which of these cities has the LEAST ghetto feel to it? (best, compared)
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 echo the sentiments of JMBX...because Atlanta looks so suburban and even straight out country in some spots;you don't think ghetto and dangerous at first glance.Ditto for Houston.
I echo the sentiments of JMBX...because Atlanta looks so suburban and even straight out country in some spots;you don't think ghetto and dangerous at first glance.Ditto for Houston.
This is Sooo True, Atlanta is not your Typical City when it comes to the inner city. It's very green and less dense in some area's and a lot of the City looks like a Suburb not that it doesnt have some Dense areas. You can't even compair it to an Inner City New York, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Baltimore, etc... In those cities you can tell the Ghetto when you see it, the City is more Concrete and the suburbs are the major green areas in those cities. In Atlanta the Ghetto Can fool you in both the City and the Suburbs. You will think your in a Nice decent Neighborhood or Apt. Complex by day when every one is at work and by Night the Area becomes a War Zone. You have to actually know the areas to move to when your dealing with ATL Metro. Cant say much about Houston, never been there but its seems low dense like Atlanta.
Baltimore? Really? That city should be on the list of most ghetto feel to it.
Of those listed, I would say currently Oakland as Oakland has seen some major revitalization since both the dot com boom and Loma Prieta earthquake. Also the recent uptick in home sales has priced homes low enough to allow for young, first time home buyers, to purchase there. It was really only West Oakland that was the ghetto in the past and East Oakland has always been $$$$. It is not the same place it once was in the 70s or 80s and most from Nor Cal would agree that Richmond is, and was, far worse anyways. Oakland was always popular with hipsters who could not afford Berkeley yet wanted to remain in the East Bay, anyways, and since the housing prices in SF have effectively priced nearly everyone out those who called the West Bay home are flocking over to the other side.
That's the point. All these cities have ghetto feels to it. May I say add Chicago and NYC and New Orleans to the list
Baltimore? Really? That city should be on the list of most ghetto feel to it.
Of those listed, I would say currently Oakland as Oakland has seen some major revitalization since both the dot com boom and Loma Prieta earthquake. Also the recent uptick in home sales has priced homes low enough to allow for young, first time home buyers, to purchase there. It was really only West Oakland that was the ghetto in the past and East Oakland has always been $$$$. It is not the same place it once was in the 70s or 80s and most from Nor Cal would agree that Richmond is, and was, far worse anyways. Oakland was always popular with hipsters who could not afford Berkeley yet wanted to remain in the East Bay, anyways, and since the housing prices in SF have effectively priced nearly everyone out those who called the West Bay home are flocking over to the other side.
My vote's for DC. As others have noted much of what's usually called East Oakland is pretty impoverished and dangerous. West Oakland's gentrifying but still has some rough pockets. Richmond's not far worse than Oakland. It's actually safer than Oakland, it just doesn't have as many nice neighborhoods and isn't being rapidly gentrified yet, like Oakland. I will agree that North Richmond, which is an unincorporated area next to Richmond, might be the most dangerous area in the Bay. It's isolated, next to refineries/industrial, and has very high crime rates.
Washington DC is actually pretty upscale in the northwest quadrant. There's been a high concentration of multi-millionaire residents there for decades. Many other parts of northeast and southwest DC are middle-class. The city has undergone a lot of gentrification.
I haven't been to the ghetto areas of DC in many years, but I'm pretty sure you will still find a lot of those in the eastern part of the city, particularly the southeast.
I echo the sentiments of JMBX...because Atlanta looks so suburban and even straight out country in some spots;you don't think ghetto and dangerous at first glance.Ditto for Houston.
If you completely stayed out of Bankhead and the SWATS, yeah. I'm not sure what urbanity and density have too with the relative "ghettoness" of a place, but okay.
I took a drive down Bankhead Highway in Atlanta, and it didn't really seem all that run-down despite its reputation as a high crime area. About the only way you could really tell that you were in the ghetto was the number of liquor stores, pawn shops, and homes and businesses with security bars over the windows.
From what I could tell driving through all the cities in Georgia, the ghettos are typically marked by suburban-style duplexes in the residential areas. Most of them are made of bricks, though some newer developments have vinyl siding, and some older developments are made of cinder blocks and look like military barracks.
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.
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.
