I noticed this pattern a long time ago: in almost every populated area I’ve lived in, the north side has better neighborhoods. This applies to situations where there are no land features or government/zoning boundaries that skew things (such as in California coastal areas, it is more of an west is nicer that the east thing because of the ocean).
I’ve scratched my head over the north-is-nicer thing for quite awhile. Seems like others have noticed it too and offered a potential psychological explanation:
In the metro area I grew up in, Dayton, the southern suburbs were much nicer than the northern ones. The nicest small suburb is Oakwood, due south of the city of Dayton, and the nicest of the large inner suburbs is Kettering, also due south.
I agree with the article that North sounds more upscale.
In the US, France, Spain, Mexico, and Italy the north is wealthier. In England, Brazil, China, and Germany, the south is wealthier.
Interesting. When I think of big cities back east the nicer areas tend to be east or west of the cities. Think Harlem/the Bronx in NYC and North Philly/South Philly.
I spent my middle and high school years in a smallish town in central Texas of 20,000 inhabitants. There was a reference to “the other side of the tracks” for the poorer areas which were in the North part of town, near the more scenic hills.
As a practical matter, the railroad line did make for a louder neighborhood and could delay access to the hospital.
.
