# A pattern of Rich and poor areas of cities ?



## Aaronj09 (Jan 7, 2009)

Child poverty:









Unemployment:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

nicdel said:


> Obviously, poverty in most parts of Western and Central Europe isn't the same thing as in developing countries, however, there are also some areas where the social divide is very present.
> 
> Here is a shot of an outer borough of Berlin:
> The railroad tracks in the south are some kind of a "wall" between an average middle-class area and social housing projects. The same goes for the large avenue in the center of the photo, which really tends to "segregate" middle-class houses and historic mansions from the "blocks".


We have the same situation in one part of Metro Manila in which the railroad track and highway separates the predominantly upper middle class and lower middle / working class neighborhoods.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Aaronj09 said:


> Deprivation index - darker the red, the more deprived the area is. There is almost a ring of poverty surrounding the city centre, except to the NW where the students live/young professionals live.


US cities tend to have that where areas surrounding the city centre are usually lower middle / working class. 

This is evident is cities such as Los Angeles or Detroit for example.


----------



## kevo123 (Nov 30, 2012)

The Cake On BBQ said:


> There is no distinctive division between poor and wealthy here in Izmir(Turkey). But there are less poverty in western and northwestern parts of the city. And you generally cannot tell who is rich or who is poor in Turkey, someone who looks like a homeless may turn out to be a millonaire and someone who looks quite wealthy may be poor as shit lol
> 
> This also applies to districts and neighborhoods. A rather shabby neighborhood may be quite rich and vice versa. Turks have a really different perception of wealth so it's hard to tell if a place is wealthy or poor.


i can say the same about Jakarta and Bali, you couldn't really tell who are rich and who are not, housings for poor and rich aren't concentrated in area but rather spreadout throughout the city itself, but that was after i found this:


----------



## shayanjameel08 (Oct 22, 2013)

Allen, South Dakota is the poorest


----------



## Hauler (May 30, 2012)

In Winnipeg the North End is where apparently most of the welfare recipients live.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

CNB30 said:


> This idea of west being wealthy and east being poor can be traced back to early industrial Europe. The Atlantic winds would blow in from the west, and push all of the smog from downtown towards the east. The wealthy would be able to live away from the smog, while the poorer people would live in the low valued east because that was the only area they could afford.


That is exactly what you have here in Vienna as well. Plus, in the west you have the lush hilly Viennese woods acting as a natural border and close recreational area and if you are lucky you even have nice view of the rest of the city below. 

IN the South and South-East you have most of the industry (even though there is nowadays also quite some industry in the norther periphery as well, while those small factories that existed in the west are retreating)


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Vancouver is basically the same........west = rich


----------



## I(L)WTC (Jan 30, 2010)

Buenos Aires in 2007 








http://andytow.com/blog/mapadelariqueza2.gif
Greater Buenos Aires








http://andytow.com/blog/mapadelariquezagba.gif


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Oslo, Norway. The bluer the district, the richer it is. 










The numbers indicate which neigbourhood are richest (blue dots) and poorest (red dots) in the city.


----------



## Copperknickers (May 15, 2011)

009 said:


> Vancouver is basically the same........west = rich


Except the poorest and most rough area of Vancouver, which is just next to the centre. And Vancouver is a very strangely shaped city, because its 'centre' is right on the Western edge rather than in the middle. 


London's poor areas are like most British cities, in the East and South and some areas of the North and West inner city.

The difference being, unlike in cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, there are lots of poor areas mixed with the rich areas, due to gentrification: so in places like Islington and Southwark, there are lots of old industrial housing which has been converted into huge flats, as well as luxury apartments near the public transport hubs, but the council apartment blocks are still subsidised and so the poor remain in amongst the rich.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Copperknickers said:


> Except the poorest and most rough area of Vancouver, which is just next to the centre. And Vancouver is a very strangely shaped city, because its 'centre' is right on the Western edge rather than in the middle.
> 
> 
> London's poor areas are like most British cities, in the East and South and some areas of the North and West inner city.
> ...


It's like that because those are other cities that became part of Vancouver, like Burnaby, but the famous ghetto area is called the downtown east side. If you compare that to the west end downtown, and compare east van to the western portion of the city, there is clearly a huge difference in affluence. 

Vancouver also has a large amount of wealthy people across the water on the North Shore, particularly West Vancouver


----------



## Copperknickers (May 15, 2011)

009 said:


> It's like that because those are other cities that became part of Vancouver, like Burnaby,


Still doesn't explain why the centre is where it is, why isn't Burnaby the centre? There are plenty of cities, like Leamington Spa in the UK, where the old town (Warwick) has been eclipsed by a new neighbour.



> If you compare that to the west end downtown, and compare east van to the western portion of the city, there is clearly a huge difference in affluence.
> 
> Vancouver also has a large amount of wealthy people across the water on the North Shore, particularly West Vancouver


True. Tbh Vancouver has rich people everywhere, its got pretty much the best quality of life in the Americas so even the poor areas aren't all that bad, except downtown east side which I have been to, and is admittedly a shithole.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Copperknickers said:


> Still doesn't explain why the centre is where it is, why isn't Burnaby the centre? There are plenty of cities, like Leamington Spa in the UK, where the old town (Warwick) has been eclipsed by a new neighbour..


I don't know, maybe because those other places weren't joined to Vancouver originally. I don't like most of the other places in the GVRD outside of Vancouver proper anyways, especially Surrey

I haven't been back to Vancouver in a few years now but when I left they were starting to redevelop the DTES. I wonder how much it improved, and where they pushed all the crackheads to, probably further east a few blocks lol


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

Aaronj09 said:


> Child poverty:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting to see the spot of prosperity right in the city centre, a ring of deprivation and then a ring prosperous suburbs, fairly textbook British provincial city.
Is that prosperous centre skewed by a few well off luxury flats, or do a reasonable number of people, and families with children, live there?


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Here is a quote from a recent article in the globe and mail

"Prices for single-family houses in Vancouver are on the rise again as the affordability gap widens between detached homes and multifamily units.

On Vancouver’s West Side neighbourhood, the benchmark price index last month for detached homes reached $2,086,800, up 1.2 per cent from October, 2012. On the city’s East Side, prices rose 1 per cent to $850,500."


----------

