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.
lol i just got done explaining to you that i lived in one of them for 2 years (and visited orlando numerous times while living in tampa). and hate to break it to ya, but it would have taken less time to name ONE street or intersection in tampa or orlando than it did for you to type out the nonsense you just wasted my time with. so, clearly you cant think of any that look worse (dont feel bad, because THERE AREN'T ANY).
Nebraska Ave, Parts of Fletcher Ave, Parts of Columbus Dr, Hesperides St, Parts of Palmetto St, 26th Avenue, Humphrey St, Parts of Hillsborough Avenue, Robson St, Busch Blvd, Parts of Riverview Dr, E. Waters Ave, E. Bird St, N. 10 St and So much more.
Last edited by cheerbaby112; 09-22-2010 at 12:28 AM..
Nebraska Ave, Parts of Fletcher Ave, Parts of Columbus Dr, Hesperides St, Parts of Palmetto St, 26th Avenue, Humphrey St, Parts of Hillsborough Avenue, Robson St, Busch Blvd, Parts of Riverview Dr, E. Waters Ave, E. Bird St, N. 10 St and So much more.
I just checked out the first 5 you named on google streetview, and none of them are even worth comparing. look at the streets you just posted and then look at any of the "bad areas" in rochester (or just look at the two random streetview links I provided), and you will see there is no comparison. You can even find places that look worse than tampa in greece or gates lol. having lived in tampa, i am well aware that a lot of those streets you named ARE IN FACT quite dangerous, but as ANYONE can see, they just dont LOOK anywhere near as bad as the rough areas in Rochester.
please tell me this conversation is over. do i really have to make a poll with examples from each city to prove my point?! i mean go on google streetview and look at it yourself!!!! the streets you named literally look like something you'd find in the low income areas of certain Rochester suburbs! get on google streetview and compare ANY of those streets to N. clinton, north st, jay st, remington, conkey, ave a, b, c, or d, clifford, portland, hudson, durnan, jefferson, genessee, thurston, s. plymouth, (i can go on for days) and even you will see that it is LAUGHABLE to say that tampa 'looks' more dangerous.
Last edited by 5ive8ight5ive; 09-22-2010 at 12:53 AM..
Oh oh oh, I wanna throw in a new twist here, and make the "racist and sweeping generalization" that inner city blacks are the root cause of the downfall of areas like those being currently discussed and further prove my previous points in this entire forum. Anyone have the balls to concur?
Oh oh oh, I wanna throw in a new twist here, and make the "racist and sweeping generalization" that inner city blacks are the root cause of the downfall of areas like those being currently discussed and further prove my previous points in this entire forum. Anyone have the balls to concur?
So, where does "White Flight" come in when talking about said neighborhoods, as many of them had higher White populations in the past and many left because the 1 Black family moved in.
Then, you have things like Blockbusting, Redlining and other methods used by the real estate industry in many cities across the country.
I just checked out the first 5 you named on google streetview, and none of them are even worth comparing. look at the streets you just posted and then look at any of the "bad areas" in rochester (or just look at the two random streetview links I provided), and you will see there is no comparison. You can even find places that look worse than tampa in greece or gates lol. having lived in tampa, i am well aware that a lot of those streets you named ARE IN FACT quite dangerous, but as ANYONE can see, they just dont LOOK anywhere near as bad as the rough areas in Rochester.
please tell me this conversation is over. do i really have to make a poll with examples from each city to prove my point?! i mean go on google streetview and look at it yourself!!!! the streets you named literally look like something you'd find in the low income areas of certain Rochester suburbs! get on google streetview and compare ANY of those streets to N. clinton, north st, jay st, remington, conkey, ave a, b, c, or d, clifford, portland, hudson, durnan, jefferson, genessee, thurston, s. plymouth, (i can go on for days) and even you will see that it is LAUGHABLE to say that tampa 'looks' more dangerous.
What's interesting is that over a period of time going back to 1999, Tampa's crime rate is generally higher than Rochester's. So, I guess looks aren't everything.
This is considering the fact that Rochester is about 35.8 square miles versus Tampa's 112.1 square miles. So, imagine if Tampa was as dense as Rochester.
Folks, the south in general has always had a higher crime rate than the northeast, ever since the regional crimerates have been reported by Morgan Quinto (and many other agencies). I have a theory as to why people think the rough neighborhoods in Rochester "look" so much "worse" than those in other cities, namely those in the south. Here it goes.
Up until the mid 20th century, the city of Rochester was almost exclusively a middle/upper middle/ affluent city with an almost all white population. There were very few poor or dangerous neighborhoods, or at least they were not as large and blatantly obvious. When white flight occurred and much of that original population left for the subrubs, the formerly upper middle class neighborhoods property values dropped like a rock and poorer families who didn't upkeep the once nice houses as much let them fall into disrepair and get that "urban grit" look. That's how the "poor" "ghetto" neighborhoods in Rochester (and really, most pre-WWII cities) got they way they are now.
In the south, it is much different. The south historically has always had much higher poverty rates than the north. Cities in the south, especially the mid sized ones with population sizes similar to Rochester, were originally built up with areas that were already lower-income. The houses weren't built nice and stately like many homes in northern cities (even those for the working class) were. White flight wasn't really something that happened in southern cities because generally, they already had very high black and lower income populations before the '50s. The rough areas stayed the same as they always had been. So they were never seen as "going down hill". They simply had always been the "Bad areas" so people never expected or "reminisced" about when they were good.
In Rochester, the biggest factor in people talking about how deteriorated a rough neighborhood looks is the fact that "Back in the day" it used to be "nice" (which lets be honest here, to most people saying this, nice means white). It's more depressing looking to see a 2000 sq ft victorian house in disrepair and with graffiti and a chain-link fence with an overgrown yard that than it is to see a simple small ranch/bungalow type house that was never "fancy" looking in the first place in a neighborhood with the same issues as one up north .
Even 585 admitted that those neighborhoods mentioned in Tampa were just as dangerous as some of the bad neighborhoods in the city of Rochester; but because they were never nice to begin with and haven't deteriorated from former glory, the stigma isn't the same.
Again, this is all just from my own observations and I'm not trying to "prove" causality or anything like that, just giving my opinion.
Folks, the south in general has always had a higher crime rate than the northeast, ever since the regional crimerates have been reported by Morgan Quinto (and many other agencies). I have a theory as to why people think the rough neighborhoods in Rochester "look" so much "worse" than those in other cities, namely those in the south. Here it goes.
Up until the mid 20th century, the city of Rochester was almost exclusively a middle/upper middle/ affluent city with an almost all white population. There were very few poor or dangerous neighborhoods, or at least they were not as large and blatantly obvious. When white flight occurred and much of that original population left for the subrubs, the formerly upper middle class neighborhoods property values dropped like a rock and poorer families who didn't upkeep the once nice houses as much let them fall into disrepair and get that "urban grit" look. That's how the "poor" "ghetto" neighborhoods in Rochester (and really, most pre-WWII cities) got they way they are now.
In the south, it is much different. The south historically has always had much higher poverty rates than the north. Cities in the south, especially the mid sized ones with population sizes similar to Rochester, were originally built up with areas that were already lower-income. The houses weren't built nice and stately like many homes in northern cities (even those for the working class) were. White flight wasn't really something that happened in southern cities because generally, they already had very high black and lower income populations before the '50s. The rough areas stayed the same as they always had been. So they were never seen as "going down hill". They simply had always been the "Bad areas" so people never expected or "reminisced" about when they were good.
In Rochester, the biggest factor in people talking about how deteriorated a rough neighborhood looks is the fact that "Back in the day" it used to be "nice" (which lets be honest here, to most people saying this, nice means white). It's more depressing looking to see a 2000 sq ft victorian house in disrepair and with graffiti and a chain-link fence with an overgrown yard that than it is to see a simple small ranch/bungalow type house that was never "fancy" looking in the first place in a neighborhood with the same issues as one up north .
Even 585 admitted that those neighborhoods mentioned in Tampa were just as dangerous as some of the bad neighborhoods in the city of Rochester; but because they were never nice to begin with and haven't deteriorated from former glory, the stigma isn't the same.
Again, this is all just from my own observations and I'm not trying to "prove" causality or anything like that, just giving my opinion.
To add to your great post, weather also plays a factor in terms of looks when you consider the other factors already mentioned.
Age is another factor, as most of those neighborhoods in Rochester and other pre WW2 cities are older than many of the neighborhoods that people see in a city like Tampa. Just by looking at the square mileage of cities in the two regions gives one an idea as to the age of neighborhoods in those cities. Like I've mentioned before, some of the outer city neighborhoods in the South, West and parts of the Midwest would be neighborhoods in suburbs like Gates, Chili, Irondequoit, Brighton, Penfield and Greece in Rochester.
I just checked out the first 5 you named on google streetview, and none of them are even worth comparing. look at the streets you just posted and then look at any of the "bad areas" in rochester (or just look at the two random streetview links I provided), and you will see there is no comparison. You can even find places that look worse than tampa in greece or gates lol. having lived in tampa, i am well aware that a lot of those streets you named ARE IN FACT quite dangerous, but as ANYONE can see, they just dont LOOK anywhere near as bad as the rough areas in Rochester.
please tell me this conversation is over. do i really have to make a poll with examples from each city to prove my point?! i mean go on google streetview and look at it yourself!!!! the streets you named literally look like something you'd find in the low income areas of certain Rochester suburbs! get on google streetview and compare ANY of those streets to N. clinton, north st, jay st, remington, conkey, ave a, b, c, or d, clifford, portland, hudson, durnan, jefferson, genessee, thurston, s. plymouth, (i can go on for days) and even you will see that it is LAUGHABLE to say that tampa 'looks' more dangerous.
Im doubting you've ever lived in Tampa, because half of those streets I named were main streets and you would not have to look those up because if you lived in Tampa you would have experience with them. I also posted streets that obviously were not dangerous and are claiming are dangerous to see if you knew anything, you posted twice in the Florida section probably to back your cover story and obviously have never lived there.
Is "white flight" typically used as an excuse for the degradation of previously nice neighborhoods?
Yes, because it is this little thing we call historically accurate.
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.
