|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marista99

Joined: 05 Jun 2004 Location: Incheon
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HamuHamu wrote: |
| antznyopantz wrote: |
Also, in most Western cities, the Northwest section of a city tends to be the best and the Southeast the worst in terms of ecology and accordingly affluence. |
I've never heard of this anywhere in my life before....I'm curious if you can post further reading (being that I was an urban planning major for 2 of my million year degree....I'd be interested in reading about it)...thanks.
|
Me neither. And pretty sure it's not true. In DC it is, but that's the only place I can think of that actually follows that pattern. Plus what would that mean, "best in terms of ecology", anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
antznyopantz
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Would one of you pm me and tell me how to quote other people on the boards?? -- lol. Thanks.
So��
Not withstanding early colonial migration, as its relevance to the present situation is minimal at best; cities in the West *tend* to be ecologically cleaner and more affluent in their respective Northwest regions due to, but not only due to (listed in order of what I perceive to be the most important):
1. Westward expansion – exacerbated by the dissemination of the automobile.
2. The southward flow of water
3. Rising real estate prices
4. Southwesterly winds
As new settlers expanded west, especially after the dissemination of the automobile and people began moving out of city centers in earnest, cities grew and surrounding real estate prices rose: simple. The Northwestern parts of the city were ecologically cleaner due to the southward flow of water (I��m sorry, I should have specified – *in the Northern hemisphere*) and the fact that people were traveling from the East, making the western lands more likely to be untouched. These lands were the most valuable and, hence, were bought buy the affluent.
A short list of examples where this is true:
1. L.A.
2. Chicago
3. Houston
4. Phoenix (low econ. household map)http://phoenix.gov/NSD/lowmod.pdf
5. Detroit
6. St. Louis
7. Austin
8. Dallas/Ft. Worth
9. Vancouver, Canada
This holds true to European cities that have continued to expand, though not as much due to groups of elites remaining in city centers of well-managed cities.
10. Moscow, Russian Federation
11. London, England
12. Paris, France (this has been the case since before the French Revolution I believe)
Exceptions to this would be Eastern seaboard cities such as New York, where the East side is coveted due to, presumably, proximity to the ocean.
You can get a visual representation of this by typing ��*city* income map�� into Google for some locations.
Hope this helps!! Also, where did you study city planning?? Although this isn��t really ��planning�� per se, more like ��city consequence��, I imagine it would be somewhat covered in Urban Geography��
By the way—after that long digression: I was offered a position with a well-reputed school in Bucheon. Any thoughts? Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mind me asking what school in Bucheon? Just curious.
As for the northwest thing, never thought about it. Not true in my hometown. Northeast is the best part of town. . And in st. louis, north county isn't the best either. I'd say southwest or just plain west is the best part of that metro area. But I'm being a bit anal, I admit.
Certainly applies to DC though.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|