Income disparity and the idea of a vast gap between the upper and lower classes can be traced back to the very development of American cities. As stated in this article, cities originally developed as a machine for economic growth, especially after the industrial revolution. City production, however, was reliant on the capital of immigrant workers. As low income immigrant communities grew in large American cities, the American economy expanded through big businesses. Starting in the post war era, and the age of the automobile, the middle class was able to exit cities in favor of suburbs, with goals like home ownership.This was what truly revealed the style of two tier urbanism we see today.  North American cities, as particularly noticeable in New York City, are comprised of the country’s most poor and most rich. The very center of urban life is reliant on an enormous working class, yet increased cost of living, as well as a income growth in only the 1% makes it near impossible for New York’s working class to maintain life in cities. Another issue is the idea of how we account for a changing middle class. Though out of the picture while discussing two tier urbanism, New York’s middle class contributes to the idea of isolation from this 1%, yet today’s middle class cannot be compared to that during the growth of cities.

A rising generation of America’s middle class is turning away from this once attainable ideal of home ownership, which was common during the age of urban sprawl. Is urban sprawl still relevant  and viable for today’s middle class? How can we better suit the city to fit the needs of a modern working class? What are the politics shaping this?