So, in Australia, the closer you are to the central business areas, generally the wealthier the area becomes, whereas the outer suburbs are generally lower socioeconomic areas. On Reddit, I've noticed that a lot of US "inner city" areas are talked about as centres of crime, poverty, etc, while people talk about living in the suburbs as if it's much nicer.
I was wondering how American cities developed so that the closer you are to the middle, the poorer it gets (and if it's true as well).
American suburban life can be difficult to understand, if you do not understand the culture behind it.
De-urbanization began shortly after WWII, when cars became affordable. Before Henry Ford's Model-T, the automobile was considered a luxury to most of society. Additionally, the modernization of highway systems provided an avenue for middle and upper-income citizens to commute from the suburbs to the city. This lifestyle became the epitome of the American dream. It was considered a sign of success if one moved to the suburbs.
When some families began to move from the city to the suburbs in the 1940's, conditions inevitably declined, providing incentive for any remaining inhabitants with the means of moving to the suburbs to do so themselves. As a consequence, most of the people with any political or economic bargaining power resided outside the city, even though they likely worked there.
Conditions worsened further as the economic centers "followed the money." Shopping malls and office parks near suburbs became popular, and many of these businesses moved out of the "inner city." When businesses and residents with income have no interest in an area, there is no incentive to make it "nicer."
David F. Bradford and Harry H. Kelejian, An Econometric Model of the Flight to the Suburbs, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1973), pp. 566-589.
The idea of inner city poverty is for the most part a sweeping generalisation, many cities across the world have poverty stricken areas and wealthy areas in the heart of a city.
However during the 60s with the introduction of the civil rights act, segregation was no longer a determining factor in an individuals location. Therefore many African Americans began moving into the inner city's due to their new found freedom.
However white Americans not used to being integrated moved to the edge of cities which is now known as 'white flight' this suburbanisation of areas left many in the inner city struggling economically, particularly with the collapse of traditional industry around the same time. Therefore these inner areas have remained poorer and as such crime rates increase due to gang culture etc. This has remained and for many in the suburbs of cities life was privileged with the economic opportunities in the inner city and the suburbs.
hi! for more info, check out this post from a few months ago; it includes links to several more on the topic of urban decay / deurbanization / white flight in US cities
Something to think about in regards to Australia is the inner city suburbs which are now quite expensive to live in are only a recent occurrence. St kilda in Melbourne was sketchy as hell in the 90's, same with Fitzroy. Sydney had similar suburbs. It's only with the real estate booms in recent history that these suburbs became 'gentrified'.
First I think you've misunderstanding the phrasing, generally in every city centre you will have a wealthy area, lots of economic activity and public buildings. However the inner city poverty usually takes place in the first areas of residential housing away from the city centre itself. Really inner city areas is used to differentiate it from the suburbs .
American cities had always had a problem with urban poverty, as immigration was high you would always have new arrivals living in rented accommodation. As these people often struggled to get employment either due to saturation in the local economy or discrimination poverty existed in low quality housing that the landlords wouldn't do up. The classic example would be New York.
However the real problems started in the 1950/60's with the development of suburbia in most cases the people who moved out of the inner city was the upper and middle classes who could afford both the house prices but also had the transportation to deal with the longer commute.
For inner city areas that left the working class who could not make up the taxation lost to local authorities by the leaving of the upper and middle classes. The result was that local authorities had to cut services and infrastructure decline. There were attempts to reverse this with Johnson's Great Society but inefficient planning and the distraction of the Vietnam war undermined it.
Through in the decline of heavy industry in the US (Detroit) and unskilled labour in general and you have a recipe for long term urban poverty.