Incomes Increase in City; But Differences Remain

While Cambridge as a whole became wealthier during the decade between 1979 and 1989, great differences in wealth distribution between the neighborhoods remain, according to recently released Census figures.

In general, the poorer neighborhoods remained poor while the more affluent ones remained affluent. These persisting demographics are "not surprising," says Randall P. Wilson, planning data manager at the Cambridge Community Development Department.

"Any large central city has class and racial divisions and they are geographically and racially specific," says Wilson.

Neighborhood 10, the Brattle Street area, had a per capita income of $41,998 while two of the city's poorest neighborhood's, Area Four and Riverside, each had per capita incomes of about $12,000.

But there were some surprises in the census figures. While the second fastest income growth in the city was posted in the Brattle Street area, the region which grew the fastest was the traditionally working-class neighborhood of East Cambridge.

Overall, while Cambridge's per capita income grew 34.8 percent, income growth in East Cambridge was 84.4 percent.

Hugo Salemme, a trustee of the East Cambridge Stabilization Committee, attributes this growth to a boom in "high tech" industries in East Cambridge.

Salemme says the average income likely grew because "the people who have recently found work in the high tech fields have decided to live in the area" and the children of blue collar families native to the area found jobs in the new firms.

Over the last decade, higher paying industries such as computer software companies have replaced the factories which dominated East Cambridge, says Ilene T. Woodford, the director of neighborhood planning for Cambridge.

"The factories are gone, but Lotus went from two employees to I don't know how many," Woodford says.

Councillor Alice K. Wolf says the census figures illustrate the little-known economic diversity of Cambridge.

"Some people's view of Cambridge is very limited to the universities and so forth and they have a sense of the city as an upper middle-class place. It has great diversity racially and ethnically," says Wolf.

But while the city does have a variety of people from different economic backgrounds, they are divided into different parts of the city.

Wolf says Cambridge is much more racially integrated than economically integrated. "I think certainly there are very significant divisions from an economic point of view," she says.

The census numbers show that the economic differences between neighborhoods have remained more or less consistent during the last decade. And city planners say that the reality of city living ensures that those differences are not likely to change soon.

Some of the very measures designed to alleviate these concerns may help perpetuate the geographic boundaries, says Woodford.

Local and state agencies place social services and affordable housing in low income neighborhoods which can both attract more low income families and repel wealthier households from an area.

Many social programs are concentrated in less affluent Area Four because the residents of that area need them more, Woodford says. "If the population is there, where else do you put it?"

And the cycle is not dependent only on the location of social agencies, but also on the distribution of government-supported housing.

This means poor people tend to live in neighborhoods where property values and rents are already low. Since the residents cannot afford to improve the physical conditions of the houses, the neighborhood continues to deteriorate, Wolf says.

While the income segregation which is part of Cambridge, and nearly every American city, means the most affluent residents of Cambridge probably do not spend much time with people who live in public housing,

"There's a big in-between," Wolf says.

Wolf says there is some interaction among different groups in city committees and that school "is certainly a place where you have an opportunity for mixing and integration.

"I think there are a lot of attempts made to go over those lines and to provide an atmosphere where people of different ethnic and economic groups can get together and be a city," Wolf says.

Stuart D. Lesser, president of the Neighborhood 10 Association, agrees.

"While each neighborhood has its own concerns, which are particular issues that come up at any given time, I think there's a commonality that exists among them," Lesser says.

Lesser says his group is working together with "a number of neighborhood organizations" on "town gown" concerns and issues having to do with the schools.

But less affluent neighborhoods, such as Area Four, tend to be less concerned with "town gown" issues and more concerned with immediate needs including social issues such as housing, health care and jobs.

"The realities are that we are serving more people with greater need with less money," says Iona Smith Nze, the executive director of the Margaret Fuller Neighborhood House, a community agency which serves Area Four.

Nze cites as an example of her organization's work a food pantry which provides 250 to 300 families monthly with a two or three day basic supply of food.

Responsibilities like this force the neighborhood organizations in poor areas to be stronger and more resourceful and to work more closely with other organizations within the community, says Nze.

The income segregation and differences are a reality that people must be aware of and attentive to, says Wolf.

"Cambridge is not a city divided but there certainly are divisions," she says.

AREA INCOME 1989 Brattle St.  $41,988 Neighborhood #9  $28,151 Agassiz  $20,535 Highlands  $19,626 Strawberry Hill  $19,396 All Cambridge  $19,193 East Cambridge  $19,008 North Cambridge  $18,183 Mid-Cambridge  $18,093 Neighborhood #3  $13,768 Area #4  $12,002 Riverside  $11,990 MIT/Kendall Sq.  $9,923