Little Rock vs. Larger cities (North Little Rock, Jonesboro: transplants, crime rates, houses)

[wayne2k33]

Hi Chris,

I grew up in Benton (to the southwest of Little Rock), and I currently live in Houston. The city had a notorious reputation for crime in the late 90s, but they really worked to clean it up. Yeah, there are still some questionable parts, but that's what happens when you live in a city.

Almost everything in the areas around downtown is affordable. You can cross the river to North Little Rock and find some really great apartments near their downtown for about 850/month (those being the nicer ones). The downtown developments are the only things that could be considered "pricey" until you get over by Chenal. Personally, I'd drive around the Quapaw Quarter and look at some boarding houses and garage apartments first to see if you can find a killer deal. A lot of those homes are subsidized as historic places, so they don't charge as much from the renting capacity.

Nightlife has come a long way in Little Rock. The River Market has a great little set of bars and hangouts, and is the hub of the young Central Arkansas crowd. My favorite haunts are the piano bars, Gusano's Chicago-Style Pizza, and the Flying Saucer.

[northbound74]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow73

It doesn't have a subway to ride...that's some great "big city fun." You don't have traffic jams that keep you in grid lock for an hour, that's some more "big city fun." Your car windows don't get broken out when you park at the River Market. And if someone just decided to give you that type of "big city fun" some night, the police won't hassle you when you try to report it. That's some "big city fun" Baltimore style. There's no one available to wash your windshield with dirty underwear at the corner of Broadway and Markham like there should be in a big city. In fact, I've never had the opportunity to engage in witty banter with a begger in Little Rock. I so dearly miss being told by the numerous homeless of Baltimore that I do indeed have change and I'd better give it to them or else. What "big city fun"! That's a hoot I tell you! I miss all the "big city fun" of the "matress cities" under the overpasses... Why, there's only one matress under the 440 interchange when heading out to the airport!!! That just isn't adequate!

I can actually drive through this city and NOT see boarded up crack houses!! The last time I drove into downtown, I did not pass a single group of kids working the corners. What's wrong Little Rock!! Don't you see what "big city fun" you're missing out on?!?! If I wanted that type of "big city fun" here, I'd have to go looking for it!

Where are all those endearing characters pushing shopping carts and playfully rifling through dumpsters??? Isn't it that type of diversity that makes a great cosmopolitan city?

Come on Little Rock!! Where's my "big city fun"???

HOLY CRAP!!!!
Which Little Rock do you live in???
Comparing LR to Baltimore is one thing. But to completely cover your eyes to the truth??

Little Rock has traffic jams. I've sat through them for many, many hours. I've seen car windows broken out of every car on the lot at the place I worked. I was harassed MANY times by beggers. One even pulled my car door back open as I was trying to close it. Matresses, couches, sinks, can all be found along the right stretch of road in various parts of your precious, prestine cesspool. Shopping cart pushers on Shackleford. Yep. Those too. Dumpster divers 'aplenty. Do I even need to mention the 40-60 homicides a year that Ghetto Rock averages?????????????????? Most towns its size only get by with 5-10 a year.

You OBVIOUSLY haven't been there long, or you hide in your McMansion on Chenal 24-7.

Sorry about the rant, but PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!
That's EXACTLY the "there's nothing wrong" attitude I HATED in Little Rock.
I actually liked living there for a short while, so don't get me wrong, but it has ALL the big city problems, without much to make up for it....as in things to do.

[Sam I Am]

Okey dokey...so we will agree to disagree, hmmm? Thank you so much!

[rackensack]

Little Rock's fine for what it is, which is essentially a very big small town. There's few cultural institutions that measure up to a national standard, no major universities that draw students from a national/international base, the entertainment options are adequate, but not much more, and there's less cultural/religious diversity than in most truly "major" cities. That doesn't mean it's a bad place to live -- on the contrary, for many people. But if you're looking for a "big city" experience, you'll need to look elsewhere.

"Major" cities draw people to live there because of unique opportunities or experiences that aren't available elsewhere. There's nothing in Little Rock you can't get elsewhere. A large portion of the populace is native to Arkansas or has lived there most of their life -- it draws people in from smaller towns around the state because there are more jobs and a bit more going on than in, say, DeWitt, but I don't think I've ever met anyone outside the state that harbors a deep desire to relocate to LR. People do come in from out of state when jobs bring them (or their spouses) there, and many make a perfectly acceptable life for themselves, but that's about the only reason. I visit a couple of times of year, and know plenty of people from college who're still in the area who seem happy there (and there's no question there's more there than when I graduated college 20 years ago), but if I were young and just out of college and looking for the experience of living in a city, I'd be looking elsewhere. That said, you also could probably do a lot worse, and there's a case to be made for taking the job offer if it's a good one with opportunity to advance, and taking advantage of the comparatively low cost of living to save some money while you build up some work experience, and look around again in a few years when you're even more marketable and have some resources to build on if you decide to try life elsewhere. There's very little you can do wrong career-wise in your early twenties that you can't recover from reasonably well and reasonably quickly.

[northbound74]

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

Okey dokey...so we will agree to disagree, hmmm? Thank you so much!

Sorry about the outburst.
I will say that I simply stated facts, not opinions.
I know that a town the size of Little Rock cannot realistically support major-league sports, or world-class art museums. It shouldn't be expected to.
In the same vain, it also shouldn't be expected to have the same level of problems that cities with those amenities have. Yet is does have the same problems. Any prospective resident should take that into consideration.

Look at other cities in the same general size-range as Little Rock. Madison, Wisconsin is only slightly bigger, but has a crime rate that's virtually non-existant compared to Little Rock's. Omaha, Nebraska is twice as big as Little Rock with half the crime...and it's cleaner, to boot.
You'd think that a town of 185,000 would be easy to manage. Other places can do it, so why can't Little Rock?
I may have said some cruel things about Little Rock, but truth be told, I want the city to be safe, clean, pleasant place for people to live as much as anybody. Okay, maybe not as much as anybody, considering I decided to bolt instead of stick around and help make things better. There was a bit a cultural issue that kept me from even trying to do that.

[rackensack]

Originally Posted by northbound74

Look at other cities in the same general size-range as Little Rock. Madison, Wisconsin is only slightly bigger, but has a crime rate that's virtually non-existant compared to Little Rock's. Omaha, Nebraska is twice as big as Little Rock with half the crime...and it's cleaner, to boot.
You'd think that a town of 185,000 would be easy to manage. Other places can do it, so why can't Little Rock?

Madison has something LR doesn't that significantly influences many of the things you mention: a major national university (one of the largest in the country) that draws students, faculty and staff from all over the world -- and a pretty well-regarded one at that. Because of its traditional position as a center for higher education, it has also been successful at attracting white-collar and high-tech businesses: American Family Insurance, CUNA Mutual, biotech firms, etc. Madison's appeal for employers has been that it has smart people, while LR's (and Arkansas' as a whole) has traditionally been that it has cheap people. This has lots of implications for quality of life. It also has to be said that LR's location in the South has inevitably meant that it has had to deal with a raft of issues around racial discrimination and economic opportunity that are at least far less of a factor in Wisconsin (after all, the Republican party -- with its then-strong commitment to abolition -- was founded in Ripon, Wisconsin). And Arkansawyers, whatever their (our, if I may still claim the honor after two decades of living elsewhere) virtues, have historically been a contrary, contentious bunch, which makes civic-mindedness and progressive thinking somewhat less likely to flourish. That's not to say that LR couldn't have handled its problems better than it has, but there are lots of reasons it's different from Madison.

Never spent any time in Omaha, so I don't have any basis for making a comparison there. Certainly the historical strength of the transportation and meat-packing industries gave it an economic foundation and focus that LR has traditionally lacked. And while it's had its share of racial tensions (Malcolm X was born there, and reading about Hall of Fame baseball pitcher Bob Gibson's childhood in Omaha made that evident to me), the black population of Omaha has never been as large in proportion to the white population as in LR, which mitigates the impact of such issues.

[Sam I Am]

There's also been the traditional problem of government, with a mayor who was nothing more than a figurehead who hugged babies. Don't get me wrong, I liked Dailey as a person, but I don't know if he would have known what to do with authority if he'd really ever had it. The city board members come from their wards, which seems to be where their interests specifically lie, and each has one other big project they are obsessive about to the exclusion of other city issues. Perhaps the new mayor and his new found authority will make a difference, although I have no illusions about that one. Mayor Stodola is not interested in being mayor; my feeling is that he is using his position to be governor and reign supreme like Billy did. Hope I called that one all wrong. Not even sure, in spite of being the PA for Perry and Pulaski counties, that he's in touch with the city. To his credit are assistance with the passage of several laws while prosecuting attorney which will help in abating city crime, but it may be too little, too late.

Rackensack, I think you made some great points, the primary one being "what's the draw for Little Rock?" Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I think it's a great town, but unless I had a job with Stephens I am not sure why I would move to Little Rock.

I'd disagree that our location in the south really has anything to do with the issues the city faces - if anything, as the major point between Memphis and Dallas, it should be working those issues out. It's not like our location just changed. I will say that location plays a HUGE role in the drug trafficking and what not between Mexico and up around Michigan...watch the state trooper reports. They're grabbing way too many drugs on the pipeline of I-40, and a large portion of those same drugs are left behind in Arkansas. We've got drug problems of our own, we don't need Mexican heroin.

Again, it's my belief that while the citizens want to moan about the transients being fed under the bridge and subsequently setting up homestead there, the plight of southwest Little Rock, and blah blah blah, Little Rock is really no different from anywhere else - until there is money in the coffers and a strong leadership to fight for what is best for the city as a whole then nothing will really change.

The other problem I see, which is the same in many locales, is that Little Rock metro is heavily divided. You have the Little Rock/North Little Rock area that is only divided by the river.....and every aspect of city government, every city service, everything. Until those two cities stop competing and actually join forces I don't know how much can be done in the way of progress. We probably won't see that in our lifetime - but there's also the division with the outlying areas of Little Rock which have just as much impact on the capitol city as anything else. Couple that up with the fact that everyone wants crime to go away but they'd really rather have a bigger stadium for football rather than jail space and extra police and law enforcement officers...well, it's a recipe for disaster. Heck, until recently even the University system was so divided that although almost every college is part of the University system, most credits didn't transfer within the system. There is a world class medical center in Little Rock, but read the paper on the recent issues that have been raised about how candidates are chosen for slots in school...hmmmm.

"Contrary, contentious bunch"...well, that one I'd flat out take exception to! But you're never going to have progressive thinking without equipping the kids with the appropriate tools to think for themselves, and the school system is in shambles and has been for years. That's the first thing that needs addressing, and I ain't talking about the school in the NW corner of the state.

[rackensack]

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

I'd disagree that our location in the south really has anything to do with the issues the city faces - if anything, as the major point between Memphis and Dallas, it should be working those issues out. It's not like our location just changed.

It's not like the problems just started either. And my point wasn't so much the geographical location as the cultural/sociological location -- the South has historically had to contend with having an economy based on the use of lots of cheap farm labor depending on brawn, not brains, and with the fact that a huge part of that labor came from a distinct racial group that was systematically denied equal status with the rest. The situation would be bad enough without the racial issues, but they make it much worse. Every southern city has to deal with racial problems, and some have managed better than others. Even Atlanta, which is rightly regarded as a mecca of opportunity for middle class blacks and where city government has been dominated by black politicians for at least the last quarter-century, is hampered by these issues.

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

"Contrary, contentious bunch"...well, that one I'd flat out take exception to!

Thus proving my point . But seriously, Arkansas for much of the 19th century was where people who got fed up with dealing with other people in the increasingly "crowded" areas of Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Tennesee settled when they moved on. "Leave me the hell alone and don't tell me what to do" has been a common sentiment among Arkansawyers from the beginning. We even had our own little civil war (the Brooks-Baxter war), and memorialized it with the "Lady Baxter" cannon on the grounds of the Old State House. However wrong-headed Orval Faubus may have been in many respects, he was elected Governor six times, largely (in my opinion) because of his stance against "outsiders" telling Arkansas what to do (and in a further instance of Arkansas contrariety, he got 81 percent of the black vote in 1964, seven years after the Central High desegregation crisis). The multitude of microconstituencies contending with one another has been a feature of Arkansas legislative history from the beginning -- we even had to debate and resolve how to pronounce the name of the state in the early days.

[Sam I Am]

Originally Posted by rackensack

And my point wasn't so much the geographical location as the cultural/sociological location -- the South has historically had to contend with having an economy based on the use of lots of cheap farm labor depending on brawn, not brains, and with the fact that a huge part of that labor came from a distinct racial group that was systematically denied equal status with the rest. The situation would be bad enough without the racial issues, but they make it much worse. Every southern city has to deal with racial problems, and some have managed better than others. Even Atlanta, which is rightly regarded as a mecca of opportunity for middle class blacks and where city government has been dominated by black politicians for at least the last quarter-century, is hampered by these issues.

Gotcha...I thought you meant geographical - I was scratching my head...

I think the entire south is made up of people who don't want to be told what to do.....but the more I look at it, that's just everywhere. Old families rule and they really don't want new blood telling them they have the keys to the candy store.

I basically think life is just life no matter where you are - some things are better, some things are worse. Lots of people move to Little Rock and think they've hit the big city, some come and love the slower pace of life. All perspective, I guess.

[DC at the Ridge]

Back to the original post, I think Little Rock makes a good transition city for someone who's been going to school in Ft Smith but wants to eventually live in a big city. Of course bchris has already spent time in some truly big cities, so I would think he's ready to take the leap. If I were him, straight to Dallas I would go. But for some who've never lived in a city, it takes time to adjust. It's just a matter of scale, but cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles can be intimidating.

DC