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.
What major city downtown somehow manages to have most of the top qualities of a great downtown (i.e. liveliness, lots of things to do/see, diversity, etc.) without also having some of the worst qualities (i.e. crime, dirtiness, homelessness, etc.)?
Let's say you had to rate a downtown on it's good qualities out of 5 (5 being the best) and then had to do the same for it's bad qualities (5 being the worst). If you subtracted the 'bad' score from the 'good' score, which cities would still have an overall score closer to 5?
For the purposes of this thread, let's define 'major' city as any city with a metro area over 2 million. However, don't be afraid to mention any downtowns of slighlty smaller metro areas.
Last edited by BoringOldMike4554; 11-01-2015 at 11:31 AM..
How major is a "major city"? Can you give a population or some other threshold?
Most major cities exhibit this problem, but I feel like Austin didn't have it as much. NYC (Manhattan) is actually pretty safe and most places are not too dirty (relative) or transient heavy considering the city's size. They are mainly in the touristy areas. Boston is okay too relative to the size of its metro, however MA has a growing drug problem.
In my opinion, major West Coast cities tend to be cleaner, but have a lot more homeless because of the temperate climate and general liberalism. Major West Coast cities also tend to have less crime, with some of them having low to very low violent crime (San Jose, San Diego, El Paso, even LA). It should be noted that many West Coast cities have large boundaries and incorporate wealthier suburbs, so the crime rates are diluted by a larger population. Many major east coast cities only consist of the central core, which inflates the crime rate.
How major is a "major city"? Can you give a population or some other threshold?
Most major cities exhibit this problem, but I feel like Austin didn't have it as much. NYC (Manhattan) is actually pretty safe and most places are not too dirty (relative) or transient heavy considering the city's size. They are mainly in the touristy areas. Boston is okay too relative to the size of its metro, however MA has a growing drug problem.
In my opinion, major West Coast cities tend to be cleaner, but have a lot more homeless because of the temperate climate and general liberalism. Major West Coast cities also tend to have less crime, with some of them having low to very low violent crime (San Jose, San Diego, El Paso, even LA). It should be noted that many West Coast cities have large boundaries and incorporate wealthier suburbs, so the crime rates are diluted by a larger population. Many major east coast cities only consist of the central core, which inflates the crime rate.
For the definition of a 'major' city, see the last paragraph of my original post.
Your spot on with your thoughts based on my impressions of the cities you mentioned. Although I did notice that San Diego did a pretty good job of limiting the homeless in it's downtown core compared to other West Coast cities.
There are a lot of homless people on the West Coast but they are just people too, without a home. I'm not bothered by them and I don't think people should categorize them as one because they are all unique individuals. Sometimes a person will make you uncomfortable or upset, but is it because they don't have a home? Or is it because they are addicted to heroin/ meth and will do near anything to get money for their drug habbit? There are also people with homes who commit these acts of desperation. It's wrong to shun a person because they don't have a home in my opinion and it is also a more complex issue than using generalizations.
A little off track but just would like to share my opinion as I see a lot of threads categorizing the homeless and giving it a negative stereotype.
For the definition of a 'major' city, see the last paragraph of my original post.
Your spot on with your thoughts based on my impressions of the cities you mentioned. Although I did notice that San Diego did a pretty good job of limiting the homeless in it's downtown core compared to other West Coast cities.
LOL sorry totally missed that. San Diego's downtown is definitely improving, but there are HUGE numbers of homeless. We usually hold on to the #3 spot in the country (after NYC and LA), but have been recently surpassed by Seattle.
Washington DC probably has one of the cleanest downtowns in the nation, however, that's why some people don't like it so I don't know if everyone would think that's a good thing. Many people equate clean with sterile.
Washington DC probably has one of the cleanest downtowns in the nation, however, that's why some people don't like it so I don't know if everyone would think that's a good thing. Many people equate clean with sterile.
DC does have a fair amount of homeless
It is clean, that is not a bad thing
the sterileness is different than clean and improving in many areas
Both have tons to offer tourists and locals alike. Both are beautiful and vibrant. Neither are dirty or have problems with safety or homelessness.
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.
