4 ms·
"Ironically, I think that is pretty much how all cities work since crime went away. The days of the poor occupying prime real estate near a city is pretty much
by iguy 9y ago
"Ironically, I think that is pretty much how all cities work since crime went away. The days of the poor occupying prime real estate near a city is pretty much over."
This seems backwards. The poor never occupied prime (at the time) real estate, but cities did used to be more compact. The rise of crime (from the 60s) was one of the factors driving suburbanisation, as those who could afford to do so moved to more distant suburbs to be safer. Not just to have bigger lawns.
Their NIMBYism comes in part from this experience. Making sure your suburb stays expensive has the effect of helping it to stay safe, because it will only be occupied by people as rich as you, and will be able to afford plenty of police. Of course this is not the only effect. This protective blanket of high prices is an extremely blunt instrument, there is a lot of collateral damage. Nevertheless I think it's important to realise that NIMBYism isn't coming from nowhere.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoThe NIMBYism isn't coming from nowhere, but that doesn't mean it's a good or valid thing.
- T2_t2 9y ago> The poor never occupied prime (at the time) real estate Couldn't agree more! That's the irony. For many cities, crime kept the richer people further away from the inner city, where many jobs are/were. In places like London, Sydney, NYC and SF, it is really hard to find workers for hotels because the people that do such jobs live so far away. This is the great irony of improving city conditions like reduced crime. In a really scary way, crime was poor people's saviour from long, perhaps even un-profitable treks to work. Take London. https://www.toptiplondon.com/transport/tickets/underground-tickets-travelcards/ https://www.toptiplondon.com/transport/tickets/underground-t... if you trek in from a zone that is cheaper and further out, the costs as a fraction of income are huge.