3 ms·

maybe I'm missing the big picture here, but I don't see why it's actually desirable to have a wide range of incomes within a specific neighborhood. poor people

maybe I'm missing the big picture here, but I don't see why it's actually desirable to have a wide range of incomes within a specific neighborhood. poor people can't afford to shop at {expensive grocery store} or dine at {fancy restaurant}. and wealthy people generally don't want to shop or eat at the places their poor neighbors could afford. if you "urban plan" them into the same neighborhood, now you need two (or more) tiers of every type of business to serve all the residents. at best, everyone has fewer suitable choices of each. at worst (and more realistically imo), most of the businesses continue to serve the wealthier residents, and the less wealthy need to travel away from their "affordable home" to actually get their needs met.

ghaff 4y ago
There's a big project in North Cambridge near the city line. The only easily accessible (i.e. walkable) supermarket is a... Whole Foods. Though that's probably the most common chain in Cambridge as a whole to be honest. But with or without specific affordable housing areas do gentrify and long-term residents don't necessarily like it even if it results in a "better"/safer/etc. neighborhood.
suchire 4y ago
Because you need people to fill a wide variety of jobs and roles, like teaching, transportation, retail, food service, sanitation, etc. that can’t be done remotely. Unless you are planning for those jobs to be equally lucrative as CEO of Megacorp, you can’t build a functional society without people from various socioeconomic strata. Some neighborhoods can get by with shoving off people in those roles to nearby locations, but commuting time and expense is a limiting factor.
- leetcrew 4y ago
  I'm not proposing an entire city inhabited by a single income bracket. I'm talking about neighborhoods as much smaller areas, as a rough definition "all the places I can walk to in 10-15 minutes". I think I see your point though. at a high level, the neighborhood composition could be optimized for everyone to walk to work (wide range of incomes), or for everyone to walk to everything outside work (narrow range of incomes), but not both. or there's the US suburb approach where no one can walk to anything. imo, assuming you're reasonably connected to work by transit, quality of life maximized by the latter arrangement (homogeneous incomes at the lowest level of organization). even if it's a little inconvenient, I will figure out how to get to work everyday. outside of work, a little inconvenience is the difference between doing or not doing all kinds of spontaneous activities.

ghaff 4y ago

There's a big project in North Cambridge near the city line. The only easily accessible (i.e. walkable) supermarket is a... Whole Foods. Though that's probably the most common chain in Cambridge as a whole to be honest. But with or without specific affordable housing areas do gentrify and long-term residents don't necessarily like it even if it results in a "better"/safer/etc. neighborhood.

suchire 4y ago

Because you need people to fill a wide variety of jobs and roles, like teaching, transportation, retail, food service, sanitation, etc. that can’t be done remotely. Unless you are planning for those jobs to be equally lucrative as CEO of Megacorp, you can’t build a functional society without people from various socioeconomic strata. Some neighborhoods can get by with shoving off people in those roles to nearby locations, but commuting time and expense is a limiting factor.

leetcrew 4y ago
I'm not proposing an entire city inhabited by a single income bracket. I'm talking about neighborhoods as much smaller areas, as a rough definition "all the places I can walk to in 10-15 minutes". I think I see your point though. at a high level, the neighborhood composition could be optimized for everyone to walk to work (wide range of incomes), or for everyone to walk to everything outside work (narrow range of incomes), but not both. or there's the US suburb approach where no one can walk to anything. imo, assuming you're reasonably connected to work by transit, quality of life maximized by the latter arrangement (homogeneous incomes at the lowest level of organization). even if it's a little inconvenient, I will figure out how to get to work everyday. outside of work, a little inconvenience is the difference between doing or not doing all kinds of spontaneous activities.