone 1 on the tube) has seen rocketing land values. Not a stone has been left unturned in this march of gentrification: even flats in the council estates (housing projects) are being bought and fitted out with posh kitchens and dishwashers!

Meanwhile the inner city belt which surrounds it - with its bigger houses and green squares - was "rediscovered" by the rich in the 1980s and 1990s (starting with Notting Hill in the early 80s and working their way clockwise across the inner north: the current "hotspot" being Dalston and London Fields). The only bits which remain undesirable are areas that received a lot of bombing and therefore have no attractive victorian housing (just mean 60s tower blocks).

Meanwhile, some of the inner suburbs - especially those near the north circular (the inner beltway) - such as Tottenham, Walthamstow, Enfield - originally built in the 20s and 30s for people wanting to escape the slums in the inner city - are looking seriously decayed and run down. These were where the worst of the riots were last summer (although they did eventually spread into the gentrified inner city).

Like New York London has little extra room to expand - so the pressure is to gentrify existing neighbourhoods since building new suburbs has been impossible since the greenbelt legislation after the war.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 03:39 AM
 
697 posts, read 1,273,602 times
Reputation: 454
I am quite pleased with London's redevelopment of it's concrete post war housing estates. The Kidbrooke Ferrier Estate (one of the largest in Europe) is currently undergoing a £1 Billion regeneration scheme, the Hayward Estate near Elephant and Castle is also being demolished, as is the massive Aylesbury Estate (in South East London), and numerous other massive post war estates. It was also announced the other day that brutalist Robin Hood Gardens in the East End is to be demolished, with massive regeneration occurring right across London.

The only problem might be film makers running out of run down locations, the soon to be demolished Heygate recently featured in the Michael Caine film 'Harry Brown', whilst the Kidbrooke/Ferrier was used in films such as 'Nil By Mouth' which starred Ray Winstone. The South Acton Esate has also recently ben demolished estate is regarded as one of the worst in London and is a location for film and TV producers seeking urban grit. The South Acton Esate was home to Harlech Tower, the fictiona Nelson Mandela House in Only Fools and Horses and the estate also starred in the latest film adaptation of Graham Greene's Brighton Rock (2010), starring Helen Mirren and the late Pete Postlethwaite, as well as scenes from Welcome To Sarajevo, The Bill, Minder and The Inspector Lynley Mysteries.


All over London old post war concrete housing estates in London's poorer areas such as Kidbrooke/Ferrier are being demolished.



And replaced with new housing like this - which is part of the Kidbrooke housing that is being built to replace the grim concrete estate.


Last edited by Mulhall; 04-03-2012 at 04:16 AM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 04:27 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC NoVA
1,105 posts, read 2,100,338 times
Reputation: 777
inner city is still seen as negative in dc but that's changing. it's being gentrified.
Rate this post positively 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.


 
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 > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top