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

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-01-2012, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Toronto
3,338 posts, read 6,409,942 times
Reputation: 2400

Advertisements

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.

Last edited by Stumbler.; 04-01-2012 at 11:19 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2012, 11:23 PM
 
Location: Leeds, UK
22,256 posts, read 26,576,163 times
Reputation: 8760
In my city, the nicest and wealthiest suburbs are all located in the suburbs, while the most deprived are the inner city wards.

I live in the suburbs and I like it here, though efforts are being made to attract people into the inner city again. The 'downtown' is already popular and pretty expensive, but the area around is is not, though the wealth of the downtown is now spreading to inner city areas directly next to it, new apartments popping up etc.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2012, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,834 posts, read 9,432,234 times
Reputation: 5294
I voted that I have a more positive impression of Inner City vs. Suburbs. I'm from Montreal, QC originally and currently reside in Vancouver, BC. Montreal is far from being a wealthy city in a Canadian context, but it has a very low crime rate and poor people live in the suburbs as well as in the city, as so the rich. As such, growing up I didn't associate the inner city as being any poorer or richer than the suburbs. The richest people lived in grand old historic mansions of densely populated, inner city, Westmount and Outremont, while there were indeed many solidly working class old neighbourhoods with higher crime. But this was also true of the suburbs near where I lived, which ranged from very working class to more privileged. As such, I saw the inner city as a place that was no poorer or richer than the suburbs, but certainly as the place that had more character and more fun stuff going on. I remember fondly all of the street festivals and museums of the gorgeous innercity, and all of the wonderfully diverse architecture. For me, the inner city was always the place to be.

Moving to Vancouver, the inverse is true here of the case in the Unites States. The innercity is an enclave of the rich, while the working class people are forced out to the suburban periphery. This also seems to be the case in the province's capital city, Victoria.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 12:17 AM
 
500 posts, read 877,158 times
Reputation: 414
Melbourne, Australia

There isn't really a difference. Where you live is largely dictated by your budget, the closer to the city, the more expensive, further out, the less expensive.

The city itself and the suburbs (I mean that by the Australian definition, which means anything other than the small grid where the CBD/Downtown/skyscrapers live) vary, some are filled with students, many from overseas, and others like Docklands have highrises filled with many high-income earners.

The most desirable places to live are the inner suburban parts that I guess an American would call a streetcar suburb. They are close to downtown/CBD, have trains and trams, and have their own village/mini downtown with shops, cafes, etc. These suburbs have a range of housing options from mansions, family homes with a front and rear yard, to apartments too.

For a 30 year old, with a partner, wanting to by a home and they've grown up in the outer suburbs, it's likely they will just look for home in the outer suburban areas. Mainly because it's what they're used to and it's what they can afford, not because they view the inner city as being bad.

Some of the places with the worst reputation are in outer suburban areas, but that's mainly because of who lives there (low income, many refugees, etc.)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 12:45 AM
 
Location: Brisbane
4,210 posts, read 6,221,712 times
Reputation: 3450
Their are exceptions of course, but as a general rule of thumb in any Australian city, the closer you get to the downtown/CDB the more desireable and expensive the suburb becomes.

Last edited by danielsa1775; 04-02-2012 at 12:57 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Both coasts
1,582 posts, read 4,671,591 times
Reputation: 1483
the "inner city" as in the "central city"/ "city limits"?

the "central city" will likely have the extremes- tony neighborhoods (ususally the most established/ toniest in the metro) as well as the worst neighborhoods in the metro. Now "inner city" as in "ghetto" will refer to the worst parts of the central city, but keep in mind that the wealthiest areas of a metro also are often in the central city proper, esp in cities in the NE, West Coast (and also Canada).

Americans have the strongest obsession in distinguishing between "inner city" and "suburbs".

Also the Australian conception of "suburb" is different from the American conception. The Aus conception of "suburbs" would be considered "districts" within the city limits of the central US (or Cdn) city.

Last edited by f1000; 04-02-2012 at 12:59 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 01:16 AM
 
Location: Brisbane
4,210 posts, read 6,221,712 times
Reputation: 3450
Quote:
Originally Posted by f1000 View Post
the "inner city" as in the "central city"/ "city limits"?

the "central city" will likely have the extremes- tony neighborhoods (ususally the most established/ toniest in the metro) as well as the worst neighborhoods in the metro. Most cities esp in the NE, West Coast (and also Canada) will be like that- now "inner city" as in "ghetto" will refer to the worst parts of the central city, but keep in mind that the wealthiest areas of a metro also are often in the central city proper.

Americans have the strongest obsession in distinguishing between "inner city" and "suburbs".

Also the Australian conception of "suburb" is different from the American conception. The Aus conception of "suburbs" would be considered "districts" within the city limits of the central US (or Cdn) city.
Ive often wonderd about that, thanks.

Hear suburbs are generaly determined by their post/zip code, the city post codes only are the ones end in 000 (Sydney 2000, Melbourne 3000, Brisbane 4000 etc) and take into account the small area where most of the tall builidings are. You could be living with 50 meters of the boundry of a 000 postcode and you would be living a suburb.

Last edited by danielsa1775; 04-02-2012 at 01:24 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 05:55 AM
 
Location: Sweden
23,883 posts, read 68,290,939 times
Reputation: 18537
I live in a town of about 20000 people, so it doesn't really matter.
But there have been two cases of attempted murder the last days, so maybe the inner city is less desirable right now?
Plus I live in the "ghetto" which no one wants to move to.
Yes, this place is a hell hole.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Scotland
8,024 posts, read 10,930,958 times
Reputation: 4155
Here in Dundee it is the suburbs and outer areas that suffer most from deprivation, but in other UK cities it is the inner city.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Paris, France
327 posts, read 947,476 times
Reputation: 540
My experiences are for Paris and London

Paris
Here generally the opposite is true of the US: the city of Paris itself (the urban area within the peripherique motorway, which has a population of about 2.5m) is generally wealthy - although it is extremely densely populated. Some areas, the western and central "arrondissements" (districts), are extremely wealthy - other areas are formally working-class but now heavily gentrified. A few scruffy neighbourhoods exist in the north east of the city but even these are far from poor really.

However, the word suburb ("banlieu") in French can have the same connotations as "inner city" in the US. The suburbs of Paris to the immediate north and east of the city are extremely deprived and impoverised - think 1970 South Bronx style deprivation, to be honest. In the north, this is the case right out into the countryside - indeed, some places, such as Clichy-sous-Bois, are some of the poorest areas in the metro area yet they are right on the edge of it. The south is more mixed, with poor tower-block neighbourhoods (though not as bad as the north or east) interspurced with modest middle-class commutervilles. The western suburbs are the only thing that approximates the "suburb" in the English-speaking sense - some are actually pretty plush, with large villas and pretty leafy streets.

But on the whole - in the Paris region, the rich live in the centre - possibly also owning a weekend bolthole in the countryside properly. The poorest live out in the suburb - out of sight, out of mind.

London
The geography of London is very complicated - in some ways it more resembles a US city, with poor inner city ghettos and comfortable middle class suburbs. But in other respects it is more similar to a French city, and actually is becoming more so.

It's a big generalisation, but both poor and rich inner city neighbourhoods exist in London, and both poor and rich suburbs exist on the edge. The very centre is not really residential - only the very richest live there as land prices are so high. Generally (and it is a big generalisation, as the city is so mixed up), the inner city to the immediate west is very wealthy. Think neighbourhoods like Kensington, Chelsea, Notting Hill. The northern inner city used to be working class but has now gentrified out of all recognition - places like Camden and Islington typify this. However the original poorer residents still cling on on the council estates at least and there's still plenty of deprivation in areas where the average house prices are £2m. This pattern has been followed in the inner south to some extent. The inner east (the "East End") was the traditionally poor, working class heartland. It remains so, despite some areas nearer the centre becoming cool and edgy.

Because of this gentrification the poorest areas of London are now to be found nowadays in the older inner suburbs - like Tottenham or Canning Town - which are too far off the radar for the hipsters and the young professionals. Some have even declined in the past 20 years as inner city living has become fashionable again and the middle classes have moved back into town (or right out to the countryside): witness the areas where the worst of the rioting was last summer.

In this way it probably resembles New York more than any US city. Have a look at these places in London and Paris on streetview and you'll get a general idea!

A quick sum up, with plenty of generalisations, but you get the idea of the situation in London or Paris at least.
Rate this post positively 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 > 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