
Income inequality, as seen from space - metdos
http://persquaremile.com/2012/05/24/income-inequality-seen-from-space/
======
chimeracoder
Most of this is due to a relatively new phenomenon:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabgrass_Frontier:_The_Suburba...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabgrass_Frontier:_The_Suburbanization_of_the_United_States)

The concept of a 'front lawn', or even of easy access to nature in general,
has not always been as popular as it is today. As Jackson notes, a front lawn
is rather useless except as a status symbol (unlike a back lawn, people rarely
use the front lawn for barbecues, etc.), and they can cut the amount of
available space in a neighborhood by 50% or more, making them a truly luxury
expense.

But this popularity wasn't always so widespread - and n fact, it isn't even so
commonplace in some parts of the world today (though the Westernization of
global cultures has changed this somewhat).

For those who are interested, the most expensive zip codes in New York are
10014 (by real estate) and 10128 (by income). The poorest would probably be
10451 (South Bronx).

Contrast those both to 10025 and 10027, the border of Harlem (poor, but
rapidly gentrifying, historically black) and the Upper West Side (historically
well-off for several decades, also a large Jewish community).

~~~
kcl
> The concept of a 'front lawn', or even of easy access to nature in general,
> has not always been as popular as it is today.

The divide between city and country living is ancient. I find most of your
assertions based on Jackson hard to swallow. We were almost exclusively
agrarian before industrialization. Your article gives the fraction of people
living in cities as 1/3 in 1890 in the US. It's more than that today. It seems
like lawns and easy access to nature have been around for a long time. If they
are more in demand today, maybe it's because there is a natural need that's
going unfilled.

(If anyone has a good chart of US city vs. non-city dwelling over time, please
share.)

> As Jackson notes, a front lawn is rather useless except as a status symbol

A status symbol? Only if you are looking at it from the perspective of an
apartment dweller. Suburban neighborhoods don't think of people in terms of
their front yard. They don't think of front yards much at all, except when it
comes time to cut them.

If your front yard is messy, that might reflect badly on you, but that sort of
information will be conveyed in other ways. The front yard won't have much to
do with it.

I suppose a more accurate way to phrase your argument would be
"ornamentation". Even then, a front yard is not useless. People like to have
space between them and their neighbors. It is a buffer between you and the
road, and a place for your children to play. People like to have a space
that's theirs.

I think it is much more likely that the size of yards is a function of what
people find comfortable to have between them and their neighbors, with other
factors like cost coming into play second.

Why, for instance, do New Yorkers buy their second homes in the surrounding
rural areas? Why not another apartment?

When I lived in the city I felt cramped. Apartment living taxed my well-being.
It's possible this is because of how I grew up. I think it's more likely it's
a physical attribute of how I am. Suburbanites are probably the same way.

Open up Google Earth and pan over America. Are you suggesting all the front
yards you see are equivalent to gold chains, and not some fundamental property
of how people want to live?

> and they can cut the amount of available space in a neighborhood by 50% or
> more, making them a truly luxury expense.

Again, this could only come from a city perspective. Front yards are easy to
get. Everyone who wants one has one. The objective function of a suburban area
is not to maximize space efficiency.

By the end of your comment you steer the discussion back towards cities in
particular---but Jackson is an argument on actual suburbanization, not "intra-
city" suburbanization. So if you aren't talking about these concepts in
general, why predicate your comment on Jackson's book/phenomenon?

~~~
chimeracoder
I think you're actually proving my point.

> We were almost exclusively agrarian before industrialization.

Who's the 'we'? Western Germanic society perhaps, but even there there is no
shortage of examples of large urban populations, including for the very rich,
who usually preferred the safety of the cities.

> Suburban neighborhoods don't think of people in terms of their front yard.
> They don't think of front yards much at all, except when it comes time to
> cut them.

> People like to have space between them and their neighbors. It is a buffer
> between you and the road, and a place for your children to play. People like
> to have a space that's theirs.

> The objective function of a suburban area is not to maximize space
> efficiency.

Potlatch would probably have been a better term, but your points are exactly
what I was saying - maintaining a well-manicured lawn is incredibly expensive,
particularly in areas where grass doesn't naturally grow well (like desert
areas).

> Again, this could only come from a city perspective. Front yards are easy to
> get. Everyone who wants one has one.

Before you dismiss my point as 'only a city perspective', think about the
total expense associated with lawn care - assuming that you don't let it
completely go to seed, because this is the potlatch that I was talking about.

Read Alice Walker's 'Everyday Use' and you'll see what I mean - she doesn't
describe the lawn itself in too much detail (it's an artifact of the time in
which it takes place), but even from the first paragraph it's clear she's not
talking about a lawn filled with grass. In fact, she's referring to a "lawn"
of dry dirt, which she makes 'wavy' by raking wave patterns into it. There's
no function to raking dry dirt any more than there's a function for cutting
down healthy grass to 1-2 inches from 5-6 inches.

It's not like there's anything natural about a well-manicured lawn; in most
suburban enclaves, it's rare to see more than one row of flowers and other
flora - 10% of the space at the very most. If the 'function' of a lawn is to
provide privacy, or a buffer, it would be just as well served by an empty lot.
Or even better, by tall bushes and trees, which can look just as aesthetically
pleasing. Don't confuse incredibly artificial front lawns with 'nature'.

> Why, for instance, do New Yorkers buy their second homes in the surrounding
> rural areas? Why not another apartment?

Second homes and front lawns have nothing to do with each other. You seem to
dichotodmize 'suburban homes with lawns' and 'multi-family apartments', but
there's actually quite a lot in between. It's just rare within this country
because societal forces have caused us to tend to prefer the poles of that
spectrum, for the time being.

> Are you suggesting all the front yards you see are equivalent to gold
> chains, and not some fundamental property of how people want to live?

At one point in Puritan society, housewives were judged by the number of lumps
in their sugar bowl, because that showed how much time the household invested
in house care. Today we use other metrics, lawn care being one. There's no
fundamental property of how people want to live, except that all societies
create largely-arbitrary metrics of judgement (like potlatch) - this just
happens to be one of ours today. Don't think that any of these arrangements of
living are permanent and universal, as if they spring from some intrinsic
understanding of human beings. Look at old Chinese living arrangements and
you'll see what I mean, even if you only compare them to Chinese homes today.

> Jackson is an argument on actual suburbanization, not "intra-city"
> suburbanization. So if you aren't talking about these concepts in general,
> why predicate your comment on Jackson's book/phenomenon?

Since 1970, only two cities in the country have grown in population without
annexing territory from surrounding areas. If you read Jackson's works, you'll
see that these two aren't as clear-cut and fundamentally different as you seem
to think.

~~~
anamax
> I think you're actually proving my point.

That thought demonstrates that you don't understand him.

> Western Germanic society perhaps, but even there there is no shortage of
> examples of large urban populations

What definition of "no shortage" are we using?

Yes, London and Berlin existed, but what fraction of the population lived in
these areas? How many were there?

When >50% of the population is directly involved in producing food
(blacksmiths aren't direct), what fraction do you think can live in urban
areas?

> maintaining a well-manicured lawn is incredibly expensive,

No, it isn't. I know poor people with fantastic lawns.

As to the rest, you're revealing your Puritanism. You're upset that people
aren't doing the things that would make you value them. That's a problem, and
it isn't theirs.

Where do you get off "suggesting" that they please you instead of folks who
they want to please, includiing themselves (a possibility that you don't even
consider).

> Second homes and front lawns have nothing to do with each other.

I'll bite - which of them do you have? (For some folks, they do have a lot to
do with one another. For others, not so much.)

Which reminds me, your inaccurate usage of potlatch is incredibly insulting on
at least a couple of levels. Of course, you know that, and don't care.

------
guard-of-terra
This is only relevant for suburban (or village) style settlements.

For example, most of ex-USSR cities are built in huge 5-, 9- or 15-floor
apartment blocks with lots of trees around them.

In this case, trees tell you nothing: there might be few trees because the
part of the city is newly-built; there are no trees in historic inner city but
it's usually the best and most expensive place. If there's a plenty of trees,
it still tells you nothing.

~~~
brazzy
Even in Western Europe there was a period in the 1950s and 60s when city
planners constructed high-rise satellite towns with lots of trees between the
apartment blocks, pretty much all of which are mainly populated by poor people
to this day.

~~~
Someone
An example:
[http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=52.318875,4.976646&spn=0....](http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=52.318875,4.976646&spn=0.00623,0.011094)

#trees per person probably is a better metric. Band-filtered population
density, as that filters out high frequencies due to local peaks and low
frequencies that denote average wealth of a larger neighborhood, may be an
even better one. I guess that might even work for extremely high-rise building
as in Dubai. Firstly, the lower floors in such buildings typically are
offices, and secondly, I guess the really high buildings will stand less close
to other high buildings than the lower skyscrapers that surround it.

~~~
guard-of-terra
City center might have very low trees per person. Old, crumbling, partially
deserted housing might have high trees per person.

------
Swizec
According to this, Ljubljana is a super rich city ...

[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ljubljana,+%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A5...](https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ljubljana,+%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A5%E3%83%96%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A3%E3%83%8A,+Slovenia&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=46.053756,14.505901&spn=0.039075,0.073214&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.418852,74.970703&oq=ljubljana&t=h&hnear=Ljubljana,+Slovenia&z=14)

There are trees _everywhere_. It's impossible to find a neighborhood or street
that doesn't have plenty of trees.

~~~
Dn_Ab
Maybe ratio of green to gray would be a better metric. Too much green or grey
not good? Still, seems pretty tenuous until a country is beyond a certain
level of development.

------
lotharbot
Is this "income inequality" or "wealth inequality"?

They're correlated, but not the same thing.

~~~
_delirium
Interesting question. The answer might actually vary from country to country.
In countries such as the U.S., where mortgages are the norm for all but the
richest people, where you live is fairly strongly tied to current income,
which dictates how large a mortgage you can qualify for. In other countries,
if housing is primarily financed out of accumulated wealth rather than loans
tied to current income, it might be more strongly determined by wealth.

------
smallblacksun
I think that this image
([http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/12/19/northkoreamap_62...](http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/12/19/northkoreamap_620x350.jpg))
of Korea is the most striking representation of image equality. It is visible
from space with the naked eye.

~~~
Evbn
That is a naked-eye approximating image? Seems unlikely to have that much non-
diffused light from city to space.

~~~
smallblacksun
It is similar, at least. Here is another one showing South Korea that is taken
using a regular camera from the ISS that shows similar light patterns
(<https://plus.google.com/117789022459699674254/posts>). It's hard to see
North Korea because of the angle and the clouds.

~~~
AgentConundrum
That link just goes to someone's (yours?) G+ page. I think you wanted to link
to this specifically:
[https://plus.google.com/117789022459699674254/posts/YsnRsCCB...](https://plus.google.com/117789022459699674254/posts/YsnRsCCBmuN)

------
jmillikin
In a follow-up, the author posts similar images submitted by readers.

[http://persquaremile.com/2012/06/13/your-images-of-income-
in...](http://persquaremile.com/2012/06/13/your-images-of-income-inequality-
from-space/)

Two of these images show a border between rich and poor areas. The visual
effect is striking.

------
arscan
Hmmm, looks from outer space can be deceiving. The rent I pay for my one
bedroom apartment in Ball Square is obscene.

~~~
cbr
Still cheaper than west Cambridge, I'd bet:
<http://www.jefftk.com/apartment_prices/rooms.html>

~~~
arscan
Wow, this is a really great visualization.

------
dublinclontarf
It's also a part of city planning, take for example Canberra Australia (the
capital city), except for the more recent sections of the city (which seems to
be suburban sprawls) almost the entire city is tree covered.

Certain areas with high rise and high density don't have room for trees.

------
fleitz
Subsistence farming sites should look pretty well off from space.

~~~
flogic
Rural areas probably have different tell tale signs. Probably roof size and
geometry.

~~~
bluekeybox
In Europe at least, a good way to tell is to look at which material the roofs
are covered with. Noticed that while flying from over Switzerland to over
Silesia. The percentage of red clay rooftop tiles (which also stand out among
green trees) decreases as you move east, until everything starts looking very
drab and gray.

------
sp332
New Hampshire has the 6th highest rate of millionaires per capita, and 9th
highest income per person overall. We often top CQ's "Most livable states"
list (which looks at schools, job growth etc.) We also have the highest
percentage of tree cover in the nation.
[http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/08/06/new.hampshire.le...](http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/08/06/new.hampshire.leads.nation.percent.tree.cover)

~~~
alanfang
The huge amount of tree cover in New Hampshire historically speaking is also a
pretty recent event. 100+ years ago NH was mostly farmland with little to no
tree cover.

~~~
sp332
Yeah it's a little complicated historically. We used to have a nice "old
growth" forest, with big oak trees etc. Nothing like the amount of cover we
have now, but a lot. Then the British took basically all of the nice oaks for
ships, and farming and so on cleared a lot of the rest. ~100 years ago people
started feeling nostalgic about all the trees (plus farming in the area
plummeted when soldiers from the Civil War returned with stories of real
topsoil! and land you didn't have to remove rocks from every spring!) and a
reforestation effort started. Unfortunately there is also an infestation of
bugs that eat the tips off of trees so now we're stuck with tons of crappy
pines with a few oaks and maples finally showing up.

------
richcollins
Weird I was just discussing this while walking through Piedmont. I wondered if
it was a viscous / virtuous cycle thing. The areas with nice trees attracted
those with wealth who protected them with disposable income while those with
fewer trees cost less to live in, attracted lower income residents who
couldn't afford to protect them.

------
Turing_Machine
Downtown Pyongyang, where "income equality" is king:

<http://goo.gl/M4TfV>

~~~
aneth4
Yeah, I'm not really sure of the political message of the comparison. It's not
surprising that wealthier people live in nicer areas with more greenspace....

Income inequality is not the enemy - in fact it is what incentivizes our
economy and ultimately builds wealth for everyone. Corruption, lack of
opportunity, abject poverty - those are the problems.

~~~
dmlorenzetti
_I'm not really sure of the political message of the comparison._

The linked page doesn't overtly make a political point. It simply shows the
photos, as evidence that greenspace varies by wealth.

Maybe the rest of the site is into politics-- I haven't looked-- but I think
any politics on this page are something the reader brings to the table.

~~~
FaceKicker
He may have thought so because the phrase "income inequality" is usually used
in the context of describing it negatively (in the US at least). I guarantee
you that the phrase "income inequality" is used by Democrats in the
Senate/House 10x as much as Republicans. No Republican is ever going to say
their tax cuts for the wealthy "increase income inequality", they'll say it
"helps the job creators create jobs".

Edits: Wow, I need to learn to make sure I reread sentences in full when I go
back and reword something.

------
magoon
False. This is all based on the assumption that income is directly
proportional to the footprint of a dwelling

------
brooksbp
rich people and their trees...

~~~
sliverstorm
You say that like trees are a bad thing.

------
stretchwithme
That makes sense. Because the same qualities that lead to higher incomes are
required to care about things around you.

For example, building skills and wealth take a long term view and the ability
to make sacrifices, deferring enjoyment now for the possibility of future
enjoyment.

And a tree takes short term sacrifice of time for something that will have
take years to materialize.

~~~
vacri
'pay for' is not the same as 'care for'. A poor person can care a heap about
-foo-, but if they can't afford it, it won't happen.

~~~
stretchwithme
How much does a seed cost?

