News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why are the east of cities usually poorer? by brc on Monday May 31, 2010 @12:01AM (#1391746)
True for Sydney, false for Brisbane. In Sydney it's because East means harbour and/or beach. In Brisbane east is flat industrial wetlands, West is hilly with views/breezes, with the exception of Clayfied/Hamilton/Ascot. However, if you travel further west towards the city fringes, this reverses quite quickly. I'd say on balance true for Melbourne, but I'm not enough of an expert to say for sure.

Generally I would say that the desirability of certain areas comes down to : - topography (low, hot bad, hilly, views, breezes good) - orientation : people (in general) like to live on or near the water, assuming the water is clean. Areas that face into hot sun are less desirable. - history : sometimes older parts of cities have bigger houses and land, and are more established.

Re:Why are the east of cities usually poorer? by stuartm on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:15AM (#1392319)
Melbourne's western suburbs are definitely regarded as less desirable than the eastern suburbs.

Historically (in the 1880s), the western suburbs were where the working class lived, and where heavy industry was located.

Today, the majority of the wealthy suburbs are still east of the city - Toorak, Camberwell, Kew, Hawthorn etc.

Re:Why are the east of cities usually poorer? by goatforce5 on Monday May 31, 2010 @10:16AM (#1392545)
The History of Western Civilization, by TISM:

http://www.geniac.net/tism/history.txt

Re:Why are the east of cities usually poorer? by brc on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:56AM (#1395029)
That's funny. I actually have a relative who was in TISM. Some of their better work.

I also have a friend who never liked them, because in one of their songs they list everyone they hate, and it includes 'anyone called Trevor' : this is my friends name.

TISM : the original acquired taste.