h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Reading the BBC coverage of the aftermath of the Anders Breivik killings (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16636885), I'm struck by the comment that east Olso is poorer than west Oslo.

This rings bells with the east end of London vs the west end, and also with a few other cities I've been to (though admittedly specific examples now escape me - Glasgow would be one, I think).

Are there any other cities where east & west have marked differences in affluence? And in particular, is there a pattern of east=poor, west=rich, and if so why? Or examples where east=rich, west=poor?

Gif

I believe it's a common pattern, (though I'm not so sure it's true of Edinburgh), and it's to do with the prevailing wind. Basically the toffs used to preferred living upwind of their own smoke and the stench of slums.

B

With Edinburgh, being upwind of the Nor Loch would have been the desirable factor.

In Gloucester, people who live in the East end of the city are usually scum.

And people who live in the West end of the city are chavs.

B

That's because the posh ones live in Cheltenham.

In the Antipodes it's to do with who can afford to live next to the beach... Sydney and Auckland face the Pacific to the east, so west is where the poor people go.

Although, Christchurch also faces the Pacific to the east but it put its poor suburbs in the east, because the land was basically a swamp (hence the post-quake problems they're having now), and they did put the city's sewerage ponds out there too.

In Dublin, it's a south/north divide. The south is better off on average than the north.

Brussels is north and west = poor

South west to east = affluent.

sprout

I'm worried about my area because rich people are moving in buying up houses...

I can accept that...but they need to accept our culture which is full on friendly.

The new people look embarassed when you talk staright to them...like they never encountered that before.

And suddenly this area must be called Nunhead.

I'm going to be unpleasant to them though if they can't respect our culture.

Is it something to do with prevailing wind direction? I ask as, assuming there aren't other factors such as beaches to take into consideration, it might be to do with the relative positions of the main industrial areas and the wealthy districts being upwind. Historically speaking.

When I say full on friendly I mean 'respect for who someone is'....not all over people. Just respect...(It's hard to explain...) A Muslim family in my street keep behind closed doors...and it's only me that they feel safe to talk to...I'm not expecting them to be like me.

Sol are you talking about Australia?

Yes all the white people live there.

The Aboriginals have been mostly confined to the Outback now. Most white people are terrified of it.

It's sort of haphazard in Greater Manchester.

Salford's in the West, and that's poor. Except Worsley (the Westernmost bit), which is quite well off. South-West is the Cheshire bordertowns which are all very post, along with Stretford (poverty). Cheetham Hill and Prestwich are pretty much polar opposites, and they're both North Manchester.

It's all a bit confusing.

Oh right we need to stick to the *literality* of East/West.

I assumed it was metaphorical.

East and west Peckham don't seem to differ much.

In bristol for the *most* part it seems to be based on altitude.The richer you are the higher up you live. Apart from Southmead I think. There is a definite north/south divide because of the river but things are changing on the south bank (well, bits of it) as it becomes more and more arty and fancy pants. Won't change the 'estates' though.

Liverpool sort of breaks north-south, with the north being generally wealthier and the south being generally poorer but there are big exceptions to that: Bootle is very poor and to the north whilst Halewood is pretty affluent and to the south. The city doesn't have an east-west divide as there isn't a western half of the city (unless you count Birkenhead/Wallasey.

Bradford is almost uniformly poor with random pockets of affluence. As 603 says, Manchester is weird especially with the students messing things up.

West Belfast is the poorest bit, South Belfast is by and large the posh bit.

Has that changed recently HI? Because 15 years ago, when I last lived there, Kensington, Vauxhall, all the north of the city felt very poor, whereas the south at least had areas like Aigburth that were a bit more well off?

Bristol is an interesting one - as Robyn says it's altitude, but also linked to water quality - the bottom of the city was where all the cholera cases were - sewage flows down hill...

sprout