Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
That's basically the Levittown model, much imitated. The residents often like it because people don't cut through the subdivision. It also makes the subdivision feel a bit bigger than it actually is.
|
Not just that, burglary rates are lower in neighborhoods with lower permeability even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Burglars basically follow into two categories: one is the meth addict crime of happenstance, the others are planned burglaries. Meth addicts are less likely to be in a neighborhood with lower permeability situated farther away from an throughfare, unless they happen to live there in which case you're f-ed. Planner-type burglars select locations along routes they are familiar with, typically along the routes they take to work since most of them have day jobs. Again, there's less likelihood of a neighborhood with lower permeability being along the route of a planner-type burglars daily route. You're even safe if you live next to one as unlike the meth addicts, they tend NOT to steal where they eat.
As far as actual effect on burglary rates, economics (home prices relative to area), instability (renter/owner occupancy, vacancy rate, and average length or residency), and permeability are all about equally important. About half important was density (households per structure), although it's basically impossible to separate out density from instability. Apartments have higher rates of vacancy than homes, shorter lengths of residence. Also greater density usually requires higher permeability. The correlation between density and burglary rates is pretty much expected. A (density) is correlated with B (permeability) and C (instability) and B and C are correlated with burglary rate, so obviously you'd expect density to be correlated with burglary rates.
For violent crime, it's the same, albeit weaker, except for density. Density is actually slightly negatively correlated for violent crime.
Basically, for crime safety, you want to live in a high-income neighborhood with low permeability located far away from the thoroughfare in an established, stable neighborhood. If you can find one with lots of multi-unit dwellings, even better, although it is very difficult to find that as most neighborhoods that are high-income, low permeability, and located far away from a thoroughfare are SFH.
It's not the only consideration, but there's rational behind why you see affluent pocket neighborhoods almost never built with high permeability next to a freeway or major thoroughfare but rather tucked in several miles off a main road. The actual land values are often much higher nearer freeways/thoroughfares since they're more convenient. Those tend to get built up with apartments and commercial. As you move farther from the freeways/thoroughfares you see the more expensive houses. It's very noticeable in the newer neighborhoods of Sacramento and its suburbs, especially planned ones such as El Dorado Hills or Natomas neighborhood in Sacramento.
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.
