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?
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.
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.
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....
(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.)
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.
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?
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.
Not necessarily true about NYC. Pre mass-transit, wealthy citizens of Manhattan vacationed on the northern part of the island. During the early 20th century, as the subway system and metro-north were developed, these same people migrated to the north, or what is now referred to as Westchester.
While westerlies may have caused dislocation during a certain time period, most major cities have experienced other events which have also had a significant impact on their demography.
The interesting thing about NYC is that Manhattan is not aligned perfectly North-South; it's actually oriented about 30° to the east from the meridian.
In other words, the most northern parts of the island are also the most eastern, so it currently fits the pattern quite well.
Not necessarily true about NYC. Pre mass-transit, wealthy citizens of Manhattan vacationed on the northern part of the island. During the early 20th century, as the subway system and metro-north were developed, these same people migrated to the north, or what is now referred to as Westchester.
While easterlies may have caused dislocation during a certain time period, most major cities have experienced other events which have also had a significant impact on their demography.
Saratoga, Campbell and Los Gatos are in the south of San Jose and Silicon Valley. Hardly poor areas. The poorer areas are East-Palto Alto, which is not south and has nothing to do with prevailing winds. This has basically turned into attempting to find patterns in television static.
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.
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.
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) which, unlike many cities, kept the waterfront from becoming industrialized.
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...)
