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.
Thats because it doesn't feel safe. Idk what Philly bro went to The Flavor is Danger.
May I ask what neighborhood, part you’re from? We’re a family of four, soon to be five and feel pretty safe in Francisville/Fairmount, or visiting Center City. I know urban life isn’t for everyone, but I don’t feel unsafe anymore here than other cities I’ve lived in (San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Miami, Charleston). The last thing that bothered me was gang graffiti in Fishtown. I know that’s not the end of the world, but the last thing any city needs is giving those groups free advertising. I’d prefer if those things were addressed immediately but also understand nothing is perfect regardless of if you’re in a small, or large metro.
May I ask what neighborhood, part you’re from? We’re a family of four, soon to be five and feel pretty safe in Francisville/Fairmount, or visiting Center City. I know urban life isn’t for everyone, but I don’t feel unsafe anymore here than other cities I’ve lived in (San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Miami, Charleston). The last thing that bothered me was gang graffiti in Fishtown. I know that’s not the end of the world, but the last thing any city needs is giving those groups free advertising. I’d prefer if those things were addressed immediately but also understand nothing is perfect regardless of if you’re in a small, or large metro.
I think Philadelphia, Chicago and DC are three large cities that typify the "Tale of Two Cities."
The urban cores and prime urban neighborhoods certainly do have a crime rate that's very comparable to the other cities you've identified that are commonly cited as "safe." That's simple fact.
It's the outer or historically disinvested neighborhoods that are responsible for the vast majority of crime in these cities. As a result, it's very common for the lived experience in Philadelphia, Chicago and DC to differ dramatically based on one's zip code.
If anyone looks at this map and does not deduce that violent crime is, sadly, a burden on overwhelmingly poor urban Black neighborhoods, needs to re-evaluate their understanding of the world: https://controller.phila.gov/philade...50%2F-75.16428
I think Philadelphia, Chicago and DC are three large cities that typify the "Tale of Two Cities."
The urban cores and prime urban neighborhoods certainly do have a crime rate that's very comparable to the other cities you've identified that are commonly cited as "safe." That's simple fact.
It's the outer or historically disinvested neighborhoods that are responsible for the vast majority of crime in these cities. As a result, it's very common for the lived experience in Philadelphia, Chicago and DC to differ dramatically based on one's zip code.
I think you can say that for a lot of the big cities on this list too. Comparatively speaking Chicago, Philly, Dallas, and Houston are the most dangerous cities on this list but if you were in certain parts of these cities and limited your exposure only to those parts then you would never know the city could be unsafe. Sure Philly, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston have very safe parts but I still don’t think we can call these whole cities safe.
I think you can say that for a lot of the big cities on this list too. Comparatively speaking Chicago, Philly, Dallas, and Houston are the most dangerous cities on this list but if you were in certain parts of these cities and limited your exposure only to those parts then you would never know the city could be unsafe. Sure Philly, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston have very safe parts but I still don’t think we can call these whole cities safe.
Right, and I wasn't trying to argue anything to the contrary. Only that experiences of safety are relative.
And that it's absolutely possible to live in any of these cities and still not feel endangered on a day-to-day basis.
I think Philadelphia, Chicago and DC are three large cities that typify the "Tale of Two Cities."
The urban cores and prime urban neighborhoods certainly do have a crime rate that's very comparable to the other cities you've identified that are commonly cited as "safe." That's simple fact.
It's the outer or historically disinvested neighborhoods that are responsible for the vast majority of crime in these cities. As a result, it's very common for the lived experience in Philadelphia, Chicago and DC to differ dramatically based on one's zip code.
If anyone looks at this map and does not deduce that violent crime is, sadly, a burden on overwhelmingly poor urban Black neighborhoods, needs to re-evaluate their understanding of the world: https://controller.phila.gov/philade...50%2F-75.16428
Is it actually empirically true? I get that violent crime is disproportionately concentrated in low income areas, especially nonimmigrant intergenerational poverty.
But, on the east coast cities, in Boston and NYC you seem to have to purposely go out of your way to stumble into higher crime areas. Whereas DC and Philly the cores are pretty mixed. The popular "safe areas" in the core are just a couple blocks from notorious zones of criminal activity. In DC for example you have yuppie gentrifier zones next to large concentrations of poverty/violence where shootings, car jackings, muggings (Columbia Heights, Shaw, H Street, Petworth, NoMa, the SW DC) are not uncommon. Georgetown and Dupont seem to be the only prime mixed use DC zones that are on par with central Boston, NYC in terms of feeling really safe.
I don't know as much about Chicago. The perception was that the vast and frankly segregated nature of the city did mean the prime area was fairly immune from the troubles in the outer neighborhoods.
New York get a lot of flak from the media, but it is overall a very safe city.
Agreed - when you look at the population of NYC and compare it to the crime rate, it's pretty safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola
Is it actually empirically true? I get that violent crime is disproportionately concentrated in low income areas, especially nonimmigrant intergenerational poverty.
But, on the east coast cities, in Boston and NYC you seem to have to purposely go out of your way to stumble into higher crime areas. Whereas DC and Philly the cores are pretty mixed. The popular "safe areas" in the core are just a couple blocks from notorious zones of criminal activity. In DC for example you have yuppie gentrifier zones next to large concentrations of poverty/violence where shootings, car jackings, muggings (Columbia Heights, Shaw, H Street, Petworth, NoMa, the SW DC) are not uncommon. Georgetown and Dupont seem to be the only prime mixed use DC zones that are on par with central Boston, NYC in terms of feeling really safe.
I don't know as much about Chicago. The perception was that the vast and frankly segregated nature of the city did mean the prime area was fairly immune from the troubles in the outer neighborhoods.
Yep. This was my biggest frustration when apartment hunting in DC. You're in a super nice building that's charging close to $3000 for a 1BR yet also one block away from one of the most crime-ridden parts of the city. DC is definitely a mixed bag and isn't as cohesive when it comes finding a good/low crime area. Unless you go to Upper NW but that's for the 1% who can afford to live there and not have to worry about crime as much.
Agreed - when you look at the population of NYC and compare it to the crime rate, it's pretty safe.
Yep. This was my biggest frustration when apartment hunting in DC. You're in a super nice building that's charging close to $3000 for a 1BR yet also one block away from one of the most crime-ridden parts of the city. DC is definitely a mixed bag and isn't as cohesive when it comes finding a good/low crime area. Unless you go to Upper NW but that's for the 1% who can afford to live there and not have to worry about crime as much.
That's so off-the-wall inaccurate and sounds like a total one-off situation. The entire NW quadrant of DC is pretty much the same with a couple of shades of gray (Petworth is an example), but definitely not crime-ridden. The same goes for much of Capitol Hill, Waterfront/Navy Yard and other areas.
That's so off-the-wall inaccurate and sounds like a total one-off situation. The entire NW quadrant of DC is pretty much the same with a couple of shades of gray (Petworth is an example), but definitely not crime-ridden. The same goes for much of Capitol Hill, Waterfront/Navy Yard and other areas.
Crime is everywhere so I don't want to get into semantics but what do you consider crime ridden? Have you looked at the crime maps in the city specifically since COVID? Crime is up virtually everywhere in DC even in parts of NW (including Georgetown!) that typically did not see much crime.
Dallas is not safe. I had the scariest experience there. The subway uses elevators and the homeless have set up camps in them.
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.
