Re:Why are the east of cities usually poorer?
by spxdcz on Sunday May 30, 2010 @09:07PM
(#1391485)
Out of interest, is that typical on both coasts? Just wondering if the river direction has anything to do with it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
On the east coast it tends to be true. As others have mentioned it might not hold on the west coast. I just wanted to give a counterexample that shows how shallow the OP's argument is. The reality is that there are many factors which make certain parts of a city more desirable to live in than another. In Australia proximity to the beach is strongly correlated with desirability. In other places the reasons will differ. Whatever the reason, I don't believe for a second this oversimplified fairy tale about the prevailing wind.
Re:Why are the east of cities usually poorer?
by tokenadult on Monday May 31, 2010 @12:57AM
(#1391804)
Whatever the reason, I don't believe for a second this oversimplified fairy tale about the prevailing wind.
Agreed. Here (Twin Cities of Minnesota) the location of lakes and rivers has much more to do with what areas are the wealthiest. The wealthiest towns are west or southwest of Minneapolis, terribly located for prevailing winds or for commuting without the sun in drivers' eyes.
Re:Why are the east of cities usually poorer?
by thristian on Sunday May 30, 2010 @09:13PM
(#1391499)
I don't know about Perth, but it's definitely true in Sydney (Ocean on the east) and Melbourne (Ocean on the south).
Access to the surf is definitely a big factor in Oz cities. Also many of the cities started as coastal settlements, so the older parts of the city tend to be closest to the coast (and they tend to be the richer bits??).
In Brisbane much of the east of the city is taken up by port and airport, so not such a desirable area.