Ask HN: Why are there fewer low-income families living in U.S. cities nowadays?
7 comments
It's the 'dougnut' analogy of urban use.
Initially, everybody lives in the centre, then the gentry move outwards while the poor people stay in the centres. That 'gentrified' area gradually shifts outwards and the 'doughnut' expands as the older, inner less-desirable areas get taken up by the poor (and young couples with no money) while the richer 'gentry' move further out. As those younger families get richer and larger and more gentrified they move out to the 'currently-nicer' areas.
However, eventually, the gentry find that urban renewal means that the city centres become more desirable and gentrified and they move back to the city centre while forcing the poorer outwards again. And the 'doughnut' starts expanding outwards again.
If you want to see where edge of the 'doughnut' happens to be in your city, look for the areas where the older inhabitants, the 'little old ladies', are dying off and the houses are being bought up by young couples with prams. That'll also be the area where house-prices are suddenly rising.
Initially, everybody lives in the centre, then the gentry move outwards while the poor people stay in the centres. That 'gentrified' area gradually shifts outwards and the 'doughnut' expands as the older, inner less-desirable areas get taken up by the poor (and young couples with no money) while the richer 'gentry' move further out. As those younger families get richer and larger and more gentrified they move out to the 'currently-nicer' areas.
However, eventually, the gentry find that urban renewal means that the city centres become more desirable and gentrified and they move back to the city centre while forcing the poorer outwards again. And the 'doughnut' starts expanding outwards again.
If you want to see where edge of the 'doughnut' happens to be in your city, look for the areas where the older inhabitants, the 'little old ladies', are dying off and the houses are being bought up by young couples with prams. That'll also be the area where house-prices are suddenly rising.
this makes sense at a high level. do you have any recommendations for where I can look into this a bit more?
I can't remember if I read this somewhere or whether it's something I discovered for myself. Surely I couldn't be that smart to think of it all by myself.
I certainly remember remarking on the presence of the 'doughnut' several times over the years: when seeing older industrial slum areas of the inner-city becoming desirable (and expensive!) again.
And when seeing the street-pedestrians in the suburb that I'd just bought into change in the space of only 18 months or so from all 'little old ladies' and no young-mothers-with-prams to there being very few 'little old ladies' and becoming mainly young-mothers-with-prams. A year or two earlier, young relatives had moved into the next suburb inwards that was the 'new yuppy suburb'. That's probably why I noticed the changes.
My rule-of-thumb is to always buy within about 15 minutes drive of the CBD or even closer, if you can afford it. Even if that is currently an 'unpopular' area. I have arguments with relatives over this: 'Yuk! How could you live there? Where all the prostitutes/immigrants/factories/poor people/lower socio-economic classes/etc/etc/etc are?'
I currently live on the boundary of the CBD and the next industrial suburb, in the top storey of a 7-storey apartment block. (Literally on the 'right' side of the tracks! I can hear the level-crossing bells.)
This city has only about 150,000 population, but the 'doughnut effect' is discernible here. Those other suburbs I mentioned above were in a city of five million.
I certainly remember remarking on the presence of the 'doughnut' several times over the years: when seeing older industrial slum areas of the inner-city becoming desirable (and expensive!) again.
And when seeing the street-pedestrians in the suburb that I'd just bought into change in the space of only 18 months or so from all 'little old ladies' and no young-mothers-with-prams to there being very few 'little old ladies' and becoming mainly young-mothers-with-prams. A year or two earlier, young relatives had moved into the next suburb inwards that was the 'new yuppy suburb'. That's probably why I noticed the changes.
My rule-of-thumb is to always buy within about 15 minutes drive of the CBD or even closer, if you can afford it. Even if that is currently an 'unpopular' area. I have arguments with relatives over this: 'Yuk! How could you live there? Where all the prostitutes/immigrants/factories/poor people/lower socio-economic classes/etc/etc/etc are?'
I currently live on the boundary of the CBD and the next industrial suburb, in the top storey of a 7-storey apartment block. (Literally on the 'right' side of the tracks! I can hear the level-crossing bells.)
This city has only about 150,000 population, but the 'doughnut effect' is discernible here. Those other suburbs I mentioned above were in a city of five million.
Still plenty of lower income families in the Bronx and Yonkers. It's just about where rich ppl want to live. When it was the suburbs they were pushed into the inner city. Now ppl want to live in the inner city so poor ppl are getting pushed into suburbs and exurbs
The answer is pretty simple... how can someone on a low income live in a city?
When the cost of rent is more than you make in a month. It's just not possible.
Take New York City -- the average rent in Manhattan is over $5000 a month. If you consider low income to be 50k/year. Rent alone would have you running a deficit of 10k/year.
Right so the question is, when did this become the case? When did cities become unaffordable and why?
I don't know if there are any good materials to read up on this, I honestly don't even know where to look. I'd just like to learn about what changed policy-wise, culture-wise, economically, etc.