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

[Obadno]

Phoenix metro has an extreme east west divide, with the east being vastly more affluent and developed than the west side. The west side is seeing major development booms as some changes in the economy have begun to make it very competitive for manufacturing and distribution but in general the west side is considered low end and working class.

Many east sisters won’t even go to the west side if they can avoid it. The west side even has less trees.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Regionally, the Bay Area has a lot of wealth really on all 4 sides of the Metro Area, the East Bay has a reputation for being blue collar but really that's just along the 80/880 corridor from oh Vallejo to Hayward and the Hy 4 Corridor from Pittsburg to Antioch. Otherwise, this report from Measure of America breaking down the state's neighborhoods into clusters really demonstrates how spread out the wealth is is the Bay Area.

They look at basic human development statistics: Life Expectancy, Educational Attainment, Health Care, Income, etc.

I can't help but laugh at how prominent the East Bay is in the area considered top 1% considering the blue collar image the region has, yet here we are:

I live in the East Bay (Fremont) and yeah, it's pretty beat up along 880 but towards Mission Blvd, the more affluent it gets with loads of tech workers and other professionals

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if, in fact, wealthy indutrialists of late 19th/early 20th century detroit were more likely to suburbainze out to oakland county instead the pointes, then yes, that would be a significant departure from chicago's northshore phenomenon.

I doubt that any really wealthy people (meaning the millionaire class) had migrated across 8 Mile Rd. before 1940. Mitt Romey's family lived in Detroit's Palmer Woods neighborhood when he was born in the 1940s, before they to Bloomfield Hills when he was a child. His father George was CEO of American Motors before becoming governor of Michigan.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I doubt that any really wealthy people (meaning the millionaire class) had migrated across 8 Mile Rd. before 1940. Mitt Romey's family lived in Detroit's Palmer Woods neighborhood when he was born in the 1940s, before they to Bloomfield Hills when he was a child. His father George was CEO of American Motors before becoming governor of Michigan.

Bloomfield Hills was a major wealth center even 100 years ago. The Dodge family and many other auto barons had estates out there. The Cranbrook campus is on the former estate of George Booth, at the time one of America's wealthiest, and who built his Bloomfield Hills estate in 1904.

Christ Church Cranbrook is probably the most important Episcopalian church in Michigan. Kirk in the Hills is probably the most important Presbyterian church in Michigan. These are longstanding Bloomfield Hills institutions.

Also, there were suburban prewar upper middle class neighborhoods all along the Woodward corridor.

Birmingham-
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5531...7i13312!8i6656

Royal Oak-
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5020...7i16384!8i8192

Pleasant Ridge-
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4716...7i16384!8i8192

Huntington Woods-
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4833...7i16384!8i8192

The Pointes were always an outlier. In terms of regional wealth distribution, better analogues are Philly's Main Line, or Toronto's Yonge corridor. And they were all tied to downtown and the GM and Chrysler HQ via commuter rail, which didn't end until the 1980's.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Pointes were always an outlier. In terms of regional wealth distribution, better analogues are Philly's Main Line, or Toronto's Yonge corridor. And they were all tied to downtown and the GM and Chrysler HQ via commuter rail, which didn't end until the 1980's.

Philadelphia's commuter rail in that direction opened in 1832! and is still in use today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut_Hill_East_Branch



A later real picture of how those train cars actually looked:

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Bloomfield Hills was a major wealth center even 100 years ago. The Dodge family and many other auto barons had estates out there. The Cranbrook campus is on the former estate of George Booth, at the time one of America's wealthiest, and who built his Bloomfield Hills estate in 1904.

Christ Church Cranbrook is probably the most important Episcopalian church in Michigan. Kirk in the Hills is probably the most important Presbyterian church in Michigan. These are longstanding Bloomfield Hills institutions.

Also, there were suburban prewar upper middle class neighborhoods all along the Woodward corridor.

Birmingham-
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5531...7i13312!8i6656

Royal Oak-
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5020...7i16384!8i8192

Pleasant Ridge-
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4716...7i16384!8i8192

Huntington Woods-
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4833...7i16384!8i8192

The Pointes were always an outlier. In terms of regional wealth distribution, better analogues are Philly's Main Line, or Toronto's Yonge corridor. And they were all tied to downtown and the GM and Chrysler HQ via commuter rail, which didn't end until the 1980's.

You mean the Woodward Corridor, right? The Pointes haven't been connected by rail to downtown since the streetcar was eliminated. SEMTA connected Royal Oak, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, and Pontiac to downtown until the 80s.

[Docere]

Birmingham, Michigan already had a population of 11,000 in 1940.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Regionally, the Bay Area has a lot of wealth really on all 4 sides of the Metro Area, the East Bay has a reputation for being blue collar but really that's just along the 80/880 corridor from oh Vallejo to Hayward and the Hy 4 Corridor from Pittsburg to Antioch. Otherwise, this report from Measure of America breaking down the state's neighborhoods into clusters really demonstrates how spread out the wealth is is the Bay Area.

They look at basic human development statistics: Life Expectancy, Educational Attainment, Health Care, Income, etc.

I can't help but laugh at how prominent the East Bay is in the area considered top 1% considering the blue collar image the region has, yet here we are:

2021 One Percent California: Human Development Score, 9.00 or Higher
Population: 906,214
Rank/Neighborhood Cluster(County)
1 San Ramon, Danville & Alamo(Contra Costa)
2 Mountain View, Palo Alto & Los Altos(Santa Clara)
3 West Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Orinda & Moraga(Contra Costa)
4 Cupertino, Saratoga & Los Gatos(Santa Clara)
5 Pacific Palisades(Los Angeles)
6 Piedmont & Oakland Hills(Alameda)

The fact that there are extremely wealthy parts of the East Bay does not change the fact that it is also has lots of relatively cheap blue collar neighborhoods, and also contains the majority of the Bay Area's heavy industry and port infrastructure. The East Bay is big, both in size, and population, and is very economically diverse...but overall it definitely has far more middle and working class people than wealthy ones, and at a proportion that feels higher than western parts of the bay. Just saying, there are legitimate reasons for that blue collar image.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by tech12

The fact that there are extremely wealthy parts of the East Bay does not change the fact that it is also has lots of relatively cheap blue collar neighborhoods, and also contains the majority of the Bay Area's heavy industry and port infrastructure. The East Bay is big, both in size, and population, and is very economically diverse...but overall it definitely has far more middle and working class people than wealthy ones, and at a proportion that feels higher than western parts of the bay. Just saying, there are legitimate reasons for that blue collar image.

Oh I agree with all of this and I happily own what the East Bay is, I'm just saying that as someone who is from the East Bay and has received a ton of negative commentary from people in the City and Peninsula over the years who throw a huge blanket of 'ghetto' over the entire area, it is absolutely lovely to see a list such as this validate what people who actually live here have known all along.

At the same time, there really arent a lot of 'relatively cheap blue collar neighborhoods' that people want to live in and raise children anywhere in the Bay Area these days imo. That train left the region long ago. We have places that people settle on, that's it. No one takes joy in moving to Deep East Oakland, I know, I'm from there.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

Philadelphia's main line is probably a pretty good US example. Though it isn't directly west, but runs in a line northwest of the city.

Even the archieture in west philadelphia and northwest philly tends to be much more ornate than the eastern side of the city near the Delaware and old industry.

There isn't really an "east" though in Philadelphia. Like Chicago, there's north, south and west.

From what I understand, West Philadelphia was a fairly middle class area in the early to mid-20th century.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

Philadelphia's main line is probably a pretty good US example. Though it isn't directly west, but runs in a line northwest of the city.

Even the archieture in west philadelphia and northwest philly tends to be much more ornate than the eastern side of the city near the Delaware and old industry.

The Main Line is not a "side" of Philadelphia though. It's not considered to be "west side" of Philadelphia. It's former estate lands and wealthy suburbs that has grown along with the city for the past century and a half.

It's not a favored side of the city, but rather one of the earliest examples of the wealthy suburbs in the US.

Originally Posted by Docere

There isn't really an "east" though in Philadelphia. Like Chicago, there's north, south and west.

From what I understand, West Philadelphia was a fairly middle class area in the early to mid-20th century.

Eh... kind of... but not quite the same situation as with Chicago. Philly is certainly more oriented north-south -- numbered streets designated as "N" or "S", paralleling a N-S axis tells us that.

But with Philly, Center City is center city... with a large chunk of extremely dense, old urbanity to its east up to the Delaware. We obviously don't talk about East Philadelphia, but it does exist a bit more in reality than it does in a city like Chicago where the central core aligns along a coast.

[xzmattzx]

There isn't really an East Philadelphia, but there is a Northeast Philadelphia

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

There isn't really an East Philadelphia, but there is a Northeast Philadelphia

Yeah, "East Philadelphia" is Camden.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

Philadelphia's commuter rail in that direction opened in 1832! and is still in use today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut_Hill_East_Branch

damn, now that is OLD school commuter rail.

chicago's first rail line with passenger service from early proto-suburbia was the the old Galena & Chicago Union RR(now known as the UP west line of the Metra system) which began service in 1848.

and the commuter rail line that runs through the tony northshore burbs (chicagoland's equivalent to philly's mainline burbs) was the old Chicago & Milwaukee RR (now known as the UP north line of the Metra system) which began service in 1855.

[TWAK]

The southeast side of Clear Lake (Clearlake) is super methy, while the other sides of the lake aren't. Well mostly, there's a bit of vagrants on the northeast side and the low population makes the lake/county kind of like a big city.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Docere

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.

Maybe it's just a coincidence that these cities all have affluent west sides? I would imagine that if a bit more investigating is done, one will find very specific reasons for these patterns in each city. Seems a bit far fetched to imply that European cities intentionally developed wealthy west sides based on "tradition".

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by McBane

Maybe it's just a coincidence that these cities all have affluent west sides? I would imagine that if a bit more investigating is done, one will find very specific reasons for these patterns in each city. Seems a bit far fetched to imply that European cities intentionally developed wealthy west sides based on "tradition".

Prevailing winds theory? In North America and Europe the winds blow industrial pollution mostly to the east.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by McBane

Maybe it's just a coincidence that these cities all have affluent west sides? I would imagine that if a bit more investigating is done, one will find very specific reasons for these patterns in each city. Seems a bit far fetched to imply that European cities intentionally developed wealthy west sides based on "tradition".

Fair point, it's obviously not because of tradition. Prevailing winds hypothesis is the most common explanation.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The Pointes haven't been connected by rail to downtown since the streetcar was eliminated. SEMTA connected Royal Oak, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, and Pontiac to downtown until the 80s.

interesting, so the Pointes were never connected to downtown detroit by commuter rail, only street car lines?

that would be another fairly big departure in regards to the comparison to chicago's northshore burbs.

it's propably why the northshore burbs grew a bit bigger prior 1920, before MASS automobile ownership.


the pointes 1920: 5,088
core northshore 1920: 19,077


the pointes 1940: 29,648
core northshore 1940: 39,416


the pointes 1970: 58,899 (peak)
core northshore 1970: 59,787 (peak)


the pointes 2020: 45,598
core northshore 2020: 52,277



for the comparison above, "core northshore" is defined very tightly as just wilmette, kenilworth, winnetka, and glencoe. those 4 line-up most closely with the pointes in terms of feel and size (10.4 sq. miles for the pointes vs. 13.5 sq. miles for wilmette, kenilworth, winnetka, and glencoe). the term "northshore" in general also includes all the lakefront burbs in southern lake county as well (highland park, lake forest, lake bluff) at an absolue minimum, and often times an even wider net is cast to include evanston, as well as the inland burbs of glenview, northfield, northbrook and deerfield.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Docere

There isn't really an "east" though in Philadelphia. Like Chicago, there's north, south and west.

From what I understand, West Philadelphia was a fairly middle class area in the early to mid-20th century.

Yes there is: New Jersey.

And yes, Philadelphia's nicest suburbs are historically west of city proper.

Philadelphia's least nice suburbs are due south (Inner Delaware County) and east of the city (New Jersey). Sorry, New Jersey.