Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Something to do with the way most cities were built around Industry/Ports and the more affluent development occurring away/north of there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakal
Most rivers flow south. If you have industrial wastes and other byproducts flowing, you wouldn't want to end up downstream (south) of that.
WOW... THAT makes a lot of sense now...
Hmmm... Now wait a minute...
Let's try that theory...
How come it doesn't hold up for the anomaly of NYC?
And if people say North Philly is worse, and with Philly having been a huge industrial city wtih a river, how come it doesn't hold up there?
Then thinking on cities that aren't built due to its' river: Atlanta, Phoenix... Why are they cities that hold Southside as worse side?
LA has a river that flows right down through the worst of the hoods, BUT it wasn't generally a industrial RIVER city... Though it has a LOT of industry, it is more of a industrial SEA PORT city.
Is it because the Sea ports are the the south of LA in LA's case?
Anybody know about South Miami and South Saint Louis neighborhoods?
Okay. So like, though Chicago is bigger and also is very patchy with neighborhoods, you still can sort of generalize South Chi against North Chi... Same with LA with being able to generalize East LA & South LA vs West Hollywood and North LA...
But you can't do that in Philly? Wow... Ok.
Any generalization obscures a lot of details, but it's a lot harder to generalize Philadelphia than many other cities that I've seen.
People point out North Philly because it is almost entirely disinvested and ghetto (Southwest is too). However, South and West Philadelphia are harder to categorize. They vary from ghetto to upper middle class. The Northeast portion of Philadelphia is also changing in that same manner.
Furthermore, its interesting that you should mention EPA, because it's on the Peninsula and we have debated at length in the SF forum over which is the worst city in the Bay Area and out of every single place we talked about, there was general consensus that East Palo Alto was the only city in the entire Bay Area that actually has zero neighborhoods that could be described as non-ghetto.
Everywhere else in the Bay Area had at least 1 established neighborhood.
Hmmm... Now wait a minute...
Let's try that theory...
How come it doesn't hold up for the anomaly of NYC?
And if people say North Philly is worse, and with Philly having been a huge industrial city wtih a river, how come it doesn't hold up there?
Then thinking on cities that aren't built due to its' river: Atlanta, Phoenix... Why are they cities that hold Southside as worse side?
LA has a river that flows right down through the worst of the hoods, BUT it wasn't generally a industrial RIVER city... Though it has a LOT of industry, it is more of a industrial SEA PORT city.
Is it because the Sea ports are the the south of LA in LA's case?
Anybody know about South Miami and South Saint Louis neighborhoods?
Oh, ok. I see... I DID think of those other places as East Bay also, but I honestly know nothing about most of them.
Never been down to Fremont. Never been to Pittsburg either. Heard of them, but only heard of people making "East Bay" assumptions of them. As in [it must be rough] "It's East Bay"
No idea if they are nice cities or not. Are they?
I know Berkeley is GORGEOUS and I've been through San Leandro and Dublin driving and once on Bart (rode it to the end once, don't remember where it stopped, but I wanna say Dublin. Is that right?).
Heard bad things about Concord also, but never been.
Furthermore, its interesting that you should mention EPA, because it's on the Peninsula and we have debated at length in the SF forum over which is the worst city in the Bay Area and out of every single place we talked about, there was general consensus that East Palo Alto was the only city in the entire Bay Area that actually has zero neighborhoods that could be described as non-ghetto.
Everywhere else in the Bay Area had at least 1 established neighborhood.
Well DANG!!
Thanks a lot... That doesn't make me feel any better... lol...
From what I remember, we talked about Oakland like it was the worse thing going! I didn't think East Palo Alto was that bad at all when I was there. But then again, I was young, AND I had lived a few other worse places prior to that. I had moved out to LA from West Atlanta, then moved up to EPA from after being in Leimert Park, LA back when it was really rough. We still, in EPA was warned not to cross that bridge...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakal
Philly has 2 rivers.
Ah, yes... It sure does, doesn't it... And THAT could explain why SouthWEST Philly is bad. Cause the other river flows down the West side of town, huh?
Aren't the communities and cities south of Downtown Miami relatively nicer and wealthier than one's north of it?
Yes. Northwest Miami-Dade is home 2 most of Dade County's ghettos. While the whole South Miami-Dade isn't all rich, there are patches of affluent areas. Northern/Northwest west palm beach is also the ghetto part of west palm beach.
I don't know... I've only ever been around downtown Miami, out to Miami Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, and down to Homestead, FL which IS south of Miami and a bit of a pit! I have no idea, but I don't THINK Homestead is considered Miami metro... Is it?
If south Miami is anything like Homestead, I'd have to guess it is trashy.
Whenever I've been to Miami, it was on vacation! So, I saw had no interest in exploring hoods. Lol.
Homestead was a work trip.
Someone made this map of Miami-Dade County, looks like the southern part is actually nicer than the northern part overall:
Well DANG!!
Thanks a lot... That doesn't make me feel any better... lol...
LOL..sorry if that came off as harsh, no offense intended.
It just came to me as I was thinking about the topic of this thread.
Quote:
From what I remember, we talked about Oakland like it was the worse thing going!
Yes, that is the popular Peninsula perception of Oakland(I work in Palo Alto so I know), and for sure we have the highest crime rate in the Bay Area, that's undisputable.
But even that doesn't make Oakland 'the worst', because Oakland also has a ton of neighborhoods like this:
Aside from Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo, San Pablo, Hayward, Antioch, Pittsburg, Concord etc. We took a look at all of the cities that have less than favorable reputations and EPA was the only one that didn't appear to have any neighborhood that would qualify as decent for the average middle class families.
But that doesn't mean that EPA is the 'worst city' either, it just means there are different ways to look at things and it's not as cut and dry as simply looking at crime rates and using that as the only measuring stick as there are clearly other just as pertinent criteria and factors to be considered.
The only thing that can be clearly delineated is that people on the Peninsula tend to be snobby and out of touch with reality. LOLJK
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
