What is the shadiest street stretch you have ever seen?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yes and no.

Sure, the number of actual crimes per year is higher when there are people, but that's not the same thing at all as the odds of being a victim somewhere.

To illustrate:

If you go in nearly empty Neighborhood A, you're almost certain to get murdered or robbed. This happens 100 times a year (to crazy people who somehow go there for some reason).

Meanwhile, very densely inhabited Neighborhood B sees 200 crimes a year, but your odds of anything happening to you there are in the 0%-5% range.

Your numbers-driven logic leads you to think Neighborhood A is twice as safe (half the number of crimes), but in fact Neighborhood B is much safer.

Figuring out the "real crime rate" of an area isn't easy though. I mean:

1. While it's typically done by "crimes per residents" it breaks down for neighborhoods which are relatively population poor but a lot of people pass through, which includes employee-heavy areas, entertainment areas, universities, and particularly central-business districts.

2. Quite a lot of crime - particularly violent crime - is not predatory, but targeted/retaliatory. If you're a rando middle-class white person who moves to the worst ghetto in your city, your chances of being a victim of a crime are thus considerably lower than that of the people who live in the neighborhood already, who are pretty likely to have friends or family members who are criminals themselves, and targets for retaliation of some sort.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Irvington NJ:

• Video Link

Parts of Camden:

• Video Link

Always interesting how the streets in even the worst hoods are generally filled with (mostly) shiny new cars.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by eschaton

2. Quite a lot of crime - particularly violent crime - is not predatory, but targeted/retaliatory. If you're a rando middle-class white person who moves to the worst ghetto in your city, your chances of being a victim of a crime are thus considerably lower than that of the people who live in the neighborhood already, who are pretty likely to have friends or family members who are criminals themselves, and targets for retaliation of some sort.

True, and I went ahead and added something along those lines to my post before you posted yours (but you quoted me before I did, so obviously you didn't see it).

Originally Posted by lio45

Another factor is that not all crimes "concern you" equally. If Neighborhood C sees 500 crimes a year and Neighborhood D only 100, but in Neighborhood C (which is populated) it's all stuff like conjugal violence, while in Neighborhood D it's only muggings and robbings, then if you're going to walk alone in the streets as a tourist you're safer in Neighborhood C.

Originally Posted by eschaton

Figuring out the "real crime rate" of an area isn't easy though.

I agree. I'm just pointing out that the data-obsessed approach doesn't work that well here. All things considered, I'd rather give more weight to local perception than to (flawed) cold-hard data, whenever they conflict.

(i.e. I just arrived to a city I'm unfamiliar with, the locals say I should avoid walking alone at night in Neighborhood X, they're probably right even if the on paper crime stats disagree with them.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Figuring out the "real crime rate" of an area isn't easy though. I mean:

1. While it's typically done by "crimes per residents" it breaks down for neighborhoods which are relatively population poor but a lot of people pass through, which includes employee-heavy areas, entertainment areas, universities, and particularly central-business districts.

2. Quite a lot of crime - particularly violent crime - is not predatory, but targeted/retaliatory. If you're a rando middle-class white person who moves to the worst ghetto in your city, your chances of being a victim of a crime are thus considerably lower than that of the people who live in the neighborhood already, who are pretty likely to have friends or family members who are criminals themselves, and targets for retaliation of some sort.

Yes and no. Some neighbourhoods are past the point where such considerations carry much weight.

Detroit newscasts occasionally show reports featuring the "last holdout" little old lady (can be black or white, doesn't matter) on some abandoned street whose house is like a fortress with bars on the windows, etc., and who fends of robbers at night with an air horn or something like that...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

True, and I went ahead and added something along those lines to my post before you posted yours (but you quoted me before I did, so obviously you didn't see it).






I agree. I'm just pointing out that the data-obsessed approach doesn't work that well here. All things considered, I'd rather give more weight to local perception than to (flawed) cold-hard data, whenever they conflict.

(i.e. I just arrived to a city I'm unfamiliar with, the locals say I should avoid Neighborhood X, they're probably right even if the on paper crime stats disagree with them.)

In that "bad rep" neighbourhood, there may be way fewer people around but the chances of anyone you run into being up to no good are exponentionally higher. You also don't benefit from the safety in numbers, eyes on the street factor either (as you would in a more lived-in area) if there are simply no good samaritans around to help you.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Detroit newscasts occasionally show reports featuring the "last holdout" little old lady (can be black or white, doesn't matter) on some abandoned street whose house is like a fortress with bars on the windows, etc., and who fends of robbers at night with an air horn or something like that...

Obviously there are anecdotes out there, but I don't believe this is generally the case. Most home break-ins are opportunistic with little in the way of planing. This is why you're more likely to be robbed if your house is on a corner, and less likely if you're the last home on a dead end street. The more inconvenient your home is for passers by, the less likely that someone is really going to screw with you on an ongoing basis.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes and no. Some neighbourhoods are past the point where such considerations carry much weight.

Detroit newscasts occasionally show reports featuring the "last holdout" little old lady (can be black or white, doesn't matter) on some abandoned street whose house is like a fortress with bars on the windows, etc., and who fends of robbers at night with an air horn or something like that...

The crime rate per capita of that street would all get attributed to that one little old lady as if she committed them all, so it's probably pretty high on paper! Or, on the other hand, maybe it's zero, if her fortress never gets attacked and no one else reports any crimes (whether there are any or not).

Again, such examples just show how reality vs on paper can easily be somewhat apart. In that case, the most reliable measurement available would likely be what the locals would tell you about (their guesstimate of) your odds if you walked on that street as an unarmed tourist.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yes and no.

Sure, the number of actual crimes per year is higher when there are people, but that's not the same thing at all as the odds of being a victim somewhere.

I agree with all this. My point is that it's popularly assumed that blight/abandoment and danger are highly correlated, and I'm not sure that's the case.

This innocuous postwar bungalow neighborhood usually has the highest violent crime rate in Detroit. Looks a bit shabby but not bombed out:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4272...7i16384!8i8192

In contrast, Chene Street looks like some post-apocalyptic movie, but has a low violent crime rate (for Detroit standards):

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3660...7i16384!8i8192

I wouldn't suggest wandering around either neighborhood after dark, BTW, but if I had to choose one, it would be Chene St., where you aren't likely to come across anyone but junkies and loners. NE Detroit might have gangbangers and folks out looking for easy marks.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

The crime rate per capita of that street would all get attributed to that one little old lady as if she committed them all, so it's probably pretty high on paper! Or, on the other hand, maybe it's zero, if her fortress never gets attacked and no one else reports any crimes (whether there are any or not).

Again, such examples just show how reality vs on paper can easily be somewhat apart. In that case, the most reliable measurement available would likely be what the locals would tell you about (their guesstimate of) your odds if you walked on that street as an unarmed tourist.

In the big city I am most familiar with (Montreal) the highest crime rate is in the downtown core where all the nightlife is. Most violent crime there occurs in the wee hours of the morning, around when the bar crowds are leaving.

Still, downtown is far from being the part of Montreal where I'd feel least comfortable walking around in by myself - even after dark. It's probably one of the places where I'd feel the most at ease. (Perhaps this is a false impression... I dunno.)

[Steely Dan]

we used to live on a delightfully shady street with a gorgeous tree canopy vaulted over the street:



but since moving a year and a half ago, our new street is not as fully tree canopied, and we recently just lost 2 more ash trees to emerald ash borers halfway down the block.

those magnificent trees might be the one thing i miss the most about our old place.

[uaarkson]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yes and no.

Sure, the number of actual crimes per year is higher when there are people, but that's not the same thing at all as the odds of being a victim somewhere.

To illustrate:

If you go in nearly empty Neighborhood A, you're almost certain to get murdered or robbed. This happens 100 times a year (to crazy people who somehow go there for some reason).

Meanwhile, very densely inhabited Neighborhood B sees 200 crimes a year, but your odds of anything happening to you there are in the 0%-5% range.

Your numbers-driven logic leads you to think Neighborhood A is twice as safe (half the number of crimes), but in fact Neighborhood B is much safer.

Another factor is that not all crimes "concern you" equally. If Neighborhood C sees 500 crimes a year and Neighborhood D only 100, but in Neighborhood C (which is populated) it's all stuff like conjugal violence, while in Neighborhood D it's only muggings and robbings, then if you're going to walk alone in the streets as a tourist you're safer in Neighborhood C.

Lol. There are no neighborhoods in the US, even in Detroit, where people will 'murder or rob' you just for showing up, especially if you're white. Absurd.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Lol. There are no neighborhoods in the US, even in Detroit, where people will 'murder or rob' you just for showing up, especially if you're white. Absurd.

If anything generally criminals are more hesitant about targeting middle-class white people, because they (rightly) conclude that the police are going to undertake a much more thorough investigation when they are robbed/shot than if it happens to some random poor black person.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What is the douchiest premise for a thread you've ever seen?

Are you surprised?

People have a sick blight/ghetto fetish, it brings them morbid glee and fascination like animals in a zoo and they have no shame about it. Why do you think that charliebob loser on youtube gets so many clicks?

Anyway Detroit is really nowhere near the sketchiest city in the united states. Parts of Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis, south/west side Chicago neighborhoods are far sketchier.


Abandoned neighborhoods by white flight aren't really all that eventful (and if you're at all familiar with the lovely united states you'll know we have it in spades across the country) as said here about five times now. The "hoods" aren't really that eventful either. They're just people trying to live their damn lives. You'll find way more drugs and shady characters in wealthy white suburbia.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Lol. There are no neighborhoods in the US, even in Detroit, where people will 'murder or rob' you just for showing up, especially if you're white. Absurd.

I would say especially in Detroit. Any time a middle class white person is killed in that city it dominates local news coverage for weeks or months. The Jane Bashara murder is a good example.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Lol. There are no neighborhoods in the US, even in Detroit, where people will 'murder or rob' you just for showing up, especially if you're white. Absurd.

The great lie Americans have told themselves for a century to justify segregation which really explains everything.

"Don't patronize businesses! don't invest! don't step foot there at all! you'll surely get killed immediately in any area that isn't pristine lily white!"

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

If anything generally criminals are more hesitant about targeting middle-class white people, because they (rightly) conclude that the police are going to undertake a much more thorough investigation when they are robbed/shot than if it happens to some random poor black person.

Whites are probably extra-safe in high crime areas, because the potential troublemakers often assume you're a cop/official of some type. I remember a teen asking me "what time is it, officer" (while smirking to his friends) years ago while walking around SW Detroit.

But if you're super disheveled looking, they probably assume you're there to buy drugs or lovin'.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Lol. There are no neighborhoods in the US, even in Detroit, where people will 'murder or rob' you just for showing up, especially if you're white. Absurd.

I never said anything about Detroit; I was just illustrating why official on paper crime stats are not the be all end all, and that they can even be sometimes less reliable than local perception/feeling.

There's nothing absurd in what I said (which is all fictional - that's why the neighborhoods in my example are named with letters).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by The North One

The great lie Americans have told themselves for a century to justify segregation which really explains everything.

"Don't patronize businesses! don't invest! don't step foot there at all! you'll surely get killed immediately in any area that isn't pristine lily white!"

Again, I'm just stating the fact that IF such a neighborhood (where anyone who ventures there gets killed) existed, THEN the crime in that neighborhood could still very well be extremely low on paper (if everyone knows that, and avoids going there).

Basic facts, undeniable.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by The North One

Are you surprised?

People have a sick blight/ghetto fetish, it brings them morbid glee and fascination like animals in a zoo and they have no shame about it. Why do you think that charliebob loser on youtube gets so many clicks?

Anyway Detroit is really nowhere near the sketchiest city in the united states. Parts of Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis, south/west side Chicago neighborhoods are far sketchier.


Abandoned neighborhoods by white flight aren't really all that eventful (and if you're at all familiar with the lovely united states you'll know we have it in spades across the country) as said here about five times now. The "hoods" aren't really that eventful either. They're just people trying to live their damn lives. You'll find way more drugs and shady characters in wealthy white suburbia.

I don't think it's a coincidence that this thread was started by a Canadian, although yes it's also true that blighted/ghetto areas are also a focus of fascination for many Americans.

Like it or not, for Canadians (and also Europeans, Australians, etc.) these areas of U.S. cities have a "shock value" that can't be denied. We all have run-down areas in our cities but abandonment on this large a scale is just not something we're accustomed to seeing - especially not in one of the world's most developed countries.

It is what it is. What can I say.

Though I have to say in most of the classic (sic) blighted cities things have often improved a lot compared to what they were in the 80s and 90s when I was a kid. You can still usually get your ghetto porn fix (if that's your thing) but it's not as easy to find as it was back then.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by lio45

Again, I'm just stating the fact that IF such a neighborhood (where anyone who ventures there gets killed) existed, THEN the crime in that neighborhood could still very well be extremely low on paper (if everyone knows that, and avoids going there).

Basic facts, undeniable.

First, neighborhoods like this don't really exist.

Secondly, even if they did, it makes no sense.

Basically, imagine people are molecules for a second, bouncing around in a closed container. Some of them are one element (normal people) others are another (murderers). Even if you have only one normal person and 100 murderers, if the box is big enough, there's not really a high chance of running into any one of them.

Low density, blighted bad neighborhoods work like this. If there's only one or two intact/inhabited houses on the block, there really aren't enough places left for criminals to live. And people from other neighborhoods aren't going to go there to commit crimes. There aren't enough inhabited houses to rob, aren't enough customers for the dope they're slinging, etc. So even if a relatively high proportion of the people who are left are potential criminals, you're very unlikely to see them out and about on the street at any time, since the neighborhood has deteriorated past the "boys hanging out on the corner" phase.