Any US cities where core is wealthier than suburbs?

[memph]

Been looking at the 2021 census income data for Canada, and Toronto's core is increasingly either high income or middle income.

Average individual income (age 15+)
Blue = 40%+ above CMA average
Green = 20-40% above CMA average
Beige = within 20% of CMA average
Orange = 20-40% below CMA average
Red = 40%+ below CMA average



Compared to the previous census, the high income areas have increased slightly while working class areas have decreased slightly, to the point where now the core is either high or middle income with the exception of a couple very small lower income pockets.

The largest lower income areas closest to the core are not that close to it, and mostly 1940s-1960s housing stock, like Eglinton West/Weston, Flemingdon/Thorncliffe Park, and Crescent Town.

Not only that but many of Toronto's post-war neighbourhoods in Scarborough, Jane-Finch, Downsview, North Etobicoke, appear to have shifted towards being a bit closer to middle income, while formerly upper-middle income areas of Halton, Durham and York shift a bit more towards middle income, and brand new neighbourhoods are being built in Brampton to house a lower-middle income population.

[memph]

The whole metro area


Overall, I'd say the core is upper-middle income, middle ring is lower-middle income, and outer ring is middle income. The lower-middle income outer suburbs like Brampton and Oshawa more than balance out the upper-middle income ones like Oakville, Burlington and various little exurbs with much smaller populations. The gap between Brampton and NW Toronto and Scarborough is also increasingly small. The gap between the most outlying parts of Mississauga (Erindale, Meadowvale West) and the most close in parts (Applewood, Lakeview) is also shrinking.

Vancouver and Calgary also have wealthier cores than suburbs. Montreal and Halifax are probably close to even.

[proghousehead]

Manhattan I would guess is way wealthier than the other boros. Maybe Westchester or Nassau would come close but NYC should also be an example of this.

[wwmiv]

Increasingly, Austin.

[Docere]

Seattle probably.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Docere

Seattle probably.

Denver and Portland are possible, but less likely, contenders.

[memph]

In the US, probably New York, Boston, DC, Seattle and San Francisco have the pattern that comes closest to this? But I think they all have fairly significant wealth in the outer suburbs still, rather than outer suburbs that average out to being equal parts lower middle and upper middle income?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by memph

The whole metro area

Overall, I'd say the core is upper-middle income, middle ring is lower-middle income, and outer ring is middle income. The lower-middle income outer suburbs like Brampton and Oshawa more than balance out the upper-middle income ones like Oakville, Burlington and various little exurbs with much smaller populations. The gap between Brampton and NW Toronto and Scarborough is also increasingly small. The gap between the most outlying parts of Mississauga (Erindale, Meadowvale West) and the most close in parts (Applewood, Lakeview) is also shrinking.

Vancouver and Calgary also have wealthier cores than suburbs. Montreal and Halifax are probably close to even.

There is still also a clear favored quarter along the lake to the southwest, which is a typical North American urban growth pattern as well.

[Doady]

US suburbs typically don't provide much if any transit service to their new subdivisions and employment areas, and such places are not designed to facilitate new transit routes and improve access to new transit stops, and that helps prevent poverty from spreading too far out from the core. Canadian suburbs have so many problems because they make the mistake of trying to reduce dependence on the automobile by promoting transit, especially bus transit, and you can see it clearly in the lower incomes of suburbanites in Canada. It's just a race to the bottom here in Canada, but the USA knows better.

[Docere]

Per capita income:


Seattle $63,610
King County $55,374

[memph]

Originally Posted by proghousehead

Manhattan I would guess is way wealthier than the other boros. Maybe Westchester or Nassau would come close but NYC should also be an example of this.

For Manhattan the comparison would have to be Manhattan vs outer metro area countries like Westchester, Somerset, Morris, Fairfield, Nassau, Suffolk, Monmouth...

The lowest income areas would be Brownsville, South Bronx, Newark, Passaic, Paterson and Yonkers. Mostly 8-10 miles from the core. Fairly similar distances to Toronto's lowest income areas, except that they're denser and older neighbourhoods (more core-like in that sense) due to New York as a whole having more neighbourhoods of that sort. Meanwhile New York's suburbs sprawl out much more, with a lot of suburbs 40+ miles from the core while Toronto is mostly farmland at the 25 mile mark. That results in a large ring of affluent suburbs far removed from the Bronx, Newark and Brownsville, whereas in Toronto there's much less of a difference, both in terms of distance, and socioeconomically.

[Docere]

Define "core."

[memph]

Originally Posted by Docere

Define "core."

Typically I'd go with something like 1/3 to 1/2 the distance from the CBD to the suburban fringe, and home to around 20% of the MSA population. The outer ring would be 70%+ of the distance to the fringe, as well as the exurbs beyond the fringe, and what's in between would be the middle ring of aging suburbs. That works fairly well for most US cities, but in NYC, due to the extreme density contrasts, it doesn't work as well.

[Crawford]

I think most healthy U.S. metros have a "wealthier" core than the burbs, at this point, but it depends on definition. It'll be unlikely that you'll find higher median household incomes, bc you're comparing SFHs on large lots, occupied by two-earner families in peak earning years, with urban-style RE, including non-market housing, dorms, senior housing, etc.

But, generally speaking, core RE is much more expensive apples-apples. Center City Philly is more expensive than Main Line, to take an example. And Main Line is more expensive than SE PA McMansion sprawl.

It's probably even more likely in Canada, bc there isn't as much of a leafy upper class sprawl belt.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think most healthy U.S. metros have a "wealthier" core than the burbs, at this point, but it depends on definition. It'll be unlikely that you'll find higher median household incomes, bc you're comparing SFHs on large lots, occupied by two-earner families in peak earning years, with urban-style RE, including non-market housing, dorms, senior housing, etc.

But, generally speaking, core RE is much more expensive apples-apples. Center City Philly is more expensive than Main Line, to take an example.

It's probably even more likely in Canada, bc there isn't as much of a leafy upper class sprawl belt.

My maps were using average income of everyone over the age of 15, so that adjusts for household size.

[iheartthed]

Manhattan for sure. The per capita income of Manahttan is almost $40k higher than the next highest county in NYS, Westchester. The borough doesn't perform as well when measuring median though, since there are a lot more middle and lower income residents in Manhattan than in the suburbs.

The list on Wikipedia is a little outdated, so I'm sure Brooklyn (Kings) has improved quite a bit on the per capita measure. Brooklyn is probably above the NYS per capita by now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._capita_income

[memph]

Calgary's inner city used to consist mostly of mid-century ranch houses, due to being a small and new city (similar to Phoenix for example). The low density and low historic value, combined with high population growth and demand for close-in housing means few obstacles and good returns for redeveloping the core neighbourhoods. As a result, the core has not only new housing for single adults in the form of condos, but also modern and spacious housing for affluent families.

So the housing in the suburbs doesn't have much of an advantage, except that the jobs and amenities aren't as close by. Some outer suburbs (especially exurbs) have large homes and lots, and those still have high incomes, however, the lowest incomes are around Martindale/Saddletown, on the NE fringe, where the homes are more modest, and were built in the 90s-00s, although older post-war areas like Forest Lawn are also low income by Calgary standards. There's also many middle income suburbs.

Overall, Calgary's outer suburbs are middle income, but the core in mid-upper income.

[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

[Crawford]

Perhaps it's more valuable to see where wealthy household reside, rather than looking at medians. On this measure, Philly probably doesn't perform particularly well, with the vast majority of HNW in the burbs. Detroit and Cleveland would have extremely low numbers. NYC would probably have the highest share of any major metro. Chicago, SF, Seattle, DC, Boston would also rank highly.

Harder to do analysis for Sunbelt. LA, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas also have a high share of HNW in city proper. However, these neighborhoods are overwhelmingly suburban. Even for Canada, a lot of the HNW would be in older suburban-style neighborhoods near the core. Rosedale isn't really an urban neighborhood, even if it's cosmopolitan, urbane and core-adjacent.

[memph]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Manhattan for sure. The per capita income of Manahttan is almost $40k higher than the next highest county in NYS, Westchester. The borough doesn't perform as well when measuring median though, since there are a lot more middle and lower income residents in Manhattan than in the suburbs.

The list on Wikipedia is a little outdated, so I'm sure Brooklyn (Kings) has improved quite a bit on the per capita measure. Brooklyn is probably above the NYS per capita by now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._capita_income

It has improved, but I think not quite that much. If the per capita income improved as much as the household income, it should be ranked around the lower end of the top 20.

Also seems like Putnam, Fairfield, Nassau, Suffolk, Morris, Somerset, Monmouth and Hunterdon countries have higher per capita incomes than Westchester?