71–80 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Applies to Boston too - to the north are the rapidly gentrifying yuppie suburbs of Cambridge, Somerville and Medford, while to the south are the more depressed areas of Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan. Same for the non-San Jose parts of Silicon Valley: Palo Alto and Mountain View are ritzier than neighboring Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. I don't know enough about San Jose itself to say, nor about San Franc…
San Francisco shows both trends -- South San Francisco is poorer, and so is Oakland to the East (although there are lots of other non-weather-related reasons for Oakland). I've never understood why South San Francisco is quite so neglected while commuter cities like Redwood City do so well. It's literally the next-closest town, why is it not super-expensive there?
For the neighborhoods of southern San Francisco, you are looking at historically highly industrialized areas. White collar workers didn't want to be there and ended in San Mateo County.
For South San Francisco, I disagree on it being neglected. Sure it isn't as rich as Redwood City, but it is a far cry from say East Palo Alto or Richmond. (You can also note the many luxury apartments and high-end office buildings popping up). Like southern San Francisco, it historically was hurt by being, as the San Bruno Mountain sign reminds everyone, the industrial city.
In Australia, where the prevailing winds are also westerlies, the opposite is true. i.e. the east of most cities is more prestigious than the west.
True for Sydney, false for Brisbane. In Sydney it's because East means harbour and/or beach. In Brisbane east is flat industrial wetlands, West is hilly with views/breezes, with the exception of Clayfied/Hamilton/Ascot. However, if you travel further west towards the city fringes, this reverses quite quickly. I'd say on balance true for Melbourne, but I'm not enough of an expert to say for sure. Generally I would say…
Historically (in the 1880s), the western suburbs were where the working class lived, and where heavy industry was located.
Today, the majority of the wealthy suburbs are still east of the city - Toorak, Camberwell, Kew, Hawthorn etc.
In Santiago, Chile, the East side is richer. I thought this was an exception to the rule until I realised that in the Southern hemisphere the winds are Easterlies!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Must be China.
53% of the time, Hong Kong-based sources of pollution are to blame. Primarily cars idling in traffic, boats (which don't have to use low-sulphur fuel), and CLP's filthy power plants (which are worse than some in Shenzhen and Dongguan) http://www.civic-exchange.org/eng/upload/files/200703_HKAirP...
Actually in most of the major US cities, the south side is bad. For example, SE DC, south side Chicago, south-central LA
Missing from the article, it seemed to me, is evidence of the claim that the east side is generally poorer. I mean, that seems to jive with my anecdotal experience and the explanation for the phenomenon makes intuitive sense, but is there any hard evidence for this statement?
In Santiago, Chile, the East side is richer. I thought this was an exception to the rule until I realised that in the Southern hemisphere the winds are Easterlies!
In Santiago, Chile, the East side is richer. I thought this was an exception to the rule until I realised that in the Southern hemisphere the winds are Easterlies!
Another interesting thing is that the hill to the west of downtown, which should be the most expensive part of the city if it followed some European city pattern (it has a beautiful view, and even a golf course), is actually one of the poorest (same for Río de Janeiro, which has the "favelas" in the hills IIRC).
In my country => Uruguay is the other way round.. east part of the cities is the richest one.. but i believe it's related with the coast line and the ocean :)
(OT: more than 1 Uruguayans on HN, on the same thread? Nicolas Jodal pointed me towards here, you?)