5 ms·

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

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
kgermino 16y ago
I don't know about DC and LA(though I wonder if both have developed recently enough that the effect would be negated) but in Chicago the souh side is the furthest east (due to lake michigan) and the suburbs to the east of the city aren't exactly wealthy either.
- billpaetzke 16y ago
  South Los Angeles is a poor region of greater Los Angeles. There is more crime and unrest there. One historical example: it was the location of the LA Riot back in '92(?). South LA is about 20 minutes from the ocean, by car. I would generalize that any part of Los Angeles that's further than 15 minutes from the ocean or the mountains (there are several mountain ranges to choose from) is relatively poor.
- spokey 16y ago
  I think for Chicago it is less about "developing recently enough that the effect would be negated" and more about Burnham's "forever free and clear" plan for the lakefront (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan) which, unlike many cities, kept the waterfront from becoming industrialized.
spxdcz 16y ago
There's an interesting discussion (and some suggestions) about the North/South divide here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1126279 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1126279
- jrockway 16y ago
  My guess is that it's just a coincidence. The south side of Chicago is not intrinsically undesirable. There is a lot of open space, there is good public transportation, and there are a lot of beautiful historical buildings. There just happens to be a lot of crime, which pushes the affluent out, who have enough money to not have to deal with that problem. (Of course, there is Chinatown, Bridgeport, and Hyde Park, which are generally fine neighborhoods. The President of the United States lives on the South Side...)
nostrademons 16y ago
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 Francisco. In SF, though, it seems like many of the ritzier areas (Pac Heights, Marina, Marin) are to the north. NYC is a notable exception: Harlem and the Bronx are in the north, while SoHo, Tribeca, Greenwich Village, etc. are all in the south.
- kylec 16y ago
  And New Jersey to the west
- pfedor 16y ago
  The difference between Mountain View and Sunnyvale is negligible in comparison with the difference between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto though.
- seldo 16y ago
  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?
  - jamesjyu 16y ago
    The fog
  - usaar333 16y ago
    Are we talking about southern San Francisco (Bayview-Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, etc.) or South San Francisco? 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.
mrdodge 16y ago
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.
- usaar333 16y ago
  San Jose as well (Almaden).
- noblethrasher 16y ago
  Tulsa, OK has this property as well. Also, West and North Tulsa are where the poor whites and blacks live respectively.
spokey 16y ago
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 phenomenon makes intuitive sense, but is there any hard evidence for this statement?
- kgermino 16y ago
  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.
  - spokey 16y ago
    While technically true (although Hyde Park/Kenwood, home of the US's current first family is part of that south side as well), I think that misses the point. If anything, the south side of Chicago is a more specific counter-point to the claim since the south-west side generally poorer than the south-east side. Here's a 1999 map of median per capita income by census track: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/percapitaincomecity1999.html http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/percapitaincomecity199... Note that Chicago proper is outlined in bold. While the southern shore is poorer and more easterly than the south loop/downtown/north shore areas, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the east side of Chicago is poorer than the west. Also of note, the north and east is not only where the rich people in Chicago live, it is simply where the people in Chicago live. I wasn't able to find a raw population distribution map, but here's one showing multi-unit vs. single family homes: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/dwellingtypescity2000.html http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/dwellingtypescity2000.... (FWIW, I lived on Chicago's south east side for ~15 years. Depending on what you are looking for it is one of the best and most unappreciated areas of the city.)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

kgermino 16y ago

I don't know about DC and LA(though I wonder if both have developed recently enough that the effect would be negated) but in Chicago the souh side is the furthest east (due to lake michigan) and the suburbs to the east of the city aren't exactly wealthy either.

billpaetzke 16y ago
South Los Angeles is a poor region of greater Los Angeles. There is more crime and unrest there. One historical example: it was the location of the LA Riot back in '92(?). South LA is about 20 minutes from the ocean, by car. I would generalize that any part of Los Angeles that's further than 15 minutes from the ocean or the mountains (there are several mountain ranges to choose from) is relatively poor.
spokey 16y ago
I think for Chicago it is less about "developing recently enough that the effect would be negated" and more about Burnham's "forever free and clear" plan for the lakefront (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan) which, unlike many cities, kept the waterfront from becoming industrialized.

spxdcz 16y ago

There's an interesting discussion (and some suggestions) about the North/South divide here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1126279 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1126279

jrockway 16y ago
My guess is that it's just a coincidence. The south side of Chicago is not intrinsically undesirable. There is a lot of open space, there is good public transportation, and there are a lot of beautiful historical buildings. There just happens to be a lot of crime, which pushes the affluent out, who have enough money to not have to deal with that problem. (Of course, there is Chinatown, Bridgeport, and Hyde Park, which are generally fine neighborhoods. The President of the United States lives on the South Side...)

nostrademons 16y ago

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 Francisco. In SF, though, it seems like many of the ritzier areas (Pac Heights, Marina, Marin) are to the north. NYC is a notable exception: Harlem and the Bronx are in the north, while SoHo, Tribeca, Greenwich Village, etc. are all in the south.

kylec 16y ago
And New Jersey to the west
pfedor 16y ago
The difference between Mountain View and Sunnyvale is negligible in comparison with the difference between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto though.
seldo 16y ago
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?
- jamesjyu 16y ago
  The fog
- usaar333 16y ago
  Are we talking about southern San Francisco (Bayview-Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, etc.) or South San Francisco? 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.

mrdodge 16y ago

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.

usaar333 16y ago
San Jose as well (Almaden).
noblethrasher 16y ago
Tulsa, OK has this property as well. Also, West and North Tulsa are where the poor whites and blacks live respectively.

spokey 16y ago

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 phenomenon makes intuitive sense, but is there any hard evidence for this statement?

kgermino 16y ago
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.
- spokey 16y ago
  While technically true (although Hyde Park/Kenwood, home of the US's current first family is part of that south side as well), I think that misses the point. If anything, the south side of Chicago is a more specific counter-point to the claim since the south-west side generally poorer than the south-east side. Here's a 1999 map of median per capita income by census track: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/percapitaincomecity1999.html http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/percapitaincomecity199... Note that Chicago proper is outlined in bold. While the southern shore is poorer and more easterly than the south loop/downtown/north shore areas, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the east side of Chicago is poorer than the west. Also of note, the north and east is not only where the rich people in Chicago live, it is simply where the people in Chicago live. I wasn't able to find a raw population distribution map, but here's one showing multi-unit vs. single family homes: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/dwellingtypescity2000.html http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/dwellingtypescity2000.... (FWIW, I lived on Chicago's south east side for ~15 years. Depending on what you are looking for it is one of the best and most unappreciated areas of the city.)