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.
The neighborhood is questionable. There are definitely lower income apartment complexes just north of 21st Street just off Mitthoeffer. There was a food place at 21st and Mitthoeffer and it moved to 16th and Post Road. I heard one of the reasons was due to the fact that they would get robbed and the robbers always took off into those lower income complexes.
As far as racial demographics. Most of the people I see in these complexes are African-American. I did see other people of different races and ethnic backgrounds from time to time, just in smaller numbers.
Understand that many of the complexes out on the far east-side are dated and aren't in high demand compared to other areas of the city. Many have went to being low income rentals. Even the newer places aren't that great. There was a complex built just east of there, next to the Kroger, north of Hardees'. It was built for low income families. I knew one of the officers who worked that side of town, said it was his "new favorite place." Nothing but police calls for whatever issues that seem to always be constant in low income neighborhoods. That complex might be ten years old now, but it turned trashy in no time. Graffiti on walls and garage doors. Broken and unfixed garage doors (likely from break-ins). The most memorable thing I recall, driving from Hardees' through the complex and past the retaining pond they built for it. Over half of the shoreline was completely covered in trash. There was always trash in the complex as well. Just is what it is I guess.
Overall I wouldn't call the far east-side "rough." I'm in the area sometimes and was in that area all the time when I lived on that side of town (just outside the county line, for 30+ years). I mean if you go through Washington Square Mall, you'll see the issue. The area is now poor, low-income. Anyone with money that lives in the area has the means to travel to nicer malls and they do just that. I have relatives that live in that area, as well as a former co-worker. They all live south of 16th Street, around Post Rd./Franklin Rd.. You will want an alarm system. You will want to leave nothing, nada in your vehicle that you don't want stolen. Will you likely be robbed, if out and about during the day, no. If walking alone, say around the hours of 9PM/10PM and later, I'm not sure I'd do that.
Thanks so much for the very detailed response!! The area I am looking at is just by 11th-12th Street and Mitthoeffer (Brookview Apartments- I hope mentioning the name does not violate any site policies, I will delete if yes, please advise if a/o knows if this is problematic?). Apparently even just a few blocks is a really big difference there as you see from the store you mentioned that was located at 21st and Mitthoeffer and it moved to 16th and Post, just a few blocks really. If you know anything specific about this complex and immediate area, I'd appreciate your input! I don't think this area I am asking about is actually the "far" east side, just the east side, which from my very limited knowledge of Indy- there seems to be a significant difference :-) Thanks again!
Don’t have any first hand knowledge of that complex. It really doesn’t matter though. Criminals will and do travel. Driving and low level theft property crimes get repeated slaps on the wrist due to various issues with the local criminal justice system. So it really doesn’t matter the complex because the lower income complexes and neighborhoods are spread all over the city now (and even into the suburban areas). If the place looks clean and the vehicles parked there look to be in reasonable shape, likely not a bad complex. However, that doesn’t mean I’d go for a 10PM jog down tenth street, or around Washington Square area, etc.. During the day, likely no problems.
Washington Square Mall is considered a dead/dying mall. Here is a recent video of the mall. Note that while there is still a Dick’s Sporting Goods and Target, both have closed their mall entry points. You can get to these two anchors from inside the mall. The movie theater there is really good though. Always nice and clean, at least during afternoon movies.
As far as certain stores being in the area, sure there is a GNC and Vitamin Shoppe, but GNC moved outside the mall and they are now closing a ton of stores. Vitamin Shoppe has been said to be having financial issues as well. The Victoria’s Secret in the mall was one the company closed in recent times.
Overall personal safety, not an issue from say 4AM-nightfall. The overnight hours out alone, iffy. Property crime is an issue. Like I said, you’ll want a security system, a real deal safe, and don’t leave anything in the car overnight. The 10th Street Pub in the strip mall to the south is really popular, good food there.
City-Data has demographic info for counties. Go to the main page and type the county name, then scroll down and there's a map with a long list of demographic information you can filter for. Mouse over the pie chart and you can see the exact figures. The northeast corner of 10th & Mitthoeffer is about 70% white, 15% black, and the rest is Hispanic, Asian and multirace.
Pretty strange. The data on City-Data.com on this is simply wrong! The northeast corner of Mitthoeffer and E. 10th is definitely more like 80%+ black, no question about it. I was there a few days ago. No way in the world that "block" is 70% white. Perhaps the North>>west side is more white(I'm not sure but maybe??), that is mostly single family homes. The northeast side is apartment complexes and mostly (like 90% IMHO) black or other minority. I always thought City-Data can be very highly trusted. I'd love for s/o to show me where I am erring!
Pretty strange. The data on City-Data.com on this is simply wrong!
I wouldn't say the data is "wrong" (as it's based on statistical data), but it's probably really outdated. For example, I was just checking on a neighborhood on City-Data, and most of the charts were based on data from 2013. The racial stats map has a notation at the bottom saying it's based on data from 2000-2016 (not sure how to interpret that). Let's say the stats are from the 2010 census...that's really old data!...we're almost to the next (2020) census.
Last edited by ImmerLernen; 08-06-2019 at 09:13 AM..
Reason: typo
I wouldn't say the data is "wrong" (as it's based on statistical data), but it's probably really outdated. For example, I was just checking on a neighborhood on City-Data, and most of the charts were based on data from 2013. The racial stats map has a notation at the bottom saying it's based on data from 2000-2016 (not sure how to interpret that). Let's say the stats are from the 2010 census...that's really old data!...we're almost to the next (2020) census.
Good point. However; I really don't believe this particular area changed at all in the past 8-10 years.
In general, entire neighborhoods don't change so dramatically in 10 years. Of course, it can happen but those are uncommon exceptions.
When I go to the map, to an area near my home, and select races--black alone, it comes up as 86%. That's flat-out wrong. Not outdated, but wrong. But when I look at the pie chart, it shows 100% white. That's more accurate; I'm not sure what the correct figure is.
That said, those apartments might have seen a lot of turnover in the past several years.
When I go to the map, to an area near my home, and select races--black alone, it comes up as 86%. That's flat-out wrong. Not outdated, but wrong. But when I look at the pie chart, it shows 100% white. That's more accurate; I'm not sure what the correct figure is.
That said, those apartments might have seen a lot of turnover in the past several years.
All I see is a pie chart info-graphic. This data is plainly wrong. I was at those apartments a few days ago, I don't know about turnover in recent years but from what I saw, it is literally 90%+ black, while City-Data says it is 75.4% white. That is just wrong.
I have a hard time believing that data anytime it says 100%.
I know there are definitely cases in rural areas or also depending on how close you zoom smaller portions of a neighborhood may reflect as being all one race. But in bigger cities and even suburbs of those cities, especially within Indianapolis city limits, I find it hard to believe an area to be completely 100%. I know it happens, but generally there's at least 1 or 2 families that would make it 98% and not 100%.
I almost wonder though if the site just has incomplete data reported to it for that area. Whether that is due to high turnover, maybe just people not reporting at all, or other various indicators. The other factor is if they are basing it on who OWNS the house. If the owner rents it to others, regardless of race, that may NOT be reflected in the data as they may not know it isn't being lived in by the owner.
I also know that yes 1 family may not skew data enough to say 98 or 99%, but that seems crazy that they wouldn't reflect it in the data in someway.
Just for comparison, not knowing the Eastside as well as my neck of the woods, I looked at several neighborhoods where I or friends live. 5 of the 6 it said 100% white.
I know that NOT to be the case in all these neighborhoods. I picked those neighborhoods because I knew there was at least 2 or 3 families of color if not more and therefore should register on the data.
In my mom's it said 90% white. In reality it might be 60% white, at most. She is in a neighborhood where I think many people rent their houses versus just selling them as mentioned above. That could help explain some of the data disparity.
In another friend's neighborhood it said it was 100% white; yet 3 of his adjacent neighbors are Burmese refugees who bought and own their home within the last 4-5 years.
On the street 1 over from me in my neighborhood, there are 4 families of color (and probably more in other parts of my neighborhood). Yet it reflects as 100% white for my neighborhood. I am sure most of those families do NOT identify as white. Yet, it's not even 1 as multiracial or black or Hispanic or anything else it just says 100% white. I know that our HOA does not allow renting in our neighborhood instead of buying, so all 4 of those families own their house and all have lived in the neighborhood longer than I have (so more than 3 years). Most people in my neighborhood built the homes they live in. Even if several of these families moved in instead of buying their home I would think it would be reflected.
Finally, one of my friends identifies as Asian and knows at least 1 other Asian family in his neighborhood. Yet it identifies his neighborhood as 100% white.
Again this could be as ImmerLernan pointed out just old data from 2000 being used. Some of it could just be renters making the eye test seem to prove the data wrong. Maybe people just aren't reporting during the census for various reasons. Or other factors I haven't thought of.
No matter the reason for the error in data; the overall race of the area won't determine your safety. I would look more at the crime rates for that area to determine if you would feel safe. People can always travel to other areas of a city to pull off a crime, so don't base it on the skin color aspect. There are plenty of other factors that I would look at for safety over race. As someone mentioned unemployment rate, crime rates for the area, are populations more transient and fluid or permanent, drug usage facts for that area etc. Hopefully here in 1-2 years after the upcoming census it'll reflect more accurately on the areas.
I have a hard time believing that data anytime it says 100%.
I almost wonder though if the site just has incomplete data reported to it for that area. Whether that is due to high turnover, maybe just people not reporting at all, or other various indicators. The other factor is if they are basing it on who OWNS the house. If the owner rents it to others, regardless of race, that may NOT be reflected in the data as they may not know it isn't being lived in by the owner.
Unless I'm much mistaken, census data are based on the residents, not the owner. Consider large apartment buildings, with a few owners who probably don't live on site.
Damn, I entered this debate. Well, just do this, people. If you have a hard time looking at the accurate data, go to Google Maps, get the data, the zip code, and then get the zip code (46229), and go to Niche. It is 45% black, 44% white, and 7% Hispanic. I think that is the accurate data, correct me if you think I am wrong.
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.
