Inner-city living makes for healthier, happier people, study finds

[Laura Corin]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/inner-city-living-makes-for-healthier-happier-people-study-finds

 

Interesting. 

[creekland]

Maybe it does compared to suburbia (as the article mentions), but I know this rural dweller wouldn't like it comparatively. (compared to suburbia either)

 

ETA  I absolutely love my space and the peace and quite of being away from congestion.  We rarely even like to visit cities and when we do, are glad to get back home.  If we must have congestion around, it had better be next to BIG WATER so we can escape it.

Edited October 6, 2017 by creekland

[DawnM]

Do you have a different definition of inner-city than we do?  Our inner-city definition refers to areas with large economic problems, high crime, etc....

 

Or do you mean just "in the city?"

[chiguirre]

The article says inner city but they mean apartments and row houses in the walkable neighborhoods accessible by public transportation.

[bettyandbob]

That actually makes sense to me. A lot of people I know in suburban areas go from house to car and never spend time walking or even outside. Considering people move away from cities for space it's too bad they don't use the space.

 

In cities movement is required even for people who wouldn't choose to move a lot. Cars are inconvenient to own and parking is difficult so even if one had a car, walking is easier. Because housing is small people leave their apartments to go to small parks when they want space.

 

My suburb was built to get people walking and biking. There are nice wooded trails all over. 40 + years ago I saw lots of people on the trails all the time. I don't see the trails utilized as much now, despite being more crowded. In fact I discovered a couple years ago that I have some neighbors who don't know there are trails in and out of our neighborhood leading to schools, stores, swimming pools, other neighborhoods, public transit areas.

 

It's too bad. Being outside can really help your mental health, but people don't take advantage of it.

[EmilyGF]

My experience living in an "inner city" is that I, and most people I know, walk a lot, even in foul weather. 
 

So, within two weeks, I was seeing people I "knew" every single time I went somewhere. When I lived in suburbia, it took about two years to start randomly running into people I knew. 

 

My kids walk/bike to their friends' homes and the library and I randomly have people I know pull over to talk to me when I'm walking and they are driving (and vice versa). 

 

I think being on your feet instead of in your car really nurtures interpersonal connections as well as health, which was the point of the article and my experience.

 

Emily

[Amira]

I've definitely found this to be true. That doesn't mean all aspects of urban life are wonderful, but I generally prefer everyday life in a high-density environment, especially in comparison to suburbia.

[EmilyGF]

That actually makes sense to me. A lot of people I know in suburban areas go from house to car and never spend time walking or even outside. Considering people move away from cities for space it's too bad they don't use the space.

 

In cities movement is required even for people who wouldn't choose to move a lot. Cars are inconvenient to own and parking is difficult so even if one had a car, walking is easier. Because housing is small people leave their apartments to go to small parks when they want space.

 

My suburb was built to get people walking and biking. There are nice wooded trails all over. 40 + years ago I saw lots of people on the trails all the time. I don't see the trails utilized as much now, despite being more crowded. In fact I discovered a couple years ago that I have some neighbors who don't know there are trails in and out of our neighborhood leading to schools, stores, swimming pools, other neighborhoods, public transit areas.

 

It's too bad. Being outside can really help your mental health, but people don't take advantage of it.

Yes! We moved from Santa Cruz, CA, which is a beautiful place to live, but NO one bothered to be outside on a regular basis. I'd walk to the park EVERY SINGLE STINKIN' DAY and I never got to know a steady group of people there. People just went from their door to their car and that was it. And the commutes - what is the point of a nice yard if you spend all your time in the car driving places and commuting???

 

I feel like it is such a shame that CA has such low density. What a perfect place to walk all year round, but nothing is walkable. 

 

Emily

[ErinE]

Did the researchers control for socioeconomic status? I've lived in many large US cities, and housing costs were a significant portion of our budget. That's with both DH and I working good jobs. With four children, safe neighborhoods are out of our price range in high density urban areas, and based on my experience, the unsafe neighborhoods in many US cities aren't walkable.

 

We now live in a developed suburban area, but it was built to be very walkable and bikeable. The schools and library are less than a mile away. Restaurants and gorcery stores are a bit further. I love where we are and hope we can stay. I wish more neighborhoods were developed this way rather than large swathes of homes isolated from any commercial zones.

[creekland]

I think being on your feet instead of in your car really nurtures interpersonal connections as well as health, which was the point of the article and my experience.

 

Emily

 

This is probably it.  We're on our feet a lot (except in bad weather) and have a couple of walking options we use daily right outside our front door.  We almost always run into neighbors on our walks, so catch up with them daily or at least a couple of times per week.  Sometimes we even get together to play games and eat, etc, too.

 

Then there are all the other fitness things that come along with a farm - carrying water, tossing hay (in season), mowing, fence fixing, weeding, gardening, etc.  We often wonder who needs to pay for a gym?   :lol:

[Elizabeth86]

You can study all you want, but I promise it wouldnt make me happier.

[Guest]

It isn't the city/suburban/urban but how the planning was done. I'm rural, people get in their vehicles to meet up...church, parks, homes, clubs etc. if no one is out when they go for their daily walk.  They sure don't stay home in isolation..they fund a senior van and meals at senior centers to make sure no one is isolated if they can't get them out for bridge/gc sports & music, etc.  Old railbeds have been converted into hike/bike/walk trails to supplement all the hiking trails -- that's good for seniors who don't have the mobility to handle the traditional sidewalk with cracks and sloping handicap ramps.

 

As far as daily walking ... in the city they walk to the subway, less than a mile. Here people walk in from parking lot to store, workplace, medical office etc and that totals up  more than walk to subway stop and back.   Also the dc here walk 1 to 2 miles to the school bus stop...we don't have funding to limit the distance like they do in the city with plentiful bus/subway routes.   Lots of transplants here who have made the comparison... they love it here.  No traffic or crime to interrupt their nightly walk, lots more exercise available, and stars are visible.  Me, my final destination is suburbia or a rural college town.  I like walking to the library, cafe, pizza joint  etc without crime and attack dogs  and having the routes paved and cleared in snowy weather..the latter does not happen here due to all the snowbirds ignoring the town ordinances.  I've been to communities that have set aside plenty of park land and designed in bike/walk trails -- exactly what I want as an elder, but without the florida humidity.

 

I agree with the article about considering density before paving over nature.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[Carrie12345]

I get uncomfortable when I go back to *visit* suburbia.  I don't know how I lived so close to other humans!

 

I understand the walking aspect.  There isn't really anywhere to walk here unless you're intentionally hiking.  I'm perfectly fine with just running into people at the gym!  I adore my space.

[marbel]

I have always lived in the suburbs, but I can see myself enjoying the city a lot more.  

 

We had a place that had a lot of space, and we loved the privacy and the fact that we could plant whatever we wanted, have a garden, etc.  But there were time I envied the people in the city - not having to drive everywhere, having places close by to go.  Of course it depends on the city and the part of the city.  Philadelphia is a huge old city and there are some places that are not livable at all.  Of course the nice areas are most likely not affordable for most people. But, I think of Portland, OR - completely different (at least when I lived there, and recognizing that it had its bad places too).  Maybe the nicer areas are not affordable anymore.

 

Even out in the suburbs of Portland there were planned communities that were on a light rail line, had dense housing and walkable shops... part of me rebelled at the lack of space and privacy - I hated the idea that the kids' play space was all at the park.  I did love being able to tell my kids to go out in the back yard without me and play. Now, with older kids, I think I would love it.  

 

I think in the US most people have an image of "inner city" that is not good, not what the article is talking about.  

 

And of course it's still not going to be for everyone.  :-)

 

 

[EmilyGF]

I get uncomfortable when I go back to *visit* suburbia.  I don't know how I lived so close to other humans!

 

I understand the walking aspect.  There isn't really anywhere to walk here unless you're intentionally hiking.  I'm perfectly fine with just running into people at the gym!  I adore my space.

 

There is a lot of mythology built up around independence and personal space in America that has little/no truth in reality (case in point: the Little House books). 

 

These studies are about averages, not specific people. So the "average" person in the city is healthier/better connected than the "average" person in suburbia. I know very well connected/thin/healthy suburban/rural people as well as isolated/overweight urban people. But this is a study looking at averages. 

 

I feel the same way about suburbia but for different reasons - it makes me feel uncomfortable that I could have felt comfortable living in such a bland place that is so environmentally unfriendly. I love the freedom of knowing I don't need a car, too. 

 

Emily

[fralala]

Safe, walkable green spaces and opportunities for positive human interaction and retreat seem necessary no matter where one lives. Walking distance to small, well-stocked shops also would probably add more to my happiness than Amazon Prime does, but maybe that's just the mental ideal I've created (I call it Paris).

 

Living in the country without a driver's license was immensely isolating for me, too (as a teenager), and the roads were treacherous to walk/bike as all lacked sidewalks. When I see suburban developments in my area with tightly packed McMansions with minimal backyards, no sidewalks, and no common areas, I feel that these areas are also tremendously isolating. Rural areas (at least in the U.S.) have historical reasons for being spread out, but there's really no excuse for planners today to be doing such a poor job of creating livable suburban spaces. The good thing to remember if one disagrees personally is that these studies aren't intended to turn all people into urban dwellers, but to use data about what makes people happy to create better suburban living spaces for the many people who live there due to choice or circumstances.

[Night Elf]

I don't know much about cities except what I see on tv. To be honest, I won't even go to a city for a vacation. DH has mentioned New York City or Washington DC and nope, nope, nope. Too many people. Too many things happening at one time. It would be way too stimulating for me, ds and youngest dd. Oldest dd has been to a few cities with her dad and has had a good time. Fine, take pictures and I'll look at them. :)

[marbel]

I don't know much about cities except what I see on tv. To be honest, I won't even go to a city for a vacation. DH has mentioned New York City or Washington DC and nope, nope, nope. Too many people. Too many things happening at one time. It would be way too stimulating for me, ds and youngest dd. Oldest dd has been to a few cities with her dad and has had a good time. Fine, take pictures and I'll look at them. :)

 

One of my kids has some sensory issues that make busy cities unbearable.  Too many noises, competing images, even odors. Too many people. The other child loves it. I can see that one living in a city and having a great time, while the other lives in a bunker somewhere in the desert.   :-)    

 

When I think of how I'd really like to live, if given the choice, I bounce between a Tasha Tudor-esque life in a little cottage with lots of flowers, and a townhouse/condo/apartment in an older section of a city, a place with trees, bookstores, cafes, a library, park, useful shops and public transit within walking distance.  I can picture some neighborhoods of Philly that are like that.  But $$$$$!  

 

By "useful shops" I mean grocery stores and other places I can buy things I need, not cute little boutiques.  :-)

[Pawz4me]

The downtown areas in the biggest cities near me--what I assume the author means by inner city--seem to me to skew very heavily to either young, professional people (single or couples w/o children) or to active retired folks. In other words, the demographics that might tend towards happier (and healthier, especially in the case of the young people) regardless of where they lived. Our downtown areas aren't IMO livable for married couples with children or those with health issues that would limit their mobility or ability to drive. There are no grocery stores and few/no pharmacies, doctors, dentists or schools, and mass transit consists of bus systems that from what I know aren't very convenient to use (routes that don't run on very regular schedules, etc.).

 

Personally--I feel claustrophobic almost to the point of panic in high density areas. Give me wide open spaces, thank you very much.

[wintermom]

In my area, the isolating factor is a freezing cold winter and the snow keeps covering up bike lanes and sidewalks. If the politicians can fix up that issue, we'd all be happier, I'm sure.  :laugh:

[Laura Corin]

If I read it right, this study looked at averages....in Britain.  I don't think they looked at a single city outside of Britain.  I do have to wonder if they might find different results for other countries.

 

I suspect that it would depend on the city and that might be the reason that they stuck to the UK.  All UK cities that I can think of developed a major central area before the advent of the motor car, so there's a wide walkable area, similar to Manhattan.  In a city like Dallas (from my memory) I don't know if there is enough walkable residential building to create a good sample

 

[RoundAbout]

As far as daily walking ... in the city they walk to the subway, less than a mile. Here people walk in from parking lot to store, workplace, medical office etc and that totals up  more than walk to subway stop and back.   

 

I think most city dwellers walk a lot more than to the subway and back. They might do that for work, but they also tend to walk to all of their social activities, bars and restaurants, doctors offices, shopping etc. When I visit friends in NYC I easily hit double my normal step count on my Fitbit just doing normal stuff. 

[Guest]

Anything is better than suburbs.

[creekland]

 But this is a study looking at averages. 

 

I just wonder what the average would be if they had checked rural.  We get several in our school district that move here from nearby cities and occasionally even from far away cities.  I can't recall any of them moving back.  Some move to different school districts nearby.  Some get job transfers and need to leave.  But none (I know of) have said they dislike our area and move back into the city they came from.

 

I don't know much about cities except what I see on tv. To be honest, I won't even go to a city for a vacation. DH has mentioned New York City or Washington DC and nope, nope, nope. Too many people. Too many things happening at one time. It would be way too stimulating for me, ds and youngest dd. Oldest dd has been to a few cities with her dad and has had a good time. Fine, take pictures and I'll look at them. :)

 

FWIW, if you ever want to visit a city.  DC is one of the best, esp if you can stay near metro and want to see the Smithsonian Museums.  You'll still be more relaxed when you get home (assuming you're not a city person - like we aren't), but it's still a very interesting city to visit compared to many others.

[Guest]

 

 

As far as daily walking ... in the city they walk to the subway, less than a mile. Here people walk in from parking lot to store, workplace, medical office etc and that totals up  more than walk to subway stop and back. .

 

People definitely don't just walk to the subway and back in dense, walkable cities. [My own personal experience is with NYC and Boston] It's often faster to walk, so that among other reasons (like stops along the way) induce people to walk. Even in the dead of winter. The culture is just WALKing-centric, fullstop.

 

And you don't go to the grocery or the dr every day?

[SamanthaCarter]

Yes, if you have the money to live in a decent place in the inner-city. In which case you have money, which also contributes to happiness. [emoji848]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[creekland]

 When I visit friends in NYC I easily hit double my normal step count on my Fitbit just doing normal stuff. 

 

This makes me wonder what folks' normal step counts are.  When we're at home we average between 5 and 10K (maybe 12K) per day doing "our usual."  The difference is in how many walks we take or who does chores.

 

When we're on vacation it all depends on what we're doing.  If at a nice walkable beach we can get up to 25K+.  If visiting relatives who don't move around, it can be less than 1K.  If typical trips it's very similar to what we get at home with the variance being in how much walking vs watching movies or whatever.  Our largest step counts have always been at the beach.  I'm curious to see what we'll get at Petra though.  ;)

[Farrar]

I live in the inner city. And I call it that, yes, as an American. The connotation is changing, y'all. My inner city is diverse in every way. It has gentrified, but not to the extent that there aren't a wide variety of classes of people still here. It's very walkable. I can walk to several grocery store, several big box stores, several parks. I can walk to the zoo, to the woods since someone left a giant bit of woods in the middle of the city. I can see restaurants from my front yard. I can walk to the subway. My kids take the bus often.

 

Obviously this is averages and refers to the UK. But I take exception that you couldn't find a large enough sample of Americans living in the inner city to do a comparison with the 'burbs. I mean, maybe if your vision of American cities is Dallas. But NYC, DC, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Philly... heck, my mother lives in a mid-sized city and has friends in the inner city and it's increasingly walkable and nice (Durham, NC, if you care). Also to the automatic idea that inner cities are places that are crime ridden and "bad." Yeah, there's more crime here. There's also more people. Not to mention healthy trade offs.

[Guest]

I live in a state were a lot of people are outside. That includes the inner city, the suburbs, and the rural/mountain areas. I love our suburban home, but we are in the older area so everything is close. Now, my ds17 would really like to live very urban, so we'll see where he ends up.

[thessa516]

Ack! Count me as one of those that would consider inner city living a nightmare. This study is more my speed.

[shawthorne44]

I don't think that you can compare the 'inner cities' of London, Glasgow, and Cardiff with say Chicago.  

 

What that study is targeting is the laws that "restrict suburban houses from dividing their plots and filling in more homes in gardens – which have sought to preserve suburbia’s open and emptier spaces."

 

But that makes no sense.  I have lived in the suburbs (rural now) and tripling the housing density would NOT have made it more walk-able.   What makes an area walk-able is having something worthwhile to walk TO, and an are to walk which is fairly safe.   

[creekland]

Ack! Count me as one of those that would consider inner city living a nightmare. This study is more my speed.

 

That one is definitely more my speed too!  Thanks for posting it.  ;)

[Paige]

I'd like to live in a semi-rural walkable community. My grandmother lived in one and it was so nice and friendly when we spent weeks with her. She lived in a small, rural town within walking distance to their little downtown. Yards were probably about an acre to 1/2 acre on her street, and we could walk a couple of blocks and reach the schools with their playgrounds, shops, church, restaurants, the super exciting candy store, and most of her friends. 

[Rachel]

Me too! When I get out in the woods I feel my entire body relax.

 

I do see how being out walking and actually interacting with people daily improves quality of life though. Without making an effort I would never see or talk to my neighbors.

Ack! Count me as one of those that would consider inner city living a nightmare. This study is more my speed.

[Julie Smith]

I have read a few studies that compare suicide rates between different places of living. All the studies state a higher suicide rate in rural settings. 

 

 

 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/38487/20150309/suicide-rates-differ-greatly-between-rural-urban-youths.htm

 

 

[Julie Smith]

Me too! When I get out in the woods I feel my entire body relax.

 

 

According to the Japanese studies I have read, that is forest bathing - and it has been proven to improve health. 

[SKL]

I am sure there are benefits to living among many people, but there is also probably some opposite causation - people who choose to live in relative isolation may be doing so because they have mental issues that make living with others difficult.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Air pollution, noise, too many people, smells, noise, too many people, traffic, too many people, crime, too many people.  Nope.  Sensory overload!!  I like my suburbia just fine. We do live in a very walkable neighborhood.  If we didn't have to go to work, we could get by for long stretches without our car. 

 

You can be lonely and isolated anywhere.  In a city with millions of people who have been conditioned to not make eye contact, in suburbs with houses with front porches but neighbors that just don't like you, or in the country where you can't see your nearest neighbor.  I have been much more isolated in the city during my surgery recovery.  It would have been at least another several weeks before I would have been able to venture outside of my house due to the increased distance to access transportation.  Even to get picked up in a car.  

[Katy]

Not that surprising to me - humans are social creatures. A long time ago I read a book called Thou Shall Prosper: Ten Commandments for Making Money by Rabbi Daniel Lapin about economics and money and why he thinks Jewish people tend to get rich. A huge part of it was living in cities and specializing in careers - he basically argued that the bible advises people to specialize in specific careers to best serve other people and that serving others best = money, and to them, money isn't evil, it's a sign that you are serving other humans in the best ways possible.

 

Now, there are all kinds of strange cultural & potential hypocritical aspects of that - specifically he meant men, not women, and that women should mostly be mothers, though his daughters work.  Anyway, it's a great book if you struggle with the Christian ethics of wondering if the pursuit of money is evil or not.  He makes pretty sound arguments for living in cities making it easiest to serve other people and also make lots of money. 

 

He also argued back to the land homestead types tend to be economically poor because it's impossible to specialize in anything.  Despite all that, I still dream of buying a hobby farm rather than living in the city or a bigger suburban home.

[Laura Corin]

I'd like to live in a semi-rural walkable community. My grandmother lived in one and it was so nice and friendly when we spent weeks with her. She lived in a small, rural town within walking distance to their little downtown. Yards were probably about an acre to 1/2 acre on her street, and we could walk a couple of blocks and reach the schools with their playgrounds, shops, church, restaurants, the super exciting candy store, and most of her friends. 

 

That's pretty much like the small town where I work.  I park at work and run errands on foot.  Houses tend to have small gardens/yards, but there's enough space for kids to have a climbing frame, adults to have a barbecue, a line for washing. 

 

I live in a village nearby, where the gardens are larger (one acre plus, as a rule) but there is no intentional walking to be done.  Most people seem to have dogs, however, so they get exercise and there's almost always someone to chat with on the road.

 

FWIW, I don't prefer cities, so I have no axe to grind.  I just thought the findings were interesting. 

 

My mother certainly had a minor social life living in the centre of a city that she would not have had in a suburb, just because she ran errands around the neighbourhood on foot, and her garden bordered six or seven others.  We are planning on moving to a more walkable place in the next few years to set us up for an active and sociable old age.

[DawnM]

The article says inner city but they mean apartments and row houses in the walkable neighborhoods accessible by public transportation.

 

Right, which is why I was asking.  The title is misleading to those of us in the US.

[Arcadia]

I find driving stressful even when I am the passenger. How walkable a neighborhood is and availability of reliable high frequency transport would definitely lower that stress for people like me who loathe driving. Traffic jams annoys my husband so he rather walk or take the public transport if possible.

 

My parents had drivers licenses but choose to take a cab. Every service they need were either within walking distance or a short cab ride away so cab costs were low. The chances of being caught in a traffic jam was low too.

 

Do you have a different definition of inner-city than we do? Our inner-city definition refers to areas with large economic problems, high crime, etc....

 

Or do you mean just "in the city?"

US inner-city is what I heard called “the hood†in Asia, basically high gang activity areas.

 

Inner-city is an urban planning term as well which is probably what the study use the term as.

[Shellydon]

The article says inner city but they mean apartments and row houses in the walkable neighborhoods accessible by public transportation.

 

Sounds like my nightmare.  I would wilt and die in that environment. 

[Farrar]

Right, which is why I was asking.  The title is misleading to those of us in the US.

 

I disagree. I live in a neighborhood that is exactly that - a mix of condos, rowhouses, and apartment buildings with interspersed retail in the "inner city." It's the US.

 

Honestly, if anyone were to try and argue that my neighborhood is NOT the inner city, then I think it would be clear that this is a term that's all about race to Americans. At the height of the crack epidemic, when my neighborhood was nearly all black, when crime was a bigger issue, it was literally written about as the poster child for inner city on multiple occasions. Now, it's no majority, lots of young white and Latino families, still many black families, lots of young single people. If it's not still the "inner city" then "inner city" must mean crime ridden and/or majority black, not near the city center and walkable, etc.

[Farrar]

I feel compelled to add a few more thoughts as a longtime inner city dweller. I grew up in a rural area and then a suburban one. They were fine. I mostly feel comfortable in those places too. However, we made a different decision for our family because we value living in a way that is more in line with our values - smaller spaces, more public transit, less curated green lawns, more diversity, etc.

 

I think these things are mostly about adjusting our cultural expectations. There's a cost to life in the suburbs - in carbon emissions, in walkability, among other things. We cannot sustain being a nation of giant lawns and long commutes indefinitely. Increasingly, this next generation has a different view of cities - they want to live here. The attitude that "ew, cities are too much" is one that younger adults are increasingly discarding.

 

That feeling of being at ease in the woods? One of my little urbanites gets that from cities. I do think it's unusual, but he is uncomfortable in small towns and among the little boxes of suburbia. His whole body relaxes once he's back in the city. It's fascinating. We once spent a week in my grandmother's small town and on our way home we stopped in downtown Atlanta. He almost cried for joy, I swear. He was like, look at this, isn't this great, isn't this so much better. I'm like, uh... sure? My point is just that the idea that one is better than the other - either way you see it - is culturally conditioned for the most part. If we want cities to be good and desirable, we talk about them like they're good and desirable. We make them good and desirable. And, honestly, they are. I can get to museums and plays and interesting events more easily. I can access more services and classes. I can more easily find people to befriend - whether just a few or a lot. There are more options socially. Rural areas and suburbs have benefits too, but for decades Americans have been talking about cities like they're a scourge on our nation. It's just increasingly nonsense.

 

I'll add - suburbs could become more walkable by creating more mixed use development in between developments. And that's exactly what's already happening to close in suburbs. If you live in the exurbs, you won't see it. But also, at least around here - the exurbs are practically dying. They're the one area where the housing prices are floundering and where communities are struggling more. Fewer and fewer people want to live in communities like that now, at least around here. I think most people would like to live in the suburbs, or a small town, or the country, or the city. The exurbs are far out, with giant lawns and mansions, but fewer resources. I understand all the other choices, but, honestly, not that one.

[Guest]

People in the public eye often say inner city as a euphemism for the projects to distance themselves from what they are talking about because it's often a nasty bit of business.

 

The non-city-dwelling public naturally picks up on that. Hence the confusion.

[Guest]

I can site multiple studies that say people are healthiest when they are out in nature.

 

Therefore, I'm going to live forever.

[Farrar]

People in the public eye often say inner city as a euphemism for the projects to distance themselves from what they are talking about because it's often a nasty bit of business.

 

The non-city-dwelling public naturally picks up on that. Hence the confusion.

 

It's dog whistles. They don't want to say "black neighborhoods are the problem" so they say "inner cities are the problem." But then when an inner city is white or diverse and gentrified or desirable location wise, suddenly it's not the "inner city"?

[madteaparty]

**goes to fetch eggs in the backyard, harvesting and eating tomatoes en route, reminiscing about wiping soot of her NYC windowsills** I think I'll pass :)

[Guest]

To me, the air quality in the center city is so poor that I find it hard to believe that people living there full time are healthier.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Fifiruth