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.
Hey, if your that brave and made of steel, than go for it!
LOL seriously. If you want to prove your point so bad, feel free to walk through LA and Chicago hoods. Maybe you can tell the gang members there how much tougher you think Harlem was in the '70s and see what they think of that. And be sure to bring a camera and record it so we can all see what you're talking about. I'm sure no one will jack you for your camera; just let 'em know you're from NY and you'll be fine. lol
Quote:
No matter what you say, Harlem has always been an area that has attracted tourists especially with the Apollo located there. Cabrini Greens and South Central aren't places people hope to visit and never have been. I'd rank some areas in Houston higher than Harlem.
I totally agree with you. I don't understand why this is even an argument. Yes, Harlem has a lot of crime and had way more in the past. So do a lot of places, its not the only one. But it has more positives, such as Clinton's office and the Apollo, while South Central & Cabrini don't have any that bring tourists. In fact if they did, there would be waaay more robberies and other crime in these areas because the gangsters would prey on the tourists!
If you think Harlem was the worst, you're entitled to your opinion. Many of us do not agree. Leave it at that.
I wouldn't say that South Central is worse or better than Harlem. Like I said before South Central is huge. It's more a district than a neighborhood. There are some neighborhoods in South Central that are actually quite nice and there are others where for a young man to walk through with the wrong colors on is truly suicidal.
Photos don't show crime and videos won't even do areas justice. I could show you nice lovely pictures of the Galleria Mall in Houston, but it is much different when your physically there. Do you just love the fact that you live close to such a horrible place? You seem to really love bragging about how bad and dangerous NYC.
Is not horrible now. Things have improved a great deal. If they were still bad, you wouldn't see me bragging about it, I'd be out there getting robbed.
But since we're talking, "at their worst", then I feel that out of the three choices, Harlem was the worst. I don't think it's fair to compare a housing project (Cabrini Green) with entire neighborhoods, so I'll use Southside as the third choice. Southside (parts of it) and South Central were terrible neighborhoods in their own right. But when you take into account Harlem's higher crime/murder rate, it's abandonement, and it's utter devastation, then I think it's the easy choice.
Quote:
Sorry buddy, I know you're taking some sort of sick pride, for whatever reason, in Harlem having been a terrible place, but Houston and many other places currently have surpassed Harlem (Houston has far higher crime rates than NYC anyway).
Haha. Houston is not even close to Harlem's crime rate. East Harlem had a murder rate 20+ in 2007, and it had the highest crime rate in the city. In 2005 (?) Central Harlem again was the murder capital. If you want me to show you the stats, just ask. But Houston does have a higher crime rate than NYC. That I will not dispute. But dont compare it to one of NYC worst neighborhoods. Anyways, it would be a mess if they allow a city of 8,000,000, to have a murder rate of 20 +, and leave thousands of dead, in addition to being the most famous city in the world. Nobody cares about little Houston having that high a murder rate, so they allow it to happen there.
Never here.
Quote:
So this was supposed to just be about peoples' opinions w/o people needing to research statistics and post them, but if it'll make you happy I'll bite. East Palo Alto, CA earned the title of "Murder Capital of America" in 1992. It had 42 homicides in a 2 square mile city of 23,000, giving it a murder rate of 182.28 per 100,000 (approximately). That far exceeds the rate of 108 you posted for Harlem, so yes there are/have been places in the US worse than Harlem. I'm sorry to have to break it to you since you seem to take such pride in it, but deal with it.
Aww this is cute. East Palo Alto to the rescue. A few points here. The OP specifically gave three choices, and which of those three, do you feel was the worst. Out of the three neighborhoods (Cabrini Green is a housing project), the worst at their peak was Harlem.
Anyways, in the 1970's Harlem had over 100 homicides a year. And that's with less the population that it had in 1990, due to all the abandonement. I don't have the exact numbers but common sense should tell you that it's murder rate approached and surpassed 182 per 100,000. Especially when you consider other NYC neighborhoods doing this:
41st Precinct [Hunts Point (Bronx)] 2.1 Square Miles
Murder: 102
Rape: 74
Robbery: 2,600
Assault: 1,000
Burglary: 6,400
Community Population: 25,000
Murder Rate: 408 murders per 100,000 people a year
Ahh. The south Bronx comes in handy. The Hunts Point neighborhood in 1971 had a murder rate of 408 per 100,000. Think about that for a second, and let it sink in. Ok, now here's something else for you to bite your teeth into:
A study of three streets in its HuntsPoint section, published in 1969 by The New York Times, found that residents had only a one in 20 chance of dying of natural causes—most were murdered or died of drug overdoses.
I was speechless when I read that. Finally, let me leave you with this tidbit. In 1971, Hunts Point, you had a 1 in 10 chance of being a robbery victim.
Now, I want you to find me a higher murder or robbery rate ever. I dont care where it is, or what time period. You could use France during the revolution, Brazil, Iraq, Mexico, WW1, during whatever time period....you will never find a higher murder/robbery rate in history. And it happened right here in NYC.
Makes East Palo Alto look like disney land. So, I suggest you change your "opinion".
LOL seriously. If you want to prove your point so bad, feel free to walk through LA and Chicago hoods. Maybe you can tell the gang members there how much tougher you think Harlem was in the '70s and see what they think of that. And be sure to bring a camera and record it so we can all see what you're talking about. I'm sure no one will jack you for your camera; just let 'em know you're from NY and you'll be fine. lol
They wouldn't touch me. Im from the greatest city in the world, from one of the most notorious ghettos of all time. That alone gets me street cred.
Anyways I was being sarcastic. I would be scared as hell walking through Cabrini Green, especially after seeing the documentary. But I don't like housing projects anyways. I would walk through South Central in 1990, than I would Harlem in 1990. South Central is suburban and has palm trees. And if I'm not a blood or a crip, chances are I'll be left alone. But in Harlem, it's rubble, and boarded up tenements, if I were to look at someone wrong, that's the end of me. I would wallk through Southside, no problem too.
Quote:
I totally agree with you. I don't understand why this is even an argument. Yes, Harlem has a lot of crime and had way more in the past. So do a lot of places, its not the only one. But it has more positives, such as Clinton's office and the Apollo, while South Central & Cabrini don't have any that bring tourists. In fact if they did, there would be waaay more robberies and other crime in these areas because the gangsters would prey on the tourists!
Again you're not understanding the original question. Do you know what at their worst means? For Harlem that was the 1970's. During that time, NOBODY visited the Apollo and Bill Clinton was a kid in Arkansas. In fact, they were thinking of closing the Apollo because it got absolutely no revenue during that time period. The only thing that saved it, was that it was registered a landmark. The Apollo was used for drug transactions and peep shows.
Quote:
If you think Harlem was the worst, you're entitled to your opinion. Many of us do not agree. Leave it at that.
Then you'd all be wrong. I have yet to see stats on South Central and Southside, or pics, to prove me wrong. When I see urban devastation, like in the Harlem pics, to go along with crime rates of Harlem, then we're talking.
They wouldn't touch me. Im from the greatest city in the world, from one of the most notorious ghettos of all time. That alone gets me street cred.
Anyways I was being sarcastic. I would be scared as hell walking through Cabrini Green, especially after seeing the documentary. But I don't like housing projects anyways. I would walk through South Central in 1990, than I would Harlem in 1990. South Central is suburban and has palm trees. And if I'm not a blood or a crip, chances are I'll be left alone. But in Harlem, it's rubble, and boarded up tenements, if I were to look at someone wrong, that's the end of me. I would wallk through Southside, no problem too.
Again you're not understanding the original question. Do you know what at their worst means? For Harlem that was the 1970's. During that time, NOBODY visited the Apollo and Bill Clinton was a kid in Arkansas. In fact, they were thinking of closing the Apollo because it got absolutely no revenue during that time period. The only thing that saved it, was that it was registered a landmark. The Apollo was used for drug transactions and peep shows.
Then you'd all be wrong. I have yet to see stats on South Central and Southside, or pics, to prove me wrong. When I see urban devastation, like in the Harlem pics, to go along with crime rates of Harlem, then we're talking.
It's Harlem all the way.
You lose your street cred once you step outside of your bubble. No one out here envies or looks up to people from NYC as if they are the greatest and will instantly give them respect. You come to people's hood with that noise, it won't be pretty.
Haha. Houston is not even close to Harlem's crime rate.
Well duh. lol. And any individual NYC borough is not even close to Houston or Oakland's rate. I was speaking on Harlem in the present. "Houston and no other place will ever approach Harlem's devastation and crime rates," was what you said, so maybe I took you too literally b/c it sounded like you meant now. My mistake.
The point I was actually trying to make was that given Houston's very high crime in certain pockets, while many parts of it as I understand it are virtually untouched by crime, the city of Houston having a crime rate as high as it does would require certain neighborhoods being among the worst we have in the US. This is an opinion, for I have no hard stats to back this up. But common sense should lead to that conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMario
East Harlem had a murder rate 20+ in 2007, and it had the highest crime rate in the city. In 2005 (?) Central Harlem again was the murder capital. If you want me to show you the stats, just ask.
Don't know exactly where you're going with this, but sure, show the stats. What is Harlem's population? It's got to be around 100,000, right? I'll be glad to show several US cities around that size (if my guess is anywhere near the actual population) that had a higher murder rate than that in 2007. But you should already know that if you're so keen on stats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMario
Nobody cares about little Houston having that high a murder rate, so they allow it to happen there.
Never here.
Well that's a retarded contradiction. You go to all these lengths (for whatever reason) to try and prove how terrible a place Harlem was, how it was so bad, only to state that they would NEVER allow so high a murder rate to exist in NYC. If they care too much to let that happen, why do you keep trying to brag about having so many murders in the past, like its something to be proud of?! That should be a period you guys would want to sweep under the rug and forget about, because its shameful. You're bringing it up like you're proud of it. You want to be looked at as tough that bad by random people on the internet? That's pathetic. And the worst part is you're still not impressing us. LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMario
Aww this is cute. East Palo Alto to the rescue. A few points here. The OP specifically gave three choices, and which of those three, do you feel was the worst. Out of the three neighborhoods (Cabrini Green is a housing project), the worst at their peak was Harlem.
Lol okay, try taking your own advice, and then I'll follow suit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMario
I feel the south Bronx was in worse shape in the 70's - 90's.
IMO a better question would be between which was worse...Harlem or South Bronx.
The Hunts Point neighborhood in 1971 had a murder rate of 408 per 100,000.
Way to stick to the 3 original options. I totally see why you called me on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMario
Anyways, in the 1970's Harlem had over 100 homicides a year. And that's with less the population that it had in 1990, due to all the abandonement. I don't have the exact numbers but common sense should tell you that it's murder rate approached and surpassed 182 per 100,000.
Okay, Stat Boy, I agree with the common sense argument as I stated above for Houston. But without actual figures your argument of surpassing 182 is invalid. And this whole debate is really getting lame. Feel free to split all the hairs you want, you're only convincing me that Harlem is a big deal b/c people like you are hyping it up to be one. I've never seen anyone fight so hard just to try to make people agree with a subjective opinion. That's just sorry LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMario
Ahh. The south Bronx comes in handy. The Hunts Point neighborhood in 1971 had a murder rate of 408 per 100,000.
Now, I want you to find me a higher murder or robbery rate ever. I dont care where it is, or what time period. You could use France during the revolution, Brazil, Iraq, Mexico, WW1, during whatever time period....you will never find a higher murder/robbery rate in history. And it happened right here in NYC.
Makes East Palo Alto look like disney land. So, I suggest you change your "opinion".
Comes in handy for what? Dude, you need a hobby. Okay, so Hunts point had insane crime a lifetime ago. Cool. You can go celebrate now. No one said Harlem or the South Bronx were vacation resorts. You think they're scary; many of us feel some other places are scarier. We disagree and that's fine. I suggest you take a trip to EPA and go walk around the Sac St and Midtown and see how much it looks like "Disneyland." Its completely changed from the old days when it didn't even have paved streets and was a serious ghetto, but I'm sure it would alter YOUR "opinion."
Well duh. lol. And any individual NYC borough is not even close to Houston or Oakland's rate. I was speaking on Harlem in the present. "Houston and no other place will ever approach Harlem's devastation and crime rates," was what you said, so maybe I took you too literally b/c it sounded like you meant now. My mistake.
The point I was actually trying to make was that given Houston's very high crime in certain pockets, while many parts of it as I understand it are virtually untouched by crime, the city of Houston having a crime rate as high as it does would require certain neighborhoods being among the worst we have in the US. This is an opinion, for I have no hard stats to back this up. But common sense should lead to that conclusion.
I actually meant now. Of course, Houston will never be as bad as Harlem circa 1970's - 1990's (early). Few places have ever gotten that bad.
Quote:
Don't know exactly where you're going with this, but sure, show the stats. What is Harlem's population? It's got to be around 100,000, right? I'll be glad to show several US cities around that size (if my guess is anywhere near the actual population) that had a higher murder rate than that in 2007. But you should already know that if you're so keen on stats.
East Harlem is shaded black on the map (I hope you know where to look). Any black shade means a violent crime rate of 1,600 + per 100,000. There's only three neighborhoods shaded black. East Harlem and the Lower East Side in Manhattan and Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. So those are NYC's worst. The murder rate was lower than I originally tought. It was actually 17 per 100,000 for E. Harlem. So Houston's 21 per 100,000 is more. The point being East Harlem being the highest crime neighborhood in the city. With higher rates, other than homicides, than Houston.
The 28th precinct's population is 39,075. So Per 100,000 it's rate was 28 per 100,000. More than Houston and this was just 3 years ago. So it was the murder capital.
(I always tought the 32nd Precinct in Upper Central Harlem was worse, but I guess I was wrong.)
BTW Harlem is usually divided into three sections. According to the 2000 census.
East Harlem aka Spanish Harlem : 117,743
Central Harlem : 107,109
West Harlem : 111,724
So Harlem as a whole had about 336,576 people in 2000.
Dont worry, they're all pretty ****ty.
Quote:
Well that's a retarded contradiction. You go to all these lengths (for whatever reason) to try and prove how terrible a place Harlem was, how it was so bad, only to state that they would NEVER allow so high a murder rate to exist in NYC. If they care too much to let that happen, why do you keep trying to brag about having so many murders in the past, like its something to be proud of?! That should be a period you guys would want to sweep under the rug and forget about, because its shameful. You're bringing it up like you're proud of it. You want to be looked at as tough that bad by random people on the internet? That's pathetic. And the worst part is you're still not impressing us. LOL.
Im not trying to sound tough or none of that. Just simply answering the OP's questions and backing up my claims. I would like others to do the same, but nobody has stepped up. And I said that NYC will never allow that to happen again. Of course it happened before, but they have learned from that and I doubt we will ever see the big apple in the thousand murder range, again. And I am not proud of it. Im following the thread. I'm glad the days of the "rotten apple" are over.
Quote:
Lol okay, try taking your own advice, and then I'll follow suit:
Way to stick to the 3 original options. I totally see why you called me on that.
Okay, Stat Boy, I agree with the common sense argument as I stated above for Houston. But without actual figures your argument of surpassing 182 is invalid. And this whole debate is really getting lame. Feel free to split all the hairs you want, you're only convincing me that Harlem is a big deal b/c people like you are hyping it up to be one. I've never seen anyone fight so hard just to try to make people agree with a subjective opinion. That's just sorry LOL.
I just responded to Jluke doing it. I'm sticking to Harlem, but if you want to pick another California neighborhood to bail out South Central, then I am going to pick another NYC neighborhood to combat that. Turns out I didn't even need Hunts Point.
If improving quality of life has been a goal since the Dinkins administration then the officers at the 28th Pct. have outdone themselves. The area has gone from being New York’s murder capital in the 1980s with more than 200 homicides in some years to just six murders in 2005. The perceived increase in safety has brought in lots of new residents and workers with lots of money, most notably former President Bill Clinton. As murders and violent crimes have gone down the NYPD has begun to focus on other issues that they would not have had the time or manpower to cover before, and street-level drug dealing is one of them
So yea, I think with 200 homicides in the 1980's, Harlem had a murder rate WAY above 182.[/SIZE]
Quote:
Comes in handy for what? Dude, you need a hobby. Okay, so Hunts point had insane crime a lifetime ago. Cool. You can go celebrate now. No one said Harlem or the South Bronx were vacation resorts. You think they're scary; many of us feel some other places are scarier. We disagree and that's fine. I suggest you take a trip to EPA and go walk around the Sac St and Midtown and see how much it looks like "Disneyland." Its completely changed from the old days when it didn't even have paved streets and was a serious ghetto, but I'm sure it would alter YOUR "opinion."
I'm not saying its a good neighborhood. But in relation to Hunts Point (1971) or Central Harlem (1974 or 1986), it was disneyland. Remember, we're talking about at "their worst". I know that presently, Detroit, New Orleans, Camden, East St Louis, Gary and others have way more crime than Harlem or S. Bronx, even though they're not safe yet. But in regards to the thread,
Harlem for the win!
/thread
Last edited by DoubleXAs; 01-15-2009 at 04:57 PM..
Being as the Thread starter wanted to know which of the choices did we think was the worst at its worst, I chose Cabrini Green. Until you prove otherwise, it was Cabrini Green.
Of course there is some error there because its comparing One very large area with many neighborhoods (South Central LA), one whole neighborhood with a very high population (Harlem), and a housing project (Cabrini Green).
Out of those 3 choices though, Cabrini Green was undoubtedly the worst at its peak of violence. It doesnt really matter how bad Harlem or South Central were at their worsts, Cabrini Green was a very dangerous housing project with a population many times lower than the other choices so theres no comparison. South Central LA, even at its worst, had many streets and areas that were single family homes with low-moderate crime rates. Harlem, even at its worst, still was a major thoroughfare with many areas not public housing. Cabrini Green was clearly the worst.
Harlem isn't that dangerous, there could of been a better choice like parts of Detroit or West Side Newark, Cabrini Green is mostly demolished, and South Central, ehh; but Cabrini Green i here is terrible
Last edited by Newarkbomb; 01-15-2009 at 09:54 PM..
Being as the Thread starter wanted to know which of the choices did we think was the worst at its worst, I chose Cabrini Green. Until you prove otherwise, it was Cabrini Green.
Of course there is some error there because its comparing One very large area with many neighborhoods (South Central LA), one whole neighborhood with a very high population (Harlem), and a housing project (Cabrini Green).
Out of those 3 choices though, Cabrini Green was undoubtedly the worst at its peak of violence. It doesnt really matter how bad Harlem or South Central were at their worsts, Cabrini Green was a very dangerous housing project with a population many times lower than the other choices so theres no comparison. South Central LA, even at its worst, had many streets and areas that were single family homes with low-moderate crime rates. Harlem, even at its worst, still was a major thoroughfare with many areas not public housing. Cabrini Green was clearly the worst.
That's why I dont think it's fair to compare a housing project to entire neighborhoods. Of course the housing project is going to have more crime per capita. If we're talking about neighborhoods, then Harlem was the worst.
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.
