Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

kayman

For the first time, the majority of poverty is in the suburbs

7 posts in this topic

Poverty shifts to the suburbs

This is the reason why I say running to the suburbs doesn't equate to safer environs. For the first time ever, the Brooking's Institute Metropolitan Policy program has found that poverty in the suburbs outnumbers poverty in the cities by 1.2 million. Also they found that rising crime and struggling school districts are also on the rise in the suburbs faster than ever. I guess that's the reason why I plan on living in the city, and NOT in the suburbs because it is basically the lesser of the 2 evils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Poverty shifts to the suburbs

This is the reason why I say running to the suburbs doesn't equate to safer environs. For the first time ever, the Brooking's Institute Metropolitan Policy program has found that poverty in the suburbs outnumbers poverty in the cities by 1.2 million. Also they found that rising crime and struggling school districts are also on the rise in the suburbs faster than ever. I guess that's the reason why I plan on living in the city, and NOT in the suburbs because it is basically the lesser of the 2 evils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inner ring suburbs are doing no better than some central cities these days. Also, I think many inner ring "suburbs" should not be considered suburbs at all, since many in the northeast are as dense or even denser than the central city themselves (i.e. Somerville, MA; West New York, NJ; Central Falls, RI, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about this a long time ago. I look at the progression of cities like a a rock hitting water. You have a wave that leads to major growth in the central city and that first wave spreads out to the suburbs as a new wave comes into the central city, and then that wave begins to move out (though more mixed and smaller) followed by another resurgence in the central city, even more mixed than before until finally things really just start mixing together.

You see this in many cities where the whites moved out in the 50s, 60s, and 70s leaving room for immigrants and other minorities. As minorities/immigrants gain some success they begin moving out to the suburbs and then the whites begin moving back into the central city (this is happening in a lot of places).

The poverty isn't just spreading into the suburbs.. but it's spreading out and thinning out and mixing a bit. Our cities are simply becoming more diverse on a micro and macro scale level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought about this a long time ago. I look at the progression of cities like a a rock hitting water. You have a wave that leads to major growth in the central city and that first wave spreads out to the suburbs as a new wave comes into the central city, and then that wave begins to move out (though more mixed and smaller) followed by another resurgence in the central city, even more mixed than before until finally things really just start mixing together.

You see this in many cities where the whites moved out in the 50s, 60s, and 70s leaving room for immigrants and other minorities. As minorities/immigrants gain some success they begin moving out to the suburbs and then the whites begin moving back into the central city (this is happening in a lot of places).

The poverty isn't just spreading into the suburbs.. but it's spreading out and thinning out and mixing a bit. Our cities are simply becoming more diverse on a micro and macro scale level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of another reason to be suspicious of this study and its results...

With the lax Census definition of a suburban county being 25% of the population commuting into the central county, a lot of counties have been added to MSAs in the past 6 years. Atlanta now has over 20 counties in its metro, Nashville MSA spreads over 6,000 square miles, Memphis over 4,000 square miles, and Washington D.C. now extends 50 miles westward into West Virginia.

My point, some of the towns and hamlets in the far flung corners of these peripheral counties are more rural than suburban. And we all know that rural poverty is as much a problem as urban poverty. Yet they're lumped in with suburbs ONLY because they happen to be in the same county as an arguably suburban area. I would argue that they do not belong in the MSA, and they should not be classified as suburban. But I'll bet you this study included them as suburbs.

Just more of my two cents. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. I think that trend would be more pronounced in the exurban counties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.