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.
Right but there's hardly a "concentration" of any sort in the city of Detroit.
The closest it gets to a concentration is in northern Detroit around the Woodward Corridor and maybe the Villages. I'd say the first concentration is legit, as the University District, Sherwood Forest and Palmer Woods run together. The Villages are east of Downtown.
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.
This is true, but there is a pocket of terrible apartments just West of the Beltway, hwy 8, and the part that is in northern AliefISD is sketchy. Although royal oaks is nice.
Los Angeles' pattern occurs mainly because of its geography. For those that don't know, the big red wedge splitting LA is the Santa Monica Mountains, which is a very wealthy area but also one of the least dense areas in the county. There really are not that many people living in the area - it's not like Dallas' wedge, which is about the same population totals and density as the rest of the city. Another interesting aspect of this exclusive area is that it is very difficult to reach, mainly made up of narrow, twisting roads and few actual arterial roads passing through. So you really don't have a lot of low-income residents passing through these areas unless they are gardeners or nannies. That sort of seclusion drives up the property values and allows only the most wealthy to live up there.
The other manner in which LA is shaped by its geography is along the coast, as those naturally attract high (sometimes exorbitant) property values. The coastal area does have high population density and total population numbers. So the mountains and coast really do shape the pattern in Southern California.
I think LA is actually a "donut" city but unlike Chicago, NYC, Boston - the "donut hole" of wealth at the center is very tiny - but it's there. I think the demographics will continue to shift Downtown and that tiny red spot in the center will get bigger. I think the two cities that Central LA (basically ignoring the mountain and extreme coastal neighborhoods) looks the most like are Detroit and Philadelphia - Detroit's pattern looking like what LA is moving away from and Philadelphia's what LA's pattern will grow into.
Los Angeles' pattern occurs mainly because of its geography. For those that don't know, the big red wedge splitting LA is the Santa Monica Mountains, which is a very wealthy area but also one of the least dense areas in the county. There really are not that many people living in the area - it's not like Dallas' wedge, which is about the same population totals and density as the rest of the city. Another interesting aspect of this exclusive area is that it is very difficult to reach, mainly made up of narrow, twisting roads and few actual arterial roads passing through. So you really don't have a lot of low-income residents passing through these areas unless they are gardeners or nannies. That sort of seclusion drives up the property values and allows only the most wealthy to live up there.
The other manner in which LA is shaped by its geography is along the coast, as those naturally attract high (sometimes exorbitant) property values. The coastal area does have high population density and total population numbers. So the mountains and coast really do shape the pattern in Southern California.
I think LA is actually a "donut" city but unlike Chicago, NYC, Boston - the "donut hole" of wealth at the center is very tiny - but it's there. I think the demographics will continue to shift Downtown and that tiny red spot in the center will get bigger. I think the two cities that Central LA (basically ignoring the mountain and extreme coastal neighborhoods) looks the most like are Detroit and Philadelphia - Detroit's pattern looking like what LA is moving away from and Philadelphia's what LA's pattern will grow into.
LA is rapidly developing the Arts District on the eastern side of downtown as well as rapidly developing the western side of downtown and the South Park district. Looking at this on a map, it would look like LA is gentrifying on the outer ring of downtown. It is very likely that if this type of growth continues over the next few decades, the growth will close in to the center of this ring, which currently Skid Row sort of lies at the heart of downtown. There's already a lot of push back and concern from the warehousing industries in the Arts District area, but it will likely disappear over the next century due to sheer demand.
Who knows; Skid Row could all but disappear within the next 100 years.
Who knows; Skid Row could all but disappear within the next 100 years.
The Tenderloin survives in San Francisco, though partly due to deliberate government policy. Btw, if you look at income maps of cities in the 1950s, while cities weren't as impoverished back then as today, the area near and in downtown was generally poor. San Francisco was no exception. Conversely, outer areas of San Francisco declined a bit as the demographics that preferred outer areas of the cities (middle class families) would move to the suburbs.
Yes. Downtown areas were definitely quite poor for about a century. That's very much true in Toronto as well which has a very gentrified core today, though mixed with a lot of social housing. The city's first "uptown" district (Jarvis St.), which is now basically part of the downtown, was where the wealthy lived, basically coming into existence in the 1870s. In the oldest part of the city, near the lake and factories etc. was poor and where most of the city's Irish lived. The wealthy continued to move further and further out (mostly north and west). Pretty much everyone who could got out of the inner city. The poor overwhelmingly lived in the heart of the city in 1960. The recapturing of the inner city for middle class professionals began in the 60s and 70s, and has accelerated
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.
