HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2019, 3:38 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Interesting how it's high in the Midwest.
The vast majority of Asian families migrated to the Midwest for highly skilled engineering jobs, academia, or professional jobs. Other than that, there aren't a ton of Asian enclaves in the Midwest like there are in California and New York. The only well known one that I can think of is the Hmong in Minneapolis.

There are some Asian families scattered around suburban Detroit that migrated to the U.S. before the immigration policies were opened up to Asians in the 1960s, but there aren't really enough of them to form an ethnic community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2019, 3:49 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
The root cause of this is a reversion to the historical mean of how cities tend to organize themselves. It has never been the norm at any other point in human history for the center of the city to be the most impoverished and undervalued land. That is not logical for the obvious economies of agglomeration and other reasons that fundamentally make cities efficient. The only reason it occurred in the wake of WWII was the burst of capital made availble in the form of swords into plowshares suddenly making bulldozing whole neighborhoods or ramming freeways through urban cores possible.
Agree generally, with additional caveats required to address the fact that good transit access will always be able to meaningfully distort these patterns, making reality a little more nuanced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
The market for these white elephants has all but dried up in Chicagoland. You can't move a McMansion in Barrington for even what it was worth in the doldurms of the recession. The prices have continued to collapse with no signs of respite since 2008. There's a lot of wealth in a place like Barrington, but you have to ask yourself where is the tipping point when people start abandoning it in droves as empty mansions become the norm in exactly the same way the mansions lining LSD in Rogers Park/Edgewater or MLK or Michigan Ave in Kenwood were abandoned post war? At what point to people start chopping these 8,000 SF homes into apartments and renting them out to lower income folks as was the exact fate of prewar urban mansions after white flight?
This is, of course, completely and totally absurd. Yes, Barrington has not seen much appreciation in the post-GFC era but to suggest it is in some sort of disinvestment death spiral is a pure fabrication.

Here's a broad rule of thumb for observing real estate markets nationwide: If the economics are such that new construction is justifiable, then the overall fundamentals are pretty healthy.

https://www.redfin.com/IL/Barrington.../home/77441161
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Barrington.../home/13905613
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Barrington...home/161125642
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Barrington...home/146324514

^^Gee what a death spiral!


You are of course correct that the suburban office market is very unhealthy indeed but it was grossly overbuilt in the first place. Even there, the new Zurich office tower suggests things are not nearly as dire as you would make them seem. I don't think we'll see substantial suburban office construction for a few more decades (and it will probably look much different when we do) but eventually, given enough growth and rising prices in the CBD, it will come back too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2019, 4:13 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
The vast majority of Asian families migrated to the Midwest for highly skilled engineering jobs, academia, or professional jobs. Other than that, there aren't a ton of Asian enclaves in the Midwest like there are in California and New York. The only well known one that I can think of is the Hmong in Minneapolis.
There's a pretty large urban South Asian population on the North Side of Chicago. I'm sure other forumites know more, but I don't think it's a wealthy or highly-educated demographic overall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2019, 4:24 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckman821 View Post
This is, of course, completely and totally absurd. Yes, Barrington has not seen much appreciation in the post-GFC era but to suggest it is in some sort of disinvestment death spiral is a pure fabrication.
Yeah, places like Barrington, while stuck with stagnant property values and demographic challenges, are not remotely in a "death spiral". These places still have good schools and services and low crime, and there are enough people who prefer big homes, big lots and quasi-rural living.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2019, 4:42 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Interesting how it's high in the Midwest.
Not really when you consider just how monolithic "Asian American" is and that the make up varies from region to region. Here in the Houston area, the largest Asian American population by far are people descendant of South Vietnamese refugees from the 70's. There has been a steady influx of people from South Asia and China as well. The latter tend to be higher educated and more upwardly mobile; doctors, engineers, professors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2019, 6:15 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Not really when you consider just how monolithic "Asian American" is and that the make up varies from region to region. Here in the Houston area, the largest Asian American population by far are people descendant of South Vietnamese refugees from the 70's. There has been a steady influx of people from South Asia and China as well. The latter tend to be higher educated and more upwardly mobile; doctors, engineers, professors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, etc.
yeah and besides all the stripes of asian folks the waves in houston are a good example of refugee to immigrant for the usa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 2:46 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
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.
Lots of Filipinos in South/central/east Scarborough too. North Ajax seems to be the main area that's the middle income extension, since that's where the new homes are being built, the older parts of Pickering and Ajax are traditionally White (mostly British?) and they're mostly staying put so they're not freeing up as much housing for the ascending middle class of Blacks and South Asians.

South Asians are almost as numerous as Blacks in NW Toronto, Etobicoke North is actually South Asian plurality, while Humber River-Black Creek and York South-Weston are White plurality (with Blacks 2nd and South Asians 3rd). There's a fairly significant Vietnamese presence around Jane-Finch as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 3:42 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.
So I had a look at the census data, and you are right, at least for the areas close to downtown Royal Oak. But it seems like it's also a case of many of these inner suburbs looking good by comparison.

I looked at the household income compared to the state wide average in 1990, 2000 and 2016 (100% = same income as statewide average).

Ferndale
1990: 93.8%
2000: 101.9%
2016: 102.4%
So Ferndale improved a bit, but mostly 20-30 years ago and then just remained stable.

Birmingham
1990: 207.1%
2000: 211.2%
2016: 214.5%
If it's become the most expensive suburb, that's mostly due to the competition declining from extremely desirable to just very desirable rather that Birmingham itself becoming much more desirable since the relative income only slightly increased.

Bloomfield Hills
1990: 483.6%
2000: 382.4%
2016: 306.8%
Extremely desirable to just very desirable.

Berkley
1990: 120.2%
2000: 129.8%
2016: 137.6%
It's indeed been steadily more desirable.

Pleasant Ridge
1990: 172.7%
2000: 180.6%
2016: 195.1%
Similar to Berkley but from a higher point.

Huntington Woods
1990: 196.8%
2000: 195.4%
2016: 219.8%
Very desirable in the past, a bit more now.

Royal Oak
1990: 119.5%
2000: 117.7%
2016: 125.3%
It improved, but not that much, and basically just in the southern half close to downtown
Royal Oak South of Twelve Mile
1990: 114.5%
2000: 117.4%
2016: 130.7%
Royal Oak North of Twelve Mile actually hasn't recovered from the decline it experienced in the 90s.
1990: 124.4%
2000: 117.9%
2016: 120.0%

If you're wondering if the more suburban nature of northern Royal Oak hints that Clawson might have done more poorly, you'd be right.
Clawson
1990: 119.6%
2000: 114.1%
2016: 107.3%

119.6% to 107.3% is a relatively modest decline though, of only 10.3%.

I also looked at Southfield (26.7% decline), Harper Woods (17.9% decline) and Dearborn east of the Southfield Fwy (35.7% decline). And with Bloomfield Hills, it experienced a 36.6% decline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 3:48 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,521
York Region is to a large extent the suburban extension of North York, Durham of "non-Chinese" Scarborough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 4:13 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
If a suburb is able to maintain its relative income, that's actually really good by the way. Typically what happens is something like this.


Inner City
Before: $40,000 income, 1.0 million people
After: $30,000 income, 0.7 million people

Inner suburbs
Before: $80,000 income, 2.0 million people
After: $65,000 income, 2.0 million people

Outer suburbs
Before: $100,000 income, 0.31 million people
After: $80,000 income, 1.0 million people

Overall
Before: $69,789 income, 3.31 million people
After: $69,789 income, 3.70 million people

So that's an example of how it's possible for every part of the metro area to be declining in income but the metro area as a whole is still has a stable overall average income, because the population growth is in the highest income area and the population decline is in the lowest income area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 4:31 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post

So that's an example of how it's possible for every part of the metro area to be declining in income but the metro area as a whole is still has a stable overall average income, because the population growth is in the highest income area and the population decline is in the lowest income area.
Why is there a trend in every part of the metro area declining in income in many cases? And why not that some places increase, while others decrease?

And does it make a difference if it's the lowest income parts of the metro area losing people by moving to the high income areas? Or if migration is out of the metro area entirely?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 4:58 AM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 1,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Why is there a trend in every part of the metro area declining in income in many cases? And why not that some places increase, while others decrease?

And does it make a difference if it's the lowest income parts of the metro area losing people by moving to the high income areas? Or if migration is out of the metro area entirely?
Good paying jobs that were accessible to people with high school degrees have mostly vanished, to be replaced with jobs that require at least some higher education. There's a big chunk of Michigan's population that is, for lack of a better term, "lost." It's the same story across the Rust Belt, but very pronounced here. Michigan also suffers heavily from brain drain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 6:06 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Why is there a trend in every part of the metro area declining in income in many cases? And why not that some places increase, while others decrease?

And does it make a difference if it's the lowest income parts of the metro area losing people by moving to the high income areas? Or if migration is out of the metro area entirely?
It was a somewhat oversimplified example, but I'd say the general trend is still that there's a lot more areas that are declining in income, due to the fact that population growth is happening in high income areas and population loss is occurring in low income areas.

Population loss in low income areas makes sense. You have issues with crime and schools, high taxes and absentee landlords that leads to housing getting run-down. The housing is simply not desirable enough (in terms of rent or resale value) to warrant much investment in maintenance, and gets gradually more and more run down as it ages until it's no longer really livable. Maybe there's a period when the landlord is unable to find tenants, or in case of foreclosure, where the bank is unable to find a buyer, and while the house is vacant, it gets damaged by squatters or scrappers to the point where it's unsalvageable.

Population growth in high income areas also makes sense. Good services, low crime, good schools, people want to live there, so new housing gets built. The new housing can also have the advantage of being more in line with what modern society wants a house to be like, whether that's no lead or asbestos, energy efficiency, granite counter tops and hardwood floors, 2 car garages... The upper middle class who can afford new construction would probably prefer that to an outdated house from the early to mid 1900s.

However, as a neighbourhood ages, it's housing stock gets out-dated, and starts to lose it's shiny and new lustre. It gets a little less desirable, and the point of entry gets lower, so more working class households can afford to move in. Often, they move into the more modest homes, like the multi-family garden apartments. The garden apartments and higher density homes often get built a little later, as the suburb starts to run out of land, but the local government wants to increase the tax base by allowing more units on the smaller remaining pieces of land, or perhaps to provide housing for the service sector workers that are required to support the upper-middle class population.

Then the more elitist people start to avoid the suburb because they don't want to live in suburbs and send their kids to school with people of lower classes. In the past, this also had a strong racial dimension, now there's less racism involved but probably still a bit with a certain percentage of the population. As a result, the pool of upper middle class people interested in living there decreases, and makes way for more working class people to live in the suburb. Then the more tolerant upper middle class people are starting to have mixed feelings about living there, as the impact on crime, resale value, schools and city services starts to get noticeable, and are less likely to consider moving to the neighbourhood.

That's the thing to keep in mind, even if things aren't bad enough to make existing residents leave due to the conditions, a neighbourhood can still decline, because existing residents are going to leave in some numbers for other reasons, like getting a new job, or downsizing, or upsizing in the case of young professionals that might want to move out of the garden apartments as they start having kids. So if a suburb is seen as "still ok" but no longer the "hot new place", it might get passed over by a lot of upper middle class prospective homebuyers, which means that those upper middle class residents that inevitably move out get replaced by more working class residents who can't afford the "hot new place" and are willing to settle with "still ok".

The main exception to the pattern of "everywhere is declining" these days is in core cities that have healthy downtowns and intact nearby neighbourhoods to gentrify. I suppose the reason why the Woodward Ave suburbs of Detroit were able to get more desirable is partly because they have many of the qualities people find desirable about downtown/inner city living like walkability, proximity to jobs, historic homes and mature trees, and Detroit is bombed out enough that it's not able to compete against the Woodward Ave suburbs as well as healthier urban cores are able to compete against their own streetcar suburbs.

The other exception can occur when there are significant geographic or government limits to continued outward growth. In that case, more new housing gets built in the inner core, and lower income areas don't get abandoned because there's a tighter housing market. Also as the city gets denser, homes on large lots get more and more valuable, and a lot of those can be in suburbs relatively far from downtown, so for example with Toronto, that's parts of Oakville, Thornhill and Southern Mississauga are getting wealthier.

However, for your typical sprawling city, like Nashville, Indianapolis, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Kansas City, Phoenix or Orlando, the vast majority of suburbs will be going down on the socioeconomic ladder and only a few inner city neighbourhoods will be going up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 11:54 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
So I had a look at the census data, and you are right, at least for the areas close to downtown Royal Oak. But it seems like it's also a case of many of these inner suburbs looking good by comparison.
Yeah, it's not like these areas are white-hot or anything, but they've clearly fared much better than the rest of inner-suburban Detroit. It's more a case where these suburbs were a bit tired/over the hill 20 years ago; where grandma lived, and now it's younger families lured to the older homes and semi-walkability. And there really is a ton of teardown activity in Birmingham and Royal Oak, which is unusual for Metro Detroit.

I could see Clawson and Northern Royal Oak not faring as well, as they're the least walker friendly of the bunch and mostly just generic postwar bungalows. Also lots of aging 1960's apartment complexes that aren't particularly desirable. Areas like this:


I grouped Clawson in with the rest because its downtown is kinda hot right now, and it seems to be a cheaper fallback to Royal Oak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
I also looked at Southfield (26.7% decline), Harper Woods (17.9% decline) and Dearborn east of the Southfield Fwy (35.7% decline). And with Bloomfield Hills, it experienced a 36.6% decline.
Southfield has clearly declined somewhat as it transitioned from Jewish to African American, though remains ostensibly middle class and still a huge office center. Harper Woods also underwent a white-to-black shift, and was always very modest. And Dearborn has definitely declined. West Dearborn was almost like a mini-Grosse Pointe for Ford HQ employees; that area has stagnated and wealth moved west to Plymouth and Northville. Northville/Northville Township, in particular, is an up-and-coming wealth center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 12:13 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,202
Oops, forgot to include the Northern Royal Oak streetviews.

There are a ton of 1960's apartment complexes around Beaumont Hosptial (largest hospital in Metro Detroit). They're quite cheap and spartan, and are probably a drag on Northern Royal Oak/Clawson incomes:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5179...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5357...7i16384!8i8192

In a metro where the barriers to homeownership are extremely low, older apartment complexes, even if very well-located, will never house particularly high earners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 2:57 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
So I had a look at the census data, and you are right, at least for the areas close to downtown Royal Oak. But it seems like it's also a case of many of these inner suburbs looking good by comparison.

I looked at the household income compared to the state wide average in 1990, 2000 and 2016 (100% = same income as statewide average).

Ferndale
1990: 93.8%
2000: 101.9%
2016: 102.4%
So Ferndale improved a bit, but mostly 20-30 years ago and then just remained stable.

Birmingham
1990: 207.1%
2000: 211.2%
2016: 214.5%
If it's become the most expensive suburb, that's mostly due to the competition declining from extremely desirable to just very desirable rather that Birmingham itself becoming much more desirable since the relative income only slightly increased.

Bloomfield Hills
1990: 483.6%
2000: 382.4%
2016: 306.8%
Extremely desirable to just very desirable.

Berkley
1990: 120.2%
2000: 129.8%
2016: 137.6%
It's indeed been steadily more desirable.

Pleasant Ridge
1990: 172.7%
2000: 180.6%
2016: 195.1%
Similar to Berkley but from a higher point.

Huntington Woods
1990: 196.8%
2000: 195.4%
2016: 219.8%
Very desirable in the past, a bit more now.

Royal Oak
1990: 119.5%
2000: 117.7%
2016: 125.3%
It improved, but not that much, and basically just in the southern half close to downtown
Royal Oak South of Twelve Mile
1990: 114.5%
2000: 117.4%
2016: 130.7%
Royal Oak North of Twelve Mile actually hasn't recovered from the decline it experienced in the 90s.
1990: 124.4%
2000: 117.9%
2016: 120.0%

If you're wondering if the more suburban nature of northern Royal Oak hints that Clawson might have done more poorly, you'd be right.
Clawson
1990: 119.6%
2000: 114.1%
2016: 107.3%

119.6% to 107.3% is a relatively modest decline though, of only 10.3%.

I also looked at Southfield (26.7% decline), Harper Woods (17.9% decline) and Dearborn east of the Southfield Fwy (35.7% decline). And with Bloomfield Hills, it experienced a 36.6% decline.
This is interesting and is about what my "senses" expected. I would also be interested to see how those places have increased/decreased against non-Detroit metros.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 5:04 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 Crawford View Post
West Dearborn was almost like a mini-Grosse Pointe for Ford HQ employees; that area has stagnated and wealth moved west to Plymouth and Northville. Northville/Northville Township, in particular, is an up-and-coming wealth center.
Plymouth is getting pretty crazy these days, too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 9:30 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Yeah, it's not like these areas are white-hot or anything, but they've clearly fared much better than the rest of inner-suburban Detroit. It's more a case where these suburbs were a bit tired/over the hill 20 years ago; where grandma lived, and now it's younger families lured to the older homes and semi-walkability. And there really is a ton of teardown activity in Birmingham and Royal Oak, which is unusual for Metro Detroit.

I could see Clawson and Northern Royal Oak not faring as well, as they're the least walker friendly of the bunch and mostly just generic postwar bungalows. Also lots of aging 1960's apartment complexes that aren't particularly desirable. Areas like this:


I grouped Clawson in with the rest because its downtown is kinda hot right now, and it seems to be a cheaper fallback to Royal Oak.


Southfield has clearly declined somewhat as it transitioned from Jewish to African American, though remains ostensibly middle class and still a huge office center. Harper Woods also underwent a white-to-black shift, and was always very modest. And Dearborn has definitely declined. West Dearborn was almost like a mini-Grosse Pointe for Ford HQ employees; that area has stagnated and wealth moved west to Plymouth and Northville. Northville/Northville Township, in particular, is an up-and-coming wealth center.
The decline in West Dearborn hasn't been that severe from 1990 to now though, so maybe the shift of wealth to more outlying suburbs was already underway by 1990?

West Dearborn
1990: 139.1%
2000: 129.9%
2016: 119.8%

Eastpointe
1990: 110.0%
2000: 104.9%
2016: 79.8%
So West Dearborn isn't as wealthy as it used to be but the decline wasn't as intense as in a place like Eastpointe which saw a pretty intense decline since 2000.

As for Plymouth and Northville, the charter townships were already very wealthy in 1990, even moreso than now. Although Northville is building a lot of McMansions, maybe we've just figured out how to make those more affordable to the upper-middle class with modern construction practices and low interest rates? Or maybe it's being offset by multifamily?

The cities of Plymouth and Northville seem to be doing better than the charter townships, they used to be more middle class than the affluent townships but now they're similar to wealthier. Looking at them on google maps, I do see quite a lot of teardown activity near the town centres. Within both cities, the census tracts closest to the town centre fared better.

Plymouth
1990: 124.7%
2000: 116.9%
2016: 143.7%

Plymouth Charter Township
1990: 184.6%
2000: 175.2%
2016: 153.2%

Northville
1990: 162.8%
2000: 174.8%
2016: 179.3%

Northville Charter Township
1990: 180.1%
2000: 188.6%
2016: 159.7%
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2019, 8:50 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
The main exception to the pattern of "everywhere is declining" these days is in core cities that have healthy downtowns and intact nearby neighbourhoods to gentrify. I suppose the reason why the Woodward Ave suburbs of Detroit were able to get more desirable is partly because they have many of the qualities people find desirable about downtown/inner city living like walkability, proximity to jobs, historic homes and mature trees, and Detroit is bombed out enough that it's not able to compete against the Woodward Ave suburbs as well as healthier urban cores are able to compete against their own streetcar suburbs.

The other exception can occur when there are significant geographic or government limits to continued outward growth. In that case, more new housing gets built in the inner core, and lower income areas don't get abandoned because there's a tighter housing market. Also as the city gets denser, homes on large lots get more and more valuable, and a lot of those can be in suburbs relatively far from downtown, so for example with Toronto, that's parts of Oakville, Thornhill and Southern Mississauga are getting wealthier.

However, for your typical sprawling city, like Nashville, Indianapolis, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Kansas City, Phoenix or Orlando, the vast majority of suburbs will be going down on the socioeconomic ladder and only a few inner city neighbourhoods will be going up.
Good points. I wonder what share of cities are following the "everywhere or near-everywhere in the metro area is going down socioeconomically" trend vs. the "some get rich, some get poor within the same city with gentrifying areas as the city/metro itself gets more expensive". For various reasons, I've actually spent less time living in the really sprawling cities (though I have visited many for sure, just not lived there), and had often to live in cheaper places in expensive metro areas. In my mind, NYC, Toronto, Vancouver and the Bay Area's trend of "some places get real rich, others get poorer, while the metro area still is expensive" colors my view of cities, which is probably unrepresentative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2019, 9:51 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Good points. I wonder what share of cities are following the "everywhere or near-everywhere in the metro area is going down socioeconomically" trend vs. the "some get rich, some get poor within the same city with gentrifying areas as the city/metro itself gets more expensive". For various reasons, I've actually spent less time living in the really sprawling cities (though I have visited many for sure, just not lived there), and had often to live in cheaper places in expensive metro areas. In my mind, NYC, Toronto, Vancouver and the Bay Area's trend of "some places get real rich, others get poorer, while the metro area still is expensive" colors my view of cities, which is probably unrepresentative.
Most cities have at least a little gentrification in the core. The few that don't are probably in such a desperate situation that the core neighbourhoods were already about as low as they could get in the 80s-90s, and probably experienced a decline in the MSA income that made the core neighbourhoods seem like they experienced a small relative improvement. I'm thinking of cities like Jackson, MS or Youngstown, OH.

Cities like Milwaukee, Kansas City, Columbus, Nashville, Orlando, Raleigh, San Antonio, etc are still going to have a few gentrifying and stabilizing neighbourhoods in the core, even if parts of the inner city are still declining. However, those kinds of cities will probably have very few suburbs that are getting wealthier, mostly just wealthy suburbs that are growing rapidly but also becoming more socio-economically diverse in the process.

Even Toronto has few suburbs that are getting wealthier, unless you count areas like Central Etobicoke or Bedford Park or something, but to me, those are essentially just extensions of the core. Aside from that, I think only South Oakville and Thornhill and maybe a couple small pockets of Southern Mississauga have seen an increase in relative wealth, thanks to having very large lots that can't be subdivided, in a metro area where those are a scarce resource. Basically everywhere else saw a decline in relative wealth.

Los Angeles is interesting though. It's a large city, that has basically run out of land for outward growth. But it's downtown isn't as dominant as a job center, there's also plenty of well paying jobs in West LA, Santa Monica, Hollywood, Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, even Irvine. As a result, pretty much all of LA County is stable income wise (Lancaster-Palmdale is the main exception).
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 7:33 AM.

     

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