Why are the east of cities usually poorer? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#81

Post by goatforce5 » Mon, May 31, 2010, 2:16 PM UTC

stuartm wrote: post #73

brc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Melbourne's western suburbs are definitely regarded as less desirable than the eastern suburbs. 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.

The History of Western Civilization, by TISM:

http://www.geniac.net/tism/history.txt

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#82

Post by kgermino » Mon, May 31, 2010, 3:24 PM UTC

spokey wrote: post #77

maukdaddy wrote: post #7

Actually in most of the major US cities, the south side is bad. For example, SE DC, south side Chicago, south-central LA

Curiously, the "east side" of Chicago is where the wealthy people live, largely because that's where the lakefront is. For Chicago, in very rough terms, poor people live in the south and west, rich people in the north and east. 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…

The lakefront on the south side is much further east than in the north side. Once you get into those southern shore areas it does get significantly poorer. I'm not sure of it still would fit in win his point because of the layou but it's something to consider.

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#83

Post by moultano » Mon, May 31, 2010, 5:57 PM UTC

I always thought the western side of most cities was poorer as a result of having to look into the sun each way on a commute.

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#84

Post by noblethrasher » Mon, May 31, 2010, 6:14 PM UTC

mrdodge wrote: post #42

maukdaddy wrote: post #7

Actually in most of the major US cities, the south side is bad. For example, SE DC, south side Chicago, south-central LA

This is true in most cities. Charlotte is the only major city I know of that has the south side of town as its most desirable area.

Tulsa, OK has this property as well. Also, West and North Tulsa are where the poor whites and blacks live respectively.

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#85

Post by patrickk » Mon, May 31, 2010, 7:46 PM UTC

moultano wrote: post #83

I always thought the western side of most cities was poorer as a result of having to look into the sun each way on a commute.

The concept of a commute wouldn't have been around in medieval times when many European cities were founded. Or even when American cities were born. People who lived in cities tended to work there, and rural communities worked the land. The concept of satellite towns is a recent phenomenon.

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#86

Post by moultano » Mon, May 31, 2010, 8:07 PM UTC

patrickk wrote: post #85

moultano wrote: post #83

I always thought the western side of most cities was poorer as a result of having to look into the sun each way on a commute.

The concept of a commute wouldn't have been around in medieval times when many European cities were founded. Or even when American cities were born. People who lived in cities tended to work there, and rural communities worked the land. The concept of satellite towns is a recent phenomenon.

Which neighborhoods are considered poor has changed drastically over time in most American cities that I'm aware of.

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#87

Post by Tombar » Mon, May 31, 2010, 8:27 PM UTC

GFischer wrote: post #80

Tombar wrote: post #55

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 :)

Sorry, hadn't seen your reply, posted the same :) (OT: more than 1 Uruguayans on HN, on the same thread? Nicolas Jodal pointed me towards here, you?)

Just and old time lurker, recently started commenting here..

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#88

Post by joelhaus » Mon, May 31, 2010, 9:02 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #23

maukdaddy wrote: post #7

Actually in most of the major US cities, the south side is bad. For example, SE DC, south side Chicago, south-central LA

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…

Not necessarily true about NYC. Pre mass-transit, wealthy citizens of Manhattan vacationed on the northern part of the island. During the early 20th century, as the subway system and metro-north were developed, these same people migrated to the north, or what is now referred to as Westchester.

While easterlies may have caused dislocation during a certain time period, most major cities have experienced other events which have also had a significant impact on their demography.

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#89

Post by joelhaus » Mon, May 31, 2010, 9:03 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #23

maukdaddy wrote: post #7

Actually in most of the major US cities, the south side is bad. For example, SE DC, south side Chicago, south-central LA

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…

Not necessarily true about NYC. Pre mass-transit, wealthy citizens of Manhattan vacationed on the northern part of the island. During the early 20th century, as the subway system and metro-north were developed, these same people migrated to the north, or what is now referred to as Westchester.

While westerlies may have caused dislocation during a certain time period, most major cities have experienced other events which have also had a significant impact on their demography.

Re: Why are the east of cities usually poorer?

#90

Post by tlb » Mon, May 31, 2010, 10:29 PM UTC

East-blowing pollution was a huge problem in early industrial London, where many American settlers came from. Whether or not there was a pollution problem where they later built cities, the meme of west=fancy, east=working class was ingrained. Certainly in places like East Palo Alto, the problem is not being downwind of something. It's just that the name "East" is a self-fulfilling prediction of being worse. It only takes a tiny nudge to tip the economic divide towards one side of town or the other.