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.
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.