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.
Exactly. I helped make the map and I chill anywhere. Hell, no matter what neighborhood it is I definitely have my guard up when I'm the only one walking on the block late at night, it has nothing to do with Bed-Stuy being predominantly black, or Park Slope being predominantly white.
I can definitely concur with this. I don't care how safe a neighborhood is when it's dark and I'm the only visible presence in the treats, I will mentally armor up because you never know what can happen.
As far as Prospect Heights go, I don't think anyone would say it is a crime infested neighborhood, that hasn't been true for about a decade now. However, I would not put it, as of yet, on a DUMBO/Brooklyn Heights status, the closer you get to Washington Ave, the grittier it gets. Plus there have been occasional shootings on St Johns Place and Washington Ave. Just telling the truth.
First off, please do show how Bed Stuy has had over 355 robberies so far this year. The 81st Precinct reported 194 robberies year to date as of 8/17/2014: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...s/cs081pct.pdf. But, adjusting for population (you know, a point you alluded to when discussing safety as a statistical matter), do explain what a high crime neighborhood is? The UES had 799 grand larcenies year to date as of 8/17/2014 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...s/cs081pct.pdf). But I guess we can ignore those when talking about crime as its the Upper East Side and relatively free of a certain demographic?
IF you want to talk about the most violent of crimes (i.e. murders), let's be honest about the danger they pose for people within a community. While certainly no way to live (the 81st has had 5 homicides as of 8/17/14 I believe), these are largely gangbangers targeting other gangbangers. Families living on a prime brownstone block on Hancock Street aren't in any serious danger/fear of being murdered. Note, this would be true even as a statistical matter even if the general population of Bed Stuy was at first of being gunned down.
Still, I will reiterate (how many times do I have to write this) that I don't have a problem with Bed Stuy's shading. Bed Stuy's shading, if addressing crime and feelings of safety associated with crime (and Bed Stuy does have a crime problem, although you seem not to be taking on your advice on statistics if you're claiming that Bed Stuy is a "high crime nabe," but I digress), is fine. I only brought up brown stone Bed Stuy in response to the ridiculous assertion that the maps are shaded a certain way because of how a particular neighborhood "looks." I was told that spotcrime.com, which maps out criminal incidents, was "irrelevant" to this conversation.
But, you claiming that Prospect Heights has more crime than anywhere else in the City outside of the no-go nabes, shows how uninformed you are on this neighborhood. From my reading of spotcrime and own sense of affairs from living in the neighborhood, PH is a very low crime neighborhood. Hell, even these maps, which I have a huge problem with, don't try to claim such, as PH is often shaded yellow. Still even this, your comment considered, is not really relevant to the main point of my posting. Indeed, all I'm doing is calling for more consistency in terms of yellow shading, which hardly indicates a "dangerous" neighborhood.
Bed Stuy needs two precincts to cover that whole craphole. Add up the numbers, that's what I did but stopped at July YTD so robbery numbers are likely a bit higher by now. And Prospect Heights shares a precinct with the northern part of Crown Heights to make up another crap precinct. Throw in the Clinton Hill/Fort Greene and the other Crown Heights precinct and that part of Brooklyn probably got all of Manhattan south of 110th street beat. And demographics most definitely is a large part to do with, but not necessarily the race part of it.
Bed Stuy needs two precincts to cover that whole craphole. Add up the numbers, that's what I did but stopped at July YTD so robbery numbers are likely a bit higher by now. And Prospect Heights shares a precinct with the northern part of Crown Heights to make up another crap precinct. Throw in the Clinton Hill/Fort Greene and the other Crown Heights precinct and that part of Brooklyn probably got all of Manhattan south of 110th street beat. And demographics most definitely is a large part to do with, but not necessarily the race part of it.
Ok, I excluded the 79th. That was my error. Still, grand larcenies are likely up above 800 in the UES now, as the data I posted was for the week ending 8/17/14. At the end of the day, I don't bring up those points to say that the UES is dangerous. It's not. But, then again, when you look at crime and population, nor is Bed Stuy, at least not to the universal extent that you're trying to make things out to be. But I"m still waiting on a more concrete response as to what you consider a "dangerous" or "violent" neighborhood. And, if you do provide so, please discuss things to account for population size, etc. It's the only honest thing to do.
And you saying that PH shares a "crap" precinct is, in this instance, irrelevant to public safety in PH...precinct crime reports cover the entire precinct, but don't isolate safer/less safe neighborhoods (or sections of neighborhoods) within the precinct. The 77th has some problems, sure (as does the precinct that makes up the UES with grand larcenies, etc.). But PH is fine. Interestingly enough, part of PH is in the same precinct that covers Park Slope. What is it going to be? Is PH crappy because its in the 77th or safe because its in the 78th? Again, crime data for PH is clear as day to see for those who wish to see it, being mapped out by spotcrime.com and other sources. These points clearly show the limitations of sweeping statements.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 09-01-2014 at 09:37 AM..
I can definitely concur with this. I don't care how safe a neighborhood is when it's dark and I'm the only visible presence in the treats, I will mentally armor up because you never know what can happen.
As far as Prospect Heights go, I don't think anyone would say it is a crime infested neighborhood, that hasn't been true for about a decade now. However, I would not put it, as of yet, on a DUMBO/Brooklyn Heights status, the closer you get to Washington Ave, the grittier it gets. Plus there have been occasional shootings on St Johns Place and Washington Ave. Just telling the truth.
But it seems like at least one poster on here does seem to imply that PH is a crime infested area. And, to be fair, the shootings on St Johns Place and Washington Ave have, from my understanding to the extent they occur, technically been in Crown Heights, not Prospect Heights, which wouldn't explain why PH is shaded (and its shaded well beyond Washington Ave) despite the area being very, very safe. Still, there is also the occasional shooting Downtown Brooklyn/Brooklyn Heights and in Greenpoint. Since January 1 of this year, I count one shooting on St. Johns and Washington (this is the Crown Heights block bordering PH as far as border purists are concerned), two in Greenpoint, one in Brooklyn Heights, two in the Dumbo/Vinegar Hill area, and one Downtown Brooklyn near Livingston Street (I count zero in Prospect Heights proper). Why aren't they consistently shaded?? Does the fact that these areas are wealthier and predominately of a different racial group have anything to do with their lack of a "ghetto" or "violent" feel and with the failure to issue consistent "warnings" to people traveling through these areas? That's the problem I have. This map seems to unfairly target certain areas (although not universally so...as I mentioned before, I think Bed Stuy is largely adequately shaded, though some parts could be tweaked, if we're talking about crime) for what I think may be questionable reasons, while leaving out certain other areas with similar "incidents" for equally questionable reasons.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 09-01-2014 at 10:17 AM..
Ok, I excluded the 79th. That was my error. Still, grand larcenies are likely up above 800 in the UES now, as the data I posted was for the week ending 8/17/14. At the end of the day, I don't bring up those points to say that the UES is dangerous. It's not. But, then again, when you look at crime and population, nor is Bed Stuy, at least not to the universal extent that you're trying to make things out to be. But I"m still waiting on a more concrete response as to what you consider a "dangerous" or "violent" neighborhood. And, if you do provide so, please discuss things to account for population size, etc. It's the only honest thing to do.
And you saying that PH shares a "crap" precinct is, in this instance, irrelevant to public safety in PH...precinct crime reports cover the entire precinct, but don't isolate safer/less safe neighborhoods (or sections of neighborhoods) within the precinct. The 77th has some problems, sure (as does the precinct that makes up the UES with grand larcenies, etc.). But PH is fine. Interestingly enough, part of PH is in the same precinct that covers Park Slope. What is it going to be? Is PH crappy because its in the 77th or safe because its in the 78th? Again, crime data for PH is clear as day to see for those who wish to see it, being mapped out by spotcrime.com and other sources. These points clearly show the limitations of sweeping statements.
I guess its just racist of me to think of the UES as safe while Bed Stuy as not safe. What can I do...I'm a bigot from Archie Bunker territory. Same way as I feel when I cross into Brooklyn from Queens and think the nabe is just not as nice. Its all part of that same racist illusion. Put that card back in your pocket. I'll keep taking my word for it. If you are in the 78th precinct, lucky you.
I guess its just racist of me to think of the UES as safe while Bed Stuy as not safe. What can I do...I'm a bigot from Archie Bunker territory. Same way as I feel when I cross into Brooklyn from Queens and think the nabe is just not as nice. Its all part of that same racist illusion. Put that card back in your pocket. I'll keep taking my word for it. If you are in the 78th precinct, lucky you.
This is larger than just Bed Stuy. When you're casting entire neighborhoods as "ghetto" and "violent" despite crime statistics to the contrary (you can see on spotcrime.com entire swaths of PH and CH having very little crime), and despite certain forms of violent crimes being worse in parts of certain predominately white neighborhoods that you don't have a problem with, I do have to question why that is. I have to question why, despite knowing that the mapmakers in this instance have shown they can fine tune and shade to account for problem areas within neighborhoods, you continue to call certain entire neighborhoods "crap" because they lie within certain "troubled" precincts, despite not being troubled areas themselves. I have to question why you use, in part, the fact that Bed Stuy has a huge robbery problem to degrade it while remaining silent on the fact that the UES has an even larger grand larceny problem. I have to question why, despite using population statistics to explain that Midtown is not such a bad place, you fail to do so for Bed Stuy and other neighborhoods. When I ask you to explain what, statistically speaking, a dangerous neighborhood is, this is the response I get. Come on. Give me a break. (I really don't see why else you're irrationally lumping in all or parts of certain neighborhoods despite the data showing they do not have crime problems while remaining silent about other neighborhoods having another demographic but having more of a serious crime issue. It doesn't make sense.).
But, to close, how many times to I have do reiterate that I don't really have a problem with how Bed Stuy is shaded on these maps, though some areas can be fine-tuned. There are more shootings and robberies in certain parts of Bed Stuy than there are in many other neighborhoods throughout the city. All of this can lead to people feeling unsafe. Still, I don't call Bed Stuy "dangerous" (or at least certainly not the entire Bed Stuy), particularly when you account for crime and population size. But I"m not exactly calling for the UES to be shaded red, orange, or purpose, so I don't know why you keep bringing up Bed Stuy and the UES the way you do; that's certainly not the reason why I bring them up. As I've said multiple times, I'm calling for more consistent yellow shading in parts of Midtown, the UES, etc. that we see in other parts of the city (yellow hardly indicates a "dangerous" neighborhood).
*By the way, I live in the 77th Precinct part of PH, which I guess, using your way of thinking, is bad for me. I'm still scratching my head trying to understand why this is given that PH, whether we're talking about the part in the 77th or the 78th, has extraordinary low crime.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 09-01-2014 at 03:25 PM..
But it seems like at least one poster on here does seem to imply that PH is a crime infested area. And, to be fair, the shootings on St Johns Place and Washington Ave have, from my understanding to the extent they occur, technically been in Crown Heights, not Prospect Heights, which wouldn't explain why PH is shaded (and its shaded well beyond Washington Ave) despite the area being very, very safe. Still, there is also the occasional shooting Downtown Brooklyn/Brooklyn Heights and in Greenpoint. Since January 1 of this year, I count one shooting on St. Johns and Washington (this is the Crown Heights block bordering PH as far as border purists are concerned), two in Greenpoint, one in Brooklyn Heights, two in the Dumbo/Vinegar Hill area, and one Downtown Brooklyn near Livingston Street (I count zero in Prospect Heights proper). Why aren't they consistently shaded?? Does the fact that these areas are wealthier and predominately of a different racial group have anything to do with their lack of a "ghetto" or "violent" feel and with the failure to issue consistent "warnings" to people traveling through these areas? That's the problem I have. This map seems to unfairly target certain areas (although not universally so...as I mentioned before, I think Bed Stuy is largely adequately shaded, though some parts could be tweaked, if we're talking about crime) for what I think may be questionable reasons, while leaving out certain other areas with similar "incidents" for equally questionable reasons.
Washington Avenue is Prospect Heights. Crown Heights ends at Classon Avenue. I'm Black and I helped make the map. I know your agenda. And I'm from the hood. Bed-Stuy is not safe overall still in 2014. It is what it is.
If you read the descriptions of the shadings - which up to this point I doubt you've done - it will give you a better understanding. No surburbanite will be afraid to walk around the Upper East Side late at night. This has nothing to do with SpotCrime so stop bringing SpotCrime up!
PS: If you have property in Prospect Heights, more power to you bruh. I hope you reap the benefits tenfold. But don't put down our map we worked hard on this. And I stand behind it.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Washington Avenue is Prospect Heights. Crown Heights ends at Classon Avenue. I'm Black and I helped make the map. I know your agenda. And I'm from the hood. Bed-Stuy is not safe overall still in 2014. It is what it is.
If you read the descriptions of the shadings - which up to this point I doubt you've done - it will give you a better understanding. No surburbanite will be afraid to walk around the Upper East Side late at night. This has nothing to do with SpotCrime so stop bringing SpotCrime up!
PS: If you have property in Prospect Heights, more power to you bruh. I hope you reap the benefits tenfold. But don't put down our map we worked hard on this. And I stand behind it.
No, its not. The western part of Washington Avenue is PH, while the eastern part of Washington Ave is Crown Heights. Crown Heights ends at Washington Ave. But don't take my word for it. This is pretty well accepted and PH is one of the more defined neighborhoods given that its so small. But talk to the folks at Brownstoner and other neighborhood "experts" on this matter. By the way, the Dean Street Armory on Dean between Washington and Grand was known as "Crown Heights Boxing" to give you some context. I know your agenda, and being black doesn't change a thing. But again, do tell me why Bed Stuy isn't overall safe in 2014 (not that I"m claiming that Bed Stuy is the safest neighborhood, though I do dispute that much of it is "dangerous"/"unsafe")? Better yet, tell me why parts of Bed Stuy where there is less crime than in other parts aren't safe? IF you helped make the map, I don't see why you don't understand this concept as parts of neighborhoods have been shaded while other parts of the same neighborhood have not. And when you're explaining this to me, factor in why this is so as a statistical matter accounting for population and as a geographical/crime matter as opposed to you just stating that it is, understanding that some parts of Bed Stuy-Crown Heights have less crime than other parts.
Note, you write that Bed Stuy "isn't overall safe" in 2014; again, statistically-speaking, explain to me why this is so. You didn't just qualify that Bed Stuy doesn't look/feel safe in 2014. You categorically stated that its not safe. So please explain to me again why spotcrime.com isn't relevant?
At the end of the day, my beef with the map isn't really over Bed Stuy. I mentioned earlier that I only brought up Bed Stuy in reaction to your comment about the map shading areas for safety based on "look[s]."
If I "read the descriptions of the shadings"? Give me a break. The descriptions of the shadings on the map, contrary to the first post, clearly address more than how people "feel" for reasons unrelated to crime. For instance, the description on the map page qualify that parts of Williamsburg are shaded because they still have an actual crime problem, not because people "feel" unsafe for reasons having nothing to do with crime (this is where spotcrime.com is relevant). By the way, if its about feelings unrelated to crime, do you honestly think that a suburbanite is going to feel OK/not be afraid walking around deserted, warehouse-centric DUMBO at night? Do you think a suburbanite is going to feel safe walking throughout industrial/factory-based parts of Greenpoint at night? [Do you seriously think a surburbanite feels more safe walking through this area of Greenpoint at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7325...6etNxNkpug!2e0) vs. this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6824...d-Cp4HkMuQ!2e0 . . . this block doesn't look any more "hood" than Garfield Street in Park Slope.) area of Bed Stuy at night?]. Do you think a suburbanite is going to feel safe walking around parts of Midtown at night (as I mentioned before, apparently not, which is why hotels in the area take the precautions they do...they're not just doing this for fun)?
But, what is it going to be? Is it going to be about "feeling" safe for reasons other than crime (and, if so, what are those other reasons?)? Or is it going to be like, as you wrote earlier, about "looking" safe. If so, how in the world does much of brownstone Bed Stuy "look" unsafe? How in the world does, just as one of many examples, Hancock Street between Bedford and Nostrand Avenues among many other blocks in that area look unsafe? Stop trying to sell a bogus story about the map solely being about how an area "feels" as not being related to crime, despite the fact that the actual map (which is accessible to others who don't link to it from this site) clearly discusses actual crime as reasons for the shading. But, again, if an area feels unsafe for reasons that make spotcrime.com irrelevant, please do tell what those reasons are! If crime doesn't make a pristine brownstone part of Bed Stuy feel unsafe (that area certainly doesn't "look" unsafe), what does?
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 09-01-2014 at 05:31 PM..
No, its not. The western part of Washington Avenue is PH, while the eastern part of Washington Ave is Crown Heights. Crown Heights ends at Washington Ave. But don't take my word for it. This is pretty well accepted and PH is one of the more defined neighborhoods given that its so small. But talk to the folks at Brownstoner and other neighborhood "experts" on this matter. By the way, the Dean Street Armory on Dean between Washington and Grand was known as "Crown Heights Boxing" to give you some context. I know your agenda, and being black doesn't change a thing. But again, do tell me why Bed Stuy isn't overall safe in 2014 (not that I"m claiming that Bed Stuy is the safest neighborhood, though I do dispute that much of it is "dangerous"/"unsafe")? Better yet, tell me why parts of Bed Stuy where there is less crime than in other parts aren't safe? IF you helped make the map, I don't see why you don't understand this concept as parts of neighborhoods have been shaded while other parts of the same neighborhood have not. And when you're explaining this to me, factor in why this is so as a statistical matter accounting for population and as a geographical/crime matter as opposed to you just stating that it is, understanding that some parts of Bed Stuy-Crown Heights have less crime than other parts.
Note, you write that Bed Stuy "isn't overall safe" in 2014; again, statistically-speaking, explain to me why this is so. You didn't just qualify that Bed Stuy doesn't look/feel safe in 2014. You categorically stated that its not safe. So please explain to me again why spotcrime.com isn't relevant?
At the end of the day, my beef with the map isn't really over Bed Stuy. I mentioned earlier that I only brought up Bed Stuy in reaction to your comment about the map shading areas for safety based on "look[s]."
If I "read the descriptions of the shadings"? Give me a break. The descriptions of the shadings on the map, contrary to the first post, clearly address more than how people "feel" for reasons unrelated to crime. For instance, the description on the map page qualify that parts of Williamsburg are shaded because they still have an actual crime problem, not because people "feel" unsafe for reasons having nothing to do with crime (this is where spotcrime.com is relevant). By the way, if its about feelings unrelated to crime, do you honestly think that a suburbanite is going to feel OK/not be afraid walking around deserted, warehouse-centric DUMBO at night? Do you think a suburbanite is going to feel safe walking throughout industrial/factory-based parts of Greenpoint at night? [Do you seriously think a surburbanite feels more safe walking through this area of Greenpoint at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7325...6etNxNkpug!2e0) vs. this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6824...d-Cp4HkMuQ!2e0 . . . this block doesn't look any more "hood" than Garfield Street in Park Slope.) area of Bed Stuy at night?]. Do you think a suburbanite is going to feel safe walking around parts of Midtown at night (as I mentioned before, apparently not, which is why hotels in the area take the precautions they do...they're not just doing this for fun)?
But, what is it going to be? Is it going to be about "feeling" safe for reasons other than crime (and, if so, what are those other reasons?)? Or is it going to be like, as you wrote earlier, about "looking" safe. If so, how in the world does much of brownstone Bed Stuy "look" unsafe? How in the world does, just as one of many examples, Hancock Street between Bedford and Nostrand Avenues among many other blocks in that area look unsafe? Stop trying to sell a bogus story about the map solely being about how an area "feels" as not being related to crime, despite the fact that the actual map (which is accessible to others who don't link to it from this site) clearly discusses actual crime as reasons for the shading. But, again, if an area feels unsafe for reasons that make spotcrime.com irrelevant, please do tell what those reasons are! If crime doesn't make a pristine brownstone part of Bed Stuy feel unsafe (that area certainly doesn't "look" unsafe), what does?
The grey areas are labeled as industrial. I don't get whats so hard to grasp. Don't tell me about brownstone Bed-Stuy when I walk to the corner and there's a bunch of dudes chillin by the corner store and a cop car with its sirens on racing down the block. Other that Stuyvesant Heights, the rest of Bed-Stuy still sucks. I don't care what people pay to live over there. If they felt so safe they would walk around around there at 3 AM. I walk around my way at 3 AM so why dont they do it?? Look at the NYC forum and the amount of "is it safe here" posts we get about Bed-Stuy.
And Washington Avenue is only Crown Heights south of Eastern Parkway. Look at Grand Avenue, which is between Classon and Washington. Grand Avenue is not Crown Heights at all.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
This is larger than just Bed Stuy. When you're casting entire neighborhoods as "ghetto" and "violent" despite crime statistics to the contrary (you can see on spotcrime.com entire swaths of PH and CH having very little crime), and despite certain forms of violent crimes being worse in parts of certain predominately white neighborhoods that you don't have a problem with, I do have to question why that is. I have to question why, despite knowing that the mapmakers in this instance have shown they can fine tune and shade to account for problem areas within neighborhoods, you continue to call certain entire neighborhoods "crap" because they lie within certain "troubled" precincts, despite not being troubled areas themselves. I have to question why you use, in part, the fact that Bed Stuy has a huge robbery problem to degrade it while remaining silent on the fact that the UES has an even larger grand larceny problem. I have to question why, despite using population statistics to explain that Midtown is not such a bad place, you fail to do so for Bed Stuy and other neighborhoods. When I ask you to explain what, statistically speaking, a dangerous neighborhood is, this is the response I get. Come on. Give me a break. (I really don't see why else you're irrationally lumping in all or parts of certain neighborhoods despite the data showing they do not have crime problems while remaining silent about other neighborhoods having another demographic but having more of a serious crime issue. It doesn't make sense.).
But, to close, how many times to I have do reiterate that I don't really have a problem with how Bed Stuy is shaded on these maps, though some areas can be fine-tuned. There are more shootings and robberies in certain parts of Bed Stuy than there are in many other neighborhoods throughout the city. All of this can lead to people feeling unsafe. Still, I don't call Bed Stuy "dangerous" (or at least certainly not the entire Bed Stuy), particularly when you account for crime and population size. But I"m not exactly calling for the UES to be shaded red, orange, or purpose, so I don't know why you keep bringing up Bed Stuy and the UES the way you do; that's certainly not the reason why I bring them up. As I've said multiple times, I'm calling for more consistent yellow shading in parts of Midtown, the UES, etc. that we see in other parts of the city (yellow hardly indicates a "dangerous" neighborhood).
*By the way, I live in the 77th Precinct part of PH, which I guess, using your way of thinking, is bad for me. I'm still scratching my head trying to understand why this is given that PH, whether we're talking about the part in the 77th or the 78th, has extraordinary low crime.
I am signed up for the email alerts from Spotcrime for a 3 mile radius from my house. 99% of the incidents I am alerted on take place in Brooklyn in such nabes as Bushwick, ENY, Brownsville and Bed-Stuy. Rarely are they for anything that goes down on the other side of me deeper into Queens (Middle Village, Maspeth or Glendale).
Take a look at this map as well. As criteria choose YTD or last year (I also tend to only filter for robberies). Starting in Prospect Heights, zoom in until you see the blue dots. Now start moving the map in a northeast direction across Brooklyn into Queens. You'll notice the dots going from every single block to being spread out more sporadically with far less dots. That is what it is like to live in a shade free area. Also Greenpoint does not have close to the number of dots as that of its fellow Brooklyn neighbors to the south.
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.
