Just a Canadian perspective, that goes back to my days as a canvasser in a political party, circa 1990.

I got see lots of my constituency in my six years--kind of close. The older urban areas were often class segregated. The working poor lived in these blocks, the middle class in those blocks; the rich had their few blocks. But as this Canadian city expanded in 1970, there was a whole new philosophy in urban planning. In these new areas, we could find a wealthy cul-de-sac just a couple of blocks away from high density townhouses or apartment buildings. From a brief discussion with an urban planner, the wealthy being somewhat close to the lower class actually lifted the lower class. Fewer police calls, better education outcomes in the working poor communities when the different class mix somewhat.

I had a recent medical appointment in Calgary. I had some free time to walk the neighborhood. This area used to be low class, having all sorts of social problems. I remember it being a rough, run-down area. But since my last visit of 30 years ago, most of those post WW2 shacks have been torn down. Yes, there is gentrification with some nice upper middle class houses. But there is also a lot of townhouses not too far away. This area could have gone all upper middle class, but wise urban planning has given people more choices to live close to the city center.

I should add that Canadian municipal politics has no political parties. Municipal leaders are not elected on their party affiliation, but mostly on their community service. I believe this contributes to this wiser urban planning. This good example is another sign to get rid of the parties.