Howcome the crime, poverty, and decay ends at the city limits.

[miketoronto]

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

In most cities the city limits are like a wall between the bad and good.

But what stopped the crime from moving over the city limits into the suburbs?

Do the suburban police departments patrol the city limits more, to keep people out? Overall it just seems weird how the poverty, crime, and decay stops at a street that just happens to be the city boundary.

I know some suburbs have faced some decay. But overall the conditions are not as bad as the inner cities, and they have for the most part escaped the problems of the city, even if they border it.

But still it is interesting how the problems just sort of vanish once you pass the city boundary.

Take Grosse Pointe and Detroit. How have the mansions, etc that side right across the street from burned out house, stay well kept, crime free, etc?

What is stopping the decay from creeping over that city boundary?

[Chicago3rd]

Doesn't all the time...we have inner suburbs and they are just as messed up as portions of Chicago. Harvey is one.

Also, poverty is very rural too.

You do understand that in the US many social programs that are in the city/county attract people who need such services?
I.E. Cook County hospital is where the ring counties send their poor too.......

Decay...guess you haven't been to small towns where the oil dried up or the factory moved out.....

Too bad their isn't a printed study on this. Wonder why?

[crisp444]

I don't know of any areas that are like this to be honest with you.. decay in the city limits just blocks away from nice neighborhoods in the suburbs? I think the change from good to bad is more gradual in most places. I can attempt to answer for why this may occur in certain places though, and as much as Americans hate to hear this, it probably has to do with schools. I have seen areas where comparable homes that are literally just blocks away from another municipality sell at a large premium due to the fact that they are in a well-performing (measured by test scores) school district. Though these homes are quite literally in the same area (but are located in different cities/suburbs/municipalities), one may sell for $200,000 whereas another across the dividing line will sell for $300,000. Due to this difference in price, there are likely wealth and income differences between the populations of city A and city B and the lower income area school is more likely to have lower test scores and more social problems than its higher income equivalent. A great example I know is in suburban New Jersey: Plainfield (lower middle class suburb with a fair share of grit) versus Scotch Plains ("blue ribbon" suburb). The difference here is very pronounced: I would say that $400,000 for a 3/2 house in Plainfield versus $700,000 for something similar in Scotch Plains even though many neighborhoods in these cities border each other and if it weren't for arbitrary city boundaries, would be one in the same. However, according to greatschools.net, 70% of students in Plainfield's schools participate in the free and reduced price lunch program (which is a good income of % of students from low income families) versus 3% in Scotch Plains schools!! In my opinion, schools are undoubtedly the #1 reason that keeps middle class people (usually with families) from buying into certain areas.

[krudmonk]

Different tax bases and thus different spending.

[brickell]

Don't forget the outright racism of redlining and districting.
But like crisp says, I can't think of any places like you're describing. I've seen it drastically change from neighborhood to neighborhood an this sometimes lies along city borders, but at least around here, many of the inner-ring suburbs are the "inner city"

[totheskies]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

In most cities the city limits are like a wall between the bad and good.

But what stopped the crime from moving over the city limits into the suburbs?

Do the suburban police departments patrol the city limits more, to keep people out? Overall it just seems weird how the poverty, crime, and decay stops at a street that just happens to be the city boundary.

I know some suburbs have faced some decay. But overall the conditions are not as bad as the inner cities, and they have for the most part escaped the problems of the city, even if they border it.



But still it is interesting how the problems just sort of vanish once you pass the city boundary.

Take Grosse Pointe and Detroit. How have the mansions, etc that side right across the street from burned out house, stay well kept, crime free, etc?

What is stopping the decay from creeping over that city boundary?

Because black tar heroin and crystal meth pick up where they left off. It ain't all purrrty in them soocer vans kids

[hudkina]

Only one portion of the Grosse Pointes actually touch a neighborhood like that. Most of Detroit's far east side blends into the Grosse Pointes in a smoother way.

My guess is that even though the neighborhoods have been abandoned they aren't necessarily hotspots for crime, poverty, etc. They're just empty neighborhoods with a few houses here and there with low income families. And it's not a crime to be low income. Just because someone lives in a not so-nice neighborhood doesn't mean that they're going to want to go a few blocks down a rob a wealthier person...

[JManc]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

that's not the case here in houston.

[Downtown Bolivar]

Mike you ought to know better being so near to Buffalo. Crime is starting to spill over from the city into inner ring 'burbs such as Kenmore and Amherst.

[fflint]

The premise: crime, poverty and decay ends at city limits in "our nation".

Is that premise true? Not universally. Some of the worst poverty and crime in greater Los Angeles, for example, is located in suburbs. There are other metro examples that effectively torpedo the universality of that premise as well.

[mrherodotus]

Here in Pittsburgh, there are tons of crappy places outside of the city.

Wilkinsburg
Braddock
Rankin
Homestead
Duquesne
McKeesport
Clairton
New Kensington
Allequippa

These range from awful (Braddock), to gritty, but fairly safe (New Ken). All are outside of Pittsburgh. The issue of schools has played a large role in concentrating poverty inside of the cities though. Before busing, most kids went to school near where they lived. Thus, the kids who lived in safe areas of a city generally went to safe schools that were located in those areas. In this situation, there was no disadvantage to living in a nice city hood, as far as schools were concerned. Busing made parents look at the school district as a whole.

[stax]

Originally Posted by crisp444

In my opinion, schools are undoubtedly the #1 reason that keeps middle class people (usually with families) from buying into certain areas.

That's assuming that there is no crime in that area as well. People can get around the crappy school situation, a la private school, but high crime will simply blacklist a neighborhood instantly. And I am talking about violent crime, moreso than property crime. It's one of the problems that me and my wife are having with moving back into DC. We can make adjustments, and move into a smaller space for more money, I can get rid of one of the cars to make sure that my kids go to a charter school, or maybe finagle them into a magnet program, but it's the sheer violent crime factor that makes it a non-starter. But we love the city so much, that we are trying to work around that.

But yeah, crime aside, I have to agree: schools are the number one factor with middle class families, mainly because of the types of kids that your children would be going to school with. That's one of the reasons that DC is working so hard to get the schools in line, because someday, many of the residents who moved into these gentrified neighborhoods will have kids, and some of them are already making plans to leave the city once this happens.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Downtown Bolivar

Mike you ought to know better being so near to Buffalo. Crime is starting to spill over from the city into inner ring 'burbs such as Kenmore and Amherst.

I did not know about that. Kenmore and Amherst border very stable and nice areas of inner city Buffalo. So that is interesting if crime is spilling over.

But even on the east side, which has Buffalo's worst neighbourhoods, the decay and crime has not seemed to seep into Cheektowaga or anything like that.

You see it in Chicago to. You ride the Green Line out to Oak Park, and the west side neighbourhoods are all decayed, and then you hit the Oak Park city limits, and its all nice and safe.

[fflint]

Mike, you're begging the question. It isn't obviously true that crime, poverty and decay are magically contained only within big-city boundary lines.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?

That's not the case in The Bay Area. Daly City, Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, Richmond, San Pablo, Vallejo, Pittsburg, Antioch, San Leandro, Hayward, East Palo Alto, and San Jose all have areas that could use a good scrubbing and/or have abnormally higher rates of crime.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

You see it in Chicago to. You ride the Green Line out to Oak Park, and the west side neighbourhoods are all decayed, and then you hit the Oak Park city limits, and its all nice and safe.

yes, the austin/oak park contrast is stark mike, but chicago is a huge friggin city, and in most border areas, the city and burbs are virtually indistinguishable from each other. check out edison park to park ridge, or rogers park to south evanston or mount greenwood to evergreen park or riverdale to dolton.

you can't pick one stark example like austin to oak park and then claim that all city to suburb borders are like this everywhere in north america, it's simply an absurd logical jump to make.

[miketoronto]

I know not all borders are like that.

But it is interesting how this has happened in a number of cities. Again not all borders. But in some it makes you wonder how they stopped the decline from going over the city limit.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I did not know about that. Kenmore and Amherst border very stable and nice areas of inner city Buffalo. So that is interesting if crime is spilling over.

But even on the east side, which has Buffalo's worst neighbourhoods, the decay and crime has not seemed to seep into Cheektowaga or anything like that.

You see it in Chicago to. You ride the Green Line out to Oak Park, and the west side neighbourhoods are all decayed, and then you hit the Oak Park city limits, and its all nice and safe.

YOu see it in Chicago and you are going south and there is decay and you hit the city limits and there is still decay. It appears to be antidotical. It doesn't happen in Seattle, San Antonio, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland or Denver either.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I know not all borders are like that.

But it is interesting how this has happened in a number of cities. Again not all borders. But in some it makes you wonder how they stopped the decline from going over the city limit.

It would be interesting to hear how Oak Park does keep the nasty stuff from spilling over into it from Chicago's Austin neighborhood. It is almost night and day.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Q: How have the inner suburbs that border the nations cities, escaped for the most part, the decay, crime, and poverty of the inner city?
A: They haven't.