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.
True. And that's cool for DC. But if you're going to compare these 5 counties to Bay Area counties it should be noted that 2 of them have less than 300,000 people, another has around 385,000 and only one of them barely exceeds 1 million residents. Most of the Bay Area's 9 counties are much larger (5 have populations over 700,000 and only 2 are below 400,000), yet 3 of them made the top 20 with one in the top 10, having populations of 1.76 million, 712,000, and 249,000.
DC is wealthy because of huge govt spending. That's their bread and butter.
The Bay Area is entrepreneurial and our wealth is generated by innovation.
Both kinds of economies means that there is a huge concentration of highly educated folks in both areas.
Quote:
And since we're looking at this, it should also be noted that the Bay Area has 5 of the top 20 highest income places in the US with populations over 1,000, 3 of which are in the top 10 (Belvedere being #1), while DC's metro has none. Additionally, the Bay has 5 of the top 20 highest income places in the US with at least 1,000 households, again with 3 in the top 10 (Atherton ranking #2) and zero in DC.
Both Atherton, CA and Hillsborough, CA (which are located in San Mateo County/the SF Peninsula) rank among the wealthiest towns with larger populations. Atherton is the largest city with a median income in excess of $200,000, with a population of 7,210. And Hillsborough has the highest median income ($193,157) of any place with a population greater than 10,000.
Jeez - things DC can't offer?? As another poster claims - SF is an equivalent to Paris - LOL!!!
DC is the murder captial??? LOL. A lot of good humor going on in this thread. Obviously no clue whatsoever about what DC is today.
It's all good. I don't even want to waste the time to explain how a few of these SF posters are in major delusion of DC and especially of SF. Have you and a few of the others have ever traveled outside of SF?? Your posts prove that you haven't.
Come to think of it, SF certainly bests Paris in terms of Natural Beauty. Thanks!
I've been to cities on every continent on Earth except Antartica and Africa. Take from that what you will.
From the standpoint of being cosmopolitan and attracting immigrants, highly educated and wealthy people-Baltimore is well below Oakland.
Well Oakland has Baltimore beat in all of those categories.
But Baltimore has some very educated people as well, and Maryland is one of the most wealthiest states as a whole (I think only behind NJ), so it's not as if Baltimore is way under the mud.
And like you said, Baltimore has a better waterfront, and it has a richer history, AND don't forget it's close to DC which is among the most important city in the nation offering high paying jobs and the countries history making Oakland's neighbor look shabby (and i'm not saying SF is shabby, but it's shabby when you compare it to the importance of DC.)
Maybe I'm too much of a North Eastern lover, but i feel like Baltimore doesn't get the recognition it deserves, then again neither does Oakland. ..
Okay I'm sorry, I'm good with much of what you said in your post, but some of this is completely off. Especially considering you're calling out another poster for supposedly "sounding stupid."
Well for starters, where were you when this guy was naming off about 25 or so DC hoods as being the most dangerous in the nation:
...or when this guy came out with this?
And for the record, I don't believe "130 murders" from "20 years ago" was what ANYONE was thinking of whenever they've mentioned DC as having been the murder capitol of the US. The last time DC had less than 130 murders was in 1963! 20 years ago DC had 434 murders; maybe they are talking about that instead? Or maybe how it had 482 murders in 1991?
Its so crazy how depending on who you talk to from the NE, or in some cases what kind of mood those people are in at a given moment, the cities there are either completely safe or they're 3rd world war zones. I wish some of you would finally settle on reality and just tell it the way it is. I'm glad at least there are plenty that can do this, I just wish the rest of you would finally get on board.
Why say something we all know isn't even close to true? Seriously? DC isn't any worse than SF? The place Chris Rock referred to as "Crackylvania?" If you'd said Oakland you would have been correct, but SF obviously has way less crime than DC. It may not be nearly as safe as its reputed to be, but it doesn't have crime on DC's level. Don't just talk nonsense without even looking at the reality. Please. DC makes the list of the top 25 most dangerous cities in the US year after year. SF is never on that list.
Annual violent crime rates per 100,000 residents:
Washington, DC
violent crimes: 13.27
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 75
murder: 35
rape: 39
robbery: 560
assault: 694
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
SF
violent crimes: 7.44
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 134
murder: 11
rape: 20
robbery: 394
assault: 320
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
How are you even going to try and make such a ridiculous claim? Crime in DC is significantly worse year after year. SF is a larger city and its highest total of murders ever was around 160.
True. And that's cool for DC. But if you're going to compare these 5 counties to Bay Area counties it should be noted that 2 of them have less than 300,000 people, another has around 385,000 and only one of them barely exceeds 1 million residents. Most of the Bay Area's 9 counties are much larger (5 have populations over 700,000 and only 2 are below 400,000), yet 3 of them made the top 20 with one in the top 10, having populations of 1.76 million, 712,000, and 249,000.
And since we're looking at this, it should also be noted that the Bay Area has 5 of the top 20 highest income places in the US with populations over 1,000, 3 of which are in the top 10 (Belvedere being #1), while DC's metro has none. Additionally, the Bay has 5 of the top 20 highest income places in the US with at least 1,000 households, again with 3 in the top 10 (Atherton ranking #2) and zero in DC.
Both Atherton, CA and Hillsborough, CA (which are located in San Mateo County/the SF Peninsula) rank among the wealthiest towns with larger populations. Atherton is the largest city with a median income in excess of $200,000, with a population of 7,210. And Hillsborough has the highest median income ($193,157) of any place with a population greater than 10,000.
How cosmopolitan is it really being 56% black and 36% white? 92% of its population is either black or white, and although there can be some variations in ethnicities within these two races, that doesn't make for an "extremely cosmopolitan" city. Definitely not on the level of SF, and I would say the same goes for its vibrancy.
Thanks, j-man. Awesome post, as usual.
I would hate to live in an area dominated by just two races, Black/White - that's it. And when you go out towards the suburbs, it gets worse.
Okay I'm sorry, I'm good with much of what you said in your post, but some of this is completely off. Especially considering you're calling out another poster for supposedly "sounding stupid."
Well for starters, where were you when this guy was naming off about 25 or so DC hoods as being the most dangerous in the nation:
...or when this guy came out with this?
And for the record, I don't believe "130 murders" from "20 years ago" was what ANYONE was thinking of whenever they've mentioned DC as having been the murder capitol of the US. The last time DC had less than 130 murders was in 1963! 20 years ago DC had 434 murders; maybe they are talking about that instead? Or maybe how it had 482 murders in 1991?
Its so crazy how depending on who you talk to from the NE, or in some cases what kind of mood those people are in at a given moment, the cities there are either completely safe or they're 3rd world war zones. I wish some of you would finally settle on reality and just tell it the way it is. I'm glad at least there are plenty that can do this, I just wish the rest of you would finally get on board.
Why say something we all know isn't even close to true? Seriously? DC isn't any worse than SF? The place Chris Rock referred to as "Crackylvania?" If you'd said Oakland you would have been correct, but SF obviously has way less crime than DC. It may not be nearly as safe as its reputed to be, but it doesn't have crime on DC's level. Don't just talk nonsense without even looking at the reality. Please. DC makes the list of the top 25 most dangerous cities in the US year after year. SF is never on that list.
Annual violent crime rates per 100,000 residents:
Washington, DC
violent crimes: 13.27
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 75
murder: 35
rape: 39
robbery: 560
assault: 694
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
SF
violent crimes: 7.44
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 134
murder: 11
rape: 20
robbery: 394
assault: 320
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
How are you even going to try and make such a ridiculous claim? Crime in DC is significantly worse year after year. SF is a larger city and its highest total of murders ever was around 160.
True. And that's cool for DC. But if you're going to compare these 5 counties to Bay Area counties it should be noted that 2 of them have less than 300,000 people, another has around 385,000 and only one of them barely exceeds 1 million residents. Most of the Bay Area's 9 counties are much larger (5 have populations over 700,000 and only 2 are below 400,000), yet 3 of them made the top 20 with one in the top 10, having populations of 1.76 million, 712,000, and 249,000.
And since we're looking at this, it should also be noted that the Bay Area has 5 of the top 20 highest income places in the US with populations over 1,000, 3 of which are in the top 10 (Belvedere being #1), while DC's metro has none. Additionally, the Bay has 5 of the top 20 highest income places in the US with at least 1,000 households, again with 3 in the top 10 (Atherton ranking #2) and zero in DC.
Both Atherton, CA and Hillsborough, CA (which are located in San Mateo County/the SF Peninsula) rank among the wealthiest towns with larger populations. Atherton is the largest city with a median income in excess of $200,000, with a population of 7,210. And Hillsborough has the highest median income ($193,157) of any place with a population greater than 10,000.
How cosmopolitan is it really being 56% black and 36% white? 92% of its population is either black or white, and although there can be some variations in ethnicities within these two races, that doesn't make for an "extremely cosmopolitan" city. Definitely not on the level of SF, and I would say the same goes for its vibrancy.
good post. California takes cosmopolitanism (why do I hate this word? lol) to a level that isn't matched by most places in the US.
As far as the crime rates, those stats look like they're from 2004 (and just slightly off as well) According to the Bureau of Justice DC's and SF's violent crime rates per 100,000 residents for 2007 are:
Washington, DC
-violent crime rate: 1,347 (7,924)
-chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 74
-murder: 30.8 ( 181)
-rape: 32.6 (192)
-robbery: 677.4 ( 3,985)
-assault: 606.2 ( 3,566)
San Francisco
-violent crime rate: 874.1 ( 6,414)
-chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 114
-murder: 13.6 ( 100)
-rape: 17 (125)
-robbery: 513.9 ( 3,771)
-assault: 329.5 ( 2,418)
Okay I'm sorry, I'm good with much of what you said in your post, but some of this is completely off. Especially considering you're calling out another poster for supposedly "sounding stupid."
Well for starters, where were you when this guy was naming off about 25 or so DC hoods as being the most dangerous in the nation:
...or when this guy came out with this?
And for the record, I don't believe "130 murders" from "20 years ago" was what ANYONE was thinking of whenever they've mentioned DC as having been the murder capitol of the US. The last time DC had less than 130 murders was in 1963! 20 years ago DC had 434 murders; maybe they are talking about that instead? Or maybe how it had 482 murders in 1991?
Its so crazy how depending on who you talk to from the NE, or in some cases what kind of mood those people are in at a given moment, the cities there are either completely safe or they're 3rd world war zones. I wish some of you would finally settle on reality and just tell it the way it is. I'm glad at least there are plenty that can do this, I just wish the rest of you would finally get on board.
Why say something we all know isn't even close to true? Seriously? DC isn't any worse than SF? The place Chris Rock referred to as "Crackylvania?" If you'd said Oakland you would have been correct, but SF obviously has way less crime than DC. It may not be nearly as safe as its reputed to be, but it doesn't have crime on DC's level. Don't just talk nonsense without even looking at the reality. Please. DC makes the list of the top 25 most dangerous cities in the US year after year. SF is never on that list.
Annual violent crime rates per 100,000 residents:
Washington, DC
violent crimes: 13.27
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 75
murder: 35
rape: 39
robbery: 560
assault: 694
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
SF
violent crimes: 7.44
chances of becoming a victim: 1 in 134
murder: 11
rape: 20
robbery: 394
assault: 320
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
How are you even going to try and make such a ridiculous claim? Crime in DC is significantly worse year after year. SF is a larger city and its highest total of murders ever was around 160.
True. And that's cool for DC. But if you're going to compare these 5 counties to Bay Area counties it should be noted that 2 of them have less than 300,000 people, another has around 385,000 and only one of them barely exceeds 1 million residents. Most of the Bay Area's 9 counties are much larger (5 have populations over 700,000 and only 2 are below 400,000), yet 3 of them made the top 20 with one in the top 10, having populations of 1.76 million, 712,000, and 249,000.
And since we're looking at this, it should also be noted that the Bay Area has 5 of the top 20 highest income places in the US with populations over 1,000, 3 of which are in the top 10 (Belvedere being #1), while DC's metro has none. Additionally, the Bay has 5 of the top 20 highest income places in the US with at least 1,000 households, again with 3 in the top 10 (Atherton ranking #2) and zero in DC.
Both Atherton, CA and Hillsborough, CA (which are located in San Mateo County/the SF Peninsula) rank among the wealthiest towns with larger populations. Atherton is the largest city with a median income in excess of $200,000, with a population of 7,210. And Hillsborough has the highest median income ($193,157) of any place with a population greater than 10,000.
How cosmopolitan is it really being 56% black and 36% white? 92% of its population is either black or white, and although there can be some variations in ethnicities within these two races, that doesn't make for an "extremely cosmopolitan" city. Definitely not on the level of SF, and I would say the same goes for its vibrancy.
Maybe I should have stated that differently. Didn't mean to be offensive. I just meant that the post was WAY off.
First, I don't read every post on every topic on this forum. So I never saw that guys post. These neighborhoods WERE extremely dangerous. Most still aren't that great. All of them being the most dangerous in the nation? NO WAY. The city has gentrified quicker than most.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with the homicides. I don't think you read my post right. I never said 130 murders 20 years ago. I agree, it was the murder capital then. My point is now that it's not even close. Halfway through this year, the city was said to be on pace for 130 murders. So I'm not talking about 1963. I'm talking about 2009.
I know a fair amount about the crime in DC. I haven't been here too long, but I deal with it in my job more than most do. I'm a fireman. I was told that 10 years ago each station went to 2-3 fires every day. Now the entire city as a whole doesn't even get a fire every day.
The bad areas of DC are very avoidable. It's a large city though. Anyone can be a victim of crime. Just like in SF. I've been fine in DC where I've had a friend move to SF and have his car broken into with all of his things stolen within his first hour of being there. It happens.
Except for the areas that are ungentrified in the "bad" areas of DC, the city is extremely cosmopolitan. Ask anyone that's been here in the past 3 years. Once the new stats come out, it will be more obvious. One of those "notorious ghettos" that that guy named is primarily white yuppies now. My neighborhood is 1/3 white, 1/3 black, 1/3 hispanic. Tons of young professionals are moving here from all over. Someone even recently posted a topic about how DC is now the most popular city in the nation for young professionals that make decent money. I see people from other countries everywhere at any time of the day.
It's a hard city to look at by stats because it's changing so quickly. Stats aren't accurately updated that often. It's something you need to see for yourself.
baltimore but its only because im an east coast kind of person
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.
.. 
Why say something we all know isn't even close to true? Seriously? DC isn't any worse than SF? The place Chris Rock referred to as "Crackylvania?" If you'd said Oakland you would have been correct, but SF obviously has way less crime than DC. It may not be nearly as safe as its reputed to be, but it doesn't have crime on DC's level. Don't just talk nonsense without even looking at the reality. Please. DC makes the list of the top 25 most dangerous cities in the US year after year. SF is never on that list.
