U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2013, 01:22 AM
 
6,418 posts, read 10,864,454 times
Reputation: 6687

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
The south side of Nashville is definitely the most prosperous side.

In Knoxville the wealthiest areas are downstream (west) from downtown. Usually on or near the river.

In Chattanooga the wealthy areas are UP on the mountains. Both north and south.
Yes, the south and southwest sides of Nashville are most certainly the most affluent...and the north side has typically been associated as the poorest/worst area, though that's now somewhat of a mixed bag.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2013, 06:52 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 1,197,913 times
Reputation: 432
I think that in 10-15 years DC will be an exception to this as well. Because of height limits, neighborhoods city wide are revitalizing very rapidly. East of Anacostia will soon be a great area to live in DC and there will be no bad areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 08:15 AM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,616,838 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
North Portland traditionally was considered poorest and closest to "ghetto." SW part the wealthiest although there have always been pockets of SE and NE that are very nice. That is changing as North Portland is fairly recently becoming gentrified.

Hillsdale and Arlington Heights are SW. The SW side along Sylvan are very nice. At one time all of SE Portland was considered bad. Now SE Portland close to downtown is very desirable. Parts of it like SE Eastmoreland are very wealthy with mansions. The same for NE with NE Laurelhurst and Alameda. NW is a good area.

Anything close-in south east or west is going to be nice. The farther East you go, north or south, the more shabby it becomes with more crime and poor people forced out from the many gentrified areas. So I would say the "worst" neighborhoods of Portland are towards the east farthest away from the inner city neighborhoods.
Portland isn't (or never was) really divided into north and south sides these days. Basically the division is more east and west.

Case in point, the southernmost neighborhoods of Portland include the very middle class suburbia in the woods of the SW corner on the edge of Tigard and Lake Oswego(and Dunthorpe just over the city limits is one of the richest neighborhoods in Oregon), the gentrified village neighborhood of Sellwood full of professionals who can afford to live there, the old money and nice old homes of Eastmoreland south of Reed College, next to the former "Felony Flats" of Brentwood-Darlington and working class Lents and finally the fairly rural feeling suburbia of Pleasant Valley.

Also there's the fact that up in the hills in any part of town you have wealthier areas. I live on Mt. Tabor and it's much wealthier until I go down the hill into Montavilla and towards 82nd. Holds true all over town though from Alameda Ridge to Mt. Scott. This is true for a lot of western cities.

The real divide in Portland these days is basically everything east of 60th or 82nd and to a less extent north of Killingsworth vs. the inner neighborhoods and westside. The westside and inner SE/NE Portland have more in common these days then somewhere on the far northern edge of Portland or east past 82nd. Once you get east it's a world of working class folks, recent immigrants, and suburban strip malls.

Last edited by Deezus; 08-09-2013 at 08:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 08:22 AM
 
11,172 posts, read 22,375,148 times
Reputation: 10924
Historically speaking there is a general trend where wind patterns tend to blow from west or north, so many nicer areas happened to be upwind of all this, with the south and east more on the downwind sides. With all the pollution of the 1800's and 1900's in the air you can see certain trends in better/worse residential areas. Of course things change, and now it's 2013.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 08:34 AM
 
Location: The big blue yonder...
1,998 posts, read 3,034,316 times
Reputation: 1013
This is very interesting to find out that so many major US cities are actually the opposite of (what I'm now calling a myth) the perceived generalization that "most Southsides are bad vs more affluent Northsides"

Very surprised to see that it's the opposite in SOOOO Many places.

And that thing about it being East/West in Canada is pretty interesting too. Never knew that.


Now, I'm becoming more interested in the WHYs that, for the cities that you CAN generalize a whole area by South/North/East/West, that the affluent flocked to one side leaving the other side generally poor and run down. Why did it ever become that North Atlanta is more affluent than South Atlanta? Why did the affluent in Chicago end up staying to the northern neighborhoods. Why wasn't it that they moved South, leaving North Chicago poor? Etc........

I'm hearing things like southward flow of rivers with industrial waste (but in some places that theory doesn't hold up. So why?), and I'm hearing eastward weather patterns with air pollution (but then there are some places that wouldn't hold up either. East Atlanta is much nicer than the underdeveloped & industrialized West Atlanta).

Why, why, why? (I sound like a child)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 09:34 AM
 
6,272 posts, read 10,025,558 times
Reputation: 4724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psykomonkee View Post
Why, why, why? (I sound like a child)
I can't speak for other cities, but where I live (Charlotte) infrastructure and race played a huge part. Historically, Charlotte was a small manufacturing town with its greatest rail road infrastructure to the north. Even today, the city's largest (and ugliest) rail yard is just north of downtown.

Norfolk Southern's Rail Yard Charlotte
http://leecpham.com/wp-content/uploa...8904519145.jpg

The first interstate freeway for the city (I-85) was routed north of downtown as well. At the same time that this was happening, many black neighborhoods in downtown's 2nd ward were destroyed in the name of "urban renewal". Blacks could not move south and east of downtown because those were affluent white streetcar suburbs. The affluent east/south sides of town lacked "undesirables" such as freeways and noisy rail yards. They also lacked decent mass transit after streetcar service ended in the 1930s (something that the working class blacks needed).

Also, there were laws on the books that explicitly stated that blacks could NOT own nor occupy property in certain south Charlotte neighborhoods. Some old home deeds still have such unenforceable racist wording.

Hidden In Old Home Deeds, A Segregationist Past : NPR

^^^As a result, blacks (displaced from downtown due to "urban renewal" of the 1960s and 1970s) only had two directions to go; north and west. Today, North Charlotte and West Charlotte are still majority black and (sadly) majority poor. There are other ethnic groups in those areas now as well, but they are mostly poor too. 30-40% of Charlotte's total murders comes from a small area north of downtown known as "Hidden Valley".

As time went on, the freeway expansion of US 74 started to make its way east of downtown. With that freeway expansion came a major demographic shift in Charlotte's once-affluent east side. Today, the east side has just as much gang activity as the north side's Hidden Valley. The demographic shift in east Charlotte also led to the closing of Eastland Mall.

Quote from Wiki:
Demographic changes;
By the late 1990s, Eastland Mall's image and physical appearance began to degrade. Adding to the retail shift in Charlotte, demographic changes and ethnic shifts to the surrounding areas have changed the retail makeup of the mall. Crime rates also increased around the mall. In late 2005 there was a shooting inside the mall near the Gourmet Gardens food court and also a shooting outside in the parking lot. Another shooting took place in 2006 near the food court. A bullet smashed one of the glass doors and one person was shot. Mall and city officials cited "a perception of crime" that scared patrons away as opposed to actual crime happening every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastlan...North_Carolina)

Freeway expansion (for whatever reason) hasn't always brought crime and poverty. I-485 (the loop around Charlotte) has seen nothing but affluent suburbs pop up around it. The Ballantyne area of south Charlotte is one such example.

Today, gentrification is probably the biggest story with the north and west sides of town. There is hope that the new light rail line north of downtown will bring some of the high end transit oriented developments that the south side has seen. A street car plan to the west side has a similar goal. The massive rail yard (in the pic above) is being relocated to a larger facility out by the airport. This relocation could make one of Charlotte's most blighted areas a little bit more desirable.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are plans to fix the inequality of poorer north Charlotte and affluent south Charlotte, but that inequality still exists. I can only assume that demographics, infrastructure (particularly freeways), mass transit, white flight, etc probably had something to do with the inequalities found in other cities as well.

Last edited by urbancharlotte; 08-09-2013 at 09:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,111,636 times
Reputation: 3982
[quote=Psykomonkee;30870096]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?/quote]

South LA was not always historically as undesirable as its current state. I believe the majority of the homes in the area were built to house workers for the port and other industrial uses along the LA River and South Bay. As those jobs left and white flight took hold, the neighborhoods plummeted. This is not all that unique though, very common in many US cities.

Another city where the south side is the least affluent is Boston. Dorchester, Mattapan and Roxbury are all considered to be Boston's "dangerous" neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 03:22 PM
 
2,164 posts, read 1,463,127 times
Reputation: 2167
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyBrGr View Post
I think that in 10-15 years DC will be an exception to this as well. Because of height limits, neighborhoods city wide are revitalizing very rapidly. East of Anacostia will soon be a great area to live in DC and there will be no bad areas.

Not a chance. there are large swaths of projects in SE/NE DC, they would not be gentrified they would have to be razed, with the exception of certain tracts. There are still plenty of bad areas in NW, even.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 03:41 PM
 
14,111 posts, read 22,759,137 times
Reputation: 4208
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte View Post
I can't speak for other cities, but where I live (Charlotte) infrastructure and race played a huge part. Historically, Charlotte was a small manufacturing town with its greatest rail road infrastructure to the north. Even today, the city's largest (and ugliest) rail yard is just north of downtown.

Norfolk Southern's Rail Yard Charlotte
http://leecpham.com/wp-content/uploa...8904519145.jpg

The first interstate freeway for the city (I-85) was routed north of downtown as well. At the same time that this was happening, many black neighborhoods in downtown's 2nd ward were destroyed in the name of "urban renewal". Blacks could not move south and east of downtown because those were affluent white streetcar suburbs. The affluent east/south sides of town lacked "undesirables" such as freeways and noisy rail yards. They also lacked decent mass transit after streetcar service ended in the 1930s (something that the working class blacks needed).

Also, there were laws on the books that explicitly stated that blacks could NOT own nor occupy property in certain south Charlotte neighborhoods. Some old home deeds still have such unenforceable racist wording.

Hidden In Old Home Deeds, A Segregationist Past : NPR

^^^As a result, blacks (displaced from downtown due to "urban renewal" of the 1960s and 1970s) only had two directions to go; north and west. Today, North Charlotte and West Charlotte are still majority black and (sadly) majority poor. There are other ethnic groups in those areas now as well, but they are mostly poor too. 30-40% of Charlotte's total murders comes from a small area north of downtown known as "Hidden Valley".

As time went on, the freeway expansion of US 74 started to make its way east of downtown. With that freeway expansion came a major demographic shift in Charlotte's once-affluent east side. Today, the east side has just as much gang activity as the north side's Hidden Valley. The demographic shift in east Charlotte also led to the closing of Eastland Mall.

Quote from Wiki:
Demographic changes;
By the late 1990s, Eastland Mall's image and physical appearance began to degrade. Adding to the retail shift in Charlotte, demographic changes and ethnic shifts to the surrounding areas have changed the retail makeup of the mall. Crime rates also increased around the mall. In late 2005 there was a shooting inside the mall near the Gourmet Gardens food court and also a shooting outside in the parking lot. Another shooting took place in 2006 near the food court. A bullet smashed one of the glass doors and one person was shot. Mall and city officials cited "a perception of crime" that scared patrons away as opposed to actual crime happening every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastlan...North_Carolina)

Freeway expansion (for whatever reason) hasn't always brought crime and poverty. I-485 (the loop around Charlotte) has seen nothing but affluent suburbs pop up around it. The Ballantyne area of south Charlotte is one such example.

Today, gentrification is probably the biggest story with the north and west sides of town. There is hope that the new light rail line north of downtown will bring some of the high end transit oriented developments that the south side has seen. A street car plan to the west side has a similar goal. The massive rail yard (in the pic above) is being relocated to a larger facility out by the airport. This relocation could make one of Charlotte's most blighted areas a little bit more desirable.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are plans to fix the inequality of poorer north Charlotte and affluent south Charlotte, but that inequality still exists. I can only assume that demographics, infrastructure (particularly freeways), mass transit, white flight, etc probably had something to do with the inequalities found in other cities as well.
Hidden Valley is not as bad as it once was. Quite nice nowadays. North Charlotte is really a economically mixed bag nowadays. North Charlotte is probably the most economically diverse area in the city. Hidden Valley, Derita, Huntersville, Highland Creek, University area, Southern Concord/Concord Mills area, Southern Cabarrus County these are all considered North Charlotte. Black middle-class, Black-Working class, Hispanic Working-class, White Middle-class. North Charlotte has it all. East Charlotte is somewhat the same, but not as diverse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 04:02 PM
 
Location: The Springs
1,770 posts, read 2,138,987 times
Reputation: 1850
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
I think Denver also has wealthy areas in the southern part of its city/metro.

How about Portland? I think so as well.
Yes, the south side of Denver can be considered affluent to very affluent, including Cherry Creek (Denver city) and the suburbs of Cherry Hills Village, Greenwood Village, Lone Tree, parts of Highlands Ranch and farther south to Castle Pines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top