Many of my out of town friends say Washington DC is just to dangerous to visit! (hotels, safe)

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

DC's homicide rate is way down this year, likely to come in at its lowest level in 45 years. Still a lot of bad pockets like any city, but the District is making more progress cutting violent crime rates than any city other than NY.

I'm not knocking how far DC has come, but perspective is important. Violent crime is down pretty much everywhere from its early-90s peak, and DC is no exception. But DC remains a high-crime city.

And not all violent crime is down in DC. Muggings with guns are actually up, which is in some ways a more troubling statistic than the murder rate. Murders are by and large restricted to disputes involving drugs and domestic situations, whereas ANYONE could be a target of a mugging. There have been no fewer than four armed muggings within a couple blocks of our home within the last week, and these are frequently occuring in broad daylight.

So, it's good to point out how far DC has come, but don't let a falling murder rate (which will still place DC within the top 10% of cities in the country) fool you into thinking that DC is "one of the safest big cities in the country". It's not.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

Like NY, gentrification has been a major factor in cutting crime here, don't have 2 million dollar condos in Cleveland or Detroit.

This is a trap that should be avoided. Neighborhoods like Logan, Shaw and Columbia Heights have a plethora of expensive, seven-figure condos and rowhouses, and yet so-called "quality of life" crime has actually risen in those areas. Real estate values alone do not push out the criminal element--in fact, in the case of neighborhoods like Logan and Dupont, the increased population of "moneyed" residents has actually served to attract, rather than repel, the criminal element.

You do see fewer drug transactions and prostitution than 10-15 years ago, which is good--but muggings and robberies are up, and that's not good.

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

So, it's good to point out how far DC has come, but don't let a falling murder rate (which will still place DC within the top 10% of cities in the country) fool you into thinking that DC is "one of the safest big cities in the country". It's not.

most of NW is though, and few cities have such a large area of safe neighborhoods, roughly 20 sq mile band from Capitol Hill to downtown and west of 16th street to MD line is far more "safe" space than you'll get in most cities

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

most of NW is though, and few cities have such a large area of safe neighborhoods, roughly 20 sq mile band from Capitol Hill to downtown and west of 16th street to MD line is far more "safe" space than you'll get in most cities

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. First of all, by land area DC is one of the smallest "big" cities in the country. There are a slew of cities significantly larger than DC (in land area) that have far less crime than DC does. The same is true when you look at crime on a per-capita basis.

Secondly, in case you missed what I wrote above, you can't in good conscience call the entire northwest quadrant "safe". Even allowing for the fact that "safe" is a relative term (and dependent upon an individual's level of tolerance), there are many areas even within northwest that are problematic. Yes, even areas with million-dollar condos.

Again, my point here is not to trash DC or ignore the strides made in terms of crime reduction. I'm a very big champion of the city, but not at the expense of ignoring reality. There is simply no way to look at DC and find it to be anywhere near the safest cities in the country. Sure, it's got nice and safe areas. Sure, the tourist areas are fine. But those themselves do not a safe city make.

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. First of all, by land area DC is one of the smallest "big" cities in the country.

Wrong. Boston and SF are smaller, land area in each is just under 50 sq mi, DC is just over 60.

Baltimore is 80, Seattle 83, Minneapolis 54, Cleveland's 77. DC is in the middle of the pack for land area.

If you look at cities over 100 sq mi - they're either huge - NY, Chicago, or low density sunbelt cities like Phoenix and Dallas, whose crime rates look low because their land areas include what would be suburbs in older cities. Their downtowns are tiny in terms of land area.

Few of the cities with murder rates over 20 per 100k have such a large area of wealthy, reasonably safe neighborhoods as DC. NW zips 20007, 20008, and 20016 are some of the wealthiest urban zips in the country, higher than NY Upper West Side 10023 and Boston Back Bay 02215.

Yeah, you have to be careful, no one's saying it's perfect. But comparatively, there are just a handful of census tracts and/or zips with densities over 7,000 people square mile in this country that are as safe as downtown/west of Rock Creek.

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

in fact, in the case of neighborhoods like Logan and Dupont, the increased population of "moneyed" residents has actually served to attract, rather than repel, the criminal element.

by your logic, McLean and Potomac should be overrun with criminals

we all know the issues Col Heights and other places have had, but DC's bad reputation from the early 90s was as the nation's murder capital, not the nations' car theft capital, or the nation's mugging capital, plenty of cities with low homicide rates have high burglary rates

Before I moved here, I went on a volunteer project with a friend at the MLK library east of downtown, and thought I was in the hood. Went back after I moved here in the late 90s, and it felt much safer, and was surrounded by $45 a sq ft office buildings. Don't get that in Cleveland, St, Louis, Baltimore, etc.

[juniperbleu]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

by your logic, McLean and Potomac should be overrun with criminals.

Not necessarily. It's a lot harder to get to McLean or Potomac from a bad area than to just walk a few blocks like in Columbia Heights.

[JEB77]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

by your logic, McLean and Potomac should be overrun with criminals

we all know the issues Col Heights and other places have had, but DC's bad reputation from the early 90s was as the nation's murder capital, not the nations' car theft capital, or the nation's mugging capital, plenty of cities with low homicide rates have high burglary rates

Before I moved here, I went on a volunteer project with a friend at the MLK library east of downtown, and thought I was in the hood. Went back after I moved here in the late 90s, and it felt much safer, and was surrounded by $45 a sq ft office buildings. Don't get that in Cleveland, St, Louis, Baltimore, etc.

Seems to me that 14thandYou was referring to neighborhoods like DuPont and Logan where there are a lot of upper-income folks living in close proximity to lower-income residents, some with criminal records or proclivities. You don't have that phenomenon in McLean and Potomac, unless you consider Falls Church or Bethesda to be the "hood." And it surely wasn't intended as a put-down of these DC neighborhoods, but just a recognition of the social dynamic and occasional tensions in those areas.

Having lived in DC in the early 90s, I recall that the concern in many neighborhoods was the overall amount of crime, including break-ins, armed assault and murder, and the feeling that little could be done to stem the tide of lawlessness. Even with some of the crimes that continue to occur in areas like Logan and Columbia Heights, the NW neighborhoods east of Rock Creek are much more attractive today.

However, the MLK Library was never really considered "in the hood," even before the Gallery Place area became DC's version of a mini-Times Square.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

Wrong. Boston and SF are smaller, land area in each is just under 50 sq mi, DC is just over 60.

LOL, it's not "wrong", I said DC is ONE of the smallest big cities. With only 61 sq. miles of land area, it is.

DC is in the middle of the pack for land area.

No, it's not. Even taking away the Alaskan cities and other outliers, there are a tremendous number of cities larger than DC. And for more densely populated cities, a couple of additional square miles of land area is significant. List of United States cities by area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at cities over 100 sq mi - they're either huge - NY, Chicago, or low density sunbelt cities like Phoenix and Dallas, whose crime rates look low because their land areas include what would be suburbs in older cities. Their downtowns are tiny in terms of land area.

Dallas and Phoenix actually have quite expansive downtowns. And anyway, that hasn't been your argument. Your claim was "few cities have such a large area of safe neighborhoods." That is demonstrably false. I can find an expansive list of U.S. cities that have far more "safe" areas than does DC. Most of the "huge" cities do, as do many of the medium-sized cities.

Few of the cities with murder rates over 20 per 100k have such a large area of wealthy, reasonably safe neighborhoods as DC. NW zips 20007, 20008, and 20016 are some of the wealthiest urban zips in the country, higher than NY Upper West Side 10023 and Boston Back Bay 02215.

Once again, this hasn't been your argument. No one's argued that DC doesn't have wealthy areas. But you just named a comparitively small percentage of land area in DC, and 20016 and 20008 are in upper NW, which is hardly urban. Plenty of cities have wealthy, non-urban neighborhoods that are safe. I used to live in one.

Secondly, as I've continually pointed out, more wealth does not equal more safe. Homes in our neighborhood routinely sell for over $1 million, and yet street crime is quite high. I grew up in a neighborhood in a midwestern city that was far less wealthy than many in DC, yet far safer.

But comparatively, there are just a handful of census tracts and/or zips with densities over 7,000 people square mile in this country that are as safe as downtown/west of Rock Creek.

Even if that were true, that is a small portion of the overall District--around 25% or so. That's not difficult to find in a major city.

Regardless, you're talking about a city with the 6th highest murder rate in the nation and the 14th highest rate of violent crime. It's preposterous to attempt to lay claim to DC being among the "safest" cities in the U.S. with numbers like that. It doesn't matter if the areas most rife with crime are in areas most tourists wouldn't go, or most moneyed people can avoid. Those facts do not make DC in general "safe". Do we have safe areas? Of course we do. Do we have wealthy areas? Again, of course we do. But do these safe areas constitute "far more "safe" space than you'll get in most cities"? No, it doesn't.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Wrong. 14th and You was referring to neighborhoods like DuPont and Logan where there are a lot of upper-income folks living in close proximity to lower-income residents, some of whom with criminal records or proclivities. You don't have that phenomenon in McLean and Potomac, unless you consider Falls Church or Bethesda to the "hood." And it surely wasn't intended as a put-down of these DC neighborhoods, but just a recognition of the social dynamic and occasional tensions in those areas.

Correct, thank you. I get the nagging suspicion that TheseGoTo11 resides in the suburbs, not DC. As someone who has lived in Logan Circle throughout most of the time that the area has been changing, I can tell you that while we've come a long way ,the idea that crime has somehow magically disappeared is a complete myth. Yes, 14th street has wine bars and expensive furniture stores and high-end restaurants. But 14th Street also has people getting mugged at gunpoint in front of those wine bars, restaurants and furniture stores.

There's a bit of a false sense of security here. In literally the past week alone, we've had a woman mugged at the end of our block by two assailants, someone robbed at gunpoint at the intersection of 14th and P, someone "scooter-jacked" at gunpoint at the corner of 16th and R, and someone mugged at gunpoint at 16th and S. None of those areas are places people would necessarily consider "unsafe", and they're all populated with wealthy professionals. But the crime is still there.

This is just reality. DC has changed a lot for the better over the last decade, and the fact that people are willing to buy in neighborhoods like Columbia Heights and Petworth is remarkable as well as a testament to how far it has come. But this city still has a long ways to go before you could consider it to exist among the ranks of "safe" cities.