East/west divide seems to be a thing in most western cities (but not US)
 

In the Western world, West sides have traditionally been more affluent and east sides more working class and industrial. It's true of London and most British cities, most Canadian cities, and in Paris, Berlin, Frankfurt, Budapest etc. US doesn't really have this pattern though.

Water and air currents flow from West to East in much of the parts of Canada that were settled earlier. Cleaner air/water was found on the western side of town.

in chicago's case, the east/west divide is basically water vs. land. ;)

things work on a much more north/south axis here, for obvious reasons.

https://i.postimg.cc/rsG2Hwg0/chi235767.png

Looking at some of the rust belt cities.

Pittsburgh - favored east

Cleveland - wealth is in eastern suburbs, but east side of Cleveland is poor. Traditionally east side was more affluent though, it just underwent urban decline and racial change.

Buffalo - east side (east of Main) is poorer side and long has been

Detroit - so little of Detroit proper is intact anymore, west traditionally favored over east. Affluent move in northwesterly direction. In the suburbs, Oakland County is the PMC county and Macomb the WWC county. Oakland seems to be the suburban extension of west side, Macomb the east side.

Detroit's west side is more well off than its east side. The type of wholesale abandonment of neighborhoods that Detroit is known for was mostly limited to the east side of the city until the early 2000s. The west side also has a much better stock of single family housing.

^ which has always been a little interesting to me because, as I understand it, Detroit's original "old money" burbs were the gross pointes, which lie to the east of the city, not the west.

That is also true of Los Angeles, where the Westside is more affluent and the east side is working class and industrial.

There are definitely US cities with an east/west divide going on.

In SF's case, some of the poorest and wealthiest areas are in the center of the city, but the southeast side of the city is also much more working class in general than the northern/western side of the city, which is largely middle class/wealthy, and includes the fanciest neighborhoods. The southeast part of SF has long been home to the majority of the city's black and Latino populations, as well as a huge chunk of the Asian population, and the majority of the city's public housing units. Almost all of the city's industry is also on the east/southeast side, which is where all the rail and port stuff is/was.

And if you're looking at it on a metro-wide scale, the east/west thing still holds true, more or less. The East Bay is generally cheaper and more working class than other parts, and also contains a huge chunk of the region's industry, including most of the port infrastructure and heavy industry like oil refineries and whatnot. It makes sense, as its always been more accessible by rail from the rest of the country, and cheaper/less-trendy due to not being SF-proper, not to mention having way more space.

edit: some other things to consider:

Temperatures can get insanely hot the farther inland you go, which might make living there less desirable, especially before A/C was invented. Though there are people who like it hot.

Temperatures right along the coast are often pretty cold due to wind and fog (often pretty warm too, but it is not at all a stereotypical CA environment lol), which is probably one of the reasons why housing right along the coast is relatively cheap (along with relatively long travel times to downtown), unless it's on a hill with a view.

There are some US cities with that pattern, but not the dominant pattern.

It’s definitely the case in both Houston and Austin. Los Angeles as well. Also New Orleans.

All of Buffalo's wealthiest neighborhoods follow the central core of the city west of Main Street from downtown to beyond the city line. The East Side held the majority of the factories, rail yards, stock yards, etc for most of the city's existence, along with dense neighborhoods of workers housing. In the last decades the West Side has maintained nearly all of its housing stock, and its radial streets and commercial districts are booming. The East Side has seen a great loss of population and housing, and its radial and commercial streets are vacant or gap toothed. Stability and growth has only recently begun in the last few years.

Cincinnati's west side is more blue collar than the east side.

Lol this is such an ignorant take. West side of Detroit is basically fully intact and it's absolutely enormous, nothing "little" about it. Try driving though it some time.

East side West side is a divide in Detroit but it's more a cultural thing, not really about class.

The dominant affluent corridor has always been Woodward, and that extents north into the suburbs. The East side has always had wealthy neighborhoods though, Indian Village, West Village, etc. and along the Jefferson corridor. East side probably has more blue collar overall. But it's not like a huge difference.

delete

The Pointes were always kind of an exception to the rule. And they've really diminished in relative importance. Still a very nice enclave, but almost forgotten in the larger scheme. Pre-1970 or so, much of the region's wealth was in the Pointes, but now it's a pretty minor share. Birmingham-Bloomfield is the wealth center, and there are newer wealth centers like Northville, that generally outshine the Pointes.

Detroit has historically been Westside - more professional and Eastside - more working class. Even with Detroit proper's deep decline, it's quite clear the Westside is generally much more intact and prosperous. This extends to the suburbs, where Macomb is the working class side, and Oakland is the professional side/favored quarter

The East Side of Wilmington, which is east of Downtown, has always been working class or poor, with some factories sprinkled in. It's poor now.

Wilmington can now be divided pretty evenly in half with I-95, and almost everything east of I-95 is pretty poor. There are some pockets of upper middle class places east of I-95, like along Baynard Boulevard, and there are some poor neighborhoods west of I-95, like Hilltop, but generally most of the better areas in the city are west of I-95.

Yeah, the Pointes were kind of the original suburb. The cachet has faded quite a bit, but well into the 1990s, maybe early 2000s, if you had a lakefront estate in Grosse Pointe you were considered "old" money, or "real" money. Places like Bloomfield Hills were considered "new money".

There are a couple of nice middle-class neighborhoods on Detroit's east side, with good housing stock, but all of it is within 1-2 miles of the border of the Pointes, or within a mile of the east riverfront (or both). For example. The west side has a much larger quantity of good single-family housing stock, but unlike the east side that housing was built far away from the riverfront.

In Brazil, affluent areas are overwhelmingly on west and south sides.

I haven't lived in Fort Worth long enough to have picked up the history of the place, but I can make some guesses based on observations and stuff I've read:

Fort Worth originally put all it's rich people on the west and south side and all it's poor or not-white people on the north and east side. Hell's Half Acre and Niles City (neither place exists now) were incredibly rough places. In contrast the streets off Camp Bowie around Arlington Heights and Westover Hills are old pre-WW2 neighborhoods with big fancy houses.

So there was definitely a west-east divide.

However, I also think later as greater Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex took shape with DFW Airport creating new business districts to the north and east starting in the 1970s, this changed a lot.

Suburban sprawl leapfrogged the Northside and Haltom City working class neighborhoods and then affluent, white, conservative suburbs like Keller, Colleyville, Southlake, etc blew up and then that gradually spilled west towards I-35 in the 2000s.

Meanwhile there's a visible discontinuity of sorts on the west side and towards Benbrook. Old postwar suburbs that had been on the desirable side of town didn't age well. I wonder if Carswell AFB closing did this. Like the now dead Ridgmar Mall is very large and extravagant and surrounded by vacant big box centers suggesting it was a destination back in the 1980s, and there are a number of early 1980s office towers next to the freeway through there so that must have been an attractive business destination too. But then all the new development seems to have paused for 40 years. Las Vegas Trail and Camp Bowie West is a not so good neighborhood. At 820 the growth just sort of stopped and there's a bunch of empty prairie to the west.

Now however as of maybe 5 years something must have changed because there are a ton of master planned communities that leapfrogged west towards Aledo and jumped over old Benbrook out along 377.

It's interesting. Basically there is no apparent favored quarter district or pattern in Fort Worth. There is new sprawl and old areas on all sides.

What are the most axially balanced metro areas (both north/south and east/west) that have at least some noticeable degree of racial and socioeconomic diversity? And in those places, do natural beauty and climate play a factor?