I was watching the “hastily made Cleveland tourism videos” on YouTube, which says “don’t slow down in East Cleveland or you’ll die,” a reference to that part of town being a high-crime area. This made me think about other cities where the eastern part of town is known for gang activity and/or violent crime–East Los Angeles, East Saint Louis, and the east bay of the SF Bay Area (notably Oakland).
For cities on the West Coast I suppose it would make some sense that the western parts of town (with views of the ocean) would tend to be more affluent, and thus eastern parts would be poorer (and thus more crime-ridden). However, it makes less intuitive sense for other parts of the country. So I will put the question to you, humble SDMB posters: Is there any basis to this notion? Educate me. (Specific examples from cities around the country would be greatly appreciated.)
Sydney is on the east coast, and the eastern suburbs are the highest priced area. Crime is low and there is no gang activity (mind you, that’s substantially true of anywhere in Australia compared to the US).
London’s east end is the poorer end of the city, I would imagine because it’s down-river and so historically on the receiving end of the rich’s sewerage and pollution.
Maybe it’s because the sun hits the east side earlier in the morning, making those peopler grumpier, and it get’s dark on the east side earlier also providing the darkness to cover crimes. Or, just possibly there’s no correlation between east and crime.
The east side of Detroit is the good side of town.
Chicago’s “east side” in the Loop area is high rent. The east side on the south side not so much. Chicago is a bit spotty, with much of the lakeshore, on the east side of the city, being the high-rent area with some exceptions like Rogers Park (which used to be really nice but took a dive in the 1990’s).
Oakland contains some very wealthy neighborhoods with mansions in the woods, up by Rockridge and on to Skyline Drive. FYI.
But you did touch on an interesting fact. Several of the poor cities you mentioned are secondary cities across a river or bay from the main regional city. As such, they tended to thrive as relatively specialized manufacturing and cargo transport centers during the US manufacturing boom (which varied, but let’s say start of World War Two to 1973), but are now drug-infested shells without even the government, services, a few banking and other corporate headquarters, and entertainment which keep the downtown of the main city across the water going.
Another example is Camden, New Jersey. Or Newark, for that matter.
Now, do these tend to be east of the main city? I’ll guess that maybe 60 per cent of them are. Why the slight skew to the east? The question becomes, why were the main cities (St. Louis, Philadelphia) founded on the west side of riverbanks?
Answer: Because the US was settled mainly from east to west. When it came time to initiate a new colony or territory (future state) west of a big river, it made sense – militarily, commercially, and politically – to establish the first village on the west side of the river – that is, the closest part of the territory to the already-settled country as it existed then.
In the actual city of Milwaukee (as opposed to the county as a whole). The East Side is where I would probably feel the safest at any given time of the day. UWM is located on it’s edge and it’s filled with college students, coffee shops, quirky bars, book shops, furniture stores and hipsters walking around in 90 degree heat in scarves and hats.
Milwaukee is known for it’s notoriously dangerous North Side. But you have to keep in mind that the North/East/South side (I don’t usually hear West side in Milwaukee) aren’t really in direct reference to the exact geographic areas but rather socio-economic breakdowns.
I can’t find a map, but the North side (in my mind) is sort of an oval shape that goes from the North West corner of Milwaukee to just North of Downtown Milwaukee. It’s not quite a straight line, and it’s not all bad, but when you turn on the news and hear about a shooting it usually comes from that area.
I just assumed that was from the South Side which is (IMO) the stereotypical bad part of town.
Also, don’t forget, things change.
A few years ago, my dad and I were driving through one of the bad parts of town and my dad said “Your grandma and grandpa (his parents) used to live right around here when they got married, it was a beautiful neighborhood.” To which I replied “look at it now, there’s bars on second story windows”.
In Rochester, NY, the west side is the less affluent. We lived on the east side, and had it pretty well. My father explained it to me as a matter of who has the most sun in their eyes on their daily commute. More affluent people live where the sun is behind them when they drive.
In Omaha, the east side is definitely the higher crime area. The historic term for our roughest neighborhoods are “North Omaha” and “South Omaha”, but if you look at a map today, you realize people are actually talking about “East Omaha” north or south of the gentrified downtown.
East = “bad” in Nashville, Knoxville, and Chattanooga. In those same cities, South = “poor to lower middle class,” but not necessarily “bad.” I’ve always wondered about that, too.
and these sides of cities change with time. in a couple decades a new side of the city might become dangerous in addition to or partial substitution on the original bad part of the city.
