HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 12:55 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by uaarkson View Post
This has been happening to Detroit's inner burbs for decades.
Some of Detroit's inner burbs are wealthier/more desirable than 20 years ago Certainly everywhere along/around the Woodward corridor.

But, yeah, speaking generally, the inner suburbs have gotten poorer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 12:59 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Yeah, that's why I used housing crowding instead of income for the map,
At least in U.S., Census-derived housing crowding isn't heavily correlated with income. It's basically a demographic proxy, as certain communities, like South Asians, tend to have multiple generations living with them, so are technically "crowded" whether we're talking Queens tenements or Texas McMansions.

I believe that NE Queens has the highest level of crowding in NYC, and NE Queens is generally middle-to-upper-class (though very heavily Asian these days). Public housing has some of the lowest levels of crowding, as they skew older, with tons of grannies living alone in big apartment units, which is horribly inefficient, and the city is trying to incentive these grannies to move to smaller units. But there's probably some non-reporting here, as many of these grannies have off-the-books boarders.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 4:04 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,521
Seattle is one of the most "inverted" metros in the US in terms of the city proper being especially affluent and professional relative to the metro. Kinda has a "Canadian" pattern going on.

Last edited by Docere; Oct 6, 2019 at 4:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 4:16 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
At least in U.S., Census-derived housing crowding isn't heavily correlated with income. It's basically a demographic proxy, as certain communities, like South Asians, tend to have multiple generations living with them, so are technically "crowded" whether we're talking Queens tenements or Texas McMansions.

I believe that NE Queens has the highest level of crowding in NYC, and NE Queens is generally middle-to-upper-class (though very heavily Asian these days). Public housing has some of the lowest levels of crowding, as they skew older, with tons of grannies living alone in big apartment units, which is horribly inefficient, and the city is trying to incentive these grannies to move to smaller units. But there's probably some non-reporting here, as many of these grannies have off-the-books boarders.
I'm not looking at people per room or per sf though, which would make areas with large households seem poorer than they actually are. Multiple generations under a roof wouldn't make a house crowded under the Statscan definition, as long as there's an adequate number of bedrooms, like a couple shouldn't be sharing a bedroom with anyone, and a child over age 5 shouldn't be sharing a bedroom with an opposite gender child, and a single adult shouldn't be sharing a bedroom with anyone.

But if you have parents, grandparents, 3 kids and an uncle in a 3 bedroom unit, then yeah, that would be considered crowded, and I doubt South Asians would consider that desirable even if they're used to having big families under a single roof. They'd probably prefer a 5 bedroom house for that and if they can only afford a 3 bedroom unit despite being able to pool resources from 5 adults, then they're probably on the poor end of things. Maybe the head of the household has a good salary, but if everyone else is not in the workforce or minimum wage, then that's a lot of people relying on one person's salary and still a financially vulnerable/strained household.

A granny living in a big unit would be considered "not crowded" just the same as a couple living in a 1 bedroom apartment. The statscan measure only looks at the % of households that are crowded, not the average.

In Toronto for example, the biggest households are in the heavily South Asian new subdivisions of NE Brampton, and although there is above average crowding, it's still not as bad as in the neighbourhoods with a lot 60s-70s apartment towers where households might be barely half as big but the units are much smaller. The public housing in Toronto also has relatively high levels of crowding.

Last edited by memph; Oct 6, 2019 at 4:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 4:21 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Some of Detroit's inner burbs are wealthier/more desirable than 20 years ago Certainly everywhere along/around the Woodward corridor.

But, yeah, speaking generally, the inner suburbs have gotten poorer.
Like where? I think most of them have at best maintained their high desirability as other suburbs declined, which has meant that new homes get built/old ones renovated/rebuilt to compensate for the rest of the housing stock that's aging.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 4:32 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,521
Educational attainment in three low income/working class zones of outer Toronto.

NW Toronto (Etobicoke North, Humber River-Black Creek and York South-Weston electoral districts):

Less than high school 21.4%
University degree 20.5%

North Scarborough (Scarborough-Agincourt and Scarborough North electoral districts):

Less than high school 17.8%
University degree 31.1%

South/Central/East Scarborough (all other Scarborough districts):

Less than high school 12.6%
University degree 30.5%
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 4:52 PM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 1,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Like where? I think most of them have at best maintained their high desirability as other suburbs declined, which has meant that new homes get built/old ones renovated/rebuilt to compensate for the rest of the housing stock that's aging.
Yeah, all of Detroit's favored inner suburbs have been favored all along. Dearborn is probably the only one I can think of that has made the transition (back) to desirable since an initial decline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 5:16 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by uaarkson View Post
Yeah, all of Detroit's favored inner suburbs have been favored all along. Dearborn is probably the only one I can think of that has made the transition (back) to desirable since an initial decline.
I would add Ferndale.

Overall, though, Detroit's suburbs have declined over the past 20 years relative to their suburban counterparts in other parts of the country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 5:53 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I would add Ferndale.

Overall, though, Detroit's suburbs have declined over the past 20 years relative to their suburban counterparts in other parts of the country.
Looking at this, both Dearborn and Ferndale have had an increase in the low-income population though (although it seems it was actually smaller in Ferndale).
https://myottetm.github.io/USMapBoxI...wDispConc.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 6:27 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Looking at this, both Dearborn and Ferndale have had an increase in the low-income population though (although it seems it was actually smaller in Ferndale).
https://myottetm.github.io/USMapBoxI...wDispConc.html
That doesn't really surprise me. The city was mostly working class up through the early 00s, but over the last decade has become a little bit of a yuppie enclave. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the yuppie gains aren't enough to offset the working class losses.

Detroit's decline gets all of the attention, but Detroit's suburbs have also declined, especially when compared to their counterparts in other large metro areas. Some have managed to decline less than others, and for a 'burb that directly borders Detroit, Ferndale has likely done better than almost all of the others in that category.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 9:11 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Asians in Queens are significantly poorer than African Americans in Queens. Not sure if this is true citywide, but they're probably pretty close. NYC is a bit of an outlier in the U.S. in that A. There's a huge lower income Asian population and B. That population is concentrated in traditional, still-expanding urban ethnic enclaves. Not just the Brooklyn-Queens Chinatowns and the Queens Koreatowns but very working class Bangladeshi, Pakistani and SE Asian areas.

Of course there are some higher-income, professional, Asian ethnoburbs in NJ and LI, but the region's Asian population is still pretty concentrated in the regional core. And a lot of the "suburban" Asian population is in urban working or middle class suburbs like Jersey City, Edison, Fort Lee and Palisades Park. Really only Central Jersey around Princeton has heavily Asian McMansion suburbia.
What's different about NYC that makes its population lower income in terms of Asian Americans than other big cities in the US?

If it's merely about mass immigration of the working class, why would NYC have it more than any other immigration gateway like say LA, California cities or any other bicoastal city (besides simply being the biggest city). Higher density of people in the restaurant/service industry?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 9:17 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Like where? I think most of them have at best maintained their high desirability as other suburbs declined, which has meant that new homes get built/old ones renovated/rebuilt to compensate for the rest of the housing stock that's aging.
It's not really just about desirability. The overall health of almost all inner burbs have significantly improved since 20 something years, they're not on shaky ground as was once believed. Obviously the most desirable burbs maintain their positions but there was a time somewhere like Ferndale was considered icky and too close to the city proper and people wouldn't dare touch it. That attitude has completely reversed now.

The big changed in desirability is the city itself, a neighborhood in the city proper like Brush Park will soon surpass peak Birmingham property values.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 9:27 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
I'm not looking at people per room or per sf though, which would make areas with large households seem poorer than they actually are. Multiple generations under a roof wouldn't make a house crowded under the Statscan definition, as long as there's an adequate number of bedrooms, like a couple shouldn't be sharing a bedroom with anyone, and a child over age 5 shouldn't be sharing a bedroom with an opposite gender child, and a single adult shouldn't be sharing a bedroom with anyone.

But if you have parents, grandparents, 3 kids and an uncle in a 3 bedroom unit, then yeah, that would be considered crowded, and I doubt South Asians would consider that desirable even if they're used to having big families under a single roof. They'd probably prefer a 5 bedroom house for that and if they can only afford a 3 bedroom unit despite being able to pool resources from 5 adults, then they're probably on the poor end of things. Maybe the head of the household has a good salary, but if everyone else is not in the workforce or minimum wage, then that's a lot of people relying on one person's salary and still a financially vulnerable/strained household.

A granny living in a big unit would be considered "not crowded" just the same as a couple living in a 1 bedroom apartment. The statscan measure only looks at the % of households that are crowded, not the average.

In Toronto for example, the biggest households are in the heavily South Asian new subdivisions of NE Brampton, and although there is above average crowding, it's still not as bad as in the neighbourhoods with a lot 60s-70s apartment towers where households might be barely half as big but the units are much smaller. The public housing in Toronto also has relatively high levels of crowding.
What about multiple young adults (20 or 30 somethings) crowded in small rental apartments to save money through roommate arrangements? Some may still receive help from parents/families even at that age. They may be "poor" short term but are often still better off than those who live with parents/families out of necessity.

Perhaps it's not that large a statistic relative to actual families, but I wonder how much that affects the stats.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 11:08 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
What about multiple young adults (20 or 30 somethings) crowded in small rental apartments to save money through roommate arrangements? Some may still receive help from parents/families even at that age. They may be "poor" short term but are often still better off than those who live with parents/families out of necessity.

Perhaps it's not that large a statistic relative to actual families, but I wonder how much that affects the stats.
Sharing an apartment but with each young adult having their own bedroom is indeed not that unusual for single people from middle class backgrounds, but since they have their own bedroom, it still wouldn't be considered crowded.

Even if you have two couples sharing a 2 bedroom apartment, it still wouldn't be considered crowded by StatsCan since they only consider it crowded when non-coupled adults share a bedroom.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 11:28 PM
montréaliste montréaliste is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chambly, Quebec
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
It's not really just about desirability. The overall health of almost all inner burbs have significantly improved since 20 something years, they're not on shaky ground as was once believed. Obviously the most desirable burbs maintain their positions but there was a time somewhere like Ferndale was considered icky and too close to the city proper and people wouldn't dare touch it. That attitude has completely reversed now.

The big changed in desirability is the city itself, a neighborhood in the city proper like Brush Park will soon surpass peak Birmingham property values.


Yes. There is a lot of the tragicomic in this assessment; your last sentence about Brush Park reads like a snake oil sales pitch if you look at what is left of that neighborhood. Detroit's municipal goverment still green lights destruction of important buildings downtown for surface parking lots.

I don't see an end to the motion that has eroded this once great metropolis because like the auto industry, it bends to the cycles of boom and bust. Detroiters have a throw away mentality, a planned obsolescence stance as regards the realm of architecture, up to this day. Brush Park may be on the Up and Up now, but it is as fragile as the ton of decrepit buildings, and brownfields that dot the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 11:29 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Like where? I think most of them have at best maintained their high desirability as other suburbs declined, which has meant that new homes get built/old ones renovated/rebuilt to compensate for the rest of the housing stock that's aging.
Ferndale, Berkley, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, Clawson and Birmingham are objectively better off than 20-30 years ago.
Back then, they were considered aging, stagnant suburbia, though still generally nice.

Some, like Ferndale, Berkley and Clawson, were considered borderline declined/semi-sketchy. Huntington Woods, Royal Oak, Pleasant Ridge were all still good, but cheaper than new sprawl, though no longer. I remember kids in high school calling Royal Oak "Royal Joke", and saying it had hillbillies. Birmingham was always upscale, but is now the most expensive town in Michigan; before it was adjacent (newer, sprawlier) Bloomfield Hills.

But almost every other inner suburb of Detroit is somewhat less desirable than 20-30 years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 11:38 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
What's different about NYC that makes its population lower income in terms of Asian Americans than other big cities in the US?
Most recent Asian newcomers are skilled immigrants who come via H-1B visas and the like. They tend to be doctors and engineers in McMansions.

NYC and California are really the only places with mass Asian migration, from all income cohorts. I'm not sure it's accurate to say NY (and LA and SF) are "poorer" Asian populations, but rather that they get the same H-1B visa crowd plus a lot of family migration.

Also, Asian immigrants to U.S. are typically Chinese or Indian. NYC has a lot of Asian immigrants from really poor countries. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the like.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2019, 11:45 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,521
Chinese New Yorkers seem to be mostly working class/non-professional. The ethnoburbs are mostly Indian American.

But the NYC area has a sizeable South Asian working class too - it's probably the only metro in the US where the South Asian population is not dominated by affluent Indian professionals.

Last edited by Docere; Oct 7, 2019 at 12:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2019, 12:19 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Educational attainment in three low income/working class zones of outer Toronto.

NW Toronto (Etobicoke North, Humber River-Black Creek and York South-Weston electoral districts):

Less than high school 21.4%
University degree 20.5%

North Scarborough (Scarborough-Agincourt and Scarborough North electoral districts):

Less than high school 17.8%
University degree 31.1%

South/Central/East Scarborough (all other Scarborough districts):

Less than high school 12.6%
University degree 30.5%
Basically NW Toronto is the largest concentration of Black Torontonians but also has sizeable South Asian and Latin American populations. Some spillover into Brampton.

North Scarborough is "Chinese Scarborough" with some Sri Lankan Tamil presence around the edges. Spillover into Markham.

South/central/east Scarborough is largely south of the 401 and is basically polyglot (non-Chinese) Scarborough. South Asians are the largest minority, Black is second. Ajax/Pickering is the middle income extension of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2019, 12:23 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Most recent Asian newcomers are skilled immigrants who come via H-1B visas and the like. They tend to be doctors and engineers in McMansions.

NYC and California are really the only places with mass Asian migration, from all income cohorts. I'm not sure it's accurate to say NY (and LA and SF) are "poorer" Asian populations, but rather that they get the same H-1B visa crowd plus a lot of family migration.

Also, Asian immigrants to U.S. are typically Chinese or Indian. NYC has a lot of Asian immigrants from really poor countries. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Chinese New Yorkers seem to be mostly working class/non-professional. The ethnoburbs are mostly Indian American.

But the NYC area has a sizeable South Asian working class too - it's probably the only metro in the US where the South Asian population is not dominated by affluent Indian professionals.
But why is the difference so much bigger in NYC? If everywhere stateside has the professional (educated) waves of immigration, plus working class, why does NYC have the working class in higher proportion?

If it was family migration, why wouldn't California have more than its fair share of working class (not just H-1B visa crowd) since California has a longer history of Asian immigrants and thus (potentially) more families to bring through family re-unification. And if so, why hasn't family reunification outweighed educated workers in lots of cities like LA, Chicago etc. Are Asian New Yorkers that much more family-oriented that they bring so much more families over from overseas than Chicagoans, people from LA, San Francisco, etc. I know NYC is bigger than the rest, but why would it make a difference in income/socio-economic status per capita in terms of family reunification, unless NY'ers are more likely to bring less well-off/less educated family members from overseas than other cities.

I'm wondering if it has to do with lots of Asian immigrants in service/restaurant industries in NYC, and lots of "mom and pop" family business there?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:24 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.