Income inequality, as seen from space

Most of this is due to a relatively new phenomenon: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabgrass_Frontier:_The_Suburbanization_of_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabgrass_Frontier:_The_Suburba...</a><p>The concept of a 'front lawn', or even of easy access to nature in general, has not always been as popular as it is today. As Jackson notes, a front lawn is rather useless except as a status symbol (unlike a back lawn, people rarely use the front lawn for barbecues, etc.), and they can cut the amount of available space in a neighborhood by 50% or more, making them a truly luxury expense.<p>But this popularity wasn't always so widespread - and n fact, it isn't even so commonplace in some parts of the world today (though the Westernization of global cultures has changed this somewhat).<p>For those who are interested, the most expensive zip codes in New York are 10014 (by real estate) and 10128 (by income). The poorest would probably be 10451 (South Bronx).<p>Contrast those both to 10025 and 10027, the border of Harlem (poor, but rapidly gentrifying, historically black) and the Upper West Side (historically well-off for several decades, also a large Jewish community).

This is only relevant for suburban (or village) style settlements.<p>For example, most of ex-USSR cities are built in huge 5-, 9- or 15-floor apartment blocks with lots of trees around them.<p>In this case, trees tell you nothing: there might be few trees because the part of the city is newly-built; there are no trees in historic inner city but it's usually the best and most expensive place. If there's a plenty of trees, it still tells you nothing.

According to this, Ljubljana is a super rich city ...<p><a href="https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ljubljana,+%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A5%E3%83%96%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A3%E3%83%8A,+Slovenia&#38;hl=en&#38;ie=UTF8&#38;ll=46.053756,14.505901&#38;spn=0.039075,0.073214&#38;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&#38;sspn=45.418852,74.970703&#38;oq=ljubljana&#38;t=h&#38;hnear=Ljubljana,+Slovenia&#38;z=14" rel="nofollow">https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ljubljana,+%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A5...</a><p>There are trees <i>everywhere</i>. It's impossible to find a neighborhood or street that doesn't have plenty of trees.

Is this "income inequality" or "wealth inequality"?<p>They're correlated, but not the same thing.

I think that this image (<a href="http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/12/19/northkoreamap_620x350.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/12/19/northkoreamap_62...</a>) of Korea is the most striking representation of image equality. It is visible from space with the naked eye.

In a follow-up, the author posts similar images submitted by readers.<p><a href="http://persquaremile.com/2012/06/13/your-images-of-income-inequality-from-space/" rel="nofollow">http://persquaremile.com/2012/06/13/your-images-of-income-in...</a><p>Two of these images show a border between rich and poor areas. The visual effect is striking.

Hmmm, looks from outer space can be deceiving. The rent I pay for my one bedroom apartment in Ball Square is obscene.

It's also a part of city planning, take for example Canberra Australia (the capital city), except for the more recent sections of the city (which seems to be suburban sprawls) almost the entire city is tree covered.<p>Certain areas with high rise and high density don't have room for trees.

Subsistence farming sites should look pretty well off from space.

New Hampshire has the 6th highest rate of millionaires per capita, and 9th highest income per person overall. We often top CQ's "Most livable states" list (which looks at schools, job growth etc.) We also have the highest percentage of tree cover in the nation. <a href="http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/08/06/new.hampshire.leads.nation.percent.tree.cover" rel="nofollow">http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/08/06/new.hampshire.le...</a>

Weird I was just discussing this while walking through Piedmont. I wondered if it was a viscous / virtuous cycle thing. The areas with nice trees attracted those with wealth who protected them with disposable income while those with fewer trees cost less to live in, attracted lower income residents who couldn't afford to protect them.

Downtown Pyongyang, where "income equality" is king:<p><a href="http://goo.gl/M4TfV" rel="nofollow">http://goo.gl/M4TfV</a>

False. This is all based on the assumption that income is directly proportional to the footprint of a dwelling

rich people and their trees...

That makes sense. Because the same qualities that lead to higher incomes are required to care about things around you.<p>For example, building skills and wealth take a long term view and the ability to make sacrifices, deferring enjoyment now for the possibility of future enjoyment.<p>And a tree takes short term sacrifice of time for something that will have take years to materialize.