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.
But Boston has way more poor people than SF in general. So while not homelesss, there's a lot more poverty amongst the general population.
Right, but I think (at least in my mind), it's more the homeless, and Not the poor, that contribute to the uncleanliness in many parts of DT SF. People can be poor still clean. Many historic blue collar sections of industrial cities (NYC, Philly, Boston, Chicago, Pitt, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.) have historic blue collar neighborhoods that aren't wealthy by any means but are kept well.
In my visits to SF, it is the homeless scattered throughout DT, that contribute most to its unclean reputation.
Right, but I think (at least in my mind), it's more the homeless, and Not the poor, that contribute to the uncleanliness in many parts of DT SF. People can be poor still clean. Many historic blue collar sections of industrial cities (NYC, Philly, Boston, Chicago, Pitt, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.) have historic blue collar neighborhoods that aren't wealthy by any means but are kept well.
In my visits to SF, it is the homeless scattered throughout DT, that contribute most to its unclean reputation.
yea its nasty stuff for sure. the homeless its next to impossible for that to look clean
also purchasing and sending out 2x the street sweepers than the city has previously had.
I was going to mention the street sweepers, but figured other cities had similar numbers and frequencies. They do a very good job of keeping the roads litter-free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by personone
In my visits to SF, it is the homeless scattered throughout DT, that contribute most to its unclean reputation.
I think the weather factor can’t be ignored when comparing homelessness in Boston to SF. Though, I will say that Mayor Wu has at least made a showing of trying to increase/improve the city’s resources for addressing homelessness.
I vote for Chicago as the cleanest. It's the only city mentioned in this thread that I actually noticed it's cleanliness upon visiting. The others are clean too I guess but I actually noticed that and commented on it when I was in Chicago.
I vote for Chicago as the cleanest. It's the only city mentioned in this thread that I actually noticed it's cleanliness upon visiting. The others are clean too I guess but I actually noticed that and commented on it when I was in Chicago.
Of the major cities Ive been to, Chicago and Dallas tend to be the cleanest. Boston is also quite clean. Others that come to mind are Charlotte, Nashville, and Indianapolis though they are obviously much smaller than the three I mentioned previous to that.
For dirty cities, I would say the West Coast cities tend to take the cake. New Orleans, Houston, Memphis, and Detroit won't win any awards for cleanliness either.
Of the major cities Ive been to, Chicago and Dallas tend to be the cleanest. Boston is also quite clean. Others that come to mind are Charlotte, Nashville, and Indianapolis though they are obviously much smaller than the three I mentioned previous to that.
For dirty cities, I would say the West Coast cities tend to take the cake. New Orleans, Houston, Memphis, and Detroit won't win any awards for cleanliness either.
We have homelessness out west-I was shocked to see so many jn Austin as well. Do they follow techies around, I wondered in jest.
I was going to mention the street sweepers, but figured other cities had similar numbers and frequencies. They do a very good job of keeping the roads litter-free.
I think the weather factor can’t be ignored when comparing homelessness in Boston to SF. Though, I will say that Mayor Wu has at least made a showing of trying to increase/improve the city’s resources for addressing homelessness.
Hopefully, it all amounts to more than just lip service.
It's the weather but SF is a very very permissive city. Their approach to homelessness and drug use is pretty drastically different than in Bosotn. Ive rea numerous articles on this.
The types of conversations they have around homelessness and drug use start and end in different places
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/bost...e5c69940b.html
I'm not talking basketball. That issue remains to be seen. But in the streets, Boston puts San Francisco to shame. Crowded restaurants and offices. Beautiful public spaces. And very few homeless people in this city’s vibrant center.
A lot of basketball journalists stayed at the Marriott Marquis on Fourth and Mission streets last week. Now, the Jukebox has always been a fine hotel. But many of those media members told me they were pretty horrified at what they saw while walking around our core downtown.
. The North End and Back Bay neighborhoods are relatively spotless, with few or no boarded-up businesses. It's all quite lovely. I can't tell you how different this feels from what I experience regularly in San Francisco's relatively barren Financial District. Actually, I think I just did.
There are a variety of factors at play here. San Francisco has more homeless people than Boston. The weather is temperate, so it attracts more people year-round. Boston shuffles its homeless population to the outskirts, leaving places like Roxbury to deal with the crisis. There's a place they call "Methadone Mile" here that sure sounds familiar. So, don't get me wrong. This is not Shangri-La on the banks of the Charles River.
But Boston seems to understand a core fact that appears lost on San Francisco's civic leaders. If you're going to be a world-class city that attracts the best and brightest business travelers and competes with destinations like Paris and Rome for tourist dollars, you can't let your downtown core be an open air drug market. You just can't. It should be clean and policed and free of threatening elements. Boston clearly believes this. Same can be said for New York City. A recent trip to Dallas revealed the same. Society's problems remain, but they're not front and center.
An editorial in the Boston Globe earlier this year drew the comparison, saying, "Boston's street homelessness rate, as measured by last year's census, was under 4 percent. By comparison, San Francisco, roughly the same size of Boston with a similar high cost of living, has a street homelessness rate of over 60 percent." Recent counts show just under 8,000 people are currently homeless in San Francisco. In Boston, over 2,000 people are estimated to be homeless on any given night.
I won't pretend to be an expert on Boston's homelessness strategies, but some simple research reveals good ideas. To start with, the state of Massachusetts is a right-to-shelter state for families. According to the Boston Foundation, a nonprofit focused on equity issues, "Right to shelter is a mandate that requires a state or municipality to provide temporary emergency shelter to every man, woman and child who is eligible for services, every night. Massachusetts has been a right to shelter state since 1983. Only two other U.S. jurisdictions have right to shelter mandates: New York City and the District of Columbia."
Ive seen other conversations about Drug use in SF that mostly revolve around- its their right to do what they want with their bodies, even if they die in the streets. Its a public sidewalk, not public proerties- tents are okay.
On a cold, sunny day not too long ago, I went to see the city’s new Tenderloin Center for drug addicts on Market Street. It’s downtown, an open-air chain-link enclosure in what used to be a public plaza. On the sidewalks all around it, people are lying on the ground, twitching. There’s a free mobile shower, laundry, and bathroom station emblazoned with the words dignity on wheels. A young man is lying next to it, stoned, his shirt riding up, his face puffy and sunburned. Inside the enclosure, services are doled out: food, medical care, clean syringes, referrals for housing. It’s basically a safe space to shoot up. The city government says it’s trying to help. But from the outside, what it looks like is young people being eased into death on the sidewalk, surrounded by half-eaten boxed lunches.
Stepping over people’s bodies, blurring my eyes to not see a dull needle jabbing and jabbing again between toes—it coarsened me. I’d gotten used to the idea that some people just want to live like that. I was even a little defensive of it: Hey, it’s America. It’s your choice.
If these ideas seem facile or perverse, well, they’re not the only ones I’d come to harbor.
I’d gotten used to the crime, rarely violent but often brazen; to leaving the car empty and the doors unlocked so thieves would at least quit breaking my windows. A lot of people leave notes on the glass stating some variation of Nothing’s in the car. Don't smash the windows. One time someone smashed our windows just to steal a scarf. Once, when I was walking and a guy tore my jacket off my back and sprinted away with it, I didn’t even shout for help. I was embarrassed—what was I, a tourist? Living in a failing city does weird things to you. The normal thing to do then was to yell, to try to get help—even, dare I say it, from a police officer—but this felt somehow lame and maybe racist.
It goes on and one but yea.. Different mindset 100%. Conversations in Boston are very different.
I vote for Chicago as the cleanest. It's the only city mentioned in this thread that I actually noticed it's cleanliness upon visiting. The others are clean too I guess but I actually noticed that and commented on it when I was in Chicago.
I think I would honestly still give the edge to Boston overall. Downtown Chicago is kept pretty clean, but if you factor in the subways, I think Boston's T is kept cleaner. Chicago's Blue Line has a homeless problem as well, and many of the stations in the "subway portion" before it becomes the L, are not the cleanest. Also while downtown is very clean and a good portion of the north side is clean too. It's "cleanliness" thins out quickly once you get outside of the downtown core. I've seen a good bit of Boston, and downtown and even surrounding areas look very clean. The same can't be said when you get into the South and West sides of Chicago.
Yeah Boston in 2005 was pretty dirty. I'm a Dorchester based family and it was baaaaddd.
IIRC, I could be exaggerating... but my experiences of Dorchester and even parts of Southie, were very run down Triple Deckers, 'White trash', lots of gangs, and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods abutting them.
Chinatown was rough and scummy, parts of Somerville were wicked townie, Roxbury was still dangerous and filthy, Quincy was rougher than rough, Randolph was declining + increase in crimes, Brockton was becoming the worst, etc
I think I would honestly still give the edge to Boston overall. Downtown Chicago is kept pretty clean, but if you factor in the subways, I think Boston's T is kept cleaner. Chicago's Blue Line has a homeless problem as well, and many of the stations in the "subway portion" before it becomes the L, are not the cleanest. Also while downtown is very clean and a good portion of the north side is clean too. It's "cleanliness" thins out quickly once you get outside of the downtown core. I've seen a good bit of Boston, and downtown and even surrounding areas look very clean. The same can't be said when you get into the South and West sides of Chicago.
From what I've seen in street view the South Side of Chicago looks quite clean. Certainly more so than Roxbury/most of Dorchester. But I've never actually been there. Thye just looks pretty clean. I typically hear Chicago called the cleanest big city.
Albeit Roxbury has cleaned up a lot recently.
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.
