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 agree with you there,It's just sad to see the neighborhood change and everybody leave you know?
Growing up SF was a very black city at least from my stand point and now it's losing color by the day..I guess there's worse things in life.
San Francisco has never been considered "a very Black city" by anybody, ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_810
I am not saying SF is the most ghetto place because it is not. But it certainly is not in the least 10. Every major urban area has bad parts. The ghettos of SF are just as bad as any in america..that is real talk. IF you dn't believe that than ok, but to say sf isn't rough is an understatement b/c it has very depressed sections of the city. Every hood is the same...Same **** goes down. And yes SF has had a significant impact on the culture of ghettos. IT is one of the deepest cities in rap. The most famous pimp of all time is from frisco. SF nowadays is significantly more dangerous than NY. Also in the early 1990's the violent crime rate in SF was higher than houston, oakland one year and yearly just under that of new orleans.
Who exactly is the most famous pimp of all time? I always thought Iceberg Slim was the most famous pimp of all time and he was from Milwaukee not San Francisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-town 720
post#82
You said it clearly in a response to relocating residents from HP. You claimed
"""yea, but don't you suppose that if the hp residents are a problem then they will just pop up in another neighborhood and turn it into another hp? besides, where do working class/middle class residents go to live? everywhere they move gentrification will soon follow. plus, you obviously sound like you don't understand the consequences of eliminating the working class from a city do you?"""
Of course you did not say a portion of the working class but """the working class from a city""". Again, this is in regards to the HP situation.
The only way you can get out of this is try to change the topic to gentrification of middle class neighborhoods, which was clearly not on topic...
Originally Posted by D-town 720 If you think about it, its a win-win situation for everybody. SF gets a nicer hood and the folks who get relocated get a chance to start over. You couldn't possibly think keeping folks in the HP was healthy? Its kind of like separating the kids who fight at recess into different corners. In this case HP folks are priced out to somewhere else where they may or may not engage in the same life choices they did before. At least now they have a chance to make a change....the urban decay would of devoured them. An economic solution to a social problem...I loved it!
Wow. I really didn't find what GDK94 wrote to be so difficult to decipher. GDK94 said "the working class from a city," not "the entire working class from a city." What's not to get?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDK94
yea, but don't you suppose that if the hp residents are a problem then they will just pop up in another neighborhood and turn it into another hp? besides, where do working class/middle class residents go to live? everywhere they move gentrification will soon follow. plus, you obviously sound like you don't understand the consequences of eliminating the working class from a city do you?
D-town: when i said "eliminating the working class citizens" i was talking about gentrification in GENERAL. not just of hp. i even used harlem in nyc as an example of the working class citizens and how they flee a neighborhood when they can no longer afford it (like anyone would do). because of gentrification, a whole lot of low wage works are leaving for the south while white collar workers who can afford high prices are relocating here. get it now.
I could have sworn I just said this. The thread topic is "Top 10 LEAST ghetto cities", were talking about whole cities, not just a few neighborhoods. If were talking about large cities, San Francisco would definitely be on a lot of peoples (if not most) top 10 least ghetto lists. I dont know what delusional world you people are living in where you think San Francisco is that rough. And a very strong "ghetto culture"...I hope for your sake that your joking.
I also see another poster saying that Hunters Point has a higher murder rate than almost every city. Obviously you have no clue about this stuff either. You cant compare a neighborhood with entire cities. And you say 90/per 100k for Hunters Point?, there are neighborhoods in the US that triple that. Please people, learn what your talking about.
Hey, you wanna know what large cities had LOWER violent crime rates than San Francisco in 2007?
How about:
St. Paul
Newark
Columbus
Oklahoma City
Anchorage
Corpus Christi
Tuscon
Phoenix
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Arlington
Portland
Louisville
Fort Worth
Lexington
Fresno
Riverside
Seattle
Denver
Bakersfield
New York
Glendale
Omaha
Santa Ana
Raleigh
San Antonio
Aurora
Austin
Colorado Springs
San Diego
Mesa
Mobile
Anaheim
El Paso
San Jose
Chandler
Honolulu
Plano
Virginia Beach
Henderson
Sorry man, but you need to stop trying to prove that SF is one of the 10 "least ghetto" cities in the US. No one is saying it's the most ghetto, because it isn't, and it never has been, but you really couldn't be more wrong.
You've been talking up about how you were raised in Cleveland which to you is somehow so much more legit than San Francisco when it comes to "ghettoness." Did you know that in the 80's and early to mid 90's San Francisco had a similar violent crime rate to Cleveland, and actually had a violent crime rate higher than Cleveland 3 times? (1985, 1992, and 1993)
Look at these violent crime rate stats for 1990 through 1994:
1990
Chicago - 2,842.2
LA - 2,404.6
NYC - 2,383.6
New Orleans - 2,259.2
Long Beach - 1,956.8
Cleveland - 1,817.6
SF - 1,711.1
Oakland - 1,570.2
Memphis - 1,488.0
Houston - 1,388.3
Philadelphia - 1,348.8 1991
Chicago - 3,092.5
LA - 2,525.8
Oakland - 2,495.8
NYC - 2,318.2
New Orleans - 2,190.3
Long Beach - 2,100.7
Cleveland - 1,831.9
SF - 1,645.4
Houston - 1,599.9
Memphis - 1,422.3
Philadelphia - 1,406.1 1992
Chicago - 2,840.4
Oakland - 2,626.4
LA - 2,459.5
NYC - 2,163.7
New Orleans - 1,981.6
SF - 1,821.3
Cleveland - 1,661.6
Long Beach - 1,554.8
Memphis - 1,552.6
Houston - 1,465.1
Philadelphia - 1,191.2 1993
Chicago - 2,717.4
Oakland - 2,601.6
LA - 2,374.3
NYC - 2,089.8
New Orleans - 2,039.0
SF - 1,815.0
Cleveland - 1,643.2
Memphis - 1,633.8
Long Beach - 1,605.4
Houston - 1,453.8
Philadelphia - 1,255.2 1994
Chicago - 2,684.5
Oakland - 2,193.9
LA - 2,059.0
New Orleans - 1,886.9
NYC - 1,860.9
Memphis - 1,568.3
Cleveland - 1,529.7
SF - 1,461.4
Long Beach - 1,416.7
Philadelphia - 1,322.5
Houston - 1,307.5
SF and New Orleans with almost the same violent crime rate in 1992? Who would have thought right? And look at that, SF even had a higher violent crime rate than Oakland, in 1990, and a higher violent crime rate than Houston, Memphis and Philly, for the entire time. SF has never been nationally known for it's crime and ghettos, for various reasons...but you better believe that they're there.
Why don't you also look at the robbery rates for all those cities from 1990 to 1994, averaged out, with 2007 robbery rates in parenthesis:
Chicago = 1344.3 (546.1)
New York = 1221.24 (265.0)
New Orleans = 1099.2 (523.1)
Oakland = 1065.4 (875.1)
Los Angeles = 1040.82 (348.3)
San Francisco = 1013.6 (513.9)
Cleveland = 893.0 (914.3)
Long Beach = 863.08 (317.7)
Philadelphia = 792.3 (714.6)
Memphis = 783.36 (727.7)
Houston = 694.9 (529.1)
Oh no, did San Francisco have a higher robbery rate than Cleveland? And Philly? And memphis, Long Beach and Houston too? San Francisco must not have any real ghettos man, how did they do that? /sarcasm
Cleveland DOES have a significantly higher crime rate than SF these days as do a few more of those cities, but I hope you see the point I'm making.
Obviously you can draw a conclusion from those lists of stats: SF has high crime, ghetto neighborhoods, whether they're bigger, with less of a concentration of crime, or smaller with more of a concentration of crime really makes no difference. It's the lifestyle that defines a "ghetto." Are there regularly shootings, stabbings, assaults, robberies, all sorts of theft and vandalism, murders, rapes, etc, etc, in a neighborhood? Drugs and poverty? If so, I would call that a ghetto, no different from any other in the country. And San Francisco DOES have neighborhoods like that. Who cares how big they are compared to Cleveland's? Cleveland is much larger geographically than SF anyways. SF's high crime hoods still make up a significant proportion of the city. They've mostly shrunk compared to the 1980's and 1990's but quite a few of them still have cores that are just as violent and poor as back then.
And on the topic of SF being smaller than cleveland, that means all crimes ARE more concentrated. SF averaged 2.1 murders per square mile in 2007 (100 murders in 47.5 square miles). Cleveland averaged 1.2 murders per square mile in 2007 (90 murder in 77.6 square miles). SF averaged 79.2 robberies per square mile (3,771 total). Cleveland averaged 51.8 (4,022 total). SF averaged 50.8 aggravated assaults per square mile (2,418 total). Cleveland averaged 25.2 per square mile (1,958 total). The one area where Cleveland beats SF in crimes per square mile is rapes (2.6 for SF, 4.8 for Cleveland. SF has always had a pretty low rape rate, especially these days) As you can see, despite Cleveland's higher crime rate due to a lower population, and even higher raw numbers in some instances, SF's ghettos will probably feel more intense, just because everything is much more concentrated.
i realize your main argument is that SF's ghettos don't take up as much of the city as other "real ghetto cities", so why don't you try and back that up? Do you have stats? can you tell me how big each of SF's ghettos are? Cleveland's? What percentages of the whole cities they make up? Will you compare them? If you have no good evidence towards making those claims, than don't make them. I posted stats that back up what many people have been saying in this thread. Are you going to back up your claims or just continue to sound ignorant?
Oh yeah and on the topic of murder rates in certain neighborhoods, you claim there are hoods with higher rates than 90 per 100k residents. I can see that being true. So, why don't you PROVE it. And even so, 90 murders per 100k residents isn't low by any standards anyways.
I'm sure SF does have many more nice neighborhoods than cleveland too, but that doesn't discount the bad areas there are in SF, which truth be told are likely to keep it far out of the "10 least ghetto cities."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark
Who exactly is the most famous pimp of all time? I always thought Iceberg Slim was the most famous pimp of all time and he was from Milwaukee not San Francisco.
Fillmore Slim, named after SF's Fillmore District, which is one of SF's ghettos. I don't know about most famous, but he's certainly famous on the west coast.
D-town: when i said "eliminating the working class citizens" i was talking about gentrification in GENERAL. not just of hp. i even used harlem in nyc as an example of the working class citizens and how they flee a neighborhood when they can no longer afford it (like anyone would do). because of gentrification, a whole lot of low wage works are leaving for the south while white collar workers who can afford high prices are relocating here. get it now.
I have no clue why you saw it necessary to make like a 20 paragraph post just to prove something. Even worse, you dont really make sense at all, you have no clue what your talking about, and you have a lot of your stats off.
1st of all, I never said that San Francisco didnt have ghetto areas, quote me where I said that, because Ive never said it before. And as far as stats from 15 years ago, theyre not even relevant to the current topic which again is "Top 10 LEAST ghetto cities". If you want to talk about that your stats are off anyway because Cleveland was having 170+ murders a year before 1994. In the 70s it was having around 260+ murders a year. I seriously doubt that all of those cities on your list had a lower violent crime rate than San Francisco. Cleveland is far more "legit" when it comes to "ghettoness". Its about 53% black, poverty around 30% (was 1st poorest large city) and was the 7th most dangerous city 2 years ago, its 11th most dangerous now. San Francisco is much nicer than that.
Next you talk about crimes per square mile. Now Im sure you dont know what your talking about. San Francisco is nearly 3 times as dense as Cleveland, of course its going to have more crime per square mile. NYC probably has more crime per square mile than Cleveland, but Cleveland is much more dangerous than NYC. Cleveland had 134 murders in 2007, not 90 ( WKYC.com | Cleveland, OH | Web Exclusive: Criminals with 'no conscience' spike Cleveland's homicide rate ). Every homicide number on city-data and most reported are wrong for Cleveland. Most people consider over 1/2 of Cleveland (if not 2/3) as being a "ghetto". San Francisco is nowhere near that. The ignorant person here is you. I know that San Francisco has ghettos, but so does every major city. If you seriously think San Francisco is ghetto, you really need to get out more. San Francisco is in my list of top 10 least ghetto large cities, and it would be in many other peoples as well. It has ghettos, but the city as a whole is nowhere near rough or ghetto. I dont know why thats so hard for you to accept.
San Francisco has never been considered "a very Black city" by anybody, ever.
Your from Wisconsin and telling me what I considered my own city? LOL
OK..I'll let that slide.
And btw Iceberg Slim wasn't the most famous pimp,and the modern day "pimp" was started in the Bay Area.
And why don't you read what I said after that?
Last edited by Golden-mind-State; 04-05-2009 at 08:45 PM..
I have no clue why you saw it necessary to make like a 20 paragraph post just to prove something. Even worse, you dont really make sense at all, you have no clue what your talking about, and you have a lot of your stats off.
1st of all, I never said that San Francisco didnt have ghetto areas, quote me where I said that, because Ive never said it before. And as far as stats from 15 years ago, theyre not even relevant to the current topic which again is "Top 10 LEAST ghetto cities". If you want to talk about that your stats are off anyway because Cleveland was having 170+ murders a year before 1994. In the 70s it was having around 260+ murders a year. I seriously doubt that all of those cities on your list had a lower violent crime rate than San Francisco. Cleveland is far more "legit" when it comes to "ghettoness". Its about 53% black, poverty around 30% (was 1st poorest large city) and was the 7th most dangerous city 2 years ago, its 11th most dangerous now. San Francisco is much nicer than that.
Next you talk about crimes per square mile. Now Im sure you dont know what your talking about. San Francisco is nearly 3 times as dense as Cleveland, of course its going to have more crime per square mile. NYC probably has more crime per square mile than Cleveland, but Cleveland is much more dangerous than NYC. Cleveland had 134 murders in 2007, not 90 ( WKYC.com | Cleveland, OH | Web Exclusive: Criminals with 'no conscience' spike Cleveland's homicide rate ). Every homicide number on city-data and most reported are wrong for Cleveland. Most people consider over 1/2 of Cleveland (if not 2/3) as being a "ghetto". San Francisco is nowhere near that. The ignorant person here is you. I know that San Francisco has ghettos, but so does every major city. If you seriously think San Francisco is ghetto, you really need to get out more. San Francisco is in my list of top 10 least ghetto large cities, and it would be in many other peoples as well. It has ghettos, but the city as a whole is nowhere near rough or ghetto. I dont know why thats so hard for you to accept.
My stats are off? Did you even look at the link I posted to the Bureau of Justice website...where i got ALL of my stats? I could care less how long my post is. I enjoy looking that kind of stuff up, I made my point, and if you find it strange, than so be it (half of it i pasted from a previous post in a different forum anyways). Plus, this is the City Vs. City forum, and you as well as some others are making some dubious claims in regards to SF. So yeah, i posted all of that to PROVE a point. What else are we supposed to be doing here? If you lack the patience to read that, or the comprehension abilities to understand it, than that's your problem, not mine.
Further more, i'm not trying to prove SF is worse than Cleveland, I'm trying to prove SF is "more ghetto" than what you and quite a few other people believe (which is why i posted those stats from the 90's...these days SF is much safer than back then, thought it's still upper-middle of the road, violent crime wise as far as big US cities go...40 big cities with lower violent crime rates, 30 cities with higher ones).
As far as the density of crimes argument, I was arguing towards perception of crime in high crime areas, if you didn't catch on to that.
And in case you didn't notice, in the beginning of my post, I listed 40 (FORTY) cities with over 250k population with lower violent crime rates than San Francisco in 2007. Maybe you should consider choosing from those for the 10 least ghetto cities before you get up to San Francisco?
Finally you told me I need to get out more. I've been in ghettos in Oakland, Vallejo, CA, LA, San Diego, and Philly. I still think SF has ghettos. And bad ones, at that (remember no where did i say SF was the WORST).
"Ghetto" means more than just high crime. That should be obvious.
If that was the case then a lot of these spring break/vacation towns for college kids would be considered the most ghetto cities in the country.
Yeah, but does most violent crime happen within ghettos in large cities such as San Francisco or Cleveland? I think we both know that the answer is yes.
San Francisco has never been considered "a very Black city" by anybody, ever.
Who exactly is the most famous pimp of all time? I always thought Iceberg Slim was the most famous pimp of all time and he was from Milwaukee not San Francisco.
Wow. I really didn't find what GDK94 wrote to be so difficult to decipher. GDK94 said "the working class from a city," not "the entire working class from a city." What's not to get?
Ya try reading again its all there. But really, what are your motives for chiming in to a disagreement that you have nothing invested in??? Are you just targeting posters you dislike?
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.
