One problem is neighborhoods not necessarily wanting gadgets or more income or upward mobility.

I don't understand what you mean here.

In many areas lower cost housing (not necessarily subsidized but rents you can pay on low wages) they are bad areas.

Absolutely, and the reason many are forced to live and find work in these urban slums in the first place is because enclosure and industrialisation made living in the country no longer viable, destroying many traditional communities entirely.  Now the poor who are upright have none of the skills or capital necessary to relocate to the country, nor do they have others who would live nearby, nor access to the sacraments, etc.  Traditional life is not considered glamorous enough for the youth, who are taught to idolise the middle class lifestyle and the accoutrements of the city.  Likewise, the lack of skills and the inability to access resources such as firewood, common grazing lands, etc., make it incredibly difficult to even sustain a traditional countryside or small-town economy in the first place.  Divide et impera.

It's not necessarily wanting materially things but wanting to not live around gangs and other lifestyles they are open about for your children to see. Materialistic suburbanites usually  have at least a  work ethic and many vices are somewhat hidden.

Materialistic suburbanites live, for the most part, completely meaningless lives glued to their entertainments and restaurants and fashions.  Their "culture" is almost entirely the product of shared devotion to sports teams, celebrities, films, music, and trends created and nurtured by large corporate marketing and publicity firms.  It's a question of availability.  Radio stations have song slots purchased by record companies, whereas few have the time or interest in learning instruments and playing them for one's family or at local festivals.  Besides, since everybody drives in the US, they can listen to music or sportscasts during their commute and then have something to discuss with their coworkers.  

The material culture that sustains traditional camaraderie and music, of course, is long since broken apart at this point in the process anyway, so most people allow themselves to be carried by inertia into modern socialisation.  Public education of course paves the way for that, as well as the scarcity of opportunities afforded by public education for anything else but integration into the consumer culture as saecularised members of the middle class or else members of the metasticising underclass that now afflicts the West.  But the prestige of television and of institutions of national scope has a profound impact on the psychology of most.  I think a lot of people think of adherence to the "Old Latin Mass" as being such a minority position that it seems like nothing more than quirky antiquarianism.  The majority of people are too intellectually mediocre to give most serious subjects a sufficient amount of analysis, so they end up following the herd along the path of least resistance.  And the herd usually follows the position that is backed by the most powerful.  "I heard it on the news," "The US government said so," "Such and such a social change would be so radical, it will never happen; you have to just accept the way the world is," etc.

Wealthy suburbanites have a "work ethic," but it's more of a slavish devotion to their own luxury and comfort than anything else.  In the US, the "work ethic" is backed by Anglo-Germanic Protestant social attitudes.  It existed before birth control, sure, but now that it has become unmoored from its Protestant religious foundation, it chiefly seems to be justified with strict materialist judgments.  For instance, not getting up early and being punctual means you won't be able to succeed in the merciless system; no longer are people treated as idle lowlifes because they don't have jobs as such.  Formerly both the wealthy and the poor were considered idle lowlifes by the middle class because they didn't necessarily think that their value as people was measured in their daily net productivity.  The moral justification changed but the expectation of the same practice remained.  

Using and accepting birth control is likewise considered to be equivalent to being morally and financially responsible, not only because of the problems of having so many mouths to feed but because large families are considered to mean that there is not enough time for individual personalities and relationships to flourish.  A family will be sunk under the weight of so many children, social activities, etc.  Or they're simply awkward, besides.  The "suburban culture" fosters a hatred for anything but blind acceptance of consumerism and the placement of all religious, moral, and philosophical principles beneath the value of efficiency and the satiation of this or that concupiscible desire without which, I have heard many people argue, it is impossible to have a "good life."  The "work ethic" of suburbanites today, then, is more of a shrewd calculation whereby people glorify the process whereby they can generate enough income to go on family vacations, send their children to college, and afford a variety of stimulating entertainments and activities.  But in reality most of these people contribute nothing to the world.  They have only succeeded in becoming cogs in a machine.  Their culture is just urban detritus, not coming from the mind but being produced for their passive consumption, with which they sedate themselves into complacency.

Sorry for the long posts.  I often use Cathinfo as a means of clarifying my own thoughts on certain matters that I believe are important to figure out.  I used to expect people to reply to my posts and comment on them but no longer do.

"In their childish and vain attempt to attract the people, the modern clergy give socialist programs the function of being schemes for putting the Beatitudes into effect.

The trick behind it consists in reducing to a collective structure external to the individual an ethical behavior that, unless it is individual and internal, is nothing.

The modern clergy preach, in other words, that there is a social reform capable of wiping out the consequences of sin.

From which one can deduce the pointlessness of redemption through Christ."

-- Nicolás Gómez Dávila