SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I do not not how true it is , but I have noticed the following , of course there are exceptions
in Many cities the west ends and the north areas of cities tend to be more wealthy than the east and south ends . How are these areas in your city , it could be both US and global .
Casablanca , Morocco ( where I was born )for example , the west side is mostly super rich , rich ,upper middle class and many middle class neighborhoods , yes there is some poor areas in the west side but not much at all
the east side of Casablanca is a mix of industrial / working class subdivisions as well as a mix of new middle class neighborhoods
the south side of Casablanca is poor for the most part , the south east side is extremely poor and the worst part of Casablanca ,
the south west side is a mix of middle and upper middle class neighborhoods , the north side of Casablanca is the ocean , there is no north side
what about your city ? I would love to see how it is , thanks
 

·
Master of Awesomeness!
Joined
·
118 Posts
Same In Dallas, TX!

The upper class neighborhoods are located in the nothern part of the city (Highland Park and University Park) and the upper middle class and middle class areas stretching north and west from Downtown into Colin County and Denton County!

On the other hand South Dallas (including Fair Park and areas south of Trinity River, but not all!) is known as the baddest part of the city due high crime rates and rundown areas! U also find rundown areas in the southern part of East Dallas (south of Mesquite, TX) while the northern areas are mostly middle class!
 

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
This idea of west being wealthy and east being poor can be traced back to early industrial Europe. The Atlantic winds would blow in from the west, and push all of the smog from downtown towards the east. The wealthy would be able to live away from the smog, while the poorer people would live in the low valued east because that was the only area they could afford.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
This idea of west being wealthy and east being poor can be traced back to early industrial Europe. The Atlantic winds would blow in from the west, and push all of the smog from downtown towards the east. The wealthy would be able to live away from the smog, while the poorer people would live in the low valued east because that was the only area they could afford.
wow , I did not know that , interesting , thanks
 

·
***Alexxx***
Joined
·
5,246 Posts
In Manchester its the far outer suburban south that is the wealthy area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,362 Posts
I would say its the central part thats wealthiest.
Täby, Danderyd (North East), Ekerö (West), Lidingö (East), pretty much whole the central Stockholm, then some urban areas in Southern part of the county. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
In Sydney, it's not as concrete as in other cities. The North and East are regarded to be the wealthy areas, although there are wealthy areas in the South (lots of expensive waterfront properties around the Georges River) and much of the Inner West is fairly wealthy too.

The outskirts of Sydney have quite a lot of expensive acreage properties as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,592 Posts
In Canada and the US expansion grew from east to west and expansion grew after approx 1830 by railroad. A city would be created and grow by the arrival of a railroad and the railroads , especially in Canada, basically went east/west and less so north/south.

This meant that as the railway expanded in sections, the trains/garage/maintenace/mills and the factories it supported where set up immediately beside the railway as soon as it arrived. Because they came from the east going west the first station stop would be on the eastern side of the city. It created a pattern and can be seen in Canada's three most important historical railway centres.....Montreal, Winnipeg, and Vancouver.

All those areas had their trains and industry start in the eastern section of the cities and move west.

It developed a pattern of industry, rail yards, and a lot of transient people and the poor immigrants looking for their piece of paradise congregated in those areas as well. The wealthy and middle class wanted to get as far away from the rail stations as possible and hence lived in the Western Sections of the cities. In Mon/Winn/Van all the poor areas are on the east side and all the wealth is on the west. It also occured in Calgary, London On, and Toronto but to a lesser extent.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,445 Posts
I'd say in the San Francisco Bay Area, it's quite a mix of rich and poor areas. But, for your consideration, in terms of counties:

- Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Clara tend to be among the wealthiest counties in the region
- The City and County of San Francisco in itself has quite a divide in the rich and poor areas: certain districts, like the Marina and Pacific Heights, are among the richest areas; in sharp contrast, three districts, called Bayview-Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, and Visitacion Valley (especially near Sunnydale), are among the poorer areas of the city.
- Oakland too has its own share of rich and poor areas: one thing to remember would be the closer a neighborhood is to the hills (e.g. Claremont, Montclair), it is richer; the closer one is to the Bay (e.g. East Oakland), it is poorer.
 

·
ONE WORLD
Joined
·
9,022 Posts
Basically in the developed world the pattern up to the 1980s was a rich nerve centre surrounded by a ring of poverty, aka the Inner City (albeit with pockets/ bulges of the ultra wealthy who didn't want to commute - they tended to island themselves on hills away from the sea of working classes). This Inner City was usually industrial outskirts / ports once upon a time, but would become derelict or built upon during postwar years. Then another much larger ring of middle class to wealthy suburbs spaced out.

In the developing world where mass industrialisation of the urban areas was yet to peak it was a rich centre but surrounded by the reverse - a ring of rich residential communities, then industry and poverty on the outskirts.


Since the 90s as land values become profitable and ex-industrial wastelands get converted the rich, developed world is switching back to this form. Hence a wave of hipster hangouts and 'up n coming' areas - working class communities getting colonised by the developers and 'creatives' (read: middle class) and the poor moving out to the peripherals. The term 'Inner City' is no longer synonymous with a delineated area of poverty and crime, but merely denotes an inner city or centre.

Meanwhile across the developing world most cities are seeing huge growth right now, and everything becoming checkerboard as the outer city is now being flooded with the middle class overspill aswell as the newly arrived poor. Hence the popularity of gated communities cheek by jowl with nearby shanty towns.

China bucks the trend due to the speed of building and enormous pressure of growth - although a developing country it has already leapfrogged the different stages of development and reverted to the traditional type of a rich centre getting poorer the further out, with vast new highrises for the newly arrived (and often working class) on the edges, along with a hinterland of factories in satellite communities and countryside. In effect Chinese cities are seeing in doughnut effects of a highrise centre, low or midrise suburbs, then vast rings of highrises again after that.
 

·
ONE WORLD
Joined
·
9,022 Posts
The danger to all this is by relegating the working class away to the outskirts makes for a loss in dynamism and creativity to a city's pop and art culture. A lack of mixing peoples makes for a more staid and success-orientated environment, and one that nurtures more conservative attitudes. Crime in the centre may be lowered, things may look nicer, but in the long term the city may suffer economically if it loses its creative verve. It would be a London without club culture, a NYC without rap, a Paris without street murals, a Tokyo without fashion tribes, a Beijing without high art.

A few cities do mix working and middle classes, and even upper classes cheek by jowl, if not the same building (although it often happens). London where the house prices and Victorian tradition dictate noone gets to actively choose which district you live in, and who your neighbours are - merely how much the building is worth on the market, or may be if converted or the area becomes 'hip'. Also the councils dictate that all new builds over 40 units must be made up of 30-50% 'affordable homes' in order to get planning permission, even if its a high end development. Berlin also, currently the darling of the world's art and hipster scene, with an inner centre full of abandoned properties (East Berliners having moved west following the fall of the Berlin Wall) now being colonised by newly arrived creatives, immigrants and students. Coupled with the bankruptcy of the local govt in the early noughties - one of the best things that ever happened to the long suffering city, as everything suddenly became affordable, with blossoming nightlife, foodie scenes, music, culture and art open to all. Barcelona is another one, hotch-potch Bangkok, and identikit Seoul where, like socialist China, middle class and poor are unrecogniseable by building type, but housing an often dynamic mix of peoples to see in the streets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,683 Posts
I do not not how true it is , but I have noticed the following , of course there are exceptions
in Many cities the west ends and the north areas of cities tend to be more wealthy than the east and south ends . How are these areas in your city
Interesting idea.
However reverse in seoul.

For example Gangnam district(the east and south ends) much more wealthy than Eunpyong(the west ends and the north areas) district in Seoul.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,250 Posts
Spliff fairy made an interesting comparison between the urban patterns in the developed and developing countries.

Aside that, in general, in Brazilian cities, the west and the south are rich while the north and the east are poor. Coincidence? I don't know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
794 Posts
Yes v ery good post Spliff Fairy, the leapfrogging of development by Chinese cities is similar to the South Africans leapfrogging land-lines and going straight to mobile phones!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,445 Posts
The danger to all this is by relegating the working class away to the outskirts makes for a loss in dynamism and creativity to a city's pop and art culture. A lack of mixing peoples makes for a more staid and success-orientated environment, and one that nurtures more conservative attitudes. Crime in the centre may be lowered, things may look nicer, but in the long term the city may suffer economically if it loses its creative verve. It would be a London without club culture, a NYC without rap, a Paris without street murals, a Tokyo without fashion tribes, a Beijing without high art.

A few cities do mix working and middle classes, and even upper classes cheek by jowl, if not the same building (although it often happens). London where the house prices and Victorian tradition dictate noone gets to actively choose which district you live in, and who your neighbours are - merely how much the building is worth on the market, or may be if converted or the area becomes 'hip'. Also the councils dictate that all new builds over 40 units must be made up of 30-50% 'affordable homes' in order to get planning permission, even if its a high end development. Berlin also, currently the darling of the world's art and hipster scene, with an inner centre full of abandoned properties (East Berliners having moved west following the fall of the Berlin Wall) now being colonised by newly arrived creatives, immigrants and students. Coupled with the bankruptcy of the local govt in the early noughties - one of the best things that ever happened to the long suffering city, as everything suddenly became affordable, with blossoming nightlife, foodie scenes, music, culture and art open to all. Barcelona is another one, hotch-potch Bangkok, and identikit Seoul where, like socialist China, middle class and poor are unrecogniseable by building type, but housing an often dynamic mix of peoples to see in the streets.
Hmmm very interesting points indeed. Perhaps it's good to examine our cities from various angles and see what we can do to make them more integrated and more fun to visit and live.
 

·
Ölm
Joined
·
2,912 Posts
In Switzerland, districts that are on a hill or mountain side facing south or west are richer than those facing north and east. The reason is simple. If you face south you get more sun than if you face north, if you face west you can enjoy wonderful sunsets, while if you face eastwards you need to get up early to see sunrises, and who wants to get up early?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldcoast_(Switzerland)
 
1 - 20 of 96 Posts
Top