Why do people overreact about Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan (Boston: condo, houses)

[miu]

Originally Posted by Blue Hill Avenue

All of these neighborhoods are really nice. They have a lot of history behind them. They are actually safe now. You can walk down the street 12:00 at night with diamonds and nothing will happen to you. People tend to blow things out of proportion.

It all depends on each person's desired lifestyle. And also the potential for culture clashes.

In my younger days, when I was in college, I worked summers in RI's seedier South Providence and never had any issues. But after college, I preferred life in Cambridge near Central Square to being with friends who lived in JP. For a young woman, living in the rougher and more diverse aka colourful neighborhoods can be very unappealing as the young men there tend to be very overt in their overtures for female companionship... and this college educated woman wanted none of their company. And the best way to avoid their attentions would be to dress very frumpy and unattractive, and I didn't want to have to resort to that while living in my own neighborhood.

And in the last 20 years, I've owned and driven a car that wouldn't have survived the night parked in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan. It would have been stolen and parted out in a heartbeat. So no thank you to living in those areas.

[MassNative2891]

Originally Posted by miu

It would have been stolen and parted out in a heartbeat. So no thank you to living in those areas.

Unless you own a Honda Civic or Toyota Camry, it'd have to be a well organized theft for you to have your car stolen (assuming you own a "luxury" car).

If you're driving an Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Lexus in those neighborhoods; it's typically assumed you're a drug dealer. Even if you aren't.

It's too "hot" to steal a luxury car in Boston. You'd get pulled over in a heartbeat, especially if you're a young male.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by MassNative2891

Reasons to not live off of BHA. That being said, BHA is no where near as bad as South Bronx, Baltimore, Brooklyn, etc.

It's not a competition but I definitely feel safer in Mattapan than most of the places you listed.

Realistically those neighborhoods are probably worse than Most of Brooklyn..in fact Im quite sure of it.... and id be willing to bet certain parts of rox and Dorhester are higher crime than the South Bronx. Long story short is people don't really "over react." These neighborhoods are truthfully in that top 5% of most dangerous neighborhoods in the country. When you've got to look to Baltimore Philly and Detroit for confidence....sometings off.

At no point have i ever felt 'safe' on Norfolk or Morton street in Mattapan. And to feel safe would be to be 'sleeping'

[MassNative2891]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

At no point have i ever felt 'safe' on Norfolk or Morton street in Mattapan. And to feel safe would be to be 'sleeping'

You always do this

Ok, if we're defining 'safe' as sleeping comfortably in my bed knowing that everything will be all good in the morning; than Norfolk/Morton is not really that safe. But both neighborhoods have made great improvements. Norfolk used to be pretty much a combat zone.

Would I ever choose to live in either area? Probably not. At least not at the moment.

But I don't know that I can say I feel safer in say, Olneyville or Federal Hill (Prov).

I really don't think that Bostons "Bad" is "Bad" in NYC. I've heard some horror stories, and NYC has definitely sketched me out before; especially BK and BX.

[jayrandom]

I think the overreaction has to do with a general poor intuition with unlikely events. I couldn't find the city-data breakdown by neighborhood, but compare Chelsea with a crime rate of 725 to the similarly-sized Shrewsbury with a crime rate of 49. That means that you are over 14 times more likely to be the victim of a crime in Chelsea than you are in Shrewsbury, which to most people is a significant increase in risk.

If you look at the city-data crime index, though, you'll see it's incidents out of 100000 (and normalized in a weird way that isn't well explained). Even though Shrewsbury is much safer, it's still far more likely that you won't be the victim of a serious crime in Chelsea than that you will be.

I think the other issue isn't just the crime itself, but the looming possibility of crime, which lowers the quality of life. People take bigger risks than visiting the less-safe part of town without knowing. I'd guess statistically the most dangerous part of driving through somewhere like Mattapan is the driving and not the Mattapan, but for whatever reason the neighborhood scares people more.

[UKWildcat1981]

Dorchester was tougher in the 80s with Marky Mark clubbing people in the kneecaps.. that guy was a total thug and out of control lol.. glad he turned it again. Marky Mark in the house.

[pennyone]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Realistically those neighborhoods are probably worse than Most of Brooklyn..in fact Im quite sure of it.... and id be willing to bet certain parts of rox and Dorhester are higher crime than the South Bronx. Long story short is people don't really "over react." These neighborhoods are truthfully in that top 5% of most dangerous neighborhoods in the country. When you've got to look to Baltimore Philly and Detroit for confidence....sometings off.

At no point have i ever felt 'safe' on Norfolk or Morton street in Mattapan. And to feel safe would be to be 'sleeping'

What's interesting is that there are two narratives out there. One, you need to rant against racial profiling because....it's racist. Two, when you live in the city, you need your "street smarts", which essentially means avoiding people and situations that get you in trouble...and the first way to do that is racial profiling and then respond accordingly (like walking on the other side of the street). What's ridiculous is that the same people protesting against racism are also the same urban pioneers who have no problems racially profiling to survive in their urban paradise. Such hypocrisy.

[thenewtexan]

I think a better question (considering the date of this thread) is how have these areas changed in the last four years or so? How do locals see it changing in the next five years? Let's move forward....

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by pennyone

What's interesting is that there are two narratives out there. One, you need to rant against racial profiling because....it's racist. Two, when you live in the city, you need your "street smarts", which essentially means avoiding people and situations that get you in trouble...and the first way to do that is racial profiling and then respond accordingly (like walking on the other side of the street). What's ridiculous is that the same people protesting against racism are also the same urban pioneers who have no problems racially profiling to survive in their urban paradise. Such hypocrisy.

It is? Maybe for you.

[pennyone]

Originally Posted by timberline742

It is? Maybe for you.

So, you don't think it is philosophically contradictory to racially profile on a daily basis as an urbanite, and then complain and protest when others racially profile?