France: Why is their geographical socioeconomic stratification so different?

[Indy Texas]

During the 20th century, France kept its largely immigrant socioeconomic underclass isolated from the rest of society by settling them in far outlying suburbs anchored by large public housing projects. Meanwhile, the urban core and adjacent areas of Paris and other major cities were reserved for the middle and upper class white French.

What made France sort its population this way? It's almost an inversion of the American model where it was white people with money who left major cities and moved to suburbs, leaving behind a declining urban core that came to be filled with non-white and immigrant communities.

tl;dr Why was there no "White Flight" in France?

[Sol]

IIRC the french way of doing things is more common than the American. Also IIRC large parts of Paris were historically (I don't know about it now, considering all the gentrification) fairly diverse, while some of Paris's western burbs are rather posh--isn't Neuilly-sur-Seine quite rich?

Also, you have the fact that in the US, you have a long history of black people, particularly in the north, being tightly restricted to tiny inner city neighborhoods which were quite overpopulated and had awful squalid conditions. Civil Rights allowed Black people to finally move out of these areas, but their movement triggered white flight.

[Ban my account ffs!]

We're currently re-sorting ourselves to be like France.

France has a unique Demographic history...only the US is somewhat similar in that birth rates dropped a lot early in the 19th century.  While German women still gave birth to 6-7 children, American and French women were having 3-4.  The US had low death rates for children, however, and heavy immigration...so population grew rapidly.

France had low, incremental, and variable population growth after 1800 and stopped growing altogether after 1900.  On top of that, Paris was rebuilt in the 19th century much less densely than, say, London or New York.  The immigrants drove most of the demand for new housing until the 60s when the post war baby boom caused the French white population to grow at its fastest pace in history.  But these whites settled into a slowly densifying core of Paris...or into newer cities in the south.

Most Americans had a huge anxiety about space and dirty, crowded cities after 15 years of no new housing.  People had to shack up 2-3 families to a house.  Suburbs were new, clean, spacious, and as of yet, not that far away from the core.

The next generation just adopted suburbia as 'the norm'.  My grandparents are a classic case...move small town to crowded city in 1950 until grandpa got out of the service, commuting by streetcar.  Then getting a house in the new burbs in 1954.  And driving there.

[politicus]

The European concept of a city is also different - our cities have a definite core and there is prestige and convenience attached to living in the center. That goes for some US cities as well, but not to the same extent.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not aware that France is particularly distinctive in that regard. In most European cities the center is usually the wealthiest area. In the Paris suburbs (I've heard it's the same in London, but I'll let one of our resident Brits talk about it) there also is a strong East/West divide, due to the fact that the wind blew the factories' smog toward the East. That's why Paris' "troubled" suburbs are almost all located on the Eastern side.

[ingemann]

I'm not aware that France is particularly distinctive in that regard. In most European cities the center is usually the wealthiest area. In the Paris suburbs (I've heard it's the same in London, but I'll let one of our resident Brits talk about it) there also is a strong East/West divide, due to the fact that the wind blew the factories' smog toward the East. That's why Paris' "troubled" suburbs are almost all located on the Eastern side.

Copenhagen have some of the same traits with immigrants mostly living in the western part of Copenhagen municipality and the western suburbs. They mostly live there as they arrived just after workers was moving out of the inner city in the decades before and large projects was being build.

I think it's USA which is unusual and I think that's more a matter of the time when the African Americans migrated to the cities and Segregation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually there has been substantial white flight in parts of France (beyond the Paris banlieues on all sides lie vast tracts of (white) lower middle class commuter towns), just not from the haute-bourgeois west ends.

But the issue here is one of prestige; an address in the 16th arrondissement or in Neuilly (which is outside the commune of Paris but is not a suburb in any meaningful sense) is more prestigious than a huge house far out in suburbia (though France has a lot of these as well). This isn't totally alien from the American urban experience actually; consider the Upper East Side.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is a map of The Great City Babylon (within official city limits only) rather than Paris, but is a nice illustration of the beautiful social complexity of a really big European city:



_{The stats are experimental and from 2009 so don't treat as Gospel, but the patterns are not inaccurate.}

[Boston Bread]

Toronto has a similar model. The highest-minority parts are in the inner suburbs in places like Scarborough, York, and some outer suburban towns like Brampton. The Toronto core is wealthier and is whiter than the rest of the city.

[Hatman 🍁]

Toronto has a similar model. The highest-minority parts are in the inner suburbs in places like Scarborough, York, and some outer suburban towns like Brampton. The Toronto core is wealthier and is whiter than the rest of the city.

This is true for Vancouver as well.

[King of Kensington]

Yes, but I wouldn't say Toronto and Vancouver really diverge from the North American model.  Gentrification of the core is a pretty recent phenomenon; in 1960 or 1970, say, the poorest areas were all in the city core - so there was the flight of middle and upper middle income out of the city. 

They are among a cluster of North American cities that are now "inverted": NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.  To some degree Boston and Chicago as well.

[King of Kensington]

Some cities can be said to have a "donut" model - with an affluent core and affluent suburbs and the poor in the middle.  Others have more a "favored quarter" model where wealth spreads in a particular direction.  Then there are the completely hollowed out cities like Detroit and Cleveland.

In Canada, Toronto is closest to the donut model, while Montreal and Vancouver have more of an east/west split with the latter being a "favored quarter."  Almost every major Canadian city seems to have a wealthier west than east, come to think of it.

In the US, NYC is almost pure donut.  Chicago has both donut and favored quarter (wealthy core, but wealth spreads northward).   In L.A. and Washington, it's almost entirely "favored quarter" with the west being affluent. 

Most European cities exhibit characteristics of both, and usually the west is affluent (do to winds and industry).  Including London and Paris.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I found a map similar to Al's (though much less precise). Hope that clears things up:

[Hatman 🍁]

Some cities can be said to have a "donut" model - with an affluent core and affluent suburbs and the poor in the middle.  Others have more a "favored quarter" model where wealth spreads in a particular direction.  Then there are the completely hollowed out cities like Detroit and Cleveland.

In Canada, Toronto is closest to the donut model, while Montreal and Vancouver have more of an east/west split with the latter being a "favored quarter."  Almost every major Canadian city seems to have a wealthier west than east, come to think of it.

In the US, NYC is almost pure donut.  Chicago has both donut and favored quarter (wealthy core, but wealth spreads northward).   In L.A. and Washington, it's almost entirely "favored quarter" with the west being affluent. 

Most European cities exhibit characteristics of both, and usually the west is affluent (do to winds and industry).  Including London and Paris.

And Ottawa is kind of a patchwork of poor and wealth and middle class areas in the donut, while the outer donut is pure middle class suburbs.

Winnipeg & Calgary both have a north/south split.

[Sol]

Charlotte is interesting in this regard--Charlotte is largely the favored quarter model, with South Charlotte as the most affluent section--but the suburbs of Northern Mecklenburg county are very rich, because of posh people wanting access to Lake Norman.

What causes one area to be a favored quarter over another?

[King of Kensington]

Among others, weather, proximity to industry, natural features like waterfronts and views.

[King of Kensington]

And Ottawa is kind of a patchwork of poor and wealth and middle class areas in the donut, while the outer donut is pure middle class suburbs.

Yes, and east of downtown includes both the richest and poorest areas of Ottawa, I believe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As does Halifax.  Calgary is split east/west as well though, with the west being wealthier.

[Linus Van Pelt]

[Sol]

I'm not to familiar with the Buffalo area, but isn't it a bit of an exception to the "poorest areas are the east rule?" IIRC Clarence is the wealthiest part of the Buffalo metro, though I could be wrong.

Memphis is definitely an exception though.

[King of Kensington]

That's just the City of Toronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto) and doesn't include the 905 outer suburbs.  But the gentrification of the inner city and shift of low incomes to the suburbs is obvious.  

Wealth in Toronto is concentrated in a central corridor running north of downtown.  However there's a bit of a "favored quarter" pattern too, though with lots of exceptions.

Here's the metro area:

http://3cities.neighbourhoodchange.ca/wp-content/themes/3-Cities/pdfs/Toronto-CMA-2005-Avg-Individual-Income.pdf

[King of Kensington]

I'm not to familiar with the Buffalo area, but isn't it a bit of an exception to the "poorest areas are the east rule?" IIRC Clarence is the wealthiest part of the Buffalo metro, though I could be wrong.

Memphis is definitely an exception though.

In Buffalo, the poorest sections are on the east side.  The most affluent areas in Buffalo proper are north of downtown around Delaware Park.

There are no western suburbs of Buffalo - that would be Canada.  The eastern suburbs (like Cheektowaga) are heavily Polish and pretty working class, the northern suburbs (which run sort of northeast are a mix of affluent and working class, depending on the town.  They include Tonawanda on the one hand and Amherst/Clarence on the other.  The northern suburbs are more Italian and most of the Jewish population lives in Amherst.  I'm not as familiar with the southern suburbs, but I believe they're pretty middle income and less ethnic than the eastern suburbs.

[DC Al Fine]

And Ottawa is kind of a patchwork of poor and wealth and middle class areas in the donut, while the outer donut is pure middle class suburbs.

Yes, and east of downtown includes both the richest and poorest areas of Ottawa, I believe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As does Halifax.  Calgary is split east/west as well though, with the west being wealthier.

Just to clarify, that only applies to the Halifax peninsula (i.e. Pre WW2 development) Everything after that is something of a patchwork.

[King of Kensington]

On wealth in Paris:

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/06/yes-paris-wealthy-some-parts-are-much-wealthier-others/5962/

Paris has also had the same boundaries for over 150 years and encompasses just 40 square miles.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's just the commune of Paris. All of the 'suburbs' in the surrounding three departments are not suburbs in the sense the term is used in North American English.

[King of Kensington]

Exactly.  The infamous banileues are as "suburban" as the Bronx.