When I was an undergrad in geography, we talked about how, in a large number of midsize cities (ie 20,000-200,000), the nicest part of town is often the west side, and the lowest income area is often the east side. This was mostly true in the midwest, but found across the US. The theory was that when these towns were industrializing in the late 19th century, foul-smelling factories would spring up in a town, and the richest folks would live upwind (west side) of these factories, while the poorest people were stuck downwind. My professor said that this theory was never tested. I planned to tackle the question for my Senior Thesis (but ended up with some crap about the effect of railroads on these citys’ development).
Cecil didn’t mention anthing related to this in his column about the South Side of town being the “baddest” (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a991105.html). Anyone have any thoughts/info on this?
Sounds plausible to me.
Here’s an interesting effect: My hometown is on the east edge of the Great Plains, so of course our weather comes from the west. But the prevailing winds come from the south or southwest. So both the south & west would presumably be desirable. The local streams don’t run either in line with the winds or even all in the same direction, so that doesn’t seem to reinforce any effect of the wind, except that the largest creek is south & west of the town. But the location of industrial development has changed over the decades, & what seems to have developed by default is an outward push in successive directions.
Then again, it’s a smallish city (under 75,000 pop. & really only a few miles across), with no real wealth, so there’s not enough to have big “sides.”
One thing I forgot was that the theory only usually works if there’s no major body of water to push development one way or the other. I grew up and went to undergrad in central Illinois, and it seemed true more often than not around there.