Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was wondering what are some neighborhoods that would be considered rough in Canada? I know of Uniacke Square/North End in Halifax, Jane/Finch in Toronto, Little Burgundy/St. Henri in Montreal and Burnaby, BC's Northside, supposedly. That's all I know though. What about the other major cities and even towns with neighborhoods with a rough or bad reputation?
There are far too many to list all of the rough neighborhoods in the whole country. You would probably have better luck if you were interested in a particular city.
OK, then what about cities like:Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Windsor, Quebec City, St. John, NB, Saskatoon, Regina, Ottawa and the 3 cities I named previously.
Perception and reality are often two different things.
Listing off every single neighbourhood in Canada (there are thousands and thousands)... that somebody perceives as "rough" would take forever.
I mean, rough in what way? Are we talking about a neighbourhood where statistically more crime? Or are we talking about petty perceived roughness due to neighbourhood rivalry, or income? Poor neighbourhoods are often associated with "rough" characters, even if statistically, there is no more or no less crime and violence in that area.
Is it then fair to lump all these perceptions together as a rough neighbourhood?
It's all relative, isn't it?
In the Vancouver area, all of Surrey would be considered "rough" to the elite millionaire family living in a spawling mansion over the cliffs of West Vancouver. After all, Surrey is often the punchline to jokes about easy girls, guys in wifebeaters and pick-up trucks. But to family living in their 3 bedroom mini mansion in nice rural South Surrey, they'd argue otherwise. And so would the Sikh family living in the predominantly Sikh communities of Surrey. And so would the yuppies living in their condos along the skytrain line who are in Surrey because it's affordable and convenient. But to somebody looking at the crack addicts in Surrey's Newton neighbourhood, they might think otherwise. So who's right? Is Surrey rough? Yes and no. Does it really change things? No.
North Burnaby isn't rough, but in my experience, it has a lot of bored teenagers who are gangster posers. Of course, this may be perceived of "rough", but the place is harmless. There's a huge Italian community with restaurants and shops in North Burnaby...
Anyhow, I think your question's too vague. What's your purpose to this?
Last edited by Robynator; 06-23-2008 at 11:08 PM..
Robynator is right. This is impossible to answer. He wrote all that, just on one part of one city. I could go on and on about Toronto too. You are going to have to be way more specific.
I mean reputation in terms of crime or even rough in terms of the look or feel of the neighborhood.
"look"
not a single one, at least not compared to the USA. Even Jane and Finch (the worst in the nation) looks like an everyday apartment neighbourhood.
"feel"
in toronto alone:
Crescent Town/East York
Dorset Park
Eglinton East/Kennedy Park
Flemingdon Park/Victoria Village.
Jamestown/Rexdale
Jane/Finch
Kingston-Galloway
Lawrence Heights
Malvern
Scarborough Village
Steeles/L’Amoreaux
Westminster/Branson
Weston/Mt Dennis
Regent Park
Parkdale
I understand that, as I wouldn't compare the crime in Canada to the crime in the US. Two different situations. I'm just talking in Canadian terms, what do people there consider to be rough. I just know of the neighborhoods I initially listed, that have gotten a bad rep in Canada, but I don't know of others. I am aware that even the "rough" neighborhoods in Canada, really aren't that bad.
i think often so called "rough" neighborhoods are really not rough at all. I think that many places just have a bad rep or because of how they look, people make assumptions on the type of people that live there. This isn't always the case of course, but I think this type of thing is definitely over-exaggerated. Definitely.
I live in London, ON, and its a fairly nice city. We have a saying: E.O.A. - East of Adelaide. Basically, EOA is seen as the rougher area of the city, though it is a huge stereotype and is only given that name because the houses are older and the certain "rough" areas are, well, east of Adelaide. The only "sketchy" place I would say that London really has is around Dundas and Adelaide to Dundas and Highbury. That stretch of old downtown looks really dodgy; boarded up stores, graffiti everywhere, and discount stores all over the place. Plus a homeless shelter is along there as well. But in all honesty it's not half as bad as people make it. It's all visual these days...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
