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.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that people in Kenwood or Linden Hills don't USE drugs (or Edina, or Wayzata, or Rosemount, or Orono, or any other location in the Twin Cities). That's a different story than selling it on the street corner, though. I'd guess that the drug use in the ritziest neighborhoods is similar to what you'd find in similar neighborhoods in the suburbs. While growing up my friends who attended schools like Edina and Blake had plenty of stories of rampant drug use and lots of booze-filled high school parties. Some of the usage problems go up with money, not down.
Same thing goes for prostitution; I don't know the latest statistics, but back in the 80s and early 90s when they were doing a lot of highly publicized prostitution busts in neighborhoods like Whittier (far rougher then than it is now) most of the customers weren't from the neighborhood. The actual drug dealing and street prostitution may be taking place in the poorer neighborhoods, but it's being heavily funded from wealthier patrons coming in from middle and upper-class neighborhoods, both city and suburb. (like the current trial of the Kingfield man who got killed while trying to buy crack at 38th and Chicago)
My problem with srmn's posts is that he does seem to be placing all of Minneapolis into one category with only minor variations. If he's going to do that than he might as well fold in the entire metro area while he's at it. Take the area around 50th and France; there's not some magic line that is crossed when you step from Minneapolis into Edina. And of course outer suburbs or rural areas/small towns aren't immune either, as a quick glance at the papers or crime statistics will show. I think a more accurate point would be that crime statistics and problems can vary heavily by neighborhood or specific location, and broad characterizations like "city" or "suburb" are false and misleading. Some urban neighborhoods are more dangerous than some suburban neighborhoods and vice-versa.
Anyone who actually knows Minneapolis knows that of course kids in, say, Linden Hills or East Isles aren't running around dodging bullets, dealing drugs on the corner, or worrying about wearing gang colors, but read enough of these posts and you realize that there are people out there who do think that the entire city is dangerous.
Very few kids *anywhere* in the city are doing that, though, and therein lies my point, I think: you'll find crime anywhere in the city if you are willing to go out and look for it. It's not hard. Stay out of a gang and exercise a little street smarts (i.e., don't walk down Portland or East Lake or any of a number of major thoroughfares-- or even small residential streets-- at midnight, and you won't find it. The only, *sole* reason for my post was to question the kid from South Dakota on his apparent eagerness to go explore a rough neighborhood. Why on earth would you want to do that? He seems to think it's safe; nothing to worry about. And of course Minneapolis is by-and-large safe everywhere during the daylight. Like any big city, though, the majority of city streets are not good places to walk around alone in the dark. Some are worse than others, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist
And I fundamentally disagree with you that you will find problems of low crime, high crime, etc. in any neighborhood in Minneapolis. That's not hyperbole; it's an outright false statement. If you believe this then you haven't spent any time in some of Minneapolis's nicest or most expensive neighborhoods. Not to say that there isn't any crime ever in these areas, but there's crime EVERYWHERE, including the suburbs, small towns, rural areas, etc. (and I don't intend to equate low income residents with crime here, but it's also equally false to suggest that every neighborhood in Minneapolis has poor people; economic segregation in the city isn't quite as overt as you find in some heavily zoned suburbs, but I think it's a fairly likely bet that there are few, if any poor people living in neighborhoods like Kenwood.)
Exactly. There's crime *everywhere*. The difference between any big city and any small town is that the crime tends to be at a higher concentration in big cities than in small towns. Not always, but usually. So I don't think I would feel unsafe on any street in Bemidji at any hour of the day. Maybe I should, but I believe the statistics indicate that I won't have any problem. The statistics are pretty safe for anywhere in Minneapolis, too, but not as safe as Bemidji. And, frankly, better safe than sorry on a street in Minneapolis.
That's not hyperbole or false. As insulated as you may think you are, if you actually check the crime data, you'll find out that crime does happen everywhere. If you check the statistical data, you'll figure out really quick that people are dealing with the problems of poverty and inequity everywhere in the city.
I guess if you believe that it doesn't happen in every neighborhood, well-- that depends on your definition of neighborhood. There are 81 official neighborhoods in the city, spread out over 11 planning districts. Compared to a lot of other cities, our neighborhoods are typically quite geographically small. It's possible-- though doubtful-- that you'll find Zero crime in Kenwood, but Lowry Hill is just a hop away, and Loring Park is probably, what? No more than a mile-and-a-half away?
I don't like the classification of 'ghetto' I guess because I don't believe in it. Engaging South Dakota kid in his own language was a mistake, and I apologize for it.
srsmn clearly has a different perspective of the inner city neighborhoods than Camden and I do. I don't live in Ventura Village but I do live fairly close by in the Corcoran neighborhood. You seem to be painting this picture that as soon as it gets dark out that the city suddenly converts into sin city with needles and prostitutes at every turn, like everything suddenly turns evil like in Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest for Nintendo (odd reference, I know). I guess I just haven't seen what you've seen. Although I would agree that the streets you mentioned on the southside are pretty blighted looking (although it varies from block to block) between about 18th St to around 40th St), I still haven't exactly seen the area crawling with gangs, drugs and prostitution during nighttime hours. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but in my experience it has been very sporadic and fairly spread out.
Now, I'm not condoning walking around the intersection of 25th and Bloomington or 4th Ave and 34th St S at 2:00AM, I also don't think it necessarily means you'll be automatically running into trouble. In fact, chances are the street you're walking on will be empty.
On a pesonal level though I find this discussion to be fascinating and would like your continued thoughts on the subject. Maybe you could share some personal stories regarding run-ins with shady people on the streets of Ventura Village and nearby areas? On what blocks have you seen prostitutes and drug transactions, etc and at what times were these people out and about?
I'm not saying that it is rampant, but that the problems certainly exist, and if you do walk down the streets that I-- and you-- have mentioned, you run the risk of encountering the problems. Point is, I don't condone walking around 25th and Bloomington at 2 AM either. If the kid from SoDak wants to go find trouble, though, maybe he should.
Prostitutes are not too terrible uncommon, along Bloomington, mostly. I have female friends in the neighborhood actually who have been approached by men who have solicited them for sex under the assumption that they were prostitutes. I've seen groups of young men donning the bloods' colors (like, decked out in red, complete with the bandana over their mouths) multiple times congregating around Chicago and Franklin. Whether they actually are bloods or not would be entirely theoretical. I've been approached a few times walking up Cedar after dark even when walking with a group; usually by harmless homeless people, and thankfully, I haven't managed to get mugged yet.
These problems are few and far between, but you would have to be blind not to notice them once in a while. And I stand by the statement that if you looked hard enough, you probably could find these same types of problems in most every part of the city. However, it's a matter of likelihood from neighborhood to neighborhood; it is not very likely where I live and even less likely other places. More to the point, the idea of trying to go out and find the problems perplexes me; I avoid them whenever possible.
I'm starting to think people's perception of "ghetto" are DRASTICALLY different from one-another. If "srmn" lives in Phillips, "Camden-Northsider" lives just there, and "Slig" lives in the north end of Powderhorn, yet all three of you have different spins on what goes on in each area. My guess is that "srmn" may have experience in a shadier 'hood than the other two, but I also guess that "srmn" views the area in a different light as well. I know I've lived in areas that may give me "street cred" but God knows I hated every minute of it and I saw all kinds of things I'd never subject my kid(s) to if I had the choice. It may be also subject to personality. I am very forward and aggressive if pushed, and I know I'll run into trouble if I'm put into a corner, whereas some people are much better at just playing cool or avoiding confrontation. Additionally, it may not bother some people that drugs and/or guns are around you, just as long as you don't see or hear them being used, but it bothers me because I know that where there are drugs being sold there are people who need them and kind of traffic leads to trouble and also can equate to increased gang presence. In my opinion, an area is "ghetto" if you can walk down the street and run into somebody who is able/willing to hurt/kill you for money or drugs. These areas are usually in the more impoverished parts of the city (because they have less money) but don't think for a second that people in Kenwood or Linden Hills don't use drugs. If they run out, they just get more, whereas if you're broke you skip corners or steal or lie and that's when people get into trouble. I know this with first-hand
experience so that's where my theory comes from, but it's just that -- a theory.
A theory that I think I-- for the most part-- would agree with. A well-reasoned response.
I wouldn't raise kids in my current neighborhood; thankfully, I don't have kids. Plenty of people do, though-- probably more now than ever before, because of the influx of East African families. It is an "up-and-coming" neighborhood; getting better by the day (or so we tell ourselves...)
That doesn't negate the clear problems that it does have, but I know a few people that have been in the area ten+ years and tell horror stories about what E. Franklin and the entire Phillips neighborhood used to be like.
I'm not trying to establish "street cred" when I tell people on here or anywhere about my neighborhood. Really, I'm not; I couldn't care less about street cred. I like my neighborhood because it is cheap, convenient to everything, and multicultural. But that doesn't mean I have blinders on to the fact that it has glaring problems of crime and inequity. And I don't have blinders on to the fact that most people who don't live in the neighborhood have a pretty negative perception of it...
I certainly agree that there is crime anywhere, but I find it misleading to suggest -- or at least I'm reading these posts to suggest -- that crime happens everywhere in the city of Minneapolis at a higher level than it does in the suburbs. Or that there aren't differences in types of crime between neighborhoods. Not just in terms of numbers of crimes, but in type.
There's a broad range of neighborhoods within the city, just as there's a broad range of neighborhoods in the suburbs. Statistically it's pointless to look at all of Minneapolis versus all of the suburbs; it tells you absolutely nothing about the safety of particular neighborhood or community.
And I stand by my opinion that you're not going to find the same problems in every part of the city. Street prostitution, for example, simply does not exist in fairly large swaths of Minneapolis. There may well be people working out of their homes (could be in the 'burbs, too, for that matter) by appointment or something, but you're not going to find it on the street.
And of course when we're talking about criminals it's worth pointing out that they're not all concentrated in one area; I'd love to see a crime map of the Twin Cities also showing all the white collar criminals, for example. Granted, they're not of as great a concern to me personally from a neighborhood standpoint because they're not going to mug me, break into my house, or doing other things that are going to directly impact my perception of safety as I walk around the neighborhood, but even those living in wealthier, safe neighborhoods shouldn't be so sure their neighbors are all on the right side of the law. Denny Hecker had a place in Medina (and I think Plymouth, too).
Mostly my problem with some of these posts is that that some of them seem to really further the stereotype that living in Minneapolis is a more dangerous option than living in the suburbs, and seem to perpetuate the "all suburbs are safer" myth.
This has got me thinking, and maybe I should start a poll question that says:
Where would you rather walk at 7:00pm on a weekday night?
Chicago Ave to Bloomington Ave on E Lake St or from one end of Brookdale mall to the other end of Brookdale mall?
I'd rather walk down Lake St and it isn't even close. Brookdale creeps me out.
I certainly agree that there is crime anywhere, but I find it misleading to suggest -- or at least I'm reading these posts to suggest -- that crime happens everywhere in the city of Minneapolis at a higher level than it does in the suburbs. Or that there aren't differences in types of crime between neighborhoods. Not just in terms of numbers of crimes, but in type.
There's a broad range of neighborhoods within the city, just as there's a broad range of neighborhoods in the suburbs. Statistically it's pointless to look at all of Minneapolis versus all of the suburbs; it tells you absolutely nothing about the safety of particular neighborhood or community.
And I stand by my opinion that you're not going to find the same problems in every part of the city. Street prostitution, for example, simply does not exist in fairly large swaths of Minneapolis. There may well be people working out of their homes (could be in the 'burbs, too, for that matter) by appointment or something, but you're not going to find it on the street.
And of course when we're talking about criminals it's worth pointing out that they're not all concentrated in one area; I'd love to see a crime map of the Twin Cities also showing all the white collar criminals, for example. Granted, they're not of as great a concern to me personally from a neighborhood standpoint because they're not going to mug me, break into my house, or doing other things that are going to directly impact my perception of safety as I walk around the neighborhood, but even those living in wealthier, safe neighborhoods shouldn't be so sure their neighbors are all on the right side of the law. Denny Hecker had a place in Medina (and I think Plymouth, too).
Mostly my problem with some of these posts is that that some of them seem to really further the stereotype that living in Minneapolis is a more dangerous option than living in the suburbs, and seem to perpetuate the "all suburbs are safer" myth.
Certainly not all suburbs are safer, from a perspective of crime rate per 100,000, which is really the best way to guage this, I think. For instance, at one point Hilltop led the metro area in violent crime rate.
However, as a whole, Minneapolis has higher crime rates than probably 95% of its suburbs; of this I am next to certain. Yes-- that is an average; some neighborhoods/precincts bring that number up, others (Kenwood, like you mentioned) may very well bring it down. However, you are far less insulated from crime anywhere in Minneapolis than you are in a majority of the suburbs. Take a place like Plymouth, for instance-- you could walk by every house and business in the city on any given night, and not witness a crime. You could do that night after night. Even in Kenwood, you are eventually going to see a mugging or a car-jacking. It's just a fact: even the best neighborhoods in Minneapolis typically-- but not always-- have higher crime rates than the suburbs.
That's neither here nor there, though. This thread is about the "ghetto" and where you would go to find it. In summation, I don't really know where I would find the "ghetto" of Minneapolis. I'll reiterate: if you are looking for trouble, you can find it easily if you look hard enough. The same can not be said for pretty much any of Minneapolis's suburbs...
This has got me thinking, and maybe I should start a poll question that says:
Where would you rather walk at 7:00pm on a weekday night?
Chicago Ave to Bloomington Ave on E Lake St or from one end of Brookdale mall to the other end of Brookdale mall?
I'd rather walk down Lake St and it isn't even close. Brookdale creeps me out.
Been a long time since I've been to Brookdale (me and everyone else, right?), but just based on the fact that E Lake is probably much better lit, I would pick E Lake.
Of course, 7 p.m. isn't really too scary of an hour anywhere, and if the question were across the Beltline from Brookdale versus three blocks either north or south of E Lake, than my answer might change...
Well, srsmn, I guess when it comes right down to it we have had very different experiences and expectations. I think you're playing around with statistics and overly idealizing the idea of suburbs as safe while demonizing the city.
And while I grew up in the city of Minneapolis and have spent more than twenty years of my life living in various Minneapolis neighborhoods, I have yet to witness a mugging or a carjacking. I don't think I'm that unusual.
I'd choose E. Lake, too. Near-empty malls are scary.
Well, srsmn, I guess when it comes right down to it we have had very different experiences and expectations. I think you're playing around with statistics and overly idealizing the idea of suburbs as safe while demonizing the city.
And while I grew up in the city of Minneapolis and have spent more than twenty years of my life living in various Minneapolis neighborhoods, I have yet to witness a mugging or a carjacking. I don't think I'm that unusual.
I'd choose E. Lake, too. Near-empty malls are scary.
I'm not trying to demonize the city by any means. I love it in the city. I loved my upbringing in the suburbs, too, and I think that if you think that there's anywhere in the suburbs that is less safe-- crime wise-- than anywhere in Minneapolis, well....you're pretty much kidding yourself.
But we'll agree to disagree, I guess.
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.
), but just based on the fact that E Lake is probably much better lit, I would pick E Lake.
