Best Neiborhood (Pittsburgh, Bloomfield: job market, buyers, income)

[interested_burgher]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Exactly. I'm sure for similar reasons, South Side and Oakland have high rates as well, and those are some of the nicer places to live in the city.

Oh really? Have you lived in Oakland or South Side? I have. Property damage galore.

[interested_burgher]

Originally Posted by steindle

Give me a break. Don't take everything at face value.

Mt. Oliver (city neighborhood) is literally entirely residential and doesn't get virtually any traffic from people outside of the neighborhood. The 7.0 per 100 citizens stat there is probably relatively accurate as a reflection of reality (and -- gasp to those who constantly malign Mt. Oliver -- it's not that bad!).

Bloomfield, comparatively, gets TONS of traffic from people outside of the neighborhood -- coming in to eat at its restaurants, hang out at its bars, shop there during the day, etc. There are thousands more people in Bloomfield each week than is accounted for by the # of citizens within it, so the "x crimes per 100 citizens" measure of crime is largely irrelevant.

If that's hard for you to understand: The Downtown stat is a more obvious example of this. 61.4 crimes per 100 residents of Downtown? Does that mean that 61% of people who live Downtown are the victims of crime? Of course not. It's actually probably indicative of a remarkably LOW level of crime Downtown, since something like 150,000 people work there each weekday, people visit the bars and cultural district amenities in the evening, people park there to go to the baseball games, etc. Judging # of crimes by residential population is essentially meaningless in this context.

Somehow I doubt that a little logic will stop you from believing that the sky is falling, though.

My word, you're hysterical! Do you need a nap?

Go buy and move into a house in Bloomfield for $150,000 then. I don't care.

[Clint.]

Weird. These sorts of conversations happen all over City-Data, so it's interesting to get some perspective. This thread had to be closed and another one started because of the length: //www.city-data.com/forum/new-y...-thread-6.html

Apparently most of their city is fast going to hell as well...or things are improving. Here's a representative quote from their thread:

Originally Posted by SobroGuy

You are missing the big point about crime and murder in NYC, which really doesn't affect "regular" people. 80% of murders in NYC are by people who know the assailant, and 70% of those are drug related...so while you have those 18 murders, the reality is a very very small percentage would actually affect a "regular" person (i.e. noncriminal/non-drug person).

And this is why people are now moving into these transitioning neighborhoods, because there was a time where there was simply chaotic random violence, but today it is very targeted and predominatly drug related. So long as you stay out the drug trade and not hang out with the homeys in the projects at 3am, crime for the average NYer using basic street smarts and common sense even in these communities is a non-issue.

Yes there will be 18 murders, but its just drug dealers killing drug dealers at the end of the day, and not random acts of violence. Yes these communities are still poor, but being poor does not equal being a criminal, which is another lesson people have learned and why they move into these communities. The poor are just as much victims of these criminals as everyone else, and it only take a few bad apples to ruin a place...and at this point there are a few bad apples that are causing these problems.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by interested_burgher

It's not worth arguing with close-minded people.

I think we can all agree with that.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Part One crime was about 4.7 per 100. As I noted above, in Shadyside in 2001, it was 6.7 per 100. Of course it would have been INSANE to buy in Shadyside in 2001.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

South Side Flats had 14.6 Part One crimes per 100 people in 2001. I'm sure it would have been a TERRIBLE investment buying there!

I must say I'm really enjoying this flatulent cynicism. Keep it up!

[steindle]

Originally Posted by interested_burgher

My word, you're hysterical! Do you need a nap?

When you can't rebut an argument, attack your opponent on weird, unrelated grounds. It works in politics; why not here?

Go buy and move into a house in Bloomfield for $150,000 then. I don't care.

I was waiting for your blessing, so I really appreciate this.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by interested_burgher

Oh really? Have you lived in Oakland or South Side? I have. Property damage galore.

I've lived in Oakland for the past 5 years, and while cutting through the Hill District to the Strip District was the only time I was the victim of a crime.

Continue your ridiculous thrashing of our great city. I'm sure everyone on this forum loves it.

[interested_burgher]

Originally Posted by steindle

When you can't rebut an argument, attack your opponent on weird, unrelated grounds. It works in politics; why not here?



I was waiting for your blessing, so I really appreciate this.

When people start fleeing the suburbs to the city, you're arguments will become valid.

[interested_burgher]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Part One crime was about 4.7 per 100. As I noted above, in Shadyside in 2001, it was 6.7 per 100. Of course it would have been INSANE to buy in Shadyside in 2001.

Since when as shadyside a low rent district?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by interested_burgher

Since when as shadyside a low rent district?

Exactly. You are describing the crime rates in Bloomfield today as intolerably high, but until very recently they were higher in Shadyside, which has long been a thriving, desirable, and relatively expensive neighborhood.

The logical conclusion is that for those people who are interested in central, walkable, semi-urban neighborhoods in the first place, the crime rates in Bloomfield today are unlikely to be a serious negative consideration.