I found this, and it got me thinking: So it seems that in developing countries, all the wealthy like to live in the middle of the big cities, and the poor are relegated into outskirts. This is certainly the case in Rio de Janeiro, which is surrounded by slums. But in America and Western Europe, it is the inner city that goes bad, and where all the poor live in overcrowded conditions, those with money flee to the surrounding suburbs to have more space. It is the complete opposite. What I cannot seem to understand is what accounts for this difference? I remember someone who lived for several years in Brazil telling me that, in Brazil, all the poor people lived on the top of hills, whereas in America the wealthier almost always prefer to live on the hills, having a view, and often looking down at the lower income neighborhoods below. Apparently, in Brazil, hill tops are less desirable because it is difficult to get up and down, and it is also more difficult to build on slanted terrain. What could be the reasons for these differences? Why is one type of location that is desirable in one country undesirable in another?
Not sure. In Australian cities the case is the opposite. The rich tend to live close to the CBD, while the poor live far away down the freeways. The Middle Class also tends to have new suburbs created on the outskirts of the city. Mostly because of the demand for suburban housing. Maybe this is to blame?
