places to avoid (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington: crime rates, house, neighborhoods)

[Cruz Azul Guy]

For the people who are saying that parts of Richfield are sketchy...exactly what parts? I'm really curious to know. We have several friends who live there and have spent a considerable amount of time shopping and visiting there. I played in a soccer league there recently (at Holy Angels). Out of all of our experiences we haven't seen any areas that appeared especially sketchy or run-down. All of Richfield to me appears uniformly average. There is nothing spectacular or big-dollar but there really isn't any blight either.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

If I feel safe, it isn't "sketchy". If homeless people are walking up to me asking for money and I see gang sprayings, I'd consider THAT area "sketchy". Therefore Richfield isn't sketchy to my eyes.

Another way to look at it is you feel safe walking the area at night. Personally, I would not worry one bit.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by west336

Camden: you need to carefully pick your battles, because it wasn't very long ago that I sent somebody in your directin who was looking for housing in your neck of the woods. Don't bite the hand that feeds you! I have seen gentrification first-hand, btw, so does that make me more of an expert than you, or do I at least get to have an opinion? My suggestion to you would be to shut your mouth next time you disagree about something that has displaced the poor working class for decades/centuries, and just because I mentioned it and you clearly have a bone to pick with me doesn't make it okay to assume everything I say is irrational or biased. Get use to the notion of "agreeing to disagree" and try giving people the benefit of the doubt every once in a while. Aren't you a neighborhood leader? Is this how you lead people?

Sorry for the spouting rant....I get tired of the persecution I receive from a very select few members of this community!

West- I think you are greatly misinterpreting my post which I can somewhat understand after rereading it, but my rant, that was in response to your comments, was more about generalities of my experience on this board or in other areas of life and not a pointed argument meant to insult you. To explain- the points that you were bringing up is something that I very regularly see or deal with and/or have conversations about w/folks that I meet and/or know that live in "transitional" areas of the city- both persons living in poverty and persons that have means. Admittedly, a part of me may have felt like your comments were directed at me whether this was intentional or not on your part (I am assuming it wasn't, but for an outsider that doesn't know me or my neighborhood, it would be assumed that I "fit" the demographic you were referring to), so I was venting about both several years of being a city data regular and the comments that get made regularly by a lot of people, as well as things I've experienced working in communities from persons on both sides of the fence so to speak.

Also- if you reread my post you should also see that I was sort of agreeing with you on some items, and/or thought you at least had some points that were valid even if I didn't necessarily agree. The rest of the post I thought was just civil argument.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

If it matters, I also read Camden's note as he just explained. It wasn't meant to be personal.

[trackstar13]

Wow this place is fun, welcome to Minnesota!

[Camden Northsider]

I also meant to say in my original post that is somewhat in agreement with folks i may not generally agree with- I think there are some areas in parts of town and/or the suburbs that are actually viewed as nicer than they really are because the perception is that they're good areas - whereas the converse can be true if a really nice neighborhood is located in a geographic area with a bad rap (in that it's viewed much more harshly than it should be). I personally wouldn't use the word "sketchy" or even unsafe for the vast majority of the areas I'm referring to (but I agree with previous posters that this is more semantics than anything), but I can say without a doubt that there are some ugly-ass areas of Mpls (in ALL quadrants of the city) AND the suburbs that are viewed with more rosy-colored lenses than they perhaps should be just because of the reputation their surrounds enjoy. For instance, we looked at a number of homes in NE- in soem areas, it really didn't make sense to us when comparing some of the shotty housing stock, loud industrialized/smokestack-filled areas with little to no park space in that neck of the woods to the very nice, well-kept, quiet, and great housing stocked areas of where we are at now, and seeing little differential in a lot of the home valuations (and/or any statistics). It similarly didn't make sense when looking at Bryn Mawr, where the neighborhood was really very nice/well-kept but didn't seem all that great (and statistics, outside of demographics like average household income and race, showed it to be not very different as well- with some things, like the local community school of our area now, exhibiting much better stats), and the massive differentials in home values there comparative to our current neighborhood (like, hundreds of thousands of dollars difference).

Many people argue that real estate values have some sort of scientific basis surrounded by objective reasoning, but I would argue that, outside of housing stock/condition itself, subjective factors play as much of a role as any real objective indicators in the market supply/demand and appraisals in the local market.

Regarding gentrification argument- I agree that it's tough to find a happy medium that ensures affordable units/homes without displacing lower-income residents, but I think there are some decent local areas that have found a good equilibrium that embraces diversity while improving neighborhood health. A number of Camden Neighborhoods, Cedar Riverside, Seward (an awesome example in my mind), a lesser example might be Prospect Park (OK, maybe not the best example). Then there are other examples of thriving minority neighborhoods that were destructed to build interstates (Rondo). I definitely believe that actions taken to concentrate all poverty in a specific geographic locale (and large scale efforts to displace the poor) have definitely done more harm than good throughout history. Whether or not New Urbanism/mixed-income development is the answer to this equation, I don't presume to know that answer.

As for worries of gentrification in the more residential areas of Minneapolis including the Northside, I think a more pressing and immediate concern for local urban removal/displacement of the poor lies in the blocks surrounding the new Target Field- no doubt the city and/or developers will eventually find ways (and some believe they have already started) to shut down the homeless shelters and/or transitional housing in the area...some would even argue that this was one of the motives behind the new field's location from the get-go.

[Haver]

I'm still waiting to find out where all the boarded up houses and rusted out cars are in Richfield, since I grew up there and still spend several hours each week in the city. If you're talking about that nuisance house on 63rd or 64th and Pillsbury they finally closed down and boarded up I drove through the neighborhood and couldn't even tell which one it was.

Pictures, please.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by west336

Certainly not Richfield. There is no "glory" of doing that, but that actually only reinforces my point a little. Have you ever heard of "painted ladies". They are restored Victorians, usually in slums, restored by people with money who are TRYING to gentrify the area and make an easy buck on their home or live cheap without the consequences (although there are consequences).

How can you impute others' motives like that?? What makes you think they don't understand these "consequences"?

[Libby01]

You've all likely convinced the OP to run for the hills rather than move here!

It is interesting that there are such diverse opinions on what's a safe neighborhood and what is not. When you have a lower budget, you just have to be more flexible and open to a neighborhood, where not everyone has a green lawn & sprinkler system & 3-car garage. It doesn't mean that it is unsafe or a bad neighborhood, it's just that people priorities are not necessarily on all the superficial things such as a new car and keeping the weeds out of the yard! A couple of houses like that does not mean a bad neighborhood, or entire city for that matter.
I happen to respect those that put low priorities on what car they drive. They are an awful "investment" and something I hate to spend my money on. And sure, I'd love it if all my neighbors meticulously cared for their lawns, but my fear is that they would hold me to that standard too and I just can't do it! I just met the owners of the 2 most unkept lawns in my neighborhood at our block party on Tuesday. They were a family with 2 babies and a doctor who works a lot. Different priorities. Like I heard one of my co-workers say the other day, "I'm raising a family not grass."

[northstar22]

I know this was mentioned earlier, but St. Paul Park is a very nice lower middle-class/working-class suburb that has very little crime. Certainly less than Bloomington and Richfield. Believe me, I could care less about 3-car garages and manicured lawns. I was talking about the higher crime rate in Richfield/east Bloomington.

St. Paul Park is affordable, nice and quiet, and it seems to be on no one's radar.