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.
That actually wouldn't look too bad if somebody picked up the trash and mowed the grass.
There's a lot more wrong with those buildings than unkempt grass and litter... One would have to look inside to see why they were rated one of the worst projects in the country.
I somewhat agree. California hoods simply look different. But take an area like Watts for example. In Watts, there are tons of empty vacant lots, dead grass and trash strewn everywhere, barred up windows on all the split level houses, rusted tin roofs etc. Many houses in the worst parts of the Bay and L.A. are nothing more than a dressed up shack with a small yard and a tiny drive way.
The rough parts of Miami don't really look that rough. Probably because it's a newer city. But, nonetheless, beware. Crawling along I-95 north of downtown in stop and go traffic is not an easy-breezy feeling, after what used to happen there during the 80s, from what I have read.
I somewhat agree. California hoods simply look different. But take an area like Watts for example. In Watts, there are tons of empty vacant lots, dead grass and trash strewn everywhere, barred up windows on all the split level houses, rusted tin roofs etc. Many houses in the worst parts of the Bay and L.A. are nothing more than a dressed up shack with a small yard and a tiny drive way.
Still don't look worse then urban grit though. Those shacks don't look worse then the empty brick houses all over Camden and Baltimore.
If things were to become fixed up I beleive watts and sf ghettos would be easier to handle them repairing Camden and parts I Baltimore.
Still don't look worse then urban grit though. Those shacks don't look worse then the empty brick houses all over Camden and Baltimore.
If things were to become fixed up I beleive watts and sf ghettos would be easier to handle them repairing Camden and parts I Baltimore.
True. But the difference is that SF and LA are world class cities. World class U.S. cities like NYC, LA, SF and DC are the hubs of gentrification. Oakland, Camden and Baltimore are ghetto second tier cities which may never see rapid crime reduction and widespread gentrification. In SF, all the city has to do is knock down the projects in places like Hunter's Point and Sunnydale. In Baltimore, Oakland and Camden, you would have to bulldoze down massive swaths of the cities. That being said, certain SF ghettos look just as bad as anywhere in Baltimore, Camden or Chester, PA. Case in point, take a look at the Potrero Hill Projects in SF (the hood where O.J. Simpson grew up) and tell me this looks "nice":
I have been to the hoods in south Florida. I spent some time in the ghettos of west palm beach. It look like a place to avoid but I wasn't used to the dead feeling.
The Miami ghettos look different then east coast ghettos but felt the same.
West palm beach ghettos felt like a suburban ghetto. It felt like I was in a long island ghetto whereas Miami felt like I was in the boroughs ghetto if you know what I mean.
But I ain't scared of the hood though their All the same to me.
It a neighborhood looks good is it still classified as the ghetto? I the modern implications of the word would eliminate some of the areas discussed in this thread as not-so-ghetto.
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.