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.
I've occasionally heard from people for high density places, or least not spending much time outside of big metros, the opposite: that'd they consider places remote with very few people possibly unsafe. Could true in a city, not true in the sticks.
My wife did not grow up in a city, but she's told me she'll never let us buy a house on a dead-end street (or otherwise the last house on a street) because it makes her uncomfortable. We were looking at a historic, 19th century house which was the last house before a set of railroad tracks, and she vetoed it for just this reason.
Of course, in reality the least safe houses are on major streets and intersections (as most property crime is impulsive, so more foot traffic equals more chance), but I wasn't going to get in a fight about it, because I was a bit worried about having a train passing 40 feet away anyway.
Some people may feel this way, especially older folks who remember the riots and crime waves of the late 20th century. Cities had so many problems back then! Of course, reality varies wildly. Density and crime, or even the perception of crime, don't have much overlap at all. I feel very safe in most of Manhattan and San Francisco, but am pretty intimidated by most of Baltimore. In my hometown, there are lots and lots of postwar low density suburban style neighborhoods that are nothing but trouble. Density isn't the issue. People are going to be uncomfortable when put in a very different environment though. I find the countryside worrying sometimes. I'm a bit paranoid that a deer will run in front of my car or that I will break down and nobody will be nearby to help. I-80 across Nevada is very scary for me! Maybe if I had grown up in Elko, I'd feel differently.
My wife did not grow up in a city, but she's told me she'll never let us buy a house on a dead-end street (or otherwise the last house on a street) because it makes her uncomfortable. We were looking at a historic, 19th century house which was the last house before a set of railroad tracks, and she vetoed it for just this reason.
Of course, in reality the least safe houses are on major streets and intersections (as most property crime is impulsive, so more foot traffic equals more chance), but I wasn't going to get in a fight about it, because I was a bit worried about having a train passing 40 feet away anyway.
I would think the train tracks would have been the bigger issue with that house.
Some people may feel this way, especially older folks who remember the riots and crime waves of the late 20th century. Cities had so many problems back then! Of course, reality varies wildly. Density and crime, or even the perception of crime, don't have much overlap at all. I feel very safe in most of Manhattan and San Francisco, but am pretty intimidated by most of Baltimore. In my hometown, there are lots and lots of postwar low density suburban style neighborhoods that are nothing but trouble. Density isn't the issue. People are going to be uncomfortable when put in a very different environment though. I find the countryside worrying sometimes. I'm a bit paranoid that a deer will run in front of my car or that I will break down and nobody will be nearby to help. I-80 across Nevada is very scary for me! Maybe if I had grown up in Elko, I'd feel differently.
I've broken down in the country before. Usually someone will stop and help you out. You do have to watch out for those deer though.
I thought trains were whispery quiet compared to noisy automobiles?
Depends on the type of train, freight trains are anything but quiet. Passenger trains tend to be much quieter unless they have to use their horn, and old school subway rail tends to be pretty noisy, but light rail is much quieter. So I guess it depends on what type of trains are running on those tracks.
Quite a few variables impact the perception of high density urban areas and perceptions of crime.
You have
1) factual data: per capita rates of various crimes
2) traffic / velocity data: times at which vehicular and pedestrian traffic is high, whether there are activities in the neighborhood (say an entertainment district that brings in easy targets or those who are not as familiar to urban setting)
3) the design of the urban fabric (some areas will be more of a deterrent: better lighting, lots of eyes available and toward the public space to potentially see illegal activity versus poorly designed and lighted areas
4) demographic socio- economic data: coherence of a neighborhood community (or an extreme case like Amish community) vs mini 'Escape from L.A.' type areas most often highlighted in bad urban areas.
5) The vast majority of crime is crime of opportunity and the criminal element resides in urban, suburban, and rural and the types of crime committed within them vary by type and degree.
In general, high density areas are often perceived as more dangerous simply due to people mostly recalling nominal numbers of instances versus per capita instances. The tendency toward reporting the bad in the high density and the higher number of those absorbing that information.
Depending on the types of crimes some get under reported in both environments due to various reasons. e.g. small stuff in tougher areas of low socio-economic or things that occur in areas where no one is there (or too spread out) to report it (rural).
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.