6 ms·

As a non-specialist, I think a surprising statement is that in this particular field, there is an expectation that large, dense cities encourage socioeconomic m

As a non-specialist, I think a surprising statement is that in this particular field, there is an expectation that large, dense cities encourage socioeconomic mixing. That seems counter to everyday experience and policies that are sometimes enacted in cities to counter the trend, like bussing kids in poor neighborhoods into richer school districts. The term "ghetto" famously describes an urban trend to cut off poor enclaves, generally with some racial or ethnic component. I guess I felt like it was "common knowledge" that urbanization increased social stratification, whether in ancient times as agricultural societies developed, as I was taught in high school social studies, or in more modern cases where people leave the land to find opportunities, as in Latin America, for instance, where terms like favela are familiar even to English speakers to describe the cut-off, under-serviced and impoverished neighborhoods that have developed. Common knowledge being what it is, that isn't to say that anyone should believe that cities necessarily increase or decrease stratification without making measurements but stories of urban inequality seems to be so prevalent in popular culture that it seems strange that one would state that the opposite is a popular expectation but they have citations so I'm not questioning that the idea is out there, only that it is surprising that it is so prevalent that they need to open their article as though they are bucking a trend in the literature.

randomdata 3y ago
I was definitely taken back by that statement. Marginalized groups, for example, have always noted how cities offer increased isolation away from bigots as compared to smaller towns and rural areas. It may be a prevalent idea in academia, but I'm not sure anyone thinks that way on the streets.
- emanuele232 3y ago
  Actually i do agree with the statement. I live near the biggest city in my state and my friends are different in ideas, political opinions and preferences (also kinda different in economic possibilities) due to the fact that we all went to the same highschool, and there are few places where the young can socialize. on the contrary my brother lives in that big city and its friends are ALL coming from the same cultural background, with the same ideas and the same political leaning (that he chooses during university)
  - eitally 3y ago
    A lot of that has to do with the fact that you chose your friend group during public high school and he chose his during university, which itself already selects for the upper socioeconomic statuses.
feedforward 3y ago
> urbanization increased social stratification Urbanization increases social stratification in that the upper class and the upper middle class tend to live in or near cities. As far as the poor and working class, the majority live outside cities in agricultural societies, and in or near cities in modern societies.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > the upper class and the upper middle class tend to live in or near cities. As far as the poor and working class, the majority live outside cities in agricultural societies I'm not sure that tracks. Farmers are the epitome of the upper to upper-middle class, deriving their living wholly or mostly from land and capital ownership. Perhaps you meant upper to upper-middle income rather than class?
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    It depends on what you mean by "farmers." Even small individually- or family-owned farms are going to depend to a large extent on seasonal agricultural labor. It's worth being clear when you talk about this whether by "farmers" you mean those laborers, who are often poor, or the landowners, who usually aren't.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      I have never heard of a definition of farmer that refers to hired labourers. Perhaps you are thinking of farmhand?
  - Swizec 3y ago
    > Farmers are the epitome of the upper to upper-middle class This must be why in the 1950’s large swathes of Europe saw so many farmers fleeing their land to go live in the city and take up those new fangled factory jobs. Same for Britain in the 1850’s. Or China in the 2000’s. Usually when people talk about “farmers” in the context of social class migrations, they mean subsistence farmers eeking out a living from the land. Not the modern American or European industrial farmer who in effect owns and runs a multimillion dollar business. Although I hear margins are razor thin even for those.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
In the US, there used to be the idea of "sidewalk culture" - deliberately structuring cities so that different kinds and classes of people would meet, literally on the sidewalk, and from that would form, at least to some degree, a shared culture. There was the idea of deliberately breaking the silos that separate people. And maybe that even worked. Worked. Past tense. In most of the US, it's now a car culture. And even in cities where people walk, it's now an earbud culture.
- jjav 3y ago
  > In the US, there used to be the idea of "sidewalk culture" > In most of the US, it's now a car culture. In my experience cars have nothing to do with this. I grew up outside the US in a very car-required area. And yet what you call sidewalk culture was and is the norm of daily life. You go outside, meet the neighbors, play board games on the sidewalks, have beers with them deep into the evening, simply hang out outside a lot. I miss this a lot. In the US they invented an actual fake crime for the idea of hanging out outside - loitering. You try your sidewalk culture in the US and the police will show up to break up your illicit activity (eyeroll). In the US you must be at home or at work or commuting between them, or spending money shopping or in some corporate-sanctioned entertainment venue.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Even take out the cars sidewalk culture is dead when the rich people are buying coffee for $7 and the working class are getting it from the self serve pitcher in the gas station. A lot of places today are highly economically stratified thanks to the prices of goods and services offered. It also doesn’t help that when people close their eyes and imagine “third place” somewhere that obligates you to spend money to be there comes up.
- yterdy 3y ago
  I'm not sure GP is accurate, even without that. The privileged descending to the lower quarters to hobnob with the masses is as old as civilization, and of course the working lower class generally have to go where everyone else is to serve them. If segregation is increasing, there are plenty of mechanisms to point to, also: anti-poor urban design protocol (including law enforcement-related), low/no-contact resource delivery, WFH, the increased cost of transportation and housing, etc. It's not actually a surprise that society is bifurcating, is it? Not after the anaphasing of school demographics, voter behavior, and so on.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I think you are misunderstanding the argument. Yes, there have always been rich neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods in cities, but the idea was that with everyone "packed in" together and making use of shared resources like sidewalks, stores, and subways, that people would essentially be forced to come into contact with others from different socio-economic levels. I agree with AnimalMuppet's comment - car-centric behavior kills this. For example, if you go to older cities that were developed "pre-car" in the US like NYC or Boston, I feel like you get more interaction just because you're likely to interact with more people on the sidewalks or subway/T. Living in a car-centric city like Austin is totally different. As much as Austin likes to promote its progressive ethos, this is definitely one of the most segregated cities I've ever experienced, even more so now that housing prices have gotten insane - poorer people live further out, and the public transportation system is pretty abysmal and there is much more of a socioeconomic divide in people who use it (primarily because, and I see this all over the US, but many people love to talk about the need and benefits of light rail, but buses are often seen as "for the poors").
- wongarsu 3y ago
  But in cities that aren't car centric you commonly have stores embedded into the neighborhood at walkable distance. For everyday needs like groceries you just go to whatever shop is closest, which will be a posh Whole Foods in a rich neighborhood and a cheap discounter in a poor neighborhood. You share sidewalks, public transportation, etc when going for work or shopping for something that isn't a daily necessity. But the same could be said about less urbanized places. The counter argument are towns and villages that only really contain one socio-economic group. You can have small towns that are basically only rich people, or only poor people. Cities provide less segregation than that.
- mathgradthrow 3y ago
  Nothing makes you hate people like interacting with them on public transit.
  - tremon 3y ago
    Try interacting with them via the button on your steering wheel.

randomdata 3y ago

I was definitely taken back by that statement. Marginalized groups, for example, have always noted how cities offer increased isolation away from bigots as compared to smaller towns and rural areas. It may be a prevalent idea in academia, but I'm not sure anyone thinks that way on the streets.

emanuele232 3y ago
Actually i do agree with the statement. I live near the biggest city in my state and my friends are different in ideas, political opinions and preferences (also kinda different in economic possibilities) due to the fact that we all went to the same highschool, and there are few places where the young can socialize. on the contrary my brother lives in that big city and its friends are ALL coming from the same cultural background, with the same ideas and the same political leaning (that he chooses during university)
- eitally 3y ago
  A lot of that has to do with the fact that you chose your friend group during public high school and he chose his during university, which itself already selects for the upper socioeconomic statuses.

feedforward 3y ago

> urbanization increased social stratification Urbanization increases social stratification in that the upper class and the upper middle class tend to live in or near cities. As far as the poor and working class, the majority live outside cities in agricultural societies, and in or near cities in modern societies.

randomdata 3y ago
> the upper class and the upper middle class tend to live in or near cities. As far as the poor and working class, the majority live outside cities in agricultural societies I'm not sure that tracks. Farmers are the epitome of the upper to upper-middle class, deriving their living wholly or mostly from land and capital ownership. Perhaps you meant upper to upper-middle income rather than class?
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  It depends on what you mean by "farmers." Even small individually- or family-owned farms are going to depend to a large extent on seasonal agricultural labor. It's worth being clear when you talk about this whether by "farmers" you mean those laborers, who are often poor, or the landowners, who usually aren't.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    I have never heard of a definition of farmer that refers to hired labourers. Perhaps you are thinking of farmhand?
- Swizec 3y ago
  > Farmers are the epitome of the upper to upper-middle class This must be why in the 1950’s large swathes of Europe saw so many farmers fleeing their land to go live in the city and take up those new fangled factory jobs. Same for Britain in the 1850’s. Or China in the 2000’s. Usually when people talk about “farmers” in the context of social class migrations, they mean subsistence farmers eeking out a living from the land. Not the modern American or European industrial farmer who in effect owns and runs a multimillion dollar business. Although I hear margins are razor thin even for those.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

In the US, there used to be the idea of "sidewalk culture" - deliberately structuring cities so that different kinds and classes of people would meet, literally on the sidewalk, and from that would form, at least to some degree, a shared culture. There was the idea of deliberately breaking the silos that separate people. And maybe that even worked. Worked. Past tense. In most of the US, it's now a car culture. And even in cities where people walk, it's now an earbud culture.

jjav 3y ago
> In the US, there used to be the idea of "sidewalk culture" > In most of the US, it's now a car culture. In my experience cars have nothing to do with this. I grew up outside the US in a very car-required area. And yet what you call sidewalk culture was and is the norm of daily life. You go outside, meet the neighbors, play board games on the sidewalks, have beers with them deep into the evening, simply hang out outside a lot. I miss this a lot. In the US they invented an actual fake crime for the idea of hanging out outside - loitering. You try your sidewalk culture in the US and the police will show up to break up your illicit activity (eyeroll). In the US you must be at home or at work or commuting between them, or spending money shopping or in some corporate-sanctioned entertainment venue.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Even take out the cars sidewalk culture is dead when the rich people are buying coffee for $7 and the working class are getting it from the self serve pitcher in the gas station. A lot of places today are highly economically stratified thanks to the prices of goods and services offered. It also doesn’t help that when people close their eyes and imagine “third place” somewhere that obligates you to spend money to be there comes up.
yterdy 3y ago
I'm not sure GP is accurate, even without that. The privileged descending to the lower quarters to hobnob with the masses is as old as civilization, and of course the working lower class generally have to go where everyone else is to serve them. If segregation is increasing, there are plenty of mechanisms to point to, also: anti-poor urban design protocol (including law enforcement-related), low/no-contact resource delivery, WFH, the increased cost of transportation and housing, etc. It's not actually a surprise that society is bifurcating, is it? Not after the anaphasing of school demographics, voter behavior, and so on.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I think you are misunderstanding the argument. Yes, there have always been rich neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods in cities, but the idea was that with everyone "packed in" together and making use of shared resources like sidewalks, stores, and subways, that people would essentially be forced to come into contact with others from different socio-economic levels. I agree with AnimalMuppet's comment - car-centric behavior kills this. For example, if you go to older cities that were developed "pre-car" in the US like NYC or Boston, I feel like you get more interaction just because you're likely to interact with more people on the sidewalks or subway/T. Living in a car-centric city like Austin is totally different. As much as Austin likes to promote its progressive ethos, this is definitely one of the most segregated cities I've ever experienced, even more so now that housing prices have gotten insane - poorer people live further out, and the public transportation system is pretty abysmal and there is much more of a socioeconomic divide in people who use it (primarily because, and I see this all over the US, but many people love to talk about the need and benefits of light rail, but buses are often seen as "for the poors").

wongarsu 3y ago
But in cities that aren't car centric you commonly have stores embedded into the neighborhood at walkable distance. For everyday needs like groceries you just go to whatever shop is closest, which will be a posh Whole Foods in a rich neighborhood and a cheap discounter in a poor neighborhood. You share sidewalks, public transportation, etc when going for work or shopping for something that isn't a daily necessity. But the same could be said about less urbanized places. The counter argument are towns and villages that only really contain one socio-economic group. You can have small towns that are basically only rich people, or only poor people. Cities provide less segregation than that.
mathgradthrow 3y ago
Nothing makes you hate people like interacting with them on public transit.
- tremon 3y ago
  Try interacting with them via the button on your steering wheel.