I’ve always thought “the other side of the tracks” was just a figure of speech, but the more places I visit, I notice that sometimes the good/bad parts ARE separated by train tracks.
What is speacial about train tracks in relation to economic segregation?
Slightly related SD column:
Is the south side always the baddest part of town?
I’m pretty sure a large thread (or two) came either before or after the column, but I can’t find the link.
I have heard (and please note that phrase) that it involved prevailing winds. The trains at the time produced a lot of soot (they were usually coal-fired) and smoke, and the prevailing winds in any given town would blow all of that primarily into the neighborhood on one or the other side of the tracks. Since the middle-class and rich folks could afford to spend more money on desirable housing, they all lived on the “clean” side. The poor people could only live where they could afford to, and that was usually the “wrong side”, the side that all the smoke blew to.
The other thing is that some buildings needed to be next to the railway line, e.g., grain elevators, and small factories and warehouses. It would not be desirable therefore to live very close to the railway line, because these are places you don’t want to live next to. However, on one side of the line is the downtown area (central business district), and in those days it was desirable to live within walking distance of downtown if you worked there. So living on the downtown side of the railway line would be desirable, all else being equal, and if you lived on the other side, you needed to walk through the industrial parts to get to downtown: a disadvantage for those working downtown, but not so much of a problem for those working in the industrial sector along the railway line.
This suggests to me that the “wrong side of the tracks” is likely to be the side away from the downtown area (CBD).
To piggyback on Giles’ point: a common way of granting railroad easements through the nineteenth century (at least) was the “checkerboard” method. The railroad would get the section to the south (or west) of the rail line for one mile, then get the section to the north (or east) of the line for the next mile. Naturally, the side of the line that the railroad owned in your town would have all the initial industrial facilities and such, and therefore wouldn’t be the choice place to live. Once this pattern was established, it probably took a lot to break it.
Another factor was that rail lines were not elevated, but at street level. And with railroads the primary means of transportation, there were a lot of railroads - most cities had half a dozen stations before they were consolidated into the Union Stations you see all over America - and a lot of trains.
Crossing the railroad tracks was difficult and dangerous. Trains slowed as they came into cities but didn’t stop at intersections. Tracks were often bunched next to one another so that many tracks had to be covered. You didn’t want to have to do this if you didn’t need to.
Cities had industrial areas that were served by spurs of the main through lines. The factories and warehouses also bunched together and the housing for the workers was built near where they worked in the days before everybody had cars. These working-class neighborhoods were almost always separated from the better neighborhoods. And railroads often were the line of separation.
It is true that people with money lived upwind not just of the train tracks but also of factories that put out smoke and bad smells. Most factories were in the center of the city so the wind direction made people move upwind of the center.
trains came first, then the ‘other side of the tracks’ developed over there.
One other observation is that many major train stations also coincide with ladies of negotiable affection. (Rome Termini? London Kings Cross? Amsterdam?)
That being the case I can understand why those with money would seek to have a barrier of some sort. Something that states….those are knocking shops,* this* is a genteel neighbourhood.
Even today living near railroad tracks is a headache. A friend at work had a house with a backyard that backed up to a railway line. He’s mentioned several times that all the houses on that side of the street had break ins. Transients & homeless were often seen walking along side the tracks. He’d find beer bottles and other trash thrown in his yard.
His neighbors on the opposite side of the street reported much less trouble with break ins.
Most American towns west of the Mississippi developed after the tracks were on the ground. In fact, the townsites were often platted by the railroad, which sold the lots. The typical layout was for the townsite to be on one side or the other of the tracks. Front or First Street would be the first street parallel to the tracks, and Main or Broadway—perpendicular to the tracks—would be the business street lined with banks and stores.
And what of the land on the “wrong” side of the tracks? Sometimes part of it was used for industry or stockyards; sometimes it was more-or-less vacant until the town had developed a bit. Then various purchasers would subdivide little bits of it in less formal ways, build rent houses, etc., for poorer folks who might want to keep a cow or chickens, or who might be the wrong color to live in the main part of town.
Birds of a feather flock together. Affluent people tend to live near each other. Those that are less affluent tend to live with others. Railroad tracks (especially those on a raised embankment) tend to segregate. That house may be 100 feet away, but one has to travel half a mile (in the city) or several miles (in urban areas) to get to the other side. While the neighborhoods are close (as the crow flies) they are not, foot-wise or car-wise.
Another theory… Because of noise and pollution, train tracks are most ideal on the outskirts of a down - rather than right down the middle.
The more affluent towns are more likely to be at a greater distance from the industrial ones. As the affluent towns grow and expand, you end up with 2 different classes separated by railroad tracks.
Yes. And many natural and manmade features can create this effect. Roanoke, Virginia, has it operating simultaneously with tracks, a river, and a highway spur.
When someone approaches a set of train tracks, they feel an overwhelming urge to start singin’ the blues (often accompanied by playing the harmonica). It’s all downhill from there.
There is no time or place in American history during the railroad era for which this is true. Railroad tracks went through the center of every town large enough to have a center. Towns sprang up in the west because railroad tracks existed. There was nothing more important to the growth of a town than to have a railroad.
What actually occurred was that affluent families could afford horses and carriages and therefore live farther away from the tracks for the same maximum commute time. Mass transit and automobiles eventually served the same function. Affluent neighborhoods were those not adjacent to the tracks (and that included internal railway systems like the Els in New York and Chicago, which were horrifically noisy and so lowered property values). Workers walked to work until well into the 20th century. However, by modern standards affluent neighborhoods were close to the historic centers of most cities. In every city in the northeast, to my knowledge, you’ll find extremely high-end houses and neighborhoods within a short distance of the old city center. It’s just that cities kep growing and pushing them outward.
Even the first suburbs tended to be along commuter railroad lines (think of the Main Line affluent suburbs west of Philadelphia). Towns didn’t develop away from railroads until after cars made that a feasible alternative.
Not Amsterdam. The central station was built on the shore of the IJ (under much controversy, since it cut off pretty much the best view in the city center). All of the city at that time lay at the south/west side of the station. The red light district already existed for a few centuries by then at more or less the location it is now.
You nailed it.
I’ll add railroad surveyors would want the flatest, least expensive land they could get, as any grade over 1% is really steep for a railroad. As a result, they tend to follow rivers and swamps and from that you get the “bottoms” in cities.
Not really good spots for rich people of the time to build their homes.
Exapno is right, but wasn’t addressing the question of rail lines as boundaries.
Not sure what you mean here. I talked about boundaries in post 6. In post 16 I specifically addressed a different comment.