Zabala 1

Kristine Q. Zabala
GUS 0861 Urban Dynamics
Professor Sendy Guerrier
May 7, 2014
Place Matters: Racial and Spatial Inequality in Philadelphia
Anyone trying to sell a home will tell you that the most valuable asset of a home is its
location. Homes can be torn down and expanded, repainted and have the furniture reupholstered,
but perhaps the immovable and unchangeable quality of land. Lands irrevocability from its
location is perhaps the most important asset in the determination of its worth; after all, its much
easier to develop civilization in the nutrient-rich soil along the Mediterranean than in the
nutrient-poor soils of Japan. This annotated bibliography will focus upon spatial inequality in
Philadelphia, a city that I have not only known for all my life, but one with a well-documented
history of its former grandeur, its fall in the late 1900s, and its resurgence through one of the
largest urban renewal projects that has carried into the present.
To get an understanding of the role that spatial inequality plays in the life of
Philadelphians, I decided to examine inequality in Philadelphia from several different lenses,
including, but not limited to, education, economics, transportation, food, health, and diversity. I
specifically looked for documents that provided numbers and diagrams to allow me to get an
understanding for the economic and spatial fragmentation of the city. In order to illustrate larger
points, I relied on several definitions of the Greater Philadelphia region, generally referring to the
Philadelphia MSA, a geographic area that spans Southeastern Pennsylvania, Southern New
Jersey, the northernmost county of Delaware, and the northeasternmost county of Maryland.
When referencing large communities of minorities, given historical patterns of institutionalized
Zabala 2
discrimination, I intend to underscore the disparity in achievement and ability to achieve because
of such a heavy concentration largely due to discriminatory preferences carried out in a manner
that would best be explained using spatial inequality. Ultimately, I conclude that racial
discrimination and negative perceptions towards the inner city has created spatial inequality in
which residents of inner city Philadelphia (with the exception of the core downtown areas) are at
a substantial economic, educational, and political disadvantage due to location.

Carolyn Adams, et al. (2008). Restructuring the Philadelphia Region: Metropolitan Divisions
and I nequality. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Adams work, specifically the introduction to the text, make clear that her focus in
Restructuring is upon the spatial patterns of development that occur in urbanization and
the development of the urban cores of metropolitan areas. Particularly on page 5, Adams
makes the implicit argument that homes differ in characteristics (inequality) because the
preferences/needs of those who build them change over time (Adams 2008). Adams work
is crucial to understanding the spatial, especially because statements such as that
geographic patterns of privilege and disadvantage confer very different opportunities on
communities and households trying to make the best of their place in the region convey
near perfectly that spatial location is a negotiation of power between those in power and
the subservient classes. Adams draws attention to the battle of spatial inequality in
Philadelphia by highlighting the infiltration of suburbanization through the Trader Joes
and its suburban aesthetic despite being on Market Street, one of the city's busiest
thoroughfares.
Eichel, L. Philadelphia 2013: The State of the City. (2013). Philadelphia, PA: The Pew
Zabala 3
Charitable Trusts.
The Pew Charitable Trusts 2013 report on the state of Philadelphia provides an
interesting insight as to how spatial inequality plays out in both the job market and the
concentration of wealth in the city. Figure 1.3 and the accompanying chart show the
dramatic concentration of wealth in areas furthest from the center of the city, with the
exception of the districts immediately surrounding and including the central business
district. The map and associated information reveal a great deal about concentration of
wealth and advantages that would likely come into play for individuals who reside in
those spatial areas such as Roxborough, as opposed to Port Richmond. Additionally,
Figure 2.7 shows the economic advantages of being spatially located Philadelphia, as
suburban residents in Gloucester County, New Jersey commute to the city for work at a
rate nearly seven times of Philadelphians who commute in the opposite direction.
Flores, A. (2007, October). Examining Disparities in Mathematics Education: Achievement
Gap or Opportunity Gap? Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
The research done by Flores reveals the spatial inequality of education. The report, which
examines funding in inner-city school districts compared to nearby affluent ones, and the
difference in standardized test scores (which in this case are equivocated with educational
achievement) observed between the two groups. The spatial difference between the two
school districts of Philadelphia and Lower Merion, which are very close in physical
proximity, is dwarfed by racial, economic, and funding differences: Philadelphia schools
are, per capita, nearly nine times as populated with Black and Latino students, nearly
eighteen times as low income, and receives nearly half of the per capita student funding
that Lower Merion receives. Accordingly, grading standards reflect that high-poverty
Zabala 4
schools give students As for work that would earn the grade of a C at a low-poverty
school. In this case, spatial inequality perpetuates academic inequality.
Glaeser, Edward L., Matthew E. Kahn, and Jordan Rappaport. 2008. Why do the poor live
in cities? The role of public transportation. Journal of Urban Economics 63, no. 1:
1-24.
The paper in the Journal of Urban Economics begins with the assumption that poor
people live closer to central business districts because land is the cost of living on smaller
parcels of land is outweighed by the cost of commuting from further distances. While the
authors fail to reach a conclusion as to how transportation alone impacts consumer
preferences based on income, the report shows correlation between spatial proximity to
the central business district and income in Philadelphia, with income starting high at a
distance near 0 from the CBD, consistently decreasing, then increasing to the peak at 10
miles outside of the city (the suburbs). Such data would seem to indicate that the central
business district has certain spatial advantages to living further from it, with the exception
being those who live 10 miles out or more as a likely result of sprawl and desire for more
land. Proximity to (or from) certain locales perpetuates spatial inequality and an unequal
access to resources.
Kneebone, E. (2009, April). Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings: J ob Sprawl
Revisited: The Changing Geography of Metropolitan Employment. Washington D.C.:
Brookings.
In keeping with the dialogue of economic stratification by spatial location, the findings
from Brookings reveal that a majority of jobs (63.7%) in the Philadelphia metropolitan
statistical area (MSA) are more than 10 miles away from the core city. Accordingly,
Zabala 5
assuming that (like the report before) time is a currency, it is more expensive to live in
areas further away from the concentration of jobs. Location matters in this case because
spatial inequality perpetuates itself in this case by preventing those who live furthest
away from the concentration of jobs from having the same opportunity cost to work in
that location.
Logan, J. R. (n.d.). US2010: Separate and Unequal: The Neighborhood Gap for Blacks,
Hispanics and Asians in Metropolitan America. Providence, RI: Brown University
Press.
In the report on the stratification and experience of poverty by individuals according to
race, blacks in Philadelphia, even affluent ones, are at least twice as likely to live in high-
poverty communities. Because of the historic institutionalized racist practices such as
redlining, Blacks and other heavily-concentrated minority locales are much more likely to
get decreased or nonexistent levels of community investment by outside forces and
struggle to get access to the same resources as whites who live in other locations. Spatial
inequality in Philadelphia shifts higher tax burdens onto largely-black and widely-poor
communities, giving them unequal access to resources that allow individuals and
communities to succeed.
Meenar, M., & Hoover, B. (2011, October). Food I nsecurity and Spatial I nequality in
Philadelphia's Lower-I ncome Neighborhoods: Analyzing the Role of Community
Gardens. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
The report focuses on the food insecurity that poverty and spatial inequality create. Places
like Philadelphia become food insecure not only because of poverty, but because the
population in Philadelphia remained relatively stable while agricultural land use was cut
Zabala 6
nearly in half over the period from 1990-2005. Because of the tendency for poverty to
cluster in certain areas, the heavy urbanization of such areas, and the tendency to not
repurpose vacant lots for agriculture, spatial inequality has been borne of economic
inequality and limits access to food, as compared to the spatial landscape in agrarian
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. However, the article also focuses on the spatial
inequality that such impoverished areas have because they have vacant lots that have the
ability to become urban agricultural gardens, as opposed to the Lower East Side of
Manhattan.
Pew Charitable Trusts Philadelphia Research Initiative. A City Transformed: The Racial
and Ethnic Changes in Philadelphia over the Last 20 Years. (2011, June).
Philadelphia, PA: The Philadelphia Research Initiative.
In an analysis of demographic and ethnic changes in Philadelphia since 1991, the Pew
Charitable Trusts finds that the racial and ethnic changes in Philadelphia seem to be
profound, but one thing that has remained constant is the poverty that surrounds the
North Broad Corridor of Philadelphia. The community has experienced a near twenty
percent drop in population, and remains one of the most consistently poor regions of
Philadelphia. The concentration of Blacks along the North Broad Corridor and the white
flight that occurred in the area over the 20 year period indicates a sort of spatial disparity,
as groups of people that generally have power and society left and were replaced by a
community evermore composed of individuals that have been systematically trapped in
poverty due to discriminatory practices. Because of white flight and increased poverty,
spatial disparity has been created in this predominantly Black neighborhood because of
the heavy correlation between race and income, income level and investment.
Zabala 7
The Food Trust. The Need for More Supermarkets in Philadelphia (D. Perry, Comp.).
(2001). Philadelphia, PA: The Philadelphia Research Initiative.
The research, performed by the Food Trust has drawn a correlation between the amount
of supermarkets and other healthy food options and the health outcomes of poor
individuals. Specifically, Philadelphia, in poor communities, has 70 too few supermarkets
in poor communities. As a result, individuals must either leave their communities and
buy more expensive food or suffer the consequences of lack of food access and die of
diet-related causes. The Food Trust has ultimately found that low-income communities
suffer disproportionately from a dearth of supermarkets and produce in their
neighborhoods at a rate more than double that of high-income communities in
Philadelphia. The maps that the Food Trust offers show that, yet again, communities that
suffer from low sales and low income tend to be concentrated in the north-center, heavily
minority districts in North Philadelphia. Ultimately, location prevents poor individuals in
Philadelphia from having access to healthy food options, and creates a diet-related health
epidemic in lower-income communities.
Shared Prosperity Philadelphia. Shared Prosperity Philadelphia: Our Plan to Fight Poverty:
Executive Summary 2013. (2013). Philadelphia, PA: City of Philadelphia.
The Pew Centers Plan to Fight Poverty yet again reinforces the existence of spatial
inequality through the maps in the maps the predominantly Black communities suffer
from low wages. Because of discrimination and institutionalized measures that benefit
white males the most, Blacks, Latinos, and households headed by women (which tend to
be minority) have poverty rates at least double that of White households in Philadelphia.
Additionally, largely minority neighborhoods in the northern districts of the city,
Zabala 8
including Nicetown, North Philadelphia west of Broad, Yorktown, and Brewerytown are
some of the poorest in the city, with the median income in these neighborhoods falling
below $22,000 a year, little enough to put a family of four beneath the poverty level.
Shared Prosperitys executive summary explicitly details the cost of spatial and, by
extension, racial inequality, when it states that high rates of poverty push a higher tax
burden onto taxpayers and homeowners in Philadelphia, as opposed to those who live in
municipalities with lower poverty rates and higher median incomes. While the report is
limited in reporting racial distribution in these high poverty communities, as evinced by
the other reports, these predominately Black areas are spatially disadvantaged as a result
of both old urban renewal practices, which emphasized creating communities based on
race, and new practices, which emphasizes grouping people together based on income
level and class.