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

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but back in 1920, the pointes were significantly smaller than ferndale/royal oak/birmingham.

1920 grosse pointes: 5,088 people
1920 woodward burbs: 12,341 people

before looking into these numnbers, i would've expected the exact opposite back then.

Royal Oak was more like a satellite town of Detroit in that era, so that's not too surprising to me. It looks like half of that population was in Royal Oak itself. Also, modern Royal Oak is about the same size in land area as the Pointes combined. If you go back to 1900 Grosse Pointe (collectively) would probably have a larger population.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If you go back to 1900 Grosse Pointe (collectively) would probably have a larger population.

Back in 1900, all of these places were barely even "places" yet.

The Pointes 1900: 1,160

Birmingham 1900: 1,170

Royal Oak 1900: 468

[Docere]

Not surprising, Detroit proper only had a population of 285,000 in 1900.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Back in 1900, all of these places were barely even "places" yet.

The Pointes 1900: 1,160

Birmingham 1900: 1,170

Royal Oak 1900: 468

Yes, the population numbers weren't impressive by today's standards, but Birmingham and Royal Oak were established as places somewhat independently of Detroit. Bham and RO were the town centers for the surrounding farming communities in the 19th century, and were fairly independent from Detroit until the 20th century. That's why they have well defined grids and town centers that look like something planned in the 1800s, and the grids don't match Detroit's grid.

Grosse Pointe's history was directly tied to Detroit's early on, and the changeover from farming hub to Detroit bedroom community started earlier (it was a retreat for rich Detroiters back in the Civil War era). Grosse Pointe is also on the early Detroit street grid laid out by the French farmers, and not the more famous Mile Road system (aka township grid). Royal Oak and Birmingham also have grids that predate the Mile Road system, but those were developed by American settlers.

[Yuri]

In Brazil, Porto Alegre is a very rare exception and its best areas are on east (Moinhos de Vento, Bela Vista, Petrópolis, Três Figueira, Boa Vista): https://www.google.com/maps/@-30.030.../data=!3m1!1e3

Of course the west is the river, but the upmarket areas could be developed near the water, but no, they were inland. And that reminds Cleveland, which also has a waterfront but also has its wealthiest areas inland and on east.

Speaking of Porto Alegre, I'm a big fan. Very charming, lots of tree lined streets, midrise density, an interesting historical downtown, their very particular local culture and lots of good looking people.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

In Brazil, Porto Alegre is a very rare exception and its best areas are on east (Moinhos de Vento, Bela Vista, Petrópolis, Três Figueira, Boa Vista): https://www.google.com/maps/@-30.030.../data=!3m1!1e3

Of course the west is the river, but the upmarket areas could be developed near the water, but no, they were inland. And that reminds Cleveland, which also has a waterfront but also has its wealthiest areas inland and on east.

Speaking of Porto Alegre, I'm a big fan. Very charming, lots of tree lined streets, midrise density, an interesting historical downtown, their very particular local culture and lots of good looking people.

speaking of brasil and cleveland, curitiba’s famous brt transit was the direct model for the very successful cleveland rta healthline brt line — and more to come.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

speaking of brasil and cleveland, curitiba’s famous brt transit was the direct model for the very successful cleveland rta healthline brt line — and more to come.

And after all the civic pride their worldwide BRT provided, now people in Curitiba resent the lack of a proper subway system. All the metro areas larger than them got one: Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Brasília, Recife, Salvador and Fortaleza. And I don't see them getting one as Brazil is on a tight fiscal regime since 2014.

[Centropolis]

west for st. louis is the most affluent quarter so the old thing holds. it was large enough before the american civil war that you couldn’t just build or ignore your way out of the prevailing winds and there was not a geographical advantage to do otherwise.

[Docere]

An interesting post on the east/west pattern:

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2...est-poor-east/

Though I don't think he's right about Berlin. The west/east divide is not merely a Cold War artifact.

[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.

There is though. It's New Jersey, and with a (very) few exceptions (Haddonfield and Moorestown), it's suburbs are far less affluent and far less desireable than Philadelphia's western suburbs on the PA side.

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

There is though. It's New Jersey, and with a (very) few exceptions (Haddonfield and Moorestown), it's suburbs are far less affluent and far less desireable than Philadelphia's western suburbs on the PA side.

While South Jersey suburbs isn't seen as prestigious as the Main Line in PA, it does have what I personally call the 5 M's (Maple Shade, Moorestown, Mount Laurel, Marlton, and Medford).

Maple Shade is the more middle class suburb, and Mount Laurel seems more socioeconomically more diverse, while Moorestown, Marlton, and Medford are the more affluent of South Jersey suburbs.

[Docere]

Philadelphia itself is split between South, Southwest, West, Northwest, North and Northeast (plus Center City obviously).

And then you have the (mostly) western PA suburbs (which includes the favored quarter Main Line) and eastern South Jersey suburbs.

There seems to be very much a donut pattern in Philadelphia (affluent core/poorer first ring) - though I guess NW Philadelphia has Chestnut Hill which kinda follows the pattern of favored western sector.

[Obadno]

Opposite in Phoenix Arizona,

The east side is wealthier and actually greener/more fertile (it even gets more rain) and the west side is traditionally the lower and working class area with lots of heavy industry and blighted areas.

Referred to as east valley and west valley

[Docere]

I don't think the pattern applies in a majority of American cities. Though it does seem to be the case in Britain and continental Europe.

In Canada, Montreal and Vancouver are excellent examples of the affluent west/working class east split. Contrary to perception, it's not really true in Toronto, not today, not in the past either.

[PhillyRising]

I guess it's a good thing there is no East Philadelphia!

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Docere

I don't think the pattern applies in a majority of American cities. Though it does seem to be the case in Britain and continental Europe.

In Canada, Montreal and Vancouver are excellent examples of the affluent west/working class east split. Contrary to perception, it's not really true in Toronto, not today, not in the past either.

Also true in Ottawa and Calgary as well. Still, I think it's mostly a coincidence that exists primarily for other reasons - I'm skeptical that the prevailing winds theory is anything more than only tangentially related:

-Montreal's "east" end is really to the north of the "west" end - prevailing winds wouldn't significantly impact them. The more important factor is that like London, the east is downriver, and thus, where the port and resultant industry located.

-Vancouver's west side is on the open coast, with better access to the beaches and water; as well as the mild sea breezes. The east side is more inland, while its waterfront is more sheltered - which also made it the logical location for the port and industry.

-Calgary's west side is in the foothills, with better views and access to the mountains than the flat lands to the east.

-For Ottawa though, there doesn't seem to be as much of an obvious reason as to why west is richer than east. Still, it was never really a city with much heavy industry so the prevailing winds wouldn't have had much impact.

[Docere]

Rockcliffe Park is the richest area of Ottawa (an incorporated municipality until the 1990s) but I guess it was kind of an exception as most of the eastern sector was more working class (and more francophone).

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

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.

Favored Quarter for city of Fort Worth was and remains the old west side and the southwest side of town. This has intensified in recent years as new areas west of existing central southwest neighborhoods like Tanglewood, and Overton Park have built out. The most prestigious private schools like Country Day and Trinity Valley are located in this part of town as well. The highest in-town property values are almost all located in the west/southwest quadrant including older neighborhoods like Parkhill, Mistletoe, Berkeley Addition, and the gentrified Fairmount neighborhood. On the central West Side, Rivercrest, Westover Hills, Ridglea Hills, and most of Arlington Heights remain well off and highly desirable The wealthy and mostly exurban enclaves west and northwest of DFW airport are really something apart from the traditional well off neighborhoods that still thrive in Fort Worth, and most residents of these newer areas up north don't really identify with Fort Worth..

[Docere]

In Toronto there was a lot of industry in both the east and west. It was the north that was most desirable. Yet I still often hear this "prevailing winds/affluent west/poor east" hypothesis applied to Toronto.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Also true in Ottawa and Calgary as well. Still, I think it's mostly a coincidence that exists primarily for other reasons - I'm skeptical that the prevailing winds theory is anything more than only tangentially related:

-Montreal's "east" end is really to the north of the "west" end - prevailing winds wouldn't significantly impact them. The more important factor is that like London, the east is downriver, and thus, where the port and resultant industry located.

-Vancouver's west side is on the open coast, with better access to the beaches and water; as well as the mild sea breezes. The east side is more inland, while its waterfront is more sheltered - which also made it the logical location for the port and industry.

-Calgary's west side is in the foothills, with better views and access to the mountains than the flat lands to the east.

-For Ottawa though, there doesn't seem to be as much of an obvious reason as to why west is richer than east. Still, it was never really a city with much heavy industry so the prevailing winds wouldn't have had much impact.

This makes sense, and if you zoom out to look at the larger metro area it's even clearer that local geographic factors play a key role in land values/wealth, especially now there's so much less polluting industrial activity at all in North American cities.

Zooming out from Vancouver proper, to the north you have the North Shore's affluence near the water and crawling up the hill side, Coquitlam to a lesser extent as an upper-middle class suburb to the east (especially up its hill), while the southeastern suburbs are the least affluent ones as basically prairie sprawl (except for South Surrey/White Rock - straddling a freeway and near the water!). As a Pittsburgh-like city with a downtown far from the geographic centre of the region, distance plays an important role too.

Winnipeg is interesting as the main split is generally north-south, for no real obvious reason. Anywherenear the two main rivers is higher value, but there's definitely a bias toward the south (and west) even away from them, which leads to funny cases like Linden Woods being one of the richer post-war neighbourhoods despite being entirely surrounded by industrial uses.