The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Why didn’t whites push blacks out to suburbs instead of abandoning the cities?
| ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,.,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. | 01/20/25 |
| gibberish (?) | 01/20/25 |
| ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,.,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. | 01/20/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 20th, 2025 8:10 PM Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,.,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. Why is modern manhattan the exception and not the rule? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5667087&forum_id=2).#48571566) |
Date: January 20th, 2025 8:21 PM Author: gibberish (?) Traditionally there were class rings around cities. Wealthier people would live just where transportation got trickier. Think first walking, then horses, then trolley, until we get to cars. Part of the movement to the burbs (which actually began before WW2) was an aspiration to live in a better of neighborhood. A yard wasn't just a nice amenity, it signified you owning land. The poorer classes were chained to the dirty cities.
The new urbanism movement of the late 80s and early 90s really could only take hold because of dramatically lower inner city crime rates. One of the theories they pitched to urban planners was this progression of artists and kool types moving to the gritty crime areas of a city. They make it cool which pulls in your striver class who then cause property values to skyrocket and it pushes the poors out. The reality your urban planners don't want to acknowledge (at least in academia) is that the tough on crime response of the early 80s actually worked and the proof is in the urban landscape. Of course once law and order cracked, everyone that could afford it jumped right to the burbs.
Don't get me started on how 180 exclusionary zoning is. |
 |
Date: January 20th, 2025 9:39 PM Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,.,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5667087&forum_id=2).#48572012) |