Crime in St. Louis (Clayton: apartment, lofts, college)

[STL Aviator]

Originally Posted by stevio63

I will just add here a couple of pearls....a "deserted" area is a "potential" dangerous area....so this is not a plus.

Then I suggest you avoid Clayton.

Originally Posted by stevio63

what's the drop out rate in the city schools...40 to 50%?????

22% for 2008.

[STL Aviator]

Originally Posted by aragx6

You'll often find desirable neighborhoods to have higher rape, robbery statistics than deserted industrial type areas that might you feel wary, for the simple fact that there is a plethora of people to rape and rob.

Agreed. The aesthetic appeal of an area can be a very poor indicator of both the amount of crime that occurs there and the probability than any particular individual will be a victim of crime in that area.

[STL Aviator]

Originally Posted by ajf131

ok, let me rephrase that...east of the Central West End, north of Lindell starting right around Vandeventer is the ghetto

I still disagree. This relates to the post above. Just because a block isn't pretty doesn't mean it's more dangerous than a pretty block. Many blocks between Lindell/Olive and Delmar east of Vandeventer are commercial/industrial but crime is not particularly more prevalent there than in most other city neighborhoods. If you don't believe me go here and check for yourself: SLMPD: Home Page

There is lot's of cool stuff in this area. Ever heard of Grand Center? Anecdotally, when I moved to St. Louis, the strip of Locust north of Olive was pretty much abandoned. Now there are businesses moving in. Clubs. Restaurants. The Fountain on Locust will sell you some of the best food, ice cream and fountain drinks you can find anywhere, and in a really neat setting.

KWMU announced they are moving to Grand Center. SLU is rehabbing the last deteriorated building on the block of Westminster just East of Vandeventer. It's a cute block with neat historic homes that is much better than the empty lot and ugly parking lot along Vandeventer would lead you to believe.

There is a lot to draw people to this area and it isn't ghetto.

[stevio63]

[quote=STL Aviator;6575484]Then I suggest you avoid Clayton.




Tell you what....you walk the deserted streets downtown and I'll walk the deserted streets of Clayton....i believe the bookies in Vegas would love to make a line on which one of us would be the victim of crime first.

[ajf131]

[quote=STL Aviator;6575484]Then I suggest you avoid Clayton.


Are you out of your mind? Clayton? A potentially dangerous area? There is rarely ever a single type of crime that is committed in this area...maybe a burglary once every few months...a major murder maybe once every 4 years or so...most of those cases involve suicides. Aside from that one car-bomb, which was so remote that everyone still talks about it, Clayton is remarkably safe compared to in the city. I grew up in this area and in 22 years the only crime I've ever experienced was one burglary about twelve years ago in the house near me, the only crime ever to happen in my neighborhood. If Clayton is a potentially dangerous area, then I guess every single place in the UNited States is a potentially dangerous area. And if you think Clayton is more unsafe than the areas north of Lindell and Vandeventer, I would call that a very, very misguided notion.

[STL Aviator]

Originally Posted by stevio63

Tell you what....you walk the deserted streets downtown and I'll walk the deserted streets of Clayton....i believe the bookies in Vegas would love to make a line on which one of us would be the victim of crime first.

So then do you or don't you think that

Originally Posted by stevio63

a "deserted" area is a "potential" dangerous area

Care to amend?

[STL Aviator]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Are you out of your mind?

No.

Originally Posted by ajf131

Clayton? A potentially dangerous area?

I don't know. Ask stevio63.

Originally Posted by ajf131

There is rarely ever a single type of crime that is committed in this area...maybe a burglary once every few months...a major murder maybe once every 4 years or so...most of those cases involve suicides.

Per this website for 2006 (the most recent year for which they list data) Clayton had 4 robberies, 15 assaults, 70 burglaries, 308 thefts, 34 auto thefts and 5 arsons.

Originally Posted by ajf131

Aside from that one car-bomb, which was so remote that everyone still talks about it, Clayton is remarkably safe compared to in the city. And if you think Clayton is more unsafe than the areas north of Lindell and Vandeventer, I would call that a very, very misguided notion.

What are you talking about? Nobody was comparing safety between St. Louis and Clayton. That would be unproductive. My concern is that you are inaccurately painting St. Louis with much too large a brush. The section of St. Louis between Lindell and Delmar east of Vandeventer is not as you have described.

[stevio63]

Originally Posted by STL Aviator

No.

I don't know. Ask stevio63.

In relative terms,Aviator,yes Clayton is "safer" than downtown st.louis



Per this website for 2006 (the most recent year for which they list data) Clayton had 4 robberies, 15 assaults, 70 burglaries, 308 thefts, 34 auto thefts and 5 arsons.

Did you conveniently forget to post crime stats from the city of st. louis here??? how about just the 4th police district...that's downtown still right??



Care to amend?

nope....my comment still stands

I'm not sure if you are trying to be contentious here or not...look...i was a city guy a long time and still got a lot of "city" in me...i'm not dissing the central west end in any way...and i've stated in other threads that crime is overblown and that there are definite pockets or neighborhoods that are basically a war zone and the whole city looks bad and it's not fair but the perception is there and has to be dealt with...but to deny that living in an urban area is "safer" than a burb....i think you got to look at that again.


by the way.... on the graduation rate..... i looked it up also and found that stat...to be honest with you...that shocked me and i would question the veracity of that document....i've known alot of teachers in my day and this doesn't match up....by the way...yes, i went to a city public school and all i'm saying i've seen the way the district has been run the last 15 years or so and i have no confidence in their leadership or integrity....

[cmiller1014]

I wouldn't allow my family to live in STL city, ANYWHERE, and I have been in St. Louis for 27 years. Sure, there are some nice areas, but they are surrounded by MANY bad ones. The best places for these people to steal, kill, and rob is the comfy place you setup camp, just over the fence from them.

Good luck in St. Louis. I don't care how pretty they make it look, it's still not that great and its only a matter of time before they tear it up again.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

I think there's decent areas in St. Louis: Soulard, Lafayette Square, Central West End. You'll probably have car break-ins and minor crimes, but any city has those. Neighborhoods like Old North St. Louis generally have bad reputations. Most wouldn't live there. And they do have higher crime rate. Still, thousands of people live in Old North and other North St. Louis neighborhoods. And they survive.

Urban is as much a state of mind as a location. I understand people being afraid of the city, but I know people live and have lived comfortably in the city for 200 years. Yeah, the city has bad schools and a lot to work on, but I don't understand this general suburban dislike, disdain, and ill will toward the city. If it weren't for the city, there never would have been suburbs. And if the city were to fail, the suburbs probably would eventually shrink also. The city and suburbs need each other. You want to lose the Zoo, the museums, the Cardinals, Blues, and Rams? Do you wish that the city that holds these institutions would be "torn up" again? I just don't get it. You don't have to live in the city. You don't have to be in love with it, but don't act like it's impossible to live there. It's not.