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.
Is it more apt to say that north of the Center City is both poorer and wealthier than south? Chestnut Hill is in the far northwest and I'm pretty sure NE Philadelphia is probably above the city average but then North Philadelphia is very poor. While the South and Southwest for the most part are more solidly working class throughout?
In Canada, Calgary and Winnipeg have wealthier south sides than north sides.
Though I'd say more common is the east/west divide with the west being more affluent and the east being poorer and more working class. Certainly true of Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa - and with a qualifier I'd say Toronto.
Agree with you.
Especially Vancouver, West Vancouver is extremely affluent.
Also Greater Toronto Area too, parts of Mississauga (Lorne Park), Oakville and Burlington near the Lake.
Within actual Toronto: High Park, Swansea, South Kingsway.
However the most affluent areas of Toronto: Rosedale, Forest Hill, The Bridal Path, are all just north of
downtown.
Oh, I almost forgot...Toronto doesn't really have a southside anyway, Lake Ontario is Toronto's southside
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.
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.
Not a big deal but I would agree with this description that these are NW, being that they are just NW of downtown, yes, more west than north but still it ain't south.
Especially Vancouver, West Vancouver is extremely affluent.
The suburb of West Vancouver is one of Canada's wealthiest. Within the city of Vancouver, the West Side is affluent. There are no "western suburbs" (the Pacific Ocean!) but the wealthier suburbs are on the North Shore (West Vancouver and North Vancouver) and south and east of the city are generally more working class and middle class suburbs.
Quote:
Also Greater Toronto Area too, parts of Mississauga (Lorne Park), Oakville and Burlington near the Lake.
Within actual Toronto: High Park, Swansea, South Kingsway.
However the most affluent areas of Toronto: Rosedale, Forest Hill, The Bridal Path, are all just north of
downtown.
Yup. The wealth is really concentrated in a "north-central corridor" running north of downtown from affluent urban Yorkville, through Rosedale, Forest Hill and North Toronto, and into suburban York Mills.
As a general rule west is more affluent than east, though with caveats: east of the CBD is the biggest concentration of poverty in the city (but also the gentrified enclave of Cabbagetown), while the downtown condo zone stretches further west than east (though it also includes Alexandra Park and Chinatown, a smaller concentration of poverty). The west end and east ends of the Old City (west of Bathurst to the Humber and east of DVP to Victoria Park) are comparable in many respects (High Park/Beaches for example being about the same distance from downtown and economic level), the west however is a bit more "urban" and has more apartments and renters and a larger concentration of poverty (Parkdale), but on the whole you pay more for the equivalent house (for the most part) in the west (High Park however is more connected to a "band" of affluent suburbs like the Kingsway, Edenbridge, Baby Point, etc. while the Beaches is kind of on its own).
When you get to the suburbs: the western suburbs are definitely more affluent (southern and central Etobicoke, Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington) than eastern suburbs (Scarborough, Pickering, Ajax). The northern suburbs (Willowdale, Thornhill, Richmond Hill etc.) are also generally affluent. But then there's a big northwestern swath that's very working class/industrial that runs from the northern Junction and Oakwood-Vaughan into Mount Dennis, Weston, Downsview, Rexdale, Malton, Brampton that throws everything off.
Last edited by King of Kensington; 08-08-2013 at 06:21 PM..
Aren't the communities and cities south of Downtown Miami relatively nicer and wealthier than one's north of it?
For the most part, yeah. Starting with Miami is pretty bad from the town of North Miami to the start of the arts district of Wynwood (and west of Wynwood, the bad neighborhoods continue to Little Havana). Southern Miami, starting with Brickel, is pretty nice. Coconut Grove has some bad spots, but is pretty nice. Coral Way, the town of Coral Gables, and even some western suburbia, are pretty nice. Homestead is not particularly nice, but it's just rural.
Not a big deal but I would agree with this description that these are NW, being that they are just NW of downtown, yes, more west than north but still it ain't south.
You are correct. I meant to type Hillside and Arlington Heights are NW of downtown Hillsdale is SW.
Thanks for clearing that up. My mind was going faster than my fingers.
I'm noticing that (as it seems to me) pretty much any city you go to, the South Side of town is supposed to be more dangerous, more ghetto, more run down, etc... And the North Side of most towns seems to be the more affluent side.
Does anyone know of any US cities that it is the reverse of this observation?
And does anyone know WHY it always seems to be the South side?
I've lived several places, and in each place I've noticed this...
A few Southsides off the top of my head...
Southwest Atlanta
Southeast DC
South Central LA
South Phoenix
South San Diego
South Side Chicago
South Philly
Tacoma(South of Seattle)
any others???
Are there any places where North means trouble?
Seems to me like NYC may be the only anomaly...
Because Flatbush, Bushwick, Fort Greene, etc are all north of Sheepshead Bay,
But still the term South Brooklyn is supposed to be a rough area with Red Hook and Sunset Park and all...
And South Bronx is supposed to be rough, but then again Harlem is north of Midtown Manhattan.
NYC seems to be all over the place. But for most other cities I know, seems like South side, and also ofter East side both seem to be the bad sides of town.
A few East sides
East LA
East St. Louis
East San Diego
Oakland/East Bay
East Atlanta
East DC
East New York
Anyone have any insight on the Southside thing. I realize the East/West sides can go either way (even though it seems a little more east being worse to me).
By in large this seems to be true and the norm for most cities, but it's not a written rule that holds true with all cities. I'm not the most well traveled person but I can think of a few cities who go against the grain of the list you have compiled.
In Indianapolis Indiana, a city of about 830,000 people, the north side, just outside of downtown is actually where the rougher neighborhoods are, where poverty is the worst etc. However, travel through the poor north side just a few miles and you'll find some of the most affluent suburbs in the country, Carmel and Fishers Indiana which regularly make the top 10 of the most desirable suburbs to live in nationwide.
Also, South Bend Indiana, a city of about 105,000 people has a well to do north side and a well to do south side, the east side, and the west side especially are the bad sides.
Off the top of my head, these are the only ones that really come to mind, I'm sure other members will chime in.
Wow this thread got long quick so I just skipped to the end. Sorry if im being redundant.
There was a thread about this very thing just a week or two ago. And I believe it came about because of a recent article published on some e-mag or website.
And Jacksonville is a counter example...Northside has the bad rep and Southside is the nice, expensive and new area...generally speaking.
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.
