Again the lawyer, Esq, just wants to argue and be perverse. Of course, there are very small pockets that distort the general +N-s and +W-E pattern of San Francisco and San Jose, but to leave the picture Esq presents is way distorted.
San Jose:
Almaden is SW and in a separate branch-off valley. Straight S is bad to not so good.
L. A.:
I haven’t been down there much, but it appears he’s doing the same thing there – just pulling out pockets.
S. F.:
His picture here is waaaaayyyy pure distortion. To pick out the small concentrated area of Chinatown, where people may be poor, but where nothing much is rundown, because it is slightly N of the center of town, is screwy. And “the porno district”? Do you mean Broadway? I haven’t seen it for a few years, but the last I knew, it was pretty much only a commercial district, not rundown, and small. The N of SF is a large area which includes Telegraph Hill, the Marina, Pacific Heights, Russian Hill and the Presidio area. These run from upscale to splendorous and constitute probably 90% of the land area on the N. What does “Not even close,” mean to a lawyer? So maybe SF doesn’t have as upscale a “porn district” (read red-light district?) as lawyers are used to.
Ray
The POINT, NanoRay, is that you CAN’T generalize because specifics make it clear that generalizations lose value. <sheesh>
Perhaps if you would stop worrying over whether it was an attorney or a cook or simple housewife who posted, you might focus on the message. 
As for the OP, pretty clearly lots of cities do not manage to fit the mold you describe, even as a generalization.
My reply to NanoByte’s first posting, especially point #16 (Palo Alto+N-S): I grew up in South Palo Alto, so I can say that the crappy part of that town is where the 3-bedroom houses sell for only $700,000. (I kid you not.)
Oh, yes I can generalize, because the whole idea of generalized theories makes it clear that specifics are often unnecessary. And lawyers are in the business exactly to claim improper and illogical specifics in order to overcome accepted generalizations, and claim improper and illogical generalizations to obfuscate accepted specifics. In actuality, what they should be called is ‘anti=law-yers’. . .but this one reasons like a housewife.
But lots more do; that’s the justification of the thesis. Additionally, I listed some of the natural (common) and cultural (less-so) features in or next to any city that are likely to disturb the background pattern of economic development I claimed for them generally.
I mean, what kind of a meaningful response is something that says one can’t generalize because of specifics. . .or that there is no stereotype if there are exceptions? Gee, if we can prove these things generally, we can get rid of all those boring (?) scientists right off the bat, right? I mean, you just denied they have a reason to exist. No doubt you claim IT’S THE LAW.
Only a Texan would put a slaughter yard north of a city, or put a city south of one, in the Northern Hemisphere. There’s no more legitimate use for Texans than for lawyers, and they all go to the same place.
Ray (From the ranks of Gen. Zation)
I lived in Palo Alto for a short time, and yeah; it’s basically a real estate rip-off, with a nasty, underhanded government, and pretends to be a college town.
And here’s an appellate case I won against that city, as a pro-per, while living there.
Ray (“Palo” it up yer. . .)
Hey, Our Hero copped out on this one! [See TSD for 11/5/99, not yet published on this Website.] He didn’t try to settle whether the south sides of cities are generally the most rundown. He just notes that Hoyt didn’t get that far, only claiming there were good and bad sectors in cities. So I guess what ever’s according to Hoyt goes with Our Hero. Booooooooo!
What I’m athinkin’ is that he lives on the N side of Chi an’ he’s afraid o’ them S-side characters comin’ up ‘n’ visitin’ 'im. 
Ray (gotta be the trade winds)