Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen
Core is wealthier
Boston
New York
Seattle
Portland
Washington DC
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Maybe Dallas
Maybe Austin
Suburbs wealthier
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Detroit
Chicago
Miami
Houston
|
Depends how it's calculated. Last I visited (a while ago, I'll admit) Los Angeles, the corest core was strictly commercial, so the only "residents" were the homeless.
Generally speaking, I guess the following city profile would be fairly typical:
Core of the core: shiny expensive tall office towers, with a tiny tiny amount of lowrise residential holdouts from another era (all the value being in the land, these are in most cases just waiting to be eventually redeveloped)
= low incomes (since the few residents of that remaining subpar housing are mostly poor)
First inner "ring": right outside the office core, usually dense prewar housing, walkable, vibrant neighborhood retail
= high incomes
Following "ring": further away from the office core, less old and less architecturally interesting, less desirable location
= lower incomes than the previous ring
Suburbs: some high-end ones, some cheap cookie-cutter ones that exist as bedroom communities for the middle class who can't afford the inner ring
= middle incomes, on average
Conclusion based on the above generic city profile: whether the "outer" is richer or poorer than the "inner" hinges on where exactly we decide to place the arbitrary lines.