City income "donuts"

[hipster duck]

^In the case of Cincinnati, might this have something to do with the flow of the Ohio river from east to west? This means that, historically, industrial and human waste would have flowed westward out of the city.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think northbound. Baltimore follows the common scenario of wealth trending northwards.

So outside of NYC and Miami, are there are other U.S./Canadian cities that don't have a clear "favored quarter", at least in terms of "pie slices"? Maybe the Bay Area, kinda, even though the Peninsula is more favored than the East Bay. Even with NYC, I guess you could argue there's a slight Westchester/Connectucut bias in terms of people's perception of wealth, at least relative to NJ. But Long Island is about the same as Westchester/Connecticut, and even NJ has similar concentrations of wealth as the other directionals (just slightly lower costs).

I'd say the Bay Area is very similar to NYC in this regard. The Peninsula might be analogous to Westchester, Marin to Fairfield County or Long Island, and East Bay to NJ, however, some of the Bay Area's wealthiest parts are in the East Bay (Oakland/Berkeley Hills, Walnut Creek/Orinda/Alamo, etc etc)


To me, places like Atlanta and Chicago follow this donut model, with obvious nuances (like both cities are generally entirely wealthy going due north). I could see Houston and Dallas having this sort of donut idea as well. Perhaps Denver going forward as well.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

To me, places like Atlanta and Chicago follow this donut model, with obvious nuances (like both cities are generally entirely wealthy going due north). I could see Houston and Dallas having this sort of donut idea as well. Perhaps Denver going forward as well.

Really? To me, Chicago and Atanta are basically Exhibit A for the "favored quarter" model. I'm not sure if there are two metros that are that heavily skewed geographically in terms of wealth and prosperity. Maybe Dallas would be equally "favored quarter"?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2014/10/29...ion-four-maps/

That's just the City of Toronto though. I haven't been able to find a good map that also includes the "905" suburbs.

Toronto seems to be a mix of "donut" and "favored quarter." Almost all other Canadian cities have a more pronounced "favored quarter" pattern.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Docere

To what extent do US cities reflect a "donut" pattern - where you have a revitalized city core, surrounded by the poor in the middle, surrounded by affluent suburbs? NYC clearly has a donut pattern, while in a lot of Sunbelt cities you have a pattern of wedges. Then you have "hollowed out" cities like Cleveland and Detroit.

http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?cityincome

Scrolling down I see 'Gold Coast'. Isn't that in Australia?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

I'd say the Bay Area is very similar to NYC in this regard. The Peninsula might be analogous to Westchester, Marin to Fairfield County or Long Island, and East Bay to NJ, however, some of the Bay Area's wealthiest parts are in the East Bay (Oakland/Berkeley Hills, Walnut Creek/Orinda/Alamo, etc etc)

It's quite evident how affluent the Bay Area is looking at these maps.

Chicago shows an evident "favored quarter" model. In Chicago, almost all the law firm partners living in the suburbs would be on the North Shore. In NYC, they'd go in all directions.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Docere

That's just the City of Toronto though. I haven't been able to find a good map that also includes the "905" suburbs.

Toronto seems to be a mix of "donut" and "favored quarter." Almost all other Canadian cities have a more pronounced "favored quarter" pattern.

http://globalnews.ca/news/370804/income-by-postal-code/

[PoshSteve]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Interesting, see that now. St. Louis and Kansas City both have west/southwest favored quarters which makes sense due to prevailing winds from the west and the south. Cincinnati and Cleveland both trend strangely east for older industrial cities.

Cleveland's wealth wedge is in the Heights. All from the development of Shaker Heights (Cleveland's original planned/garden/streetcar community) by the Van Sweringen brothers in the 1910's to be above an away from all the dirt and the industry of the lower city, but still a quick train ride away from downtown. And then as tends to happen, the wealth kept building outwards from there... One of my favorite areas to drive through, with all the beautiful old Tudor mansions

[pdxtex]

^^^^i like all of those awesome tudor apartments and condos. is shaker heights pretty desireable to most clevelanders or is it mostly a draw for urbanist types, well for the stuff along the western end of the main drag...

[Docere]

Here's median family income for Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (the default position in the color coding is change over last decade, but you can have it set to median family income.)

http://www.patrickcain.ca/?p=1964

The second "o" in "Toronto" on the Toronto map is about where City Hall and the CBD is.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Really? To me, Chicago and Atanta are basically Exhibit A for the "favored quarter" model. I'm not sure if there are two metros that are that heavily skewed geographically in terms of wealth and prosperity. Maybe Dallas would be equally "favored quarter"?

I'm just thinking in super generalities.

In Atlanta's case, the intown neighborhoods and Midtown are becoming enclaves for professionals and the wealthy. Many inner ring areas also seeing movements towards the negative. Outer ring burbs continue to be haves for wealthy transplants looking for suburban life.

Yes, also generally speaking, wealth trends north. However, going north, some inner ring areas such as Chamblee/Lilburn don't seem to be seeing the same degree of positive shift, in fact, the contrary. But just further out from these areas you hit Dunwoody, Johns Creek and other areas that see more and more transplant wealth moving in each year.

Stone Mountain is a perfect example as well. Inner ring for Atlanta. Once very middle, even upper middle class. Now Decatur closer into town is becoming a wealth spot (and Druid Hills even further in), and going further out, newer burbs like Conyers, etc are safe havens for middle class transplant families. Meanwhile, Stone Mountain is basically a ghetto now. I knew people who grew up there who are in their 20s, and their parents have all moved out, too. Either moving closer in or going further out.

In Chicago's case, there definitely seems to be some sort of ring, where the very inner areas are seeing a MASSIVE influx of wealth, former middle class neighborhoods just beyond downtown areas in nearly all directions (except north) seem to be in worse condition, and the outer suburban areas have always been and still are pretty wealthy.

I don't think it's always an option for every lower class family "displaced" by gentrification to haul ass to some far out burb. Yes it's happening and it's a news story, however, I think a lot of people simply shuffle slightly further out where prices are lowered and transit is still accessible.

In fact, in cities like Chicago, I think more people would simply shuffle into inner ring areas rather than far burbs (same in Atlanta) if the city had kept more subsidized housing. But large parts of Chicago and to a lesser degree, Atlanta, are literally razed. There's still a lot of people leaving the areas within 2-3 miles of downtown who are shuffling just a couple zip codes over. There's still a sense that the "richest" areas are both the downtown areas and the farthest out burbs (Lake Forest to the north, Wayne/St. Charles to the west, etc), and the lands in between are middle class or less.

[Docere]

Here's Vancouver - with a clear "favored quarter."

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.c...m_1113428a.pdf

[memph]

Originally Posted by Docere

Here's median family income for Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (the default position in the color coding is change over last decade, but you can have it set to median family income.)

http://www.patrickcain.ca/?p=1964

The second "o" in "Toronto" on the Toronto map is about where City Hall and the CBD is.

It gets tricky comparing family and individual income though, the patterns aren't necessarily the same. Brampton's family incomes are fairly average but families are quite large, especially in newer developments (4-5). Downtown family incomes are also pretty average but families are less than half the size (1.5-2). Scarborough, Rexdale, etc are somewhere in between in terms of family sizes.

And it's hard to say what the best measure is too.

Household and family incomes are not ideal because smaller households/families don't need as high incomes to live well. At the same time, per capita income is not ideal either because a family of four doesn't need to make four times more than a single person household to live as well.

[Docere]

Unfortunately I haven't seem an average individual income map for the GTA. Just for the City of Toronto. The "3 cities" site is doing some upgrading and a lot of their maps aren't available at the moment. The Vancouver map I linked is based on average individual income in 2005.

[PoshSteve]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

^^^^i like all of those awesome tudor apartments and condos. is shaker heights pretty desireable to most clevelanders or is it mostly a draw for urbanist types, well for the stuff along the western end of the main drag...

Its a place for everyone. Its a very diverse area both in people and buildings. From the huge multi-million dollar mansions, to the more simple middle income single family home neighborhoods, and then the large apartment buildings along the rail lines and main roads. Work has started now on a high density mixed use area at the end of the blue line to create the "downtown" that the city never had (as it was originally planned to be exclusively residential). The only thing is that the property taxes are the highest in the region, so if youre not pretty well to do, its tough to afford it if youre not renting.

[Docere]

Here's the Toronto CMA (2005). A bit dated but the pattern is basically the same today.

http://3cities.neighbourhoodchange.c...ual-Income.pdf

Looks like more of a donut but some "favored quarter."

[north 42]

Windsor definitely follow the doughnut pattern, as most of the inner city neighbourhoods surrounding the DT are the poorest parts of the city. Some inner city neighbourhoods like Walkerville are doing well and are gentrifying, but most are not. The outer parts of the city are the most prosperous, along with almost all of its suburbs.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

what about baltimore? is there a contiguous favored quarter? i've yet to wrap my brain around the geography of that city, although theres always parallels between it and st. louis (and to a far lesser extent DC...other than weather).

Baltimore's original favored quarter was straight north. But as it becomes more and more intertwined with DC, the southwestern (near DC) suburbs are growing in wealth and importance. But there's a gap, because the area immediately southwest of downtown Baltimore is industrial and not wealthy at all.

So actually I think Baltimore is probably a better match for the donut model, with a solid downtown and wealthy suburbs, but still a huge belt of mostly poor rowhouse neighborhoods in nearly every direction. There are certainly wedges of wealth in the rowhouse belt, especially near downtown and straight north, but they're narrow wedges; whereas DC's "favored quarter" is more like a favored third, or even favored half, Baltimore's is probably a favored eighth.