The South Side of Chicago is the "Bad" Part of Town. What are the bad parts of London, Paris, etc.?

[HeyHomie]

The South Side of Chicago has a (well-deserved) reputation for being the "bad" part of town, as do South-Central Los Angeles, west Philadelphia, etc. What are the "bad" parts of London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Buenos Aires, etc.? And for that matter, what (geographically speaking) are the high-end parts?

[clairobscur]

There isn't really any "bad part" in Paris proper. Like in most other European cities, affluent people tend to gather in the down-town, and "bad neighbourhoods" tend to be situated in the suburbs.

Besides, Paris has the peculiarity, contrarily to many other cities, to be still contained within the limits of its 19th century walls (walls that don't exist anymore, of course). There's no "greater Paris" like there is in London. When you cross the limit, you end up in another "independent" municipality. Note that even though you won't see much difference crossing it, there's a strongly ingrained perception that Paris proper and the so-called "banlieue" aren't the same thing at all.


However, generally speaking, the most popular districts are situated in the north-eastern part of the city, the most upscale in the center and west of Paris. Still, that's relative. There are many more immigrants in the popular areas, rent and real estate prices are lower, but you'll still have a hard time living there if you're really poor (apart from some housing projects), and there aren't any ghettos or areas where it would be dangerous to walk around, even at night (not to say there isn't any way you could be assaulted in Paris, but there aren't specifically unsafe areas).


As I mentioned before, real "bad parts" are situated in some areas of the suburbs, where essentially nobody not living there has any reason to go or went through (which in fact might compound the problem of these "ghettos", since they're completely apart from the city life). Again, speaking very generally, those bad parts are more likely to be found in the north-east suburbs.

[Measure for Measure]

From the Master:
Is the south side always the baddest part of town?

[Dervorin]

London's East End has typically always been rougher than other parts - generally less affluent, has more crime and violence. I think this is due to several factors, including the fact that it suffered a huge amount of bomb damage during WW2. However, London has affluent pockets and less affluent ones scattered all over the place, sometimes right next to each other. Notting Hill, of movie fame, for example, is right next door to Ladbroke Grove, which is definitely less upmarket.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Often the bad side of town was downwind of the good side. For example, in London, the East End is poorer than the West End; and the winds come mainly from the West to the East.

This was probably more important when most buildings were heated by wood or coal fires, and the wind carried a lot of dirty soot downwind. Might not be as important now, but once areas of town get known as a good or bad part of town, ti seems to be largely self-perpetuating.

[Krokodil]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

Often the bad side of town was downwind of the good side. For example, in London, the East End is poorer than the West End; and the winds come mainly from the West to the East.

This was probably more important when most buildings were heated by wood or coal fires, and the wind carried a lot of dirty soot downwind. Might not be as important now, but once areas of town get known as a good or bad part of town, ti seems to be largely self-perpetuating.

Baltimore would be an exception to this. The few rich people living there tend to cluster around the harbor and, IIRC, upper Charles Street, whereas West Baltimore is (according to author David Simon) known to law enforcement as "The Land of the Misdemeanor Homicide."

[SciFiSam]

Originally Posted by Dervorin

London's East End has typically always been rougher than other parts - generally less affluent, has more crime and violence. I think this is due to several factors, including the fact that it suffered a huge amount of bomb damage during WW2. However, London has affluent pockets and less affluent ones scattered all over the place, sometimes right next to each other. Notting Hill, of movie fame, for example, is right next door to Ladbroke Grove, which is definitely less upmarket.

The main factor is that it's just outside the borders of the old (tiny) City of London. When people wanted to do things that weren't allowed inside the city walls, like brick-burning or plays that criticise the monarch or bear-baiting, they'd go to what is now Bethnal Green, Wapping, etc.

That was well over a thousand years ago and the reputation hasn't changed since, although people are no longer living in conditions so bad that the Old Nichol estate was widely considered the worst slum in England.

[Gyrate]

Also, of course, the East End is downriver of the West End and the docks were on that side of the city.

There are some "bad" parts of South London as well (Brixton, Camberwell and so forth) but like the rest of London it's very much a mixed bag, often depending on which street or which side of a railway line you live on.

[SciFiSam]

What I mean is that the East End was the bad suburb of the City of London long before the West End was even a suburb - it's not dependant on its relationship to the western half.

[Hypno-Toad]

The East End was also the bad part of town long before the Luftwaffe redecorated. It's not exactly coincidence that it was poor folks who got bombed most. They lived near the military targets because they worked at them and because it was less desirable to live next to the battery manufactory, the ball-bearing plant, etc...

[Acsenray]

The bad part of Dayton, Ohio, is the west side.

The bad part of Bombay is the eastern suburbs.

The bad part of Washington, D.C., is the southeast.

The bad parts of New York are in the north and the east.

The bad parts of Chillicothe, Ohio, are in the south and in the east side.

[krisolov]

Originally Posted by Krokodil

Baltimore would be an exception to this. The few rich people living there tend to cluster around the harbor and, IIRC, upper Charles Street, whereas West Baltimore is (according to author David Simon) known to law enforcement as "The Land of the Misdemeanor Homicide."

yup, it sure is. I have reason to drive through the west side occasionally and the number of blue-light crime cameras mounted on telephone poles to provide continuous surveillance is pretty remarkable. I'm usually driving a state vehicle and I make sure I stay on the main roads and keep my head on a swivel. Not unusual to see blatant drug deals, and lots of guys just hanging out in the middle of the day, obviously not working. Well, not traditionally employed at least

[pulykamell]

In Budapest, the general feeling is that the hilly, Buda side (west of the Danube) is considered more upscale than the urban, Pest side (east of the Danube). Buda is also, on the whole quieter with more green space, so, along with the hills and views they offer, it's no wonder why it's generally considered more upscale (although it does have its Pest-like urban parts, too.)

[Chefguy]

Northeast Portland
East Anchorage
South Boston

[APB]

Originally Posted by scifisam2009

The main factor is that it's just outside the borders of the old (tiny) City of London. When people wanted to do things that weren't allowed inside the city walls, like brick-burning or plays that criticise the monarch or bear-baiting, they'd go to what is now Bethnal Green, Wapping, etc.

That was well over a thousand years ago and the reputation hasn't changed since, although people are no longer living in conditions so bad that the Old Nichol estate was widely considered the worst slum in England.

Originally Posted by scifisam2009

What I mean is that the East End was the bad suburb of the City of London long before the West End was even a suburb - it's not dependant on its relationship to the western half.

No, that gets it almost completely wrong.

Firstly, the development of outlying areas to avoid to control of the City was true all around London and was most true not to the east but to the south in Southwark. The outlying parts of Westminster in the west, such as Tothill Fields and Millbank, were just as grotty before they got engulfed by the expansion of the West End.

Secondly, the East End outside the boundaries of the City hardly existed before the late seventeenth century. Before then, what would become the East End was still largely rural, except for some ribbon development along the main roads and along the river. You specifically mention Bethnel Green. That was then actually rather middle-class and, as Weinreb and Hibbert put it in the London Encylopedia entry on Bethnel Green, the area in the seventeenth century was 'a pleasant country area attracting wealthy residents'.

Now contrast this relative lack of development in the east in the mid-seventennth century with the developed area to the west of the City boundaries. That was then roughly as extensive as the City itself. The West End, especially around Covent Garden and St. James's, was already developing fast as the fashionable, upmarket alternative to the City. It was the West End that was the good suburb before the East End even existed.

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Also, of course, the East End is downriver of the West End and the docks were on that side of the city.

That's a big part of it. But remember that the East End docks didn't really develop until the early nineteenth century. Until then, ships still mostly used the City quays, as can be seen in the Rhinebeck Panorama.

[AK84]

In London I lived where City, Islington and Camden met. You could often seen "good" and "bad" right across each other.

The East part of London has seen some gentrification recently, for example the Docklands. They provided the stage for Vietnam in "Platoon".

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by AK84

They provided the stage for Vietnam in "Platoon".

It was Full Metal Jacket.

[Johanna]

South Tehran is the slummy side, while the north is the plummy side. The south is sprawling over the plains; the north is built in the mountain foothills where space is limited.

[Johanna]

The posh part of St. Louis is the Central West End, while the really, really bad areas are across the river in Illinois. Both in terms of crime (East St. Louis) and pollution (Dupo).

[Johanna]

The posh area of Kuala Lumpur is the hilly Bukit Damansara along the western edge, and the slum is Chow Kit, centrally located a bit to the northeast of downtown.

[SanibelMan]

Originally Posted by Johanna

The posh part of St. Louis is the Central West End, while the really, really bad areas are across the river in Illinois. Both in terms of crime (East St. Louis) and pollution (Dupo).

Yeah, but most of North St. Louis would count as the "bad" part of town as well. South St. Louis is not posh, but it's not crime-ridden either.

Madison seems to have bad pockets everywhere. The south side is the "bad" part of town, but the southwest side of the city seems to go from good to bad on a block-by-block basis. The east and north sides are working-class, except for the few very mice areas (Maple Bluff) and the few bad blocks. It's really not easy to classify the "good" and "bad" parts of Madison.

[BrotherCadfael]

The bad part of Newark, NJ is... Newark.

[Shinna Minna Ma]

Originally Posted by krisolov

yup, it sure is. I have reason to drive through the west side occasionally and the number of blue-light crime cameras mounted on telephone poles to provide continuous surveillance is pretty remarkable. I'm usually driving a state vehicle and I make sure I stay on the main roads and keep my head on a swivel. Not unusual to see blatant drug deals, and lots of guys just hanging out in the middle of the day, obviously not working. Well, not traditionally employed at least

I used to volunteer to watch the cameras at the Northwest District police station in Baltimore. I went about once a month, about 4 hours at a time. I never saw anything while I was watching the cameras,, but I learned a lot about what went on in the northwest area. ("See that bench on camera 4? Remember reading about the drug dealer murdered last week in the paper? That's where it happened.") I learned how to move the cameras,, zoom in and out and coordinate how the cameras moved automatically so I could see up and down a street. Cool stuff.

[SciFiSam]

Originally Posted by APB

No, that gets it almost completely wrong.

Firstly, the development of outlying areas to avoid to control of the City was true all around London and was most true not to the east but to the south in Southwark. The outlying parts of Westminster in the west, such as Tothill Fields and Millbank, were just as grotty before they got engulfed by the expansion of the West End.

Secondly, the East End outside the boundaries of the City hardly existed before the late seventeenth century. Before then, what would become the East End was still largely rural, except for some ribbon development along the main roads and along the river. You specifically mention Bethnel Green. That was then actually rather middle-class and, as Weinreb and Hibbert put it in the London Encylopedia entry on Bethnel Green, the area in the seventeenth century was 'a pleasant country area attracting wealthy residents'.

Now contrast this relative lack of development in the east in the mid-seventennth century with the developed area to the west of the City boundaries. That was then roughly as extensive as the City itself. The West End, especially around Covent Garden and St. James's, was already developing fast as the fashionable, upmarket alternative to the City. It was the West End that was the good suburb before the East End even existed.

But Westminster wasn't part of London. Note the times I'm talking about - over a thousand years ago. Brick Lane is called Brick Lane because that's where the bricks were burnt - it was no rural idyll even back then. Hackney certainly was until only a couple of centuries ago, but I didn't mention Hackney or any of the wider East End (the areas in the map in your first cite).

The second cite you give contradicts pretty much everything I've read about the area in its conclusions and even contradicts itself. (It says there were no medieval settlements outside the green and then goes on to cite numerous medieval settlements). And the problem is that, well, there was never an actual Bethnal Green as in a central green space known by that name, so that's an odd thing to say in the first place.

But, TBF, this is GQ and I'm too tired to go and find online cites to back up the ones in my hardcopy books, so there's a limit to how far this can go. And, of course, it doesn't have much to do with the OP's question anyway, interesting as it is.

[Sunspace]

The scruffy parts of Toronto are in the northeast and northwest, in the outer ring of 1960's style suburbs just inside the boundary of the expanded city. These areas are relatively-far from the centre and not well served by transit. There are a few older neighbourhoods closer in that are somewhat sacruffy though; these are east and west of the downtown core, and have gone through almost a whole cycle of rich -> poor -> rich; they are starting to gentrify again.

[Una Persson]

FWIW, the bad part of Kansas City is the center.

[Bijou Drains]

I read the wind does play a role. Rich people lived upwind of the factories that had a bad smell. If winds come from the South the rich lived in the south. If wind is from the North they live in the North part of town.

[AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet]

hile the really, really bad areas are across the river in Illinois. Both in terms of crime (East St. Louis)

I thought St. Louis was basicly a hell hole? And I've heard about how bad East St. Louis is all of my life, but exactly HOW bad is it? Like is it basicly a very inner city slum in a city?

[Johanna]

St. Louis is the most racially divided city I've ever seen. The north half is practically all black, the south half is practically all white, and only a narrow band across the middle is integrated (where St. Louis University is situated). Or at any rate that was the situation when I went to college there in the 1970s. So charges that the north is a bad place are inextricable from America's long heritage of racism. I dated a north St. Louis girl when I was in college. The only people I was afraid of there were the cops, who were white, racist as hell, and would pull over anybody white who dared to be there at night.

East St. Louis makes northern St. Louis look pretty good by comparison. Their main problem seems to be no functioning municipal government and no municipal services (including law enforcement). North St. Louis gave us Chuck Berry and Dick Gregory. East St. Louis gave us Josephine Baker, Katherine Dunham, Miles Davis, and Jackie Joyner-Kersee.

[Kyla]

The bad part of Ann Arbor is Ypsilanti.

[Rayne Man]

Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael

The bad part of Newark, NJ is... Newark.

Thank you for clarifying that!

[Nava]

The bad parts of Barcelona (both the city itself and its metropolitan area) change periodically thanks to "urban renewal", generational change and whatnot: one of the big discussions pre-Olympic games was which area to "renew", Poble Sec or Poble Nou, both being areas that got settled in the XIX and XX centuries and in an unplanned way. The very-large area called the Eixample, settled in the XIX and XX centuries but in a planned fashion, used to have a vertical classification: as you went higher within a building, not only did you have to climb more stairs, but the ceilings got lower and less decorated, there might be more apartments per floor... so it was a good area (wide streets, parks, clean, professional services nearby) but one where you also got a mixture from all socioeconomical classes.

A factor in many European cities is that, some 200 years ago, the space being occupied by the city now would have been occupied by what's now the city's "old area", fields, and villages.

[HeyHomie]

Originally Posted by AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet

I thought St. Louis was basicly a hell hole? And I've heard about how bad East St. Louis is all of my life, but exactly HOW bad is it? Like is it basicly a very inner city slum in a city?

St. Louis is a very nice city, with a vibrant art and culture scene, beautiful and diverse neighborhoods, and great restaurants. It's had its ups and downs, but like many US cities it's going through a (very slow) gentrification process. The north part is basically one big ghetto. The south part is mixed, from working-class white neighborhoods to rich white areas to ghettoes. However, all throughout the city there are pockets of gentrification, so even saying that "the north is one big ghetto" is really an overstatement.

[Lust4Life]

Central/South L.A. ?

[senpai71]

In S.F., the two 'bad' parts are in the South East part of the City and are known as the Bayview and Hunter's Point. The HP is where the navy had a large shipyard and Pacific Gas & Electric has a large power plant. Parts of the HP are now a Superfund site (i.e. very polluted). The Bayview is the hill overlooking the HP.

These two areas are significantly poorer than the rest of the city and contain the largest concentration of African-Americans in San Francisco (which is, after all, an expensive, pretty white city...). They are being slowly gentrified and there have been recent improvements in public transit (including a new light rail line right into the heart of Bayview), but the crime rates are still pretty high.

Very near the S.F. downtown, there is the area known as the Tenderloin, which is also slightly seedy, but not really 'bad' as such - a fair number of drug addicts, public intoxication, prostitution etc., but very little violent crime. The 'Loin is also being gentrified, and its proximity to the touristy downtown areas mean that its reputation is no longer really deserved...

[kopek]

Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael

The bad part of Newark, NJ is... Newark.

I was expecting you to say the bad part of Newark NJ is ...... New Jersey.

[sittininlab]

When I was living in ATL (1997-2000), The southwest part of the city proper in Fulton County was considered bad, with the area around Bankhead hwy particularly so. Gentrification was taking over areas during the real estate boom, so places like, College Park, Eastpoint (Located in the southwest of ATL), Grant Park and Cabbage town were cleaning up. No idea what they are like today.

The nice parts were the northern suburbs, mostly in Cobb and Gwinett counties.

Athens, GA was bad a for a few blocks east of Hancock, near the University, but South of Lumpkin, can't recall what the southern border was. Again, gentrification was starting to creep in there too.

Are universities often bordering bad neighborhoods? I know the scales of the cities, and severities of the crimes might be different, but in the 90's the are around Marquette in Milwaukee was bad, the area around GA Tech in Atlanta never looked very good, and the area near UGA was not so good.

Or is it the low rents to attract students end up attracting others of low income, some of whom will take advantage of suburban kid who doesn't know how to secure doors and windows from B&E theft?

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by acsenray

The bad part of Washington, D.C., is the southeast.

Eh - this is partly correct, but requires some elaboration. The District of Columbia is divided into four quadrants, centered on the Capitol - Northwest, Southwest, Northeast, Southeast. Not all are the same size - SW is relatively tiny, because much of the area that would make up the "full" quadrant was retroceded to Virginia about twenty years before the Civil War.

The Northwest quadrant is normally viewed as the most desirable. It's the highest-income quadrant, and it includes a lot of very well-regarded and expensive neighborhoods: Georgetown, Glover Park, Foggy Bottom, Cleveland Park, Dupont Circle, and so on. It's the safest quadrant, and I'd say that "Upper" Northwest - Tenleytown, AU Park, Spring Valley, Chevy Chase, etc - is safe enough that anyone could walk the streets at any time of day or night without fear. That's pretty damn safe.

Even Northwest, though, has some moderately dangerous areas. People get shot in Columbia Heights and Mt. Pleasant. The U Street nightlife corridor has its share of crime, and my favorite Ethiopian place in Adams Morgan had a botched muder/successful suicide happen at one of its tables a couple years ago. I still eat there. And Shaw/Petworth can be very dodggy.

Southwest is poorer than Northwest, and much smaller, but not all that dangerous.

Northeast is a thoroughly mixed bag - the H Street corridor is gentrifying fast, and a fun place to visit, but I'd be very reluctant to live there. The bit of Northeast on Capitol Hill is fun and safe. Once you get out to the Rhode Island Avenue metro, you're in a bit of a slum - my friends who live there have shootings and dealers in their neighborhood. Further in, you get to the Trinidad neighborhood, which was so plagues with drive-by shootings that the MPD tried to lock-down the whole neighborhood with checkpoints a couple years ago. Keep heading northeast on the Red Line, though, and you'll end up in Takoma - right on the border wtih Takoma Park, a perfectly pleasant Maryland suburb.

As for Southeast - well, much of it is fine. The bit on and near Capitol Hill is fine - you needn't panic at seeing "SE" on a street sign. Eastern Market is in Southeast, near the Hill, and a genuinely great place to live - good restaurants, a charmingly cluttered used bookshop, and a weekly farmer's market that's tremendous fun.

When most people think of Southeast, though, they're thinking of Anacostia - the bit of DC east of the Anacostia River. That's ... a bad place. I keep meaning to visit, because there are things worth seeing there - Frederick Douglas' old house, some good architecture, a Smithsonian. But the level of crime and violence there is such that it's hard to find friends who'll go with me - and I'm reluctant to go by myself.

Originally Posted by Johanna

St. Louis is the most racially divided city I've ever seen. The north half is practically all black, the south half is practically all white, and only a narrow band across the middle is integrated (where St. Louis University is situated). Or at any rate that was the situation when I went to college there in the 1970s. So charges that the north is a bad place are inextricable from America's long heritage of racism. I dated a north St. Louis girl when I was in college. The only people I was afraid of there were the cops, who were white, racist as hell, and would pull over anybody white who dared to be there at night.

DC might give St. Louis a run for its money - there are black people living in the rich areas, but the worst-off poor neighborhoods are almost exclusively black. So are the DC public schools, for that matter - mostly black, some hispanics, a very few white kids.

Originally Posted by senpai71

Very near the S.F. downtown, there is the area known as the Tenderloin, which is also slightly seedy, but not really 'bad' as such - a fair number of drug addicts, public intoxication, prostitution etc., but very little violent crime. The 'Loin is also being gentrified, and its proximity to the touristy downtown areas mean that its reputation is no longer really deserved...

Agreed. I've lived in the Tenderloin, and would cheerfully do so again. Cheap curry + Dottie's True Blue Cafe (best pancakes ever!) would make it worthwhile in itself.

[Mr. Excellent]

Good rule of thumb for DC: If you're west of Rock Creek Park, you're almost certainly reasonably safe. If you're west of the Anacostia River, you're probably fine, but you might need to follow the standard sort of common-sense rules you need in any large city. If you're east of the Anacostia ... head West.

[fiddlesticks]

Milwaukee segregated itself in the opposite way as Chicago just down the way. The south side was the "white" side of the town while the north side was the "black" side of town. To this day the South Side (of Milwaukee proper) has a much nicer reputation as a whole.

[Acsenray]

What about Ali G's "Westside!" Is that the west of London or just the west of Staines?

[MrDibble]

The bad parts of Cape Town are the flat parts, the tony parts are the hills & mountainside.

[sittininlab]

Originally Posted by fiddlesticks

Milwaukee segregated itself in the opposite way as Chicago just down the way. The south side was the "white" side of the town while the north side was the "black" side of town. To this day the South Side (of Milwaukee proper) has a much nicer reputation as a whole.

It's because the Poles attract.

[Alessan]

The bad parts of Tel Aviv are the south and southeast, including most of Jaffa, with the nexus of badness being the Central Bus Station area; however, many southern neighborhoods (like Neveh Tzeddek and Florintin) have been seriously gentrified in recent years, so the boundaries are not as clear as they used to be.

The part by the sea isn't that great either, but that's because of the tourists.

[dobieman]

Well, since we are dealing with cosmopolitan cities of the world, here in Fairbanks, Alaska, the south side of town (i.e. from about 19th Ave. on down to the Tanana River) does tend to be the rowdier area. However, if one wishes to indulge in the truly rascally aspects of the area, the nearby city of North Pole is infamous for being a) highly religious, b) highly conservative, and c) the meth lab capital of the Interior. Not sure if there is a connection amongst these three factors.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by Alessan

The bad parts of Tel Aviv are the south and southeast, including most of Jaffa, with the nexus of badness being the Central Bus Station area; however, many southern neighborhoods (like Neveh Tzeddek and Florintin) have been seriously gentrified in recent years, so the boundaries are not as clear as they used to be.

The part by the sea isn't that great either, but that's because of the tourists.

Interesting. What constitutes badness in the Israeli context? I ask only because (a) most of your cities have gone through a *lot* of development over the past sixty-some years and (b) - well, you've got types of crime (terrorism) that we don't encounter all that often in the States.

So, do the bad neighborhoods just have lots of poor people, but fairly well-maintained buildings? Or do they look pretty much like American slums? Or do they tend to get hit by terrorists more often?

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

The bad parts of Cape Town are the flat parts, the tony parts are the hills & mountainside.

This seems to be a common theme. I wonder why? It makes sense, I guess - if a city was built before modern sanitation, you head to hills to get above the smell. But it's not good during mudslides.

[ctnguy]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

The bad parts of Cape Town are the flat parts, the tony parts are the hills & mountainside.

That's broadly-speaking true, though there are some flat parts that are pretty nice - I'm thinking Edgemead/Bothasig, for example, and the below-the-line parts of the Southern Suburbs are actually basically flat.

To give the specific compass direction, well, the "bad" parts lie for the most part to the south-east of the city centre.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael

The bad part of Newark, NJ is... Newark.

Ditto for Gary.

[bleach]

Originally Posted by acsenray

What about Ali G's "Westside!" Is that the west of London or just the west of Staines?

I'm not 100% sure what Ali G is referring to, but it's likely that by saying "Westside!" he's claiming affiliation with the US West coast, particularly Los Angeles gang culture and rap styles. For example, Tupac Shakur (2Pac, an influential rap artist) used to flash Westside gang signs. There are other rap artists who identify with "Westside" or West coast style, and so "Westside!" evokes their style and attitudes (other examples are Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, Eazy E).

My guess is that Ali G shouting "Westside!" is supposed to be funny due to its irony; there's likely no connection with a UK city (although I could easily be wrong).