Boston crime thread - all posts go here. (Boston: calculated, shopping center)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

That’s not really much, every other gang in Boston is connected to NYC-they’re down there. They just arrested a a guy East Boston for shootings in Cambridge he had an outstanding warrant in Westchester County NY. If you’re a gang up here and not tied to NYC-you might as well be a youth club lol.

Well that's "out of state". I'd think that's where all of the biggest "money and such" is, very least as much as Georgia or Michigan.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by GeePee

False. I'm not going to sit here and name off all the areas of Boston that are unattainable to most and outright gorgeous that do not fit into tourist areas or college areas because there are far too many.

I didn't mean to offend you, GP.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by id77

When I read this, I keep thinking about which one of the three categories West Roxbury, South Boston, and JP fall in to. They aren't touristy or very dense with college kids, and not very ghetto either. Maybe we're defining this differently, but the way I see it, if there aren't duck boats or trolleys or swarms of Ubers dropping people off in front of the entrance, it's probably not a very touristy area. People visiting Boston for the first time (or even 10th) probably aren't exploring the streets of West Roxbury or JP. I think it's a huge stretch to say Boston has a significantly larger tourist area by percentage of city size.

Rox and Dot aren't small areas (they're the two largest neighborhoods by population) so it's not all that much of a stretch to say they're where most of the crime happens. I'd also say it's a huge stretch to say that safe areas are the exception as way more than half of Boston is no more dangerous than any other city. It's the othe way around -- there's a lot more streets in Boston that I'd comfortably walk at night than streets I wouldn't.

I can't speak to Providence so I'll just have to assume you're right there.

We're definitely defining it differently. Using your definition, Providence doesn't have any tourist areas.

I would consider most if not all of Downtown, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and Fenway to be tourist areas. And part of the South End and the North End. Basically anywhere tourists would have an interest in going to. Chinatown and the Seaport fit this definition also.

By my definition, we're probably talking about a 100:1 ratio for tourist areas whereas the population is a 4:1 ratio.

[redplum33]

And for what it's worth, Newport RI (population 25k) completely crushes Providence (population 180k) as far as tourist areas go. I'm not exaggerating when I say Boston is 100:1.

[id77]

Originally Posted by redplum33

We're definitely defining it differently. Using your definition, Providence doesn't have any tourist areas.

I would consider most if not all of Downtown, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and Fenway to be tourist areas. And part of the South End and the North End. Basically anywhere tourists would have an interest in going to. Chinatown and the Seaport fit this definition also.

By my definition, we're probably talking about a 100:1 ratio for tourist areas whereas the population is a 4:1 ratio.

Using your locations (and even adding in Charlestown for the USS Constitution/Bunker Hill stuff), you're still basically concentrating all of the tourism into the northeastern neighborhoods.

Charlestown, Downtown, Fenway/Kenmore, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Bay Village, and the North and South Ends combined are just under 150k people. Just Dorchester and Roxbury are 141k people. The entire city is just under 700k people.

So, Boston has a lot more tourism, but that 100:1 is almost entirely jammed into neighborhoods where less than a quarter of the population of the city lives. Based on your original statement, that led me to believe the other ~550k people are packed into college areas or ghettoes, and there's not that many college areas that aren't also touristy (Allston/Brighton being the one major exception).

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by id77

Using your locations (and even adding in Charlestown for the USS Constitution/Bunker Hill stuff), you're still basically concentrating all of the tourism into the northeastern neighborhoods.

Charlestown, Downtown, Fenway/Kenmore, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Bay Village, and the North and South Ends combined are just under 150k people. Just Dorchester and Roxbury are 141k people. The entire city is just under 700k people.

So, Boston has a lot more tourism, but that 100:1 is almost entirely jammed into neighborhoods where less than a quarter of the population of the city lives. Based on your original statement, that led me to believe the other ~550k people are packed into college areas or ghettoes, and there's not that many college areas that aren't also touristy (Allston/Brighton being the one major exception).

Dorchester's population is roughly 110-125k. Roxbury's is about 50-60k. Its 160-185k people. Toss in Mattapan and youre at 190-220k people..

in 2015 the BPDA put Dorchester's population at 124, 489. Roxbury was at 51,252. In 2010 the city of Boston put Mattapan at 34,616. But again all depends on the definition

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by id77

Using your locations (and even adding in Charlestown for the USS Constitution/Bunker Hill stuff), you're still basically concentrating all of the tourism into the northeastern neighborhoods.

Charlestown, Downtown, Fenway/Kenmore, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Bay Village, and the North and South Ends combined are just under 150k people. Just Dorchester and Roxbury are 141k people. The entire city is just under 700k people.

So, Boston has a lot more tourism, but that 100:1 is almost entirely jammed into neighborhoods where less than a quarter of the population of the city lives. Based on your original statement, that led me to believe the other ~550k people are packed into college areas or ghettoes, and there's not that many college areas that aren't also touristy (Allston/Brighton being the one major exception).

But it's still a pretty extensive, consistent area. Point is a tourist can spend an entire day walking around and not run into any ghetto or non-tourist friendly areas, whereas in Providence that's not possible unless they stay exclusively east.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by massnative71

But it's still a pretty extensive, consistent area. Point is a tourist can spend an entire day walking around and not run into any ghetto or non-tourist friendly areas, whereas in Providence that's not possible unless they stay exclusively east.

it's still a small geographic area, probably no bigger than Roxbury (4.1 square miles).

Fenway is the biggest neighborhood of the bunch 1.24 square miles, followed by Charlestown and South End at 1 square mile each. the Back bay is .53 square miles. Beacon Hill is .3 square miles, North end is .35 square miles.

All in all it's 4.3 square miles, just about the size of Roxbury.

Add in Chinatown Bay Village and Seaport and maybe you're approaching the size of Dorchester (6 square miles). But still, the entire DRM is much larger. And I think more populous.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

it's still a small geographic area, probably no bigger than Roxbury (4.1 square miles).

Fenway is the biggest neighborhood of the bunch 1.24 square miles, followed by Charlestown and South End at 1 square mile each. the Back bay is .53 square miles. Beacon Hill is .3 square miles, North end is .35 square miles.

All in all it's 4.3 square miles, just about the size of Roxbury.

My definition of the "touristed areas" of Boston is Fenway-Bunker Hill going up to the Esplanade and down to the northern half of the South End. Is that really only 4.3 square miles? I realize that it's still a relatively small portion of the city, but seems like it would be bigger than that?



Have you seen the extent of the "tourist" areas in Providence? We're talking Brown/RISD, a few blocks here and there downtown, and a narrow sliver along Atwells Ave. going west. In total area, it's probably smaller than the Boston Common.

[id77]

Originally Posted by massnative71

But it's still a pretty extensive, consistent area. Point is a tourist can spend an entire day walking around and not run into any ghetto or non-tourist friendly areas, whereas in Providence that's not possible unless they stay exclusively east.

Don't disagree there. Providence is also a lot smaller city, so it stands to reason the areas are closer together.