I have a real problem with the whole south/north side thing (as do many others it seems). I live in Dublin, a city where the south/north side thing rages strongly and the south side is THE place to live. Things are so bad in fact that the residence of the president of Ireland (and the American ambasadors residence) are postal coded to the south side of the city even though it is technicaly (and obviously) on the north side of the river Liffey! From what I can see of the situation here it stems more from having a nice view from the side of a mountain across the bay than anything else! Still can’t come up on any theory as to answer the main question raised of why is the southside often the bad side except that it’s wrong!
Points I thought I had addressed: quoting examples ad nauseam is pointless, and Dublin is actually more divided on an east/west axis than a north/south one.
In any event, suggesting that one example negates the theory that the south is “often the bad side” is daft. I think there are other reasons why the theory is wrong, but I fear that we’re not going to get anything except more parochial data points and handwaving here.
I don’t think anyone really knows what the question is. Finding an answer could be difficult.
Here’s one contradiction to the North-South rule. In Brazil, the Northeastern states are considered somewhat similar to the older conception of the American South, in other words, worse off economically and supposedly “backwards”.
That said, in the South of Brazil, where the big cities of Sao Paulo and Rio uncomfortably co-exist as the money center and the cultural capital, “Nordestino” food and music are all the rage. They’re both “spicier” and more lively. Kind of similar to what has happened to all things Cajun in the U.S.
Maybe south of the Equator, the rule reverses, just like water draining clockwise vs. counterclockwise?
(From a Cajun who was conceived in Bahia, one of those “backwards” northeastern states of Brazil)
Firstly, no one is hand waving here.
Secondly, Dublin is very much a north/south divide as illustrated by constitutency divisions and public transport services.
Thirdly, it is very obvious that nobody knows what the answer is and can only go on the personal experience they have gained from their home city to illustrate what they already know; which is that there is no rule on which part of a city is the baddest part of town.
Thank you. That’s what I mean about parochial data points. I don’t think the question “is the N/E/W/S of town always/usually the bad part …” is a good one. Mu.
About Dublin, though: constituency divisions do not illustrate anything about a strict north/south socioeconomic divide. Public transport services? For what it’s worth, the DART goes all the way from north to south - across the Eastern part of the city. Howth and Drumcondra are on the north side, the Liberties and Tallaght on the south. The north/south division is the subject of a million jokes and is deeply ingrained in the popular consciousness, but it’s not really that simple.
Being from the heartland (Ohio), and having read the previous posts and theories, I have to go with the “concentric rings” theory, albeit heavily modified with respect to geographic features.
Obviously, it’s silly to refer to a ‘north side’ of Cleveland, and equally ridiculous to examine a ‘south side’ of Cincinnati. (Da nort’ side o’ Cleveland is da home o’ Luca Brozzi an’ da fishes, I t’ink…)
But other large Ohio cities, especially Columbus and Dayton, have no major geographic constraints and exhibit a marked resemblance to model ‘concentric ring’ metropolitan areas.
I have a couple of ideas as to the north=rich/south=poor explanation. First, on a continental basis: Yes, the north is colder and perhaps more invigorating. But the corollary, that the south is warmer, provides the key to the puzzle. Warmer climates are more hospitable for agriculture, which has never proven to be a cash crop (please forgive the pun). Of course industry provides more economic benefit. Additionally, agriculture requires vast amounts of land area, limiting the number of people who can reside (and contribute economically) in an area.
A second theory could suggest that energy/housing costs are lower in the southern regions because of the more stable temperatures. Therefore, people of lower income brackets could afford to live in the south but not in the north, where more disposable income must be spent on heating fuel, insulation, not to mention coats and ski equipment.
On a settlement basis, at least in the northern hemisphere: water runs downhill. In a incipient city where sanitary systems are nonexistent, where would you rather live: upstream or downstream? I thought so. Would you rather live above the flood plain or in it? Again, I thought so.
Um. Water runs downhill?
What does that have to do with N/S?
The Nile runs S/N
The St. Lawrence river runs E/W
The Amazon runs W/E
Sure some run N/S, like the Mississippi, but this is hardly a rule.
I don’t know about cities, but let me try an analogy or two from U.S. history:
Who lost the Civil War?
Which side was the U.S. on in the largely
unsuccessful Korean War?
Which side was the U.S. on in the disaster
called the Viet Nam War?
The same answer will do for all three. It should not be much of a surprise to find that the south side is the baddest side of town; it sure was the baddest side of these three unfortunate wars . . .
I can’t speak for the whole world, but it is pretty clear why there has been an historical preference for the northern parts of US cities. For most of North America, the northern areas are at a higher elevation than the southern portions. Accordingly, water and more importantly sewage runs from north to south. It doeen’t take a sanitation engineer to figure out that you would rather live above the sludge than in it. Only the rich could afford to move up.
Is that really true that you know of? Are the southern areas of US towns really susceptible to sewage flooding on a widespread basis? Were they traditionally? Is the sentence “For most of North America, the northern areas are at a higher elevation than the southern portions” actually true? If so, why is the northern part of the continent not at an extraordinarily high altitude? Why isn’t Billings, MT - over 1,000 miles north of El Paso, TX - twice as high as Everest, as a very modest 1:100 gradient between the two cities would dictate? Or are “northern areas” only at higher elevations than “southern portions” at a city-size level, and it happens that city planners and founders overwhelmingly picked high-to-the-north, low-to-the-south parcels of land? How and why did this happen? Why, traditionally, could “only the rich afford to move up”? When and where did this happen?
A lot of wild theories are being advanced to explain a phenomenon that I still haven’t been convinced exists.
You know, I really don’t see the relation between (US only) wars and cities (in general).
And what about wars with neither north nor south?
Like the 1st and 2nd world war? Pretty big ones those were, with no clear orientation.
And the US was involved in both.
Magical thinking again. Selecting your data to pick a pattern.
It is certainly true that in the eastern United States, the vast majority of important rivers flow from north to south. Many of them, indeed, pretty darn exactly so.
Glacier artifact, as I recall.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
In the U.S., there is a tendency for people with rising incomes to locate upstream and upwind from centers of economic activity.
On the East Coast, that basically translates into locating northwest.
The working class and migrants tend to cluster near centers of economic activity, which on the east coast is usually the port areas on the south/southeast.
This isn’t hard and fast. A lot involves the expansion of cities swallowing small towns, the relative costs of transportation, and cultural mores.
As an example, the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC is in the northwest and is considered quite tony. However, it was once a separate town, a port, and contained many modest homes near the port area. Most of these homes were sold during the 30s and 40s as the Fed and DC expanded. The poor and working class renters fled south and east.
Another example is Los Angeles metro’s beach communities (Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan etc.) These are quite expensive now, but only a few decades ago these were undesirable neighborhoods, indeed they were known not by their “beach” name but by their piers. That’s why there is a huge power plant in Hermosa.
A second theory could suggest that energy/housing costs are lower in the southern regions because of the more stable temperatures. Therefore, people of lower income brackets could afford to live in the south but not in the north, where more disposable income must be spent on heating fuel, insulation, not to mention coats and ski equipment.
First of all, you forgot snowmobiles?
Second, didn’t the original question refer to the south side of TOWN?
Third, I have to point out that in the early stages of U.S settlement, migration took place, not north-to-south or south-to-north, but EAST-TO-WEST. As long as geographical features, such as those pesky Great Lakes, didn’t interfere, folks traveled pretty much from east to west, along lines of latitude. This is why Minnesotans sound a bit like Clevelanders, who sound a bit like Northeasterners, and why Texans sound a right smart like Mississippians and Georgians. Californians, of course, sound like the folks from the galaxy that deposited them there, for whatever reason…
