Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KansDem

(28,498 posts)
Mon May 20, 2013, 10:07 AM May 2013

U.S. suburbs have more poor than the cities do, study finds.

Source: Kansas City Star

The number of impoverished people in America’s suburbs surged 64 percent in the past decade, creating for the first time a landscape in which the suburban poor outnumber the urban poor, a new report shows.

An extensive study by the Brookings Institution found that poverty is growing in the suburbs at more than twice the pace that it’s growing in urban centers. The collapse of the housing market and the subsequent foreclosure crisis were cited as aggravating a problem that was developing before recession struck in the late 2000s.

By 2011, the suburban poor in the nation’s major metropolitan areas outnumbered those living in urban centers by nearly 3 million, according to “Confronting Suburban Poverty in America,” a book to be released today by Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program.

The study placed the number of suburban poor at 16.4 million in 2011, up from about 10 million in 2000.


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/20/4244248/us-suburbs-have-more-poor-than.html



64%?
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

LiberalEsto

(22,845 posts)
1. I have a friend who lives in a nice NJ suburb. Her house is in foreclosure.
Mon May 20, 2013, 10:17 AM
May 2013

She's taking care of her aging parents, and her husband's income from his sales job has dwindled due to poor health and the economy.

She says nobody at the social service agencies they've approached for help can believe that someone living in their community would be in such financial distress.

KansDem

(28,498 posts)
3. Suicide rates are up in Johnson County, Kansas
Mon May 20, 2013, 10:28 AM
May 2013

...among middle-aged white males.

Mention Johnson County, Kansas and locals think wealth, privilege and the pursuit of happiness. But disturbing trends in Johnson County suicide rates challenge us to think beyond this stereotype.

According to the Kansas Bureau of Vital Statistics, there was a 70 percent increase in suicides in Johnson County from the years 2006 to 2010, from 47 to 80. In Kansas, suicides outnumbered homicides by nearly a 4-to-1., and Johnson County was no exception. These local findings track with national trends that find suicide rates down with the exception of one group, white men ages 40-65. What are the factors driving these trends? And how does the economic downturn play a role?

********

“They’ve (men) been able to provide for a very nice home and a nice lifestyle and when they’re not able to provide that anymore and they’re having to sell material items just to get by month to month. I think that’s playing a larger impact on those individuals.”

“In our assessment and intake center here at the hospital, we average over 350 calls every month. And many of those are from loved ones that are concerned because the person that’s experiencing the difficulties often don’t know where to reach, or to embarrassed to reach out and ask for help. SO often the spouse is the one that’s making that initial phone to call to say, ‘Can you help me? Here are some things I’m seeing, what do you think I might need to do next?’”

“Expectations in our community is that we do more with less in pretty much every organization, and with those pressures we’re seeing more and more men come in and ask for help.”

http://www.kcur.org/post/middle-aged-white-males-drive-suicide-rate-johnson-county


I live in this county...

RKP5637

(67,101 posts)
9. I see more and more stressed out looking people here in JO. ... like in
Mon May 20, 2013, 01:37 PM
May 2013

grocery stores, Home Depot, etc.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
2. The Poor only live in Blue Urban Cities
Mon May 20, 2013, 10:18 AM
May 2013

The self=reliant red suburbs and rural areas NEVER, EVER use government services like SNAP, unemployment, welfare, housing assistance.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
4. It is cyclical IMO..
Mon May 20, 2013, 10:42 AM
May 2013

The movement to the suburbs began in the 1970's..all growth was new construction, much of it relatively inexpensive, and inner cities were falling into disrepair creating cheap housing. Over the last 20 years most cities have undergone urban revitalization projects, bond issues on rejuvenation of abandoned warehouse districts into upscale living units and businesses. Inner city neighborhoods had/have funds available for revitalization, etc. Over the same 20 years suburban neighborhoods got 20 years older and prices of homes, especially in the neighborhoods with cheap new housing 40 years ago, have become more attractive to real estate investors for rental properties. Apartment complexes are old and have become much cheaper. I wouldn't dream of moving into a complex I lived in just 15 years ago now..it was pretty nice then, though the walls were thin and the construction was frame and masonite..now the masonite is disintegrating and the complex is in disrepair..

There will (and should) always be affordable housing, but it's location shifts over time..the nice housing how available in cities will age and the premiums for development will wain and the cities will once again contain the masses of poor..when the real estate market drives the profitability of suburban revitalization, and the cycle will continue..

Another factor is the legislation in many urban/suburban areas limiting "urban sprawl"..the idea there I believe is to encourage revitalization of already developed real estate over conversion of unimproved (not my characterization, a term used...an oximoron) rural areas..One law in my state made it unlawful to build a home or transfer title of a home on rural lands on a lot smaller than 5 acres around certain cities (more to it than this..some exemptions and grandfathers).

Just a hunch from years of watching real estate..

geardaddy

(24,926 posts)
5. That's a really interesting take.
Mon May 20, 2013, 11:04 AM
May 2013

I totally agree with the rejuvenation of the abandoned urban areas. Here in Minneapolis, the housing and business real estate market is booming in the "Warehouse District".

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
6. Yep, almost every city..
Mon May 20, 2013, 12:11 PM
May 2013

I remember in the mid 80's going to Lexington KY and marveling at the effort in their dead business district..since then it's the norm.

I would bet there is bond money and tax breaks available to developers in the Minneapolis warehouse district. In Wichita the city even went so far as to buy their warehouse district out of a "superfund" designation allowing for development..costly but the results of revitalization are pretty amazing..some developers and real estate speculators got super rich..the city received a modern facelift and reduction in homeless people crashing in the district..they went somewhere..they didn't profit from the change..

TygrBright

(20,755 posts)
7. Suburbs have few options for the jobless.
Mon May 20, 2013, 12:20 PM
May 2013

Distances are great, and if you don't have a workable vehicle or can't afford gas, even a job at the local fast-food joint (which may be the only thing available) may not be practical.

In cities, you often have better luck finding a crap job to get you by.

I don't think this is necessarily a LARGE factor in this demographic shift, but I think it is a factor.

We need to redesign our living environments to be small walkable/bikeable/busable clusters of everything needed to live decently- houses, stores, businesses that employ people, places to socialize, schools, etc.- linked to larger core areas by quality public transportation.

wearily,
Bright

greymattermom

(5,754 posts)
8. A major trend
Mon May 20, 2013, 12:33 PM
May 2013

This is happening rapidly in many cities. I wonder how it will affect all of the gerrymandering plans. Some of these districts will undergo major shifts because folks are moving back, and poor folks have to leave. Kansas City folks should take a look at Metcalf between 75th and 435. Everything that used to be cool is gone and payday loans have arrived. What happened?

RKP5637

(67,101 posts)
12. Yep, I've noticed the same ... I was just saying similar recently. I drive that stretch
Mon May 20, 2013, 01:43 PM
May 2013

and I've been noticing a gradual deterioration of the area and the types of businesses moving in.

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
11. Well Duh...
Mon May 20, 2013, 01:39 PM
May 2013

After transforming the formerly working class urban communities into playgrounds for worthless hipster dipshits drawn to them by the residual perceived "grit" where were they supposed to go?

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
13. In Atlanta, the racist GOP counties surrounding the city voted to stop the transit system...
Mon May 20, 2013, 01:44 PM
May 2013

...from reaching the suburbs. They didn't want 'blacks coming out to rob them.'

Now decades of gentrification has priced the poor out of Atlanta.

With the extra added element of Latinos and Asians.

And there are few transit connections into the city.

Guess where much of the poor live and work now?

 

ErikJ

(6,335 posts)
14. The way it is in the rest of the world and the way it should be
Mon May 20, 2013, 02:35 PM
May 2013

Suburbs have become cultural deserts, urban centers are where "its at" now. At least in my metro area. Its been quite an amazing transformation. Urbanites who can afford it generally want to be in culturally rich places. The suburbs lack the density necessary for cultural centers.
I think its a very good trend because the white collar jobs are mostly in the inner city and the manufacturing/warehouse type jobs in the suburbs, putting people closer to where they work which lowers the carbon footprint.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
15. Housing last about 100 years, then has to be torn down OR have a completely rebuild
Mon May 20, 2013, 03:48 PM
May 2013

The classic situation is Norman Castles and Churches in England. When William the Conqueror took over England, he had New churches built inside any major city with a Castle built just outside, The Castle was to maintain and keep whatever person he put in charge of that area. Since it was a hostile take over, troops had to be kept in all areas in case of a local revolt.

Over the next couple of hundred years, the Norman rulers and English subjects more and more interbreed and learned to lived with each other (To encourage such integration was the reason the William had built the Churches). Thus by the time of the Tudors, it was common to see well maintain Norman churches in the Middle of towns, and a fallen down Castle just outside the City limits. The Local lord had long abandoned the Castle and left it to to ruin, while the Church kept getting rebuilt every 50-100 years. This remains true to this day in much of England (Through you have to watch out for the various monasteries Henry VIII closed down after he took their lands, the monasteries suffered the same fate as the Castles, deterioration due to lack of maintenance).

The same rule applies to normal housing. It last about 100 years, then needs to be rebuild (as where the old Norman Churches) or abandoned (As were the Castles and the old monasteries). In most areas in the urban US, it is hard to find housing older then the Civil War. Those that do survive tend to be in the Downtown areas of US Cities. The big expansion of US Cities tend to be post Civil War.

Harlem is a Classic case of Pre and Post Civil War housing. In my home town of Pittsburgh we are talking about the Hill District, Manchester and the South Side. Very old housing, no porches, the house front is right on the side walk. This type of housing were newly built in the 1860-1890 era.

The children of the people who built the post civil war homes moved further away from the factories with the then new Streetcars. These Streetcar Suburbs(1890-1920) were built by investors who first built a streetcar line to the then new housing development and sold lots. Upper Middle Class Americans then moved to these streetcar suburbs. These are mostly four squares, the "idea" house of that time period. The American Four Square derived by the Wrights Prairie style and would dominate the next two generation of housing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Foursquare

The American's Craftsmen Style was a cheaper rival to the Four Square in the period 1890-1940, but many more Four Squares were built:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_craftsman

Now the 1920s saw three things occurring (this is beside the boom of the Stock Market), first was the continuance and expansion of URBAN streetcar systems, Second the rapid decline or RURAL interurban Streetcar systems (and some conversion of these to extension of urban streetcar system or even replacement by buses on highways) AND the first expansion of Suburb that dependent on AUTOMOBILES not Streetcars to get the new homeowners to and from work. This was short lived, dying in the late 1920s as the stock market crashed (Most BEFORE the crash). The 1930s saw a massive drop in new homes and what was built was Four Squares. There was a slight jump in home construction in 1938 (due to FDR's Second and more massive stimulus program) but that boom died out in 1941 as the US prepared for war.

After WWII, four squares were out of favor, most did not make a good companion with a garage for an automobiles (and were to large). Ranch style homes became the most common, till replaced by Colonials in the 1960s. Both styles were cheaper to make the the earlier Four Squares, could be made with a Garage that looked good with the model, even at the cost of less usable inside room (The Four Squares big advantage which is the lowest cost per usable inside square footage ).

More on the Ranch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch-style_house

The problem today is that most of the post Civil War Housing is at the end of their life span. They need to be completely rebuilt or torn down. These had been the homes closest to urban centers and thus ripe for gentrification (The house has little or no value, thus cheap to buy).

On the other hand, the older Streetcar suburbs with their Four Squares and Craftsmen style homes are getting on in years and reaching the end of their life span, but still have value as a house. Thus a lot of low income people are being pushed out of areas with post Civil War housing, as those homes are torn down and replaced by new housing (or gutted and rebuilt), both putting these homes outside the price range of the poor. Many of the old Four Squares are in old "Trolley Suburbs". Suburbs first built around streetcars tracks installed by land developers in the 1890s to the 1920s. These homes have 20-40 years left in them before such housing needs substantial rehabilitation. Thus to expensive to tear down at the present time. The poor are moving into these older "Suburbs" and thus becoming "Suburbanites" but in "Suburbs" most people view as "inner city" even through NOT part of the legal urban center.

This is what we are seeing, a movement to the older Streetcar Suburbs NOT the post WWII Automobile only Suburbs. We are seeing a push outward of the urban poor, as the urban center housing gets so cheap, people buy them to tear down. More to due with the poor looking for affordable housing then anything else.


 

ErikJ

(6,335 posts)
17. Artists are the driving force in gentrification.
Mon May 20, 2013, 04:44 PM
May 2013

I've lived in this metro area of 1.5 million for 25 years. What happens is the young "bohemians" find an inner city community with cheap housing or large rooms they can rent out for dirt cheap as their studio/living, (which is the birth of the "loft&quot . Most commonly its an area with old housing and rundown boarded up retail businesses OR an old warehouse area.

This area becomes "hip" so then a coffehouse or 2 will move in and from there it snowballs to a full fledged neighborhood of small indy retail shops with condos and upscale restaurants. I've seen this exact scenario happen in 5 different places in the inner city here. One of them was more planned by the city itself and is directly next to the downtown area. The huge property tax revenue they now get from that area is funding other similar urban renewal projects in the city.

This attracts lots of youth and urban professionals and of course raises the rent of all the housing and apts in that area which may lower the rents in the suburbs where this gentrification doesnt occur. So this attracts the lower income people to the suburbs.

Interestingly some of the suburbs "downtowns" are being gentrified as well to certain extent also. Lots of little indy retail shops etc.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
18. Mpls is running out near downtown neighborhoods to gentrify
Mon May 20, 2013, 07:00 PM
May 2013

but there is one that has not and IMO probably won't and that would be the Chicago-Franklin neighborhood, it was nasty nearly 40 years ago when I moved to Mpls, that was when Uptown was still actually bohemians and affordable, albeit for the most part I lived in Whittier which is/has become rather gentrified

KingFlorez

(12,689 posts)
19. Also an after effect of gentrification and housing removal
Mon May 20, 2013, 07:16 PM
May 2013

Most large cities have done away with larger housing developments and turned previously poor neighborhoods into higher priced developments.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. suburbs have more po...