Cities where the "better side" became the "bad side"

[Docere]

I think Cleveland is a good example of this. Historically the east side of Cleveland was the more affluent part of town, while the west was more dominated by industrial workers. However white flight was more pronounced on the East Side and it became the poorest part of the city. However the eastern suburbs are the richest part of the metro, reflecting the East Side's traditional role as "favored quarter."

Any other examples?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Docere

I think Cleveland is a good example of this. Historically the east side of Cleveland was the more affluent part of town, while the west was more dominated by industrial workers. However white flight was more pronounced on the East Side and it became the poorest part of the city. However the eastern suburbs are the richest part of the metro, reflecting the East Side's traditional role as "favored quarter."

Any other examples?

Philly would be another example I think. North Philly and West Philly were traditionally the wealthy quarters of Philadelphia (with West Philly booming a bit later). Both underwent heavy white flight to the suburbs. In contrast, the much more modest working-class white parts of South Philly and Northeast Philly mostly held on.

In general I think it's the case in many cities which had a downturn that the wealthier parts of the city were more likely to become ghettos. First, it was easier for the wealthy people to leave the city than the working class. Second, the big homes could be chopped up into apartments if zoning allowed for it. Finally, in a lot of cases the wealthier inner-city neighborhoods had a lot of Jewish residents. Jewish neighborhoods tended to become black neighborhoods. The reasons for this lie originally in the pre-zoning restrictive covenants often banning both Jews and blacks, consigning them to the same zones of the city. But even after restrictive covenants along racial grounds ended, Jews generally didn't mind selling to black people, while WASPS and Catholics did.

[Denvergotback]

Don't most(if not all) "neighborhoods" go through this cycle eventually? Starts off nice and affluent, then as time goes on the neighborhoods get old and less desirable, the wealthier move on to the newer flashier stuff, and if the neighborhood is lucky, people see it as a historic aspect, then gets improved

[dubu]

the rich areas never change they get nicer. the not nice areas usually get worse

[SIGSEGV]

Grand Boulevard in Chicago certainly looks like it used to be really wealthy.

[digitallagasse]

Basically most of the older neighborhoods in the Las Vegas metro that were once middle class have not aged well and have gone from better side to bad side. Places like the east side, Spring Valley and old Henderson. Older affluent neighborhoods have held up better.The middle class has mostly followed the shiny and new.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by dubu

the rich areas never change they get nicer. the not nice areas usually get worse

The East Side of Cleveland, West Philadelphia etc. would disagree with that statement.

[Centropolis]

the north side of st. louis was the dominant, most intensely developed swath of st. louis, reaching the city limits much earlier than the southside. while the central corridor was and is the wealthiest, with larger buildings, the northside seemed to have a huge upper middle class presence, with a thickly developed swath of neighborhoods that at the time seamlessly connected to the central corridor. the southside was more working and middle-middle class (with some upper class neighborhoods that are still intact), with many disconnected neighborhoods and more areas of lower density (which are now the largest areas of contiguous, intact urban fabric in st. louis).


nextstl.com

[dubu]

Originally Posted by Docere

The East Side of Cleveland, West Philadelphia etc. would disagree with that statement.

ive never been to 500 year old or whatever cities but cities like portland that are 200 years old theres a lot of bad areas a a lot of rich areas and theres no way that those areas could switch. it has to take a long time and they cant be that extream and where billionaires live vs where homless live.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by dubu

ive never been to 500 year old or whatever cities but cities like portland that are 200 years old theres a lot of bad areas a a lot of rich areas and theres no way that those areas could switch. it has to take a long time and they cant be that extream and where billionaires live vs where homless live.

anything can and does happen...unlike europe, we don’t need an actual war to radically disrupt settlement/urban patterns in the new world.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

we don’t need an actual war to radically disrupt settlement/urban patterns in the new world.

do race wars count as actual wars?

cuz we've had a shit-ton of those.


source: http://thechicagocitizen.com/news/20...-assasination/

[softee]

Jarvis Street and the surrounding area in Toronto's Downtown East was once considered (in the 19th century) the residential area for the wealthy elites, 100 years later it was considered (and still is to a somewhat lesser degree) one of the sketchiest parts of the city.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by softee

Jarvis Street and the surrounding area in Toronto's Downtown East was once considered (in the 19th century) the residential area for the wealthy elites, 100 years later it was considered (and still is to a somewhat lesser degree) one of the sketchiest parts of the city.

very common pattern in north american cities that boomed during a particular time period. the midwestern american cities seemed to have been the most frenetic, as they seemed to not only discard, but overlay early twentieth century industrial and warehousing (or nothing) right over top-tier 19th century neighborhoods, like vandeventer place here in st. louis:



i imagine chicago did a lot of this...less common in the newer midwestern cities like cleveland i imagine.

[Centropolis]

here is lucas place, which was the premier neighborhood of mid 19th century st. louis, during william s. shermans funeral procession in the 1890s. laid to waste for pre-war industrial/warehousing/business district expansion when we decided we needed to dust off the 19th century to keep up with the detroits who were building mega-swaths of modern 1910s industrial.


stltoday.com

[woodrow]

In Chicago, the near south side was certainly THE place to live. Prairie Avenue was called the "sunny street of the sifted few." Pullman, Field, Armour, Kimball, Palmer, etc. etc. made it the center of society from post Civil War to late-1880's, early 1890's

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ages/1003.html

[Centropolis]

The Paseo, a posh boulevard/linear neighborhood in Kansas City was smashed through by interstates, abandonment, and industrial expansion:

npr.org




pendergastkc.com


midtownkcpost.com

like the above examples, it was the premier address.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

anything can and does happen...unlike europe, we don’t need an actual war to radically disrupt settlement/urban patterns in the new world.

Uh, yeah . . . .


https://www.history.com/news/remembe...hquake-of-1906

But in spite of the above, the best areas remained roughly the same areas. What changed things the most in San Francisco was not earthquake and fire (or war) but the invention of the cable car. People want to live up high with the best views but here when the only motive power was horses, that was rough--horses literally couldn't pull wagons or carriages up some of the hills. But steam and then electric power could and so when cable cars came along, the rich people moved to the hilltops: Nob Hill, Pacific Heights, Telegraph Hill etc.


https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...hoto/515448916


https://josephgreco.weebly.com/blog/...n-then-and-now

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Uh, yeah . . . .


https://www.history.com/news/remembe...hquake-of-1906

well, to be fair, in that case it didn't really knock SF off its game medium term, neither did the chicago fire.

[dave8721]

We have had neighborhoods like Edgewater here in Miami that have gone from Wealthy to sketchy then back to wealthy. I guess South Beach would qualify also. I can't think of any that went from wealthy to sketchy and stayed that way. Maybe some of the northern parts of the city and the North Miami area but those were never wealthy, more like working class to sketchy due to white flight. The wealthy parts of North Miami (right along the coast) stayed wealthy.

[emathias]

In Chicago the South Side near the lake was the place to live for decades, but then turned bad. Also, the West Side want the best, but was very solid, upper middle class until white flight and race riots caused it to implode.