slums

For example, slums are jam-packed with people (= populous), but that doesn't mean that they all want to be there (= popular).

Property values are even rising in what were once the most entrenched slums, like East New York.

First the idea of mapping slums and making stakeholders aware (even though they are already) whenever they sit to plan.

The descendants of those in Group 2 will still be in slums in a hundred years.

Unfortunately, most people here would rather preserve the slums than build enough housing to support a diverse bunch of people.

The inhabitants of Blacktown or St Marys, slums in Australia probably fall into this category.

This is the normal condition in the parts of the world that have huge urban slums surrounding a rich city core.

Imagine someone in the slums of India (there are tens of millions in these conditions) wanting to learn more about irrigation.

Real estate regulation in its current form, especially in NYC, derives from the legacy of over-crowded tenements and massive blocks of slums.

The Sistene Chapel lasted; the slums of Rome from almost any era haven't.

It's probably worth noting that the people living in those Victorian slums were largely homogeneous, and also homogeneous with the rest of the culture.

There were no homeless people, no slums, no bad neighborhoods, no crime.

If you google it you will see that it's a term coined by journalists to re-sell the same old story: ex-communist slums, "hackers" with russian accent, cyber-crime, dangers everywhere.

There is more than 400 Roma slums around Paris, and when I say slum, I'm talking about the real deal, people leaving in "cardboard houses" in the middle of garbage.

Slums will begin to rise again (if some areas aren't already close to being that already).