HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 9:43 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
Does it? I’ve tried looking into the numbers for the Chicagoland area and outside of the city, there are very few murders.
Gary, I'm sure. Probably also some South Side suburbs like Dolton, Riverdale, Harvey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 9:49 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Gary, I'm sure. Probably also some South Side suburbs like Dolton, Riverdale, Harvey.
and maywood in the western burbs also has a reputation for gang violence, though i have no numbers.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 9:59 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
Does it? I’ve tried looking into the numbers for the Chicagoland area and outside of the city, there are very few murders. Will County has had 30 since 2018. That seems to be the highest outside of Cook. The vast majority of homicides in Cook County are in the city.
The the ones mentioned already have bad reputations, from what I remember. Anyway, LA isn't some sort of outlier with scary suburbs. Prince Georges County seems to the roughest, going off the numbers.

There's only 3 suburbs or so they have serious murder issues in the LA area. Compton, San Bernardino, and Pomona. So I dont know what Phun is talking about. And San Bernardino is 60 freaking miles away.

Last edited by LA21st; Aug 26, 2019 at 10:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 10:18 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
You're kidding right? Chicago has suburbs that are pretty violent. So does NYC, DC, etc. LA isn't different in this at all. This isn't the 1990s anymore. "Scary" Long Beach has one of the lowest murder rates for cities over 400,000. Meanwhile, Prince Georges County's murder rate is among the worst in the country.

Your city is much more violent and crime ridden than what LA is. Skew your facts all you want. Seems weird a guy from Houston is calling LA's crime out.

That said, I love Chicago, but there is def a issue going on with the redline. I follow Chicago news, and there is a disturbing pattern of random people getting attacked/mugged
more frequently than they should around red line stations.
I never said that other places didn't. But LA is a unique animal in that it has suburban areas in the city limits and urban areas just outside it. Not that other places don't but it is more pronounced.

Most importantly, my point was only about violent crime/murders spread out over a metro area and how municipal boundaries, just as with population, give a distorted picture. And given that I was born in San Bernardino County and have lived all over LA County, if anything I'd be biased for LA in any conversation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 10:24 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,435
And those areas aren't what they used to be. As bad as Compton is, it's murders are way down from 10-20 years ago. San Bernardino is the worst, and doesn't appear to be getting better. But it's 60 miles away, and not really LA anyway.

It's not a distorted picture. There's only a few bad suburbs in LA metro, just like anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 11:03 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,723
Compton, to my experience, was never as bad as its reputation suggested anyways, at least not all of it. Me and my family knew plenty of suburban/middle class people from there in the 80's and into the 90's. Seems to me Dr. Dre was just trying to sell records.

I was thrilled to have been associated with a place like Carson, granted the school system sucked as compared to what I got in suburban Houston.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 11:17 PM
Sun Belt's Avatar
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
Love it or leave it : )
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
Compton, to my experience, was never as bad as its reputation suggested anyways, at least not all of it. Me and my family knew plenty of suburban/middle class people from there in the 80's and into the 90's. Seems to me Dr. Dre was just trying to sell records.

I was thrilled to have been associated with a place like Carson, granted the school system sucked as compared to what I got in suburban Houston.
Compton recorded something like 100 murders annually in the 1990s, this is in a city of just 90,000.

E] This is from Yahoo! Interestingly, it did use 1985, the formative years of Dr. Dre and NWA and compared it with 2010 Detroit:

---Detroit----
Crime rates (2010)
Crime type Rate* per 100,000 people
Homicide: 34.4
Forcible rape: 45.0
Robbery: 615.7
Aggravated assault: 1,192.1

----Compton---
Crime rates (1985)
Crime type Rate* per 100,00 people
Homicide: 62.9
Forcible rape: 154.4
Robbery 1,276.2
Aggravated assault 1,299.4

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...2175925AAFBZEd
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 11:24 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,435
Yea, it was pretty bad. Still is, but thankfully, far from it's bloodbath peak. People were scared of that place for a reason.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 11:27 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,723
Must have lived up to its pop culture rep after we left. My grandparents had friendships with classy suburbaites from Compton, including the mother of a pretty notable resident.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 3:00 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 40,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Yeah, I agree with this. Cleveland does have some really nice areas, and some top notch cultural institutions (art museum, symphony, rock hall). But in terms of offering vibrant, walkable neighborhoods, there is very, very little to pick from. Almost all of the neighborhoods are characterized by very plain looking detached housing. Very little brick or ornamentation, very few functioning business districts...just kind of utilitarian. Downtown is clean but very quiet and hardly any street level retail, even when it comes to little corner stores and the like. You can walk for blocks in downtown Cleveland and not come across a single commercial use. That was shocking when I visited for the first time.

Ohio City is pretty nice. Never got the appeal of their other 'premier' neighborhood of Tremont, though. It has some nice restaurants and bars, but they feel just scattered throughout the neighborhood rather than forming any real district. And for all the hype I had seen about Tremont, I found it quite non-descript at best, ugly at worst. This doesn't seem like a neighborhood deserving of the hype it gets: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4805...7i13312!8i6656

That said, there is some cool stuff in Cleveland. I really like their Little Italy, even if it's tiny. I think Shaker Square is very cool and unique, and very pretty: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4835...7i13312!8i6656

Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights are great inner suburbs, and are great areas to walk around. Lakewood isn't very pretty, but it's pretty dense and has some great bars and restaurants. There is definitely cool stuff throughout the Cleveland area, but you kind of have to work to find it. And a lot of the 'connective tissue' between the cool stuff is just boring/ugly. IMO.
Wasn't Cleveland where the river caught fire in the 70s? Stuff like that tends to mark people's consciousness. I am not even American and I recall that.
__________________
Got you thinking
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 3:12 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,043
Rivers caught fire in a bunch of US cities back in the 1870s to 1960s.

Cleveland actually did something about it, and had a lot to do with enacting local anti-pollution laws, which led to federal environmental protection regulations and agency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 11:36 AM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,016
New Haven has a bad rap, probably deserved in those areas, but downtown itself is very dense and beautiful. It has some truly stunning architecture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
...You're not going to have a dozen contiguous miles of any sort of development in a city with any meaningful topographic change.
Boston and San Francisco beg to differ.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 4:19 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
New Haven has a bad rap, probably deserved in those areas, but downtown itself is very dense and beautiful. It has some truly stunning architecture.



Boston and San Francisco beg to differ.
San Francisco, yes. Boston has no where near the same levels of hills as a SF, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. The latter two cities have big problems with landslides which make development on the hills very difficult. SF would not be able to be built in a place like Cincinnati or Pittsburgh, because the soil is too unstable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 6:49 PM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
San Francisco, yes. Boston has no where near the same levels of hills as a SF, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. The latter two cities have big problems with landslides which make development on the hills very difficult. SF would not be able to be built in a place like Cincinnati or Pittsburgh, because the soil is too unstable.
Fun fact, Boston was originally much hillier than it is today! Those hills were cut down considerably and used to fill in land that now includes the Bulfinch Triangle, Chinatown, and much of the Back Bay.

https://historyofmassachusetts.org/h...ost-its-hills/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...-maps-history/

Even today, it's still hillier than given credit for. It's probably more on the lines of 1/2 the overall breadth and intensity of a Pittsburgh or San Francisco. There are plenty of steep inclines remaining. Climbing Beacon Hill is always a chore. The ascent from the beach to the Dorchester Heights monument in Southie is short but a doozy. Summit Ave in Brookline, as well as Mission Hill, are quite substantial. Prospect Hill in Somerville is also pretty steep. There are many others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 7:39 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
For a city as large/important as LA, and a street as important/iconic as Wilshire, I'd say there are very few pedestrians on Wilshire in BH.

There are few pedestrians because it isn't a particularly pleasant walking experience, and the big department stores all have parking in the back, so the back becomes the main entrance.
I walked home one night from a movie in Westwood to the house I was renting on South Almont Drive (below Wilshire in the "slums") in Bev. Hills. It was about a 3 mile walk on the Sunday night following Thanksgiving in the early 1980s. The "Condo Corridor" was just getting underway replacing all the two or three story buildings that previously lined this strech of Wilshire. My walk also took me along the LA Country Club and on past the Beverly Hilton through that stretch of Wilshire in Bev. Hills lined with upscale department stores. I did not encounter a single pedestrian until I crossed the Santa Monica/ Wilshire intersection in Bev. Hills where there were a few hotel workers waiting for a bus. Now admittedly this was a loooong time ago, but I suspect not a whole lot has changed in the intervening 35 plus years. There was a popular song back then by the Missing Persons called "Walking in LA". The most catchy lyric went as follows: "Walkin' in LA,Walkin' in LA, only a nobody walks in LA". BTW, I love LA. It is still my favorite US city outside of NY.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 8:31 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Any gilded age non-college town us mid size city

Scranton, pa

Syracuse, ny

Allentown, pa

Easton, pa

Flint, mi (the fake lead poisoning hoax)...beautiful downtown

Bufffalo, ny (2/3 of the metro area is very nice)

La crosse, wi (looks beautiful, I assumed it looked like Waukegan)

Columbus , oh (nicer than Indy)



Most Mid size New England cities are under praised (outside CT, CT cities deserve to be under praised)

Binghamton ny
Syracuse is a college town. The Armory Square area in downtown has a fantastic urban aesthetic and architecture. Rest of city kinda rough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 8:40 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,874
Flint has a beautiful downtown? Could have fooled me.

Flint is a 20th century city. It was a nondescript village during the Guilded Age.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 8:40 PM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 59
The stretch of Wilshire Boulevard in Westwood that was picked as an example of "unwalkability" is 1) purpose-built as a boring area for boring rich people who don't want to interact with the public at all, 2) built around the corner from busy, pedestrian-oriented (and rich and boring) Westwood Village, and 3) around the corner from busy, walkable, more diverse Westwood Boulevard.

People who live in the area pictured can, if they choose not to be boring and physically attached to their cars, easily walk to three first-run movie theaters, numerous shops and eateries, art galleries, sports events, concerts, lectures, etc. There aren't many bars in the area, however, as UCLA initially barred drinking establishments within a certain proximity to campus, and that hasn't really changed much over the decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 9:45 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Phoenix, the endless discussions on this board alone are proof

I have had people back east literally ask me if I found using elevators unusual as if Phoenix has no elevators

I think the general perception vs reality are hugely disconnected
I don't think Phoenix has a bad rap outside of this forum. To most people, it's just a nice, affordable place to live that is close by to lots of outdoor activities. In here, though, it has a deserved bad rap when you consider the two driving interests of this forum, which are skyscrapers, followed by urban prowess. It'd be like going to a Porsche forum and being shocked why people are continually crapping on Toyota Corollas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2019, 10:21 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
The stretch of Wilshire Boulevard in Westwood that was picked as an example of "unwalkability" is 1) purpose-built as a boring area for boring rich people who don't want to interact with the public at all, 2) built around the corner from busy, pedestrian-oriented (and rich and boring) Westwood Village, and 3) around the corner from busy, walkable, more diverse Westwood Boulevard.

People who live in the area pictured can, if they choose not to be boring and physically attached to their cars, easily walk to three first-run movie theaters, numerous shops and eateries, art galleries, sports events, concerts, lectures, etc. There aren't many bars in the area, however, as UCLA initially barred drinking establishments within a certain proximity to campus, and that hasn't really changed much over the decades.
Agreed. Like I said, the options are there and it's not much of a walk to Westwood Village for many of those highrises.
Westwood Village isn't a cool neighborhood in LA, but it's busy as hell, especially during the week. Alot of office towers in the area and there's friggin buses everywhere.
It acts like a small downtown. It might be the most in need off a subway station than anywhere else in LA. At the moment anyway.

Last edited by LA21st; Aug 27, 2019 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:35 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.