Not only does the proportion of the poor increase with the growth of the city, but their condition becomes more wretched.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Poverty is not the simple result of bad geography, bad culture, bad history. It's the result of us: of the ways that people choose to organize their societies.
Neighborhoods change. In some ways, it's part of the beauty of New York City. It's in a constant state of flux.
Ultimately, stable growth will ensure that urban and rural incomes increase and people's lives improve.
The bigger the city is, the less infrastructure you need per capita.
If you say city to people, people have no problem thinking of the city as rife with problematic, screwed-up people, but if you say suburbs - and I'm not the first person to say this, it's been said over and over again in literature - there's a sense of normalcy.
Job growth well in excess of population increase would be a very good thing if it were only that easy.
The rich are richer, and the poor are poorer, in the city than elsewhere; and, as a rule, the greater are the riches of the rich and the poverty of the poor.
Urbanization is not about simply increasing the number of urban residents or expanding the area of cities. More importantly, it's about a complete change from rural to urban style in terms of industry structure, employment, living environment and social security.
Towns find it as hard as houses of business to rise again from ruin.
When urbanity decays, civilization suffers and decays with it.