I’ve been noticing trends in this recently. In my small town, the poorer people (mostly minorities) live in old houses on the south side of town. The richer people (mostly white) live in newer houses to the north. Go to the nearby city of Longview and the Mobberly Ave area south of downtown would not be a great place to hang out (unless you want drugs) while the largest houses are around McCann Rd northwest of downtown. When I stayed in Dallas, I learned that the “war zone” (what they call the ghetto) is south of downtown, while the richest areas, Highland Park and University Park, are north. I even looked up Compton, CA on Yahoo Maps and it’s south of Los Angeles while Hollywood is to the north. Is it just a major coincidence that the four areas I’ve picked follow a pattern, or is it truely how most cities in the United States, or at least certain regions, are, and why?
Columbus, OH follows the same pattern.
Here in Austin, the racial divide has long been East-West. East Austin has always been the black/Hispanic side of town.
An interesting article. I don’t know how I missed it before. (Maybe I read it a long time ago and forgot about it.) I would like to see information on more cities though. It certainly looks like it may be a valid trend, for whatever reason.
In Toronto, the poorest, most crime-addled areas are generally in the northern parts of the city. This was also true of my hometown, Kingston.
It’s interesting to note that both cities are oriented around a lage body of water, with that (Lake Ontario) being in the south. Perhaps it’s just my subjective impression but it seems to me to be generally true that
-
The great, great majority of cities’ geography is defined by the critical body(ies) of water that define the city, and
-
The poor areas tend to be away from the water.
In Dublin, the Southside is generally thought to be more salubrious, with the Northside less so.
In Belfast, the south of the city is the University area and is also the nicest part of town, while it’s the East, West and north that are thought to be dodgier.
Oslo is divided by the Aker river. In general, the area to the west of the river is seen as more desirable and more expensive than the area to the east. The old working class areas were close to the eastern bank of the river; the factories were built right on the banks of the river, to take advantage of the free power and water supply, and poor folks had to walk to work… (There are exceptions, of course. One of the most beautiful, and priciest, areas of the city is in the southeast.)
London, of course, also famously has the wealthier areas on the west side and the less expensive areas in the east. A widely-travelled friend told me many European cities had this particular social division, which I haven’t confirmed, and he further insisted it’s because prevailing winds blow west to east in most of Europe. This way, he claimed, the rich people got fresh air from the countryside, and the poor folks downwind got the rich people’s stink :eek: I’m skeptical that it’s all that simple, however.
According to what I have heard, this is basically true, but it started when factories were placed mostly in the east so that they wouldn’t pollute their own city more than neccessary.
I’ve heard the story about the prevailing winds, too, but it actually does seem too simple to provide an explanation. But it might denote a tendency.
Regarding what kellner said, I think this explantion mixes up cause and effect. In the early days of laissez-faire industrialization, there were not too many rergulations prescribing where to build a factory and where not - entrepreneurs would simply build their factories wherever they wanted to. And once this development had established industrial sectors, those areas stayed industrial*, with new factories being built close to the old ones. Because of this, wealthy people decided to build their homes upwind so they wouldn’t be disturbed by the pollution from the factories. Land prices in upwind areas (mostly in the West of the factories, because that’s the prevailing wind blow in Europe) went up, and the poor people ended up living in the East.
In the end, I guess it comes down to the accidents of historical development. For some reason or the other (sometimes the wind effect just described, sometimes architectural circumstances or transportational problems), some area in the city turned out to be especially attractive many years ago. The area became home to the affluent, and remained so throughout the decades.
- Up to the demise of industries in many European cities that started in the late 20th century.
Here in Cumberland, MD, the south side of town (where we currently live) is the “bad” side of town. However, the “bad” side of Cumberland has a significantly lower crime rate than the “good” part of Glen Burnie, MD, where I grew up.
Well, I live in a megalopolis rather than a single town, and there’s definitely different studies for the phenomenon, but all of the poor live in the center of a ring, while as we go outward from the ring you are likely more well-to-do, until at such point you’re at the periphery of the outer ring and you’re rural-poor.
My local government consists of a township, and we have good and not-as-good neighborhoods all mixed up. I don’t think we have any poor, but that’s all a matter of perception, right? In any case, our poor aren’t like Detroit poor at the very least. Enclaved in the township is a small city (I’d call it a town), and it most definitely has its poor.
Growing up in another, charming town, then, the poor side of town was the south side.
Where I’m currently living the culture is different than our own culture. The government builds all of the poor-people housing outside of town where there’s the huge tracts of open land! All of the money stays in the city limits and lives with one house butted up against the other on their little 10m x 10m lots and their private security at the entrance. It’s horrible (I live like that here) and I can’t figure out for the life of my why people willingly like to live like rats one atop the other. Man, give me 5 acres full of saguero outside of town with the poor people any day.
In some cities, like Atlanta (and apparently New Orleans), the poor side of town corresponds to lower average elevation. Shit flows downhill, we all know.
A couple more anecdotal cases from Ohio:
In Dayton, there is an east-west split. Mostly that’s just racial, as neither side is especially rich, but the worst parts are some areas of the west side.
Cincinnati has an east-west divide that is generally viewed as white collar-blue collar. However, the only real ghetto is right in the middle, unfortunately immediately adjacent to downtown. This may follow the elevation rule that monstro mentioned above, at least historically, as rich folks in the past may have moved up to the hilltops surrounding the central basin. It’s not necessarily true now, though, as a couple of the high neighborhoods of the west side are certainly not well off. (And there is no south side to Cincinnati, of course. Unless you count Kentucky. 
)
Getting into smaller towns, I noticed that the poorest part of Delaware, Ohio, did seem to be on the south side. I’m not sure the reason, but I’m sure it had something to do with railroads and industry.
You can find reports on a lot of cities in the response to Cece’s column in The Baddest Part of Town.
Scarberia being the centre of wealth in the city? Certainly, I’m well aware of that crime-ridden Bridle Path area in North York, not to mention the poverty wasteland that is Markham.
Toronto defies categorization by direction with regard to economic situation. Certain areas can be identified as problems (e.g. the “Jane-Finch Corridor” and “Trethewy Drive” areas), but like New York, you can’t point in any direction from the centre and say “most people in that direction are poor [or rich, for that matter].” If you believe some theories, New York and Toronto “benefitted” from a lack of major highway building during the 50’s. New York, because the city was too well established to be adding new arterial roads, and Toronto, well, because it wasn’t America.
Some civic planning experts believe that many American cities experienced a “drain” effect by building major highways that allowed more affluent people to live in the suburbs while still working in the city. Property taxes kept the suburbs in money, and the cities tried to implement civic income taxes to compensate. However, the lack of demand for housing in the city kept property values low, and because of the American school district funding system, kept inner city schools poor. According to these theories, this started the vicious cylce that is American inner city poverty (poorly educated people with little income have poor prospects for good jobs). Ironically enough, the impetus for the major highway projects of the 50’s was the federal government’s infrastructure building program. While this gave rise to such useful things as the Interstate system, it may also have contributed to the “death” of American inner cities.
In DC, the richest part of town is Northwest, especially Georgetown, AU University Park* and Palisades out by Glen Echo, and the poorest is Southeast, especially Anacostia. The major lines of demarcation between rich white/poor black Washington are 16th St. NW and Rock Creek Park, both of which run north-south.
There are pockets of great affluence in Southeast, especially on Capitol Hill and around Penn-Branch (Marion Barry’s neighborhood at his peak of influence). Most of the crime one hears about in DC occurs in two small neighborhoods, Mount Pleasant and Anacostia. But Mt. Pleasant is near the very hip Adams-Morgan neighborhood, and Anacostia is around the corner from marinas on the river. If you ever wander into Anacostia while driving, you’ll notice quickly that all the main roads are one-way and draw you farther and farther from “white” neighborhoods; this cannot be an accident.
*The last time Marion Barry was elected Mayor, he is alleged to have gotten exactly one vote from this neighborhood in far Northwest. Rumor is it was a disgruntled domestic worker.
You think that’s simplistic? For decades, the best area in Cleveland was Millionaire’s Row, on the east side. It was on the east because Andrew Carnegie (the richest of the Cleveland millionaires and the catalyst for Millionaire’s Row) didn’t like having the sun in his eyes on his way to and from work.
Of course, that was long ago, those millionaire mansions which still stand are preserved as historic sites, and most of the East Side of Cleveland is now the poorer side, for whatever reason. I don’t know what caused the change.
Cecil’s column is interesting, but it shows me that he’s not been to Philly in a while. He cites north as being the worst, and I’ll grant that Six Flags it ain’t, but west once past Uni City is a place you shouldn’t go without Mr. Pistola as your friend. K & A isn’t a place to be after dark, either. Center City and south Philly are the best sections, IMO.
Center City and South Philadelphia are closest to the Delaware, and University City is close to the Schuykill, which is more evidence for RickJay’s theory that the poor areas tend to be away from the water. OTOH Old City is closest to the water, and within living memory (meaning, when my mother was young) was a pretty rough area. It became desirable after a lot of the old housing was leveled to make room for Independence Mall and the whole area was made tourist-friendly. All of which points up another problem: the rough part of town doesn’t always stay rough forever, nor do nice areas stay nice. My mother can also remember when Camden was a fine place to live.