HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 12:25 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but neighborhoods near the core of cities aren't supposed to be affordable. That was a temporary state of affairs that existed after a period of decline, when people had abandoned cities for suburbs, and now gentrification has resulted in the demographics going back to what they once were. You guys don't think the beautiful rowhouses and brownstones in "gentrified" neighborhoods were originally built for people of average means, do you?

Anyway, in London as in other highly dynamic cities, the affordable housing near the urban core is mostly council estates (public housing). The closest relatively affordable neighborhoods are going to be south of the river, but single family homes are going to be expensive for most people everywhere.

Last edited by 10023; May 10, 2016 at 12:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 12:30 PM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
International
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 4,052
Los Angeles is unique in this regard, as its center was largely undesirable and lay fallow for decades, as wealth traveled west, into the hills, and into distant suburban nodes. Downtown Los Angeles was (and largely is) surrounded by poor Latino neighborhoods, like South Central, Northeast LA, and East LA proper. Only recently has DTLA become a place people actually want to live and hang out - and has been developing rapidly, I should add. Owing to this recent development, there has been little spillover from DTLA into the surrounding SFH areas, although some has trickled into the nearby multifamily areas, such as Koreatown, and increasingly, Westlake.

IMO, the closest affordable SFH area would be the Historic South Central neighborhood, a large area just south of the 10 freeway and east of the 110 freeway, and largely characterized by early 1890s-1920s Craftsman and Victorian bungalows. It is a pretty poor, almost entirely Mexican (with a few black old-timers hanging around), and has literally no gentrification to speak of. Houses here, despite being right next to DTLA, are vastly cheaper than a comparable in-town neighborhood in NYC, Boston, DC, San Francisco, Chicago, etc., would be. Funny enough, people think of South Central as an all black neighborhood (really, a region), when in reality is is probably easily pushing 70% Hispanic, and 100% Hispanic in the areas east of the 110, such as the Historic South Central neighborhood.

https://www.google.no/maps/@34.01940...!6m1!1e1?hl=en
https://www.google.no/maps/place/Los...!6m1!1e1?hl=en
https://www.google.no/maps/place/Los...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Boyle Heights and Lincoln Heights (and also El Sereno and City Terrace...as mentioned, LA's downtown is surrounded by some of the poorest and roughest areas of the city), which lay to the east and northeast of Downtown, are also mostly SFH and still affordable, although there has been small-scale gentrification in both. Many young, college-educated, white first-time buyers are looking in these areas, as some of the options from the previous decade (Echo Park and Highland Park, mostly) have gentrified and gotten fairly pricey. Lincoln Heights will probably gentrify faster than Boyle Heights, where there has been substantial, organized Chicano (Mexican-American) pushback and opposition to gentrification, including literal harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence towards newcomers and real estate agents.

Lincoln Heights:
https://www.google.no/maps/@34.07197...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Boyle Heights:
https://www.google.no/maps/@34.04045...!6m1!1e1?hl=en
https://www.google.no/maps/@34.03969...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Oslo follows a more typical European model, where areas close to the center are desired and sought after, as demand for inner-city living is quite high in what is one of, if not, the fastest-growing capitals in Europe. Historically, there has been an east-west split, with the areas west of sentrum (center) being posh, urbane and generally well-off. Those to the east have historically been poorer, more industrial, and as of late, the center of Oslo's large immigrant population, which is a just over 1/3 of the city's overall population. Grønland and Tøyen, just east and northeast of the sentrum (5 minutes walking to the first, 5 minutes by train to the other) were traditionally the poorest, most immigrant areas in the inner-city, but things are starting to change as newer, wealthier homeowners and the businesses they attract move into such areas. Gamlebyen, which is just behind the main train station, and Vålerenga/Galgeberg which are a little more distant, are my guesses for the most affordable areas in (relatively) central Oslo. The first area is an 1890s tenement flat area of mostly lower middle class white Norwegian families, and has a strange rockabilly/50s vibe. The other two are more working class, and are primarily defined by more small-scale 1800s SFH's, occasionally punctuated by tenement blocks from the 40s/50s.

Gamlebyen:
https://www.google.no/maps/@59.90767...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Vålerenga:
https://www.google.no/maps/@59.90835...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Galgeberg:
https://www.google.no/maps/place/Osl...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Last edited by Kingofthehill; May 10, 2016 at 1:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 1:32 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickell View Post
I used to work close to there and it's a really nice neighborhood for the price. A lot of it is not exactly gentrifying, but definitely improving in spots. I even looked at a couple of homes there way back when, but it's just a bit too ethnic for me. I mean, I don't expect everyone in Miami to speak English, or even most people, but it's nice to be able to go the grocery store and have a conversation with at least 1 or 2 people that understands me.

Also, I'm curious why you don't consider East Little Havana? Is it semantics about what is working class, or you just don't consider it SF? It's a good mix, and most of the homes there seem to be subdivided, so I get it if that's why. But it is just across the river from downtown.
Yes I would consider Little Havana to be primarily multifamily or at least not primarily single family.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 1:33 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
To me, that's an immigrant area, with some gentrification, and not really working class in the sense of white ethnic union plumbers and the like.

Also likely a relatively low % of SFH.
Working class neighborhoods can't be immigrant heavy? In a large part of the US, working class, blue collar neighborhood = immigrant neighborhood. In that case Miami's closest one would have to be Homestead/Redlands. ~30 miles from Downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 2:10 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but neighborhoods near the core of cities aren't supposed to be affordable. That was a temporary state of affairs that existed after a period of decline, when people had abandoned cities for suburbs, and now gentrification has resulted in the demographics going back to what they once were. You guys don't think the beautiful rowhouses and brownstones in "gentrified" neighborhoods were originally built for people of average means, do you?
I would say it depends on the city and time period. Most housing in North American cities was on the fringe when it was built and only became "central" as new neighbourhoods were built beyond them. This first wave of housing sometimes consisted of beautiful rowhouses, mansions, etc, but sometimes it was more modest housing.

Sometimes you had a second wave of development replacing the first wave as the city grew up, which could have included some highly attractive brownstones (I think Centre Square in Albany had some of this?), modest apartment buildings and also more upscale apartment buildings. A lot of North American cities didn't experience much 2nd wave development though, maybe a little bit but often much of the 1st wave development remained.

I think many neighbourhoods had a mix of incomes tied to a mix of housing types, as well as a mix of incomes within individual buildings, ex wealthier home-owners with less wealthy boarders, or like in Paris where the wealthy lived on the lower floors and the poor lived on the top floors.

For example, was Cincinnati's OTR neighbourhood ever truly wealthy? It may have gone into decline in the mid 20th century but was it wealthy before or just not as poor? Similarly, I doubt Trinity Bellwoods or Kensington Market in Toronto were ever truly wealthy, or Spence, St Boniface and Centennial in Winnipeg... probably averaged out at middle income if not a little less at their best.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 3:00 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
I would say it depends on the city and time period. Most housing in North American cities was on the fringe when it was built and only became "central" as new neighbourhoods were built beyond them. This first wave of housing sometimes consisted of beautiful rowhouses, mansions, etc, but sometimes it was more modest housing.
Yes, fair enough... specifically on the size of the city and the time period in which it was first developed.

Some American industrial cities would have had workers' housing near the CBD because there were factories and rail yards and things near the core, at least on the "less favored" side of town (Bridgeport in Chicago for example). But then "core" is also a relative term... if you pick a central point, something a few miles away might be part of the urban core in one city and way out in the boondocks in another.

I was referring more to larger, more established cities, where the central neighborhoods were clearly built for the well to do and then became cheaper than they should have been because of urban decay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 4:34 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave8721 View Post
Working class neighborhoods can't be immigrant heavy? In a large part of the US, working class, blue collar neighborhood = immigrant neighborhood. In that case Miami's closest one would have to be Homestead/Redlands. ~30 miles from Downtown.
I would say that, yeah, in the U.S., the traditional blue collar tradesman-type neighborhoods are not heavily immigrant. Even in Miami, I doubt your local union plumbers and crane operators just got off the plane from Honduras.

Immigrants generally have a very difficult time becoming union tradesmen, which is dependent on experience, connections and generally knowing how to work the system. So it doesn't make sense that gateway immigrant neighborhoods would have this typology.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 5:17 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Yes, fair enough... specifically on the size of the city and the time period in which it was first developed.

Some American industrial cities would have had workers' housing near the CBD because there were factories and rail yards and things near the core, at least on the "less favored" side of town (Bridgeport in Chicago for example). But then "core" is also a relative term... if you pick a central point, something a few miles away might be part of the urban core in one city and way out in the boondocks in another.

I was referring more to larger, more established cities, where the central neighborhoods were clearly built for the well to do and then became cheaper than they should have been because of urban decay.
Well, London had a mix, no? The wealthy area was around Kensington/Buckingham Palace and the working class area was in the East End although afaik Soho and Covent Garden were not wealthy either.

And tbh Kensington was basically the suburbs back then.

Last edited by memph; May 10, 2016 at 5:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 5:25 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
I doubt Trinity Bellwoods or Kensington Market in Toronto were ever truly wealthy
They weren't. They were rowhouse neighborhoods built for the working class in the late 19th century.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 6:19 PM
brickell's Avatar
brickell brickell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: County of Dade
Posts: 9,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I would say that, yeah, in the U.S., the traditional blue collar tradesman-type neighborhoods are not heavily immigrant. Even in Miami, I doubt your local union plumbers and crane operators just got off the plane from Honduras.
This is Miami. Everything is heavily immigrant. And Unions??? That's funny.
__________________
That's what did it in the end. Not the money, not the music, not even the guns. That is my heroic flaw: my excess of civic pride.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 8:38 PM
SPonteK SPonteK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007 View Post
Lots of this in KC ... Northeast Kansas City is the most obvious one, which is basically next to downtown.
Or the Westside and Columbus Park, which are even closer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 11, 2016, 1:09 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
How about the Bay Area? Boston? Chicago? Washington?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 11, 2016, 7:26 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
In Toronto, the closest thing to an elegant townhouse neighborhood that was built for the wealthy and has become wealthy again is the Annex. And while it did go into decline from the 1930s to the 1960s it was never really a working class neighborhood (it was more of a bourgeois district "down on its luck").

The other row and semi neighborhoods were working class areas that gentrified due to their closeness to downtown and the appeal of Victorian housing stock to gentrifiers.

Last edited by Docere; May 11, 2016 at 8:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 7:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.