Walkability of San Francisco

[rah]

Originally Posted by eightiesfan

But theft or drug use don't kill you, stray bullets and carjackings do. Thankfully SF is fairly safe when it comes to that type of crime.

True some parts of SF are much safer compared to other places in terms of crime....others however are no different than any other ghetto in this country. I don't know how it compares to other cities, but here are SF's stats regarding shootings and such from October 6th 2008 through June 17th:

incidents of gunfire recorded by city gunshot detectors (which only cover the Western Addition and Hunters Point) : 1,119
shooting calls: 228
shots fired calls: 1,942
"person with gun" calls: 1,339

source: Select incident type | EveryBlock San Francisco

non-fatal shooting victims sent to SFGH in 2009 as of may: 91
non-fatal shooting victims sent to SFGH in the same time period in 2008: 91
non-fatal shooting victims sent to SFGH in the same time period in 2007: 114

That seems like a pretty substantial amount of violence for an 8 month time period in a city that's just 47.6 square miles. Most of it happens in a few select neighborhoods too. If you live in any of those areas, you might be more familiar with the sound of gunfire than I think you realize.

Personally, I knew 3 people who have been killed by gunfire in SF. Two in 2005, and one in 2008. One died due to his shady activity. One died because of past shady activity catching up with him...and one guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Fillmore and the Tenderloin can be rough around the edges but if you mind your business and don't start static you don't need to worry. Let me ask you this, how many neighborhoods in SF do you see everyone run the red lights so they don't have to stop in a bad area? I can't think of any, including Richmond or any part of Oakland.

I can't say there's anywhere where people would run a red light to get out...but then again, it's not like I'm staking out the stop lights in Hunters Point, Richmond, or West Oakland, now am I? For a story in the same vein as ghettos and running red lights though, back in 2004 a tourist couple from Seattle were shot up while stopped at a red light in Hunters Point. They were visiting SF, and went for a day trip to SJ. On the way back they got off the freeway on the wrong exit. At a stop light in HP, their car was sprayed with bullets, killing the wife. Maybe they should have run the red light...if they had had any idea what was headed their way, that is.

You also mentioned car jackings. In 2007 a 66-year-old man was shot dead, and carjacked in Visitacion Valley, in front of his house. Who knows how many non-fatal car jackings there are.

It is true for many ghettos though (not Just SF) that if you don't start trouble you'll be a lot less likely to have any. But, that doesn't mean you have to go punch a drug dealer in the face just for something bad to happen. Violence can result over so much as a wrong look.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by eightiesfan

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Take a stroll in QB or LIC and tell me there's an area in SF that feels like that.

Fair enough, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Haven't been through either of those areas yet, and I don't doubt their bad. But you had just mentioned Queens vs. SF, and generally speaking where I've been to in Queens felt totally safe. Comparing the hoods might turn out different results, as I've not yet truly been through the hoods in Queens. I have driven by a couple projects there that didn't look too bad (Lefrak City was one), but I may not have been there on a bad day and walking through I'm sure would tell a different tale.

At the same time though, try taking a stroll down Middlepoint and West Point or Sunnydale and Hahn and tell me there's an area in Queens that feels like that. I'd be shocked if you could honestly tell me that after truly doing so. Not trying to make this a contest or anything, I'm just saying there are also spots in SF that feel like an entirey different country from how the rest of the city feels.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by eightiesfan

Sure I am, I live here and have lived in all the cities I mentioned. The violent crime rate is much lower here than in those cities. I don't expect it to be Mayberry, and neither should anybody else, like I said it's a metro area, they all have some crime. But theft or drug use don't kill you, stray bullets and carjackings do. Thankfully SF is fairly safe when it comes to that type of crime.

The Fillmore and the Tenderloin can be rough around the edges but if you mind your business and don't start static you don't need to worry. Let me ask you this, how many neighborhoods in SF do you see everyone run the redlights so they don't have to stop in a bad area? I can't think of any, including Richmond or any part of Oakland.

Wrong. Not talking about Atlanta or Miami b/c those both are clearly worse than SF and should only be compared to Oakland here (size, population and crime-wise). But Queens has much lower crime rates than SF, by a long shot. I'm not sure why you're thinking otherwise. No offense, but you really do not seem to know SF very well based on what your saying here.

Here's a comparison of annual violent crime rates and raw numbers for the two:

Queens (population 2,229,379)

total violent crimes: 10,584
violent crimes per 100,000 residents: 4.37
crime index (100 being the safest): 53 (This city is safer than 53% of the cities in the US)
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 229
murder: 108
rape: 271
robbery: 4,630
assault: 5,575

SF (population 776,733)
total violent crimes: 5,782
violent crimes per 100,000 residents: 7.44
crime index (100 being the safest): 11 (This city is safer than 11% of the cities in the US)
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 134
murder: 88
rape: 154
robbery: 3,058
assault: 2,482

And to look at property crimes, Queens has a total rate of 14.96 vs. SF's rate of 47.85. Crimes per square mile in Queens are 428 vs. SF's 40,910!! It isn't all just theft and drug use in SF. The two aren't really even comparable, so I have no idea why you're under the impression that Queens is so much worse than SF. Our subjective perceptions aside, SF is significantly more dangerous than Queens.

Here are links to this data if you doubt what I'm reporting:

Queens crime rates and statistics - Neighborhood Scout

San Francisco crime rates and statistics - Neighborhood Scout

This isn't to say that SF is that bad, but it is definitely worse than Queens is. And that's just looking at SF. Oakland and Richmond exceed Miami and Atlanta in certain areas statistically. They have both been ranked within the top ten most dangerous cities in the US for several years now. If you would like to see statistics on either of them let me know. You apparently aren't very familiar with these two cities either stating what you have stated. (That's not intended as an insult; you just appear to me to have a false impression of how these cities actually are.)

And where in Atlanta, Miami and Queens does everyone run red lights to avoid stopping in bad areas?? I mean I could name you project streets in SF where people will run stop signs to avoid danger, and same goes for parts of the Iron Triangle in Richmond. There used to be blocks in East Palo Alto that are dead end streets people would go down and not make it back out intact, and Doublerock in SF used to be reputed to be the same. But I've never heard of anywhere in the nation where everyone runs the reds.

How many cities elsewhere do you know of that have a van with an armed gunmen jump out at a downtown freeway off-ramp redlight and spray a man's vehicle with 20 rounds while being surrounded by witnesses stuck at the light in their vehicles at 1PM on a weekday? (This happened at the 5th and Harrison off-ramp about 2 years ago in case you don't know what I'm talking about.) I won't bother running through a list of outrageous incidents that we have had here in the City, but I'm just trying to point out that crazy things do happen here that may or may not happen elsewhere.

[xGrendelx]

Originally Posted by rah

I'd say we have some sketchy areas in SF that are actually pretty easy to wander into...such as the Projects in the Fillmore, and the Tenderloin. Plenty of unsuspecting visitors end up in both these places.

This is very true. I'm guilty of walking through the Fillmore projects on accident. My first trip to the city, I came alone and wanted to explore as much as possible and I ended up walking through. It's one of those times when you're walking around, enjoying yourself, and it switches drastically from one block to the next. The whole tone and feel just completely changed. I didn't freak out or anything, but I knew I wasn't in a good area and I didn't want to spend much time there, so I just kinda put my head down, acted natural, and didn't stop walking until I felt okay. I came out fine, but I did think about how someone less knowledgeable (street-wise) could run into some trouble there. It was my first experience with how SF really seems like a city with crime based on a block-to-block basis. And because most of the city, at least the places I've been, all look so nice it may be difficult to tell which areas are bad and which aren't. It's not like the East Coast cities I'm more familiar with. Here you know when you're in the hood. There's no doubt about it.

I've been to the Tenderloin too, but not on accident, and I didn't go alone that time.

But to refer back to the OP's question, I found that SF is incredibly walkable, and it's really fun to walk around there. The hills are tough at first, but after a week or so you'll see how you become used to them pretty fast. Not only that, but they make things interesting. I'm from the Hampton Roads area of VA and it's completely flat here. The SF hills were a welcomed change of pace.

[Marlo Stanfield]

For as much crime as the Tenderloin has, I'd walk around there in daytime and feel safe. It's a depressing place, but I wouldn't feel too worried about walking through. It's in the middle of a lot of activity, a lot of people are just passing through, driving by. Other places are different, less people happen to just pass thru the projects in HP or Sunnydale. Fillmore is less isolated than those areas but I still wouldn't feel too safe walking around there. It still has more of a sense of isolation than TL. My sister's classmate was just riding her bike on the street going through some projects in Fillmore and some guy just walks up, shoves her off the bike, and steals her backpack.

[ImRandy]

Originally Posted by mdwstrnkid

A good web site to check out is Walkscore: Get Your Walk Score - A Walkability Score For Any Address

That site does some odd categorizing. I would never think of Jamba Juice as a bar, 7-11 or a gas station as a grocery store, a high school gym as a movie theater, or stores that only sell paint as hardware stores.

It would be interesting to see how walkable my neighborhood was if you could excluded all the miscategorized businesses and places I wouldn't visit or that were too far away.

[eightiesfan]

Originally Posted by jman650

Wrong. Not talking about Atlanta or Miami b/c those both are clearly worse than SF and should only be compared to Oakland here (size, population and crime-wise). But Queens has much lower crime rates than SF, by a long shot. I'm not sure why you're thinking otherwise. No offense, but you really do not seem to know SF very well based on what your saying here.

Here's a comparison of annual violent crime rates and raw numbers for the two:

Queens (population 2,229,379)

total violent crimes: 10,584
violent crimes per 100,000 residents: 4.37
crime index (100 being the safest): 53 (This city is safer than 53% of the cities in the US)
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 229
murder: 108
rape: 271
robbery: 4,630
assault: 5,575

SF (population 776,733)
total violent crimes: 5,782
violent crimes per 100,000 residents: 7.44
crime index (100 being the safest): 11 (This city is safer than 11% of the cities in the US)
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 134
murder: 88
rape: 154
robbery: 3,058
assault: 2,482

And to look at property crimes, Queens has a total rate of 14.96 vs. SF's rate of 47.85. Crimes per square mile in Queens are 428 vs. SF's 40,910!! It isn't all just theft and drug use in SF. The two aren't really even comparable, so I have no idea why you're under the impression that Queens is so much worse than SF. Our subjective perceptions aside, SF is significantly more dangerous than Queens.

Here are links to this data if you doubt what I'm reporting:

Queens crime rates and statistics - Neighborhood Scout

San Francisco crime rates and statistics - Neighborhood Scout

This isn't to say that SF is that bad, but it is definitely worse than Queens is. And that's just looking at SF. Oakland and Richmond exceed Miami and Atlanta in certain areas statistically. They have both been ranked within the top ten most dangerous cities in the US for several years now. If you would like to see statistics on either of them let me know. You apparently aren't very familiar with these two cities either stating what you have stated. (That's not intended as an insult; you just appear to me to have a false impression of how these cities actually are.)

And where in Atlanta, Miami and Queens does everyone run red lights to avoid stopping in bad areas?? I mean I could name you project streets in SF where people will run stop signs to avoid danger, and same goes for parts of the Iron Triangle in Richmond. There used to be blocks in East Palo Alto that are dead end streets people would go down and not make it back out intact, and Doublerock in SF used to be reputed to be the same. But I've never heard of anywhere in the nation where everyone runs the reds.

How many cities elsewhere do you know of that have a van with an armed gunmen jump out at a downtown freeway off-ramp redlight and spray a man's vehicle with 20 rounds while being surrounded by witnesses stuck at the light in their vehicles at 1PM on a weekday? (This happened at the 5th and Harrison off-ramp about 2 years ago in case you don't know what I'm talking about.) I won't bother running through a list of outrageous incidents that we have had here in the City, but I'm just trying to point out that crazy things do happen here that may or may not happen elsewhere.

I feel like we have veered way off topic on this thread so this will be my last reply, maybe we should start another one?

My experience unlike yours is from living in all of the above mentioned cities, not being a tourist with my family. I grey up in NYC in the 80's when things were out of control. You can't compare the entire borough of Queens to SF, Queens alone is well over double the area of all of SF, in fact it's the largest borough at over 1/3rd of NYC's total area. I was comparing apples to apples, the bad areas to the bad areas. The bad areas of Queens, or any other borough in NYC make SF's bad areas look like paradise. Queensbridge housing project alone has over 7,000 residents in only 2 buildings. That is the concrete jungle.

I've lived in sketchy parts of all of these cities, I continue to volunteer in the worst neighborhoods wherever I live with youth boxing programs and pit bull rescue/rehab programs. I've seen the worst of the worst for many years. All cities have some grime, that's city living, but to be afraid to walk through SF is nonsense. To the OP, use your head and you'll be fine.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by eightiesfan

I feel like we have veered way off topic on this thread so this will be my last reply, maybe we should start another one?

My experience unlike yours is from living in all of the above mentioned cities, not being a tourist with my family. I grey up in NYC in the 80's when things were out of control. You can't compare the entire borough of Queens to SF, Queens alone is well over double the area of all of SF, in fact it's the largest borough at over 1/3rd of NYC's total area. I was comparing apples to apples, the bad areas to the bad areas. The bad areas of Queens, or any other borough in NYC make SF's bad areas look like paradise. Queensbridge housing project alone has over 7,000 residents in only 2 buildings. That is the concrete jungle.

I've lived in sketchy parts of all of these cities, I continue to volunteer in the worst neighborhoods wherever I live with youth boxing programs and pit bull rescue/rehab programs. I've seen the worst of the worst for many years. All cities have some grime, that's city living, but to be afraid to walk through SF is nonsense. To the OP, use your head and you'll be fine.

I agree we've gotten way off topic with this so this will be my last reply on the subject as well. If you feel the need to respond beyond this I agree we should start another thread.

I respect that you have lived in these places, but that doesn't make a difference when speaking on neighborhoods that are supposedly so bad that people are running red lights b/c of a fear of so much apparent danger. If anywhere is that bad you'd only need to drive through it, right?

Further, I have never lived in Richmond or Oakland, but they are both WAAAAYYY worse to me visually passing through than ANY part of Queens was that I have seen. Statistically they are worse too, and the same goes for Hunters Point, Sunnydale, the Crest Side of Vallejo, and much of East Palo Alto. I grew up here in the 80's and 90's back when East Palo Alto was the murder capitol of the US, and I can tell you that many places here used to be significantly worse than they are now. Parts of Richmond, for one, used to look like Beirut.

Your exact quote was "Compared to Queens, Miami or Atlanta SF is quaint." So you were the one to make the comparison here, not I. And I clarified that I was speaking on the two overall, not comparing the hoods of each. I can't speak from a lot of experience in regards to Queens hoods, so if you feel that Queens' bad neighborhoods are worse than the bad hoods out here, I won't argue. But I have yet to see one over there that intimidated me. And you had stated this:

Originally Posted by eightiesfan

The violent crime rate is much lower here than in those cities. I don't expect it to be Mayberry, and neither should anybody else, like I said it's a metro area, they all have some crime. But theft or drug use don't kill you, stray bullets and carjackings do. Thankfully SF is fairly safe when it comes to that type of crime.

So what I posted earlier effectively shows that the violent crime rate in SF is much higher than Queens. Why is this so difficult to admit? Why does it suddenly have to come down to "You can't compare the entire borough of Queens to SF, Queens alone is well over double the area of all of SF?" It seems that YOU can compare them but I can't. I'm not a fan of this method.

And anyone that would call SF's bad areas "paradise" compared to anywhere is exaggerating. Let alone Queens which can't even compare statistically. Like I said, for your apples to apples comparison, try taking a stroll through West Point or Sunnydale, or for that matter North Richmond, the Iron Triangle, Dog Town, Ghost Town, or Harbor Road. The projects in Queens I've seen are slightly tarnished brick buildings with air conditioners, manicured lawns, cars parked properly, little to no garbage strewn across the ground, little to no graffiti, and hardly anyone hanging around outside. So yeah, they may be huge, but they aren't wild or intimidating to me when compared to the run down military barrack style 'jects we have in Hunters Point, Sunnydale and Potrero Hill. West Point (Hunters View in HP) was rated as having some of the worst living conditions of any project in the country. That's hardly "paradise." Here, from SFGate:

"The most recent annual inspection conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development gave the 265-unit housing complex in Hunters Point a score of 26 out of 100; 90 is considered good, and 60 is considered satisfactory. The score makes it the worst public housing development in San Francisco - and one of the worst in the country."

Hunters View - not Sunnydale - ranks as S.F.'s worst complex


I think people that grow up in the East Coast tend to have a different view of what constitutes a ghetto than people on the West Coast do. The 2 and 3-story decrepit projects in Hunters Point and Sunnydale look horrible to me. Fillmore, though a higher crime neighborhood, doesn't appear anywhere near as bad to me even though its full of public housing. Projects I've seen on the East Coast tend to be large brick buildings that to me do not look any different from some regular apartments or taller warehouses. I don't see anything intimidating about that, but I'm thinking that may be b/c I have a different image in my mind of what a bad housing project should look like.

Cabrini-Green in Chicago looked horrible. Magnolia in New Orleans looked really bad to me. But Queensbridge didn't look like anything but a big development, the likes of a brick version of the towers at Parkmerced. To me, apperance-wise, there's really no difference. A "concrete jungle" in itself does not intimidate me. Seeing 50-100 rough looking gangsters chillin on the grounds of a massive project would intimidate me, but I have yet to see that at any of the NYC projects I've been near. And I've been right outside several. But I think if that is what you're accustomed to viewing as a project, and to you the larger a project is the more dangerous and therefore the scarier it is, then I guess I could see why you haven't found anything out here intimidating. I'm also certain that you haven't walked through any Hunters Point projects or the like if you maintain that they are not that bad.

Either way, the city of SF is not that bad overall. And I don't think one needs to fear it. I just think the Queens comparison was quite a bit off. Like you said, we can agree to disagree.