In the eastern USA, though, there is a very strong tendency for rivers to run grossly north to south. Indeed, when I think of rivers running south to north that have been familiar to me in my own life, most of them end up making hairpin turns and running southward to their ends. (Thank you, Mr. Glacier.) And that means there is also a tendency for port cities to have been originally settled in the south and grown northward.
In Buffalo the east side is considered the “baddest” part of town, not the south-west as Cecil suggests. I’m not sure what part of Buffalo Cecil is referring to since the southwest part of the city consists of a nature preserve and the harbor, it’s never been a residential or commercial area. He might be thinking of western Lackawanna, which is a rough area directly south of the city
I think the Coriolis Effect must have something to do with it.
Olympia has a Westside and an Eastside, but no southside. None of the two of them are the bad part of town; that honor is split between downtown itself (sandwiched between the two), and the nameless stretch of Martin Way that connects Eastside to our conurbane city Lacey, being a mile and a half “edge of town” area populated by crack hotels, seedy urgent care clinics of questionable integrity, dive bars, and a swamp.
I’m not a Vancouverite, but the Downtown East Side in Vancouver is rather [in]famous.
I don’t know about that. Of the great rivers in the eastern US (Mississippi, Ohio, St. Lawrence), one flows mostly south, one mostly east, and one mostly west. Other rivers must ultimately flow into one of those, into the Great Lakes, or directly into either the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico. Rivers in the eastern US that flow into the Mississippi will generally flow east to west, rivers that flow into the Atlantic will flow mostly west to east, rivers that flow into the Great Lakes or St. Lawrence will flow mostly south to north, and rivers that flow into the Gulf will be north to south, while those that flow into the Ohio can be north or south, depending on which side they’re on. I don’t see how any of that can add up to a clear trend.
Yeah, South Sacramento where I’m stuck is the bad part of town. Somebody, or something even stole my pet frog. I’m talking bad!
Stereotypically Dublin’s southside is the better side of town and contains many of the city (and indeed country’s) elite institutions and upscale housing. The northside is considered rough, poorer, less cultured etc. Some analyses point out that the divide seems to be west/east with the richest (as in most cities) living on or near the coast and poorer folk living inland.
And no matter what Journey says, there is no such place as South Detroit. That’s in the river.
But everyone knows that De Nile runs from south to north!
And ends up draining into Washington D.C.
The south side of Philadelphia is a generally nice area, although it has some rough spots. It’s the north side where you find urban blight and endemic poverty.
The south sides of Dallas and Longview are the worst, although there are good parts of South Dallas and bad parts of North Dallas. In fact, many believe an area in southwest Dallas is the nicest part of the city while a list of the worst neighborhoods of Dallas I recently read put the worst in the northeast part of town but in general, you’re better off north of I-30 than south of it. If I’m not mistaken, the east side of Fort Worth is the worst, although the south side isn’t much better.
Certainly the most deprived, and therefore generally more crime-ridden, parts of London have tended to be towards the north-east as this graphic shows (from www.londonprofiler.org)
The usual reason given for this is that more well-off settled to the west of any noxious industries, such as tanneries and slaughterhouses, the smells of which would be carried away by the prevailing winds.
Minneapolis’ north nide is the baddest area. (We also have a Northeast or “Nordeast” side which is gentrifying and is considered much different than North Minneapolis.) South side of Minneapolis is quite nice and peppered with lots of lakes.
St Paul is more west side good, east side bad, but it’s rare anyone refers to west side of St Paul as it could be confused with the city of West St Paul which is located directly south of St Paul.
More variables perhaps:
Here in the flat American west, home to the commuter, I’ve noticed more affluent parts of many cities drive *away *from the sunrise and towards the sunset. The opposite is true for the less affluent.
“He came from the wrong side of the tracks”. I believe this comes from the days when steam railroads connected everyone. Prevailing local winds would blow the smoke in a direction that was often where the less affluent lived.
Are they perpetually driving towards work, or perpetually driving away from it?
In San Antonio, the south side is the poorer side.
However, a general rule for land-locked cities that I’ve noticed is that the higher-elevated portions tend to be wealthier than the lower elevations. This has been true in the three cities I’ve lived in:
Atlanta - higher elevations to the north (richer), lower elevations in S. Atlanta (poorer)
Knoxville - Pretty hilly everywhere, but the flatter portions of the city tend to be the lower-income portions.
San Antonio - like Atlanta, the hillier sections of the north have far higher incomes than the flatter areas of the south.
I even noticed this was the case in Charleston, WV - the rich people lived in the hills, the middle class and lower class lived near the river.
It’s not a hard and fast rule, obviously - cities by the ocean tend to have concentrations of wealth near the beach, for example, and cities that are pretty flat to begin with (Buffalo NY, for example) will have rich/poor delineations that depend upon other factors such as zoning.
In the case of cities there may be one rather significant factor in that in North America most rivers run from north to south.
Cities need clean water so their water intake is upstream (i.e. - usually north of the city) and they treat and dump their dirty water downstream of town (i.e. - south of the city).
As cities developed, people with the means to build expensive homes weren’t likely to build on the smelly, polluted south side, leaving that area to people of lesser means.
Buckeye77, did you read the rest of the thread?
Penobscot, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware…