Your city's income map in 1960 vs. today

[Docere]

Even Toronto - known as a city where the wealth never left the core - had a core/periphery distinction, but clearly a favored northern section. Most of the low income tracts were in the inner city. Today Toronto has inverted, with a generally affluent core and more working class periphery.

[galleyfox]

Chicago

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Docere

Even Toronto - known as a city where the wealth never left the core - had a core/periphery distinction, but clearly a favored northern section. Most of the low income tracts were in the inner city. Today Toronto has inverted, with a generally affluent core and more working class periphery.

here is another map to illustrate the point. the rich and middle class is currently migrating to the waterfront in Toronto
The entire waterfront might be blue already.

[Steely Dan]

My 4-word review of the Chicago map sequence:

"Fuck you, middle class"


Though not nearly as extremely bifurcated, the Toronto maps are still kinda like:

"Screw you, middle class"

[jmecklenborg]

The United States is exponentially wealthier in 2020 than it was in 1960. The percentage of people earning big money is much, much higher.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

My 4-word review of the Chicago map sequence:

"Fuck you, middle class"


Though not nearly as extremely bifurcated, the Toronto maps are still kinda like:

"Screw you, middle class"

I think true middle class is difficult to maintain in older cities.

The original middle class houses in older cities are usually a lot smaller than a modern 2 parent/2children/2 pets/2 car middle-class family would prefer, but they don’t have the same money to afford renovations as upper-class families.

So the housing just becomes low income over time.






Over time, a map like Paris would probably be the true state of a modern city. A wealthy core, surrounded by a patchwork of low, middle and upper income neighborhoods.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I think true middle class is difficult to maintain in older cities.

The original middle class houses in older cities are usually a lot smaller than a modern 2 parent/2children/2 pets/2 car middle-class family would prefer, but they don’t have the same money to afford renovations as upper-class families.

So the housing just becomes low income over time.

Yeah, maybe it's more a case of the middle class fucking over Chicago than the other way around.

As a fellow middle class person, I want to like more of them, but their tastes are fucking horrible, generally speaking. at least the family ones.



Anyway, a new construction house on the block over from us is hitting the market at $1.8M asking.

Oh shit, here comes the neighborhood.

Not that rich people are necessarily bad, but sometimes it seems impossible to keep an area for regular people stable for regular people over time in urban America these days.


Oh well, norwood park will never change.

So there's that, I guess.

[JManc]

That Chicago map is downright depressing.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

My 4-word review of the Chicago map sequence:

"Fuck you, middle class"


Though not nearly as extremely bifurcated, the Toronto maps are still kinda like:

"Screw you, middle class"

Really striking and apparent when looking at those maps over time. I suspect this is likely true for most medium size and large cities in the US and Canada.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Really striking and apparent when looking at those maps over time. I suspect this is likely true for most medium size and large cities in the US and Canada.

Sort of?

Both the wealthy and the poor will move into middle-class areas very quickly, but the middle-class try to avoid poor areas and weren’t thrilled to live in cities to begin with.

Chicago in 1980 had a very bad hand to start with. It had some middle class neighborhoods in the bungalow belt, but very sparse wealthy areas that directly bordered some of the highest poverty areas.

Whereas the middle class neighborhoods in LA County quickly transitioned to wealthy neighborhoods.

[Steely Dan]

Maybe I've been wrong about all this stuff.

Is it possible that the middle class mostly sucks and that I'm one of its relatively few decent members?

I always thought that regular people were the most special people in the whole world (that's why God makes so many of us), but man they sure as shit don't like urbanism, by and large.

My census tract was solid middle class yellow all the way up until 2017, when it turned light blue.

It will almost certainly be dark blue by 2030.

Feeling trapped between two worlds, neither of which I really belong in.

Where are the goddamn creamy yellows?!?!?!?




No one wants to be regular anymore apparently.

Or if they do, they wanna be regular way the fuck out in bumble.

And fuck that.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Maybe I've been wrong about all this stuff.

Is it possible that the middle class mostly sucks and that I'm one of its relatively few decent members?

I always thought that regular people were the most special people in the whole world (that's why God makes so many of us), but man they sure as shit don't like urbanism by and large.

.

Nah, the middle-class and normies can be great. The wealthy almost never take risks or personally invest in poor neighborhoods; they just follow the middle class around like ducklings.

Even if they’re a minority of their group, the urbanist-loving working and middle class are the ones who have to take the first chances and bring stability to a place (or rise from poorer beginnings).

But the center cannot hold. Things are always in flux and a middle-class place must become either richer or poorer.

Look at the Chicago map closely to see how the middle-class always make their first ventures into different areas. (And keep the worst impulses of the rich and poor in check)

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Maybe I've been wrong about all this stuff.

Is it possible that the middle class mostly sucks and that I'm one of its relatively few decent members?

I always thought that regular people were the most special people in the whole world (that's why God makes so many of us), but man they sure as shit don't like urbanism, by and large.

My census tract was solid middle class yellow all the way up until 2017, when it turned light blue.

It will almost certainly be dark blue by 2030.

Feeling trapped between two worlds, neither of which I really belong in.

Where are the goddamn creamy yellows?!?!?!?




No one wants to be regular anymore apparently.

Or if they do, they wanna be regular way the fuck out in bumble.

And fuck that.

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Nah, the middle-class and normies can be great. The wealthy almost never take risks or personally invest in poor neighborhoods; they just follow the middle class around like ducklings.

Even if they’re a minority of their group, the urbanist-loving working and middle class are the ones who have to take the first chances and bring stability to a place (or rise from poorer beginnings).

But the center cannot hold. Things are always in flux and a middle-class place must become either richer or poorer.

Look at the Chicago map closely to see how the middle-class always make their first ventures into different areas. (And keep the worst impulses of the rich and poor in check)

Can both of these be right?

Because cities don’t actually need a large middle class to function well (they only need to keep poverty and abject poverty to a minimum level), but countries as a whole do need a middle class to function politically. The wealthy structure local economies in such a way (for instance, in prestige cities there are usually a comparative lack of middle management jobs) that eventually forces the middle class to decamp from high cost cities altogether to a “new” city that has lots of growth potential where they can get in early and become a preeminent “founder” local. The same forces trap the lower income masses who cannot afford to escape creating a permanent service industry class. The rich, however, once the middle class has firmly established a new city, are able to move into a place that can now accommodate their social and economic needs.

In other words, the rich use their power over economic structure to incentivize the middle class to be their “advancing army” in the creation of new cities and settlements.

The middle class are the first movers, but the rich are doing the pushing. The middle class are amendable to moving to escape the issues caused by urban poverty and the economic systems established by the rich elite. And yes, eventually they are followed by the rich to those new places they are able to develop into something both economically productive and nice.

[TWAK]

Gentrification maps, yes?
How many overlays could be had on this...

[Quixote]

Isn’t the idea of being “middle class” largely built on this idea that, with a college degree and ambition fueled by a Puritan work ethic, one is able and expected to eventually move up the socioeconomic ladder? It’s not as if you reach a certain threshold and then stop seeking opportunities for further upward mobility, even if you are content.

Being “upper middle class” is really the end game, which is the social strata that is the hardest to obtain/maintain because that’s where you are not super rich, yet you are somewhat part of the “elite” to a degree and have money in the bank along with some disposable income. It’s the having to hustle to make ends meet that people associate with “being poor,” and a lot of people with “middle-class” salaries (or even higher) still fall into that category.

I have a cousin who works for Google. Her husband is an ER doctor. Their combined income is probably $350,000-500,000 and they bought a home in SJ for over $2 million, yet even they are “struggling” in the sense that they bought the home at the height of the market before interest rates increased. The point? While they are essentially in the 1-3%, they are still professionals who need to put in the hours to pay their bills.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Isn’t the idea of being “middle class” largely built on this idea that, with a college degree and ambition fueled by a Puritan work ethic, one is able and expected to eventually move up the socioeconomic ladder? It’s not as if you reach a certain threshold and then stop seeking opportunities for further upward mobility, even if you are content.

i dunno, i know a lot of guys who don't have college degrees who work in the trades who are not constantly "climbing the laddder".

just regular old people who have enough because they're not really asking for too much.

that was like 70% of chicago two generations ago, back when the blue collar army was large and in charge.

that's all gone now.


now it seems that you're either a professional or someone who serves the professionals, creating a very "have" and "have not" dynamic.

while the regular people have largely all decamped out to the collar counties or out of state.

[Quixote]

But even plumbers and electricians in Chicago average about $30 an hour, while an experienced United Airlines flight attendant based out of O'Hare can make even more. Their combined income could easily be well in the six figures.

With a combined salary of, say, $115K, these average Joes/Janes could buy a nice home in Barrington, send their kids to public school there, and save enough money to send their two kids to a good public college/university and have some retirement savings.

That in and of itself is a major achievement and a level of success that, although "blue-collar," is not "average" or "regular" IMO. Under this scenario, the two children *should* on paper have it much better than their parents. That's the climbing.

[Quixote]

"In this world, somehow, an ordinary life has become synonymous with a meaningless life."

— Brené Brown

[Steely Dan]

^ sure, but then you'd have to live out in fucking barrington.

hard pass.



i'm a regular guy of regular means, but i'm also an urbansit.

i just prefer an urbanism in the creamy middle that is neither ghetto shithole nor yuppie shithole.

i just want a good old fashioned regular chicago shithole.

but they are dwindling.

such is life.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'm a regular guy of regular means, but i'm also an urbansit.

i just prefer an urbanism in the creamy middle that is neither ghetto shithole nor yuppie shithole.

i just want a good old fashioned regular chicago shithole.

but they are dwindling.

such is life.

Unless you're a high-profile figure with an inordinate amount of money, power, or influence or an Einstein, Newton, or Edison, one is pretty much a regular guy/gal. As hard as it is to admit or accept for some, people are more alike than they are different.

Being content/comfortable and not pretending to be someone you're not is not regular.