PDA

View Full Version : The South Side of Chicago is the "Bad" Part of Town. What are the bad parts of London, Paris, etc.?


HeyHomie
06-07-2010, 08:18 PM
The South Side of Chicago has a (well-deserved) reputation for being the "bad" part of town, as do South-Central Los Angeles, west Philadelphia, etc. What are the "bad" parts of London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Buenos Aires, etc.? And for that matter, what (geographically speaking) are the high-end parts?

clairobscur
06-07-2010, 08:56 PM
There isn't really any "bad part" in Paris proper. Like in most other European cities, affluent people tend to gather in the down-town, and "bad neighbourhoods" tend to be situated in the suburbs.

Besides, Paris has the peculiarity, contrarily to many other cities, to be still contained within the limits of its 19th century walls (walls that don't exist anymore, of course). There's no "greater Paris" like there is in London. When you cross the limit, you end up in another "independent" municipality. Note that even though you won't see much difference crossing it, there's a strongly ingrained perception that Paris proper and the so-called "banlieue" aren't the same thing at all.


However, generally speaking, the most popular districts are situated in the north-eastern part of the city, the most upscale in the center and west of Paris. Still, that's relative. There are many more immigrants in the popular areas, rent and real estate prices are lower, but you'll still have a hard time living there if you're really poor (apart from some housing projects), and there aren't any ghettos or areas where it would be dangerous to walk around, even at night (not to say there isn't any way you could be assaulted in Paris, but there aren't specifically unsafe areas).


As I mentioned before, real "bad parts" are situated in some areas of the suburbs, where essentially nobody not living there has any reason to go or went through (which in fact might compound the problem of these "ghettos", since they're completely apart from the city life). Again, speaking very generally, those bad parts are more likely to be found in the north-east suburbs.

Measure for Measure
06-08-2010, 02:42 AM
From the Master:
Is the south side always the baddest part of town? (https://academicpursuits.us/columns/read/1358/is-the-south-side-always-the-baddest-part-of-town)

Dervorin
06-08-2010, 02:53 AM
London's East End has typically always been rougher than other parts - generally less affluent, has more crime and violence. I think this is due to several factors, including the fact that it suffered a huge amount of bomb damage during WW2. However, London has affluent pockets and less affluent ones scattered all over the place, sometimes right next to each other. Notting Hill, of movie fame, for example, is right next door to Ladbroke Grove, which is definitely less upmarket.

06-08-2010, 06:14 AM
Often the bad side of town was downwind of the good side. For example, in London, the East End is poorer than the West End; and the winds come mainly from the West to the East.

This was probably more important when most buildings were heated by wood or coal fires, and the wind carried a lot of dirty soot downwind. Might not be as important now, but once areas of town get known as a good or bad part of town, ti seems to be largely self-perpetuating.

Horatio Hellpop
06-08-2010, 06:33 AM
Often the bad side of town was downwind of the good side. For example, in London, the East End is poorer than the West End; and the winds come mainly from the West to the East.

This was probably more important when most buildings were heated by wood or coal fires, and the wind carried a lot of dirty soot downwind. Might not be as important now, but once areas of town get known as a good or bad part of town, ti seems to be largely self-perpetuating.

Baltimore would be an exception to this. The few rich people living there tend to cluster around the harbor and, IIRC, upper Charles Street, whereas West Baltimore is (according to author David Simon) known to law enforcement as "The Land of the Misdemeanor Homicide."

SciFiSam
06-08-2010, 06:39 AM
London's East End has typically always been rougher than other parts - generally less affluent, has more crime and violence. I think this is due to several factors, including the fact that it suffered a huge amount of bomb damage during WW2. However, London has affluent pockets and less affluent ones scattered all over the place, sometimes right next to each other. Notting Hill, of movie fame, for example, is right next door to Ladbroke Grove, which is definitely less upmarket.

The main factor is that it's just outside the borders of the old (tiny) City of London. When people wanted to do things that weren't allowed inside the city walls, like brick-burning or plays that criticise the monarch or bear-baiting, they'd go to what is now Bethnal Green, Wapping, etc.

That was well over a thousand years ago and the reputation hasn't changed since, although people are no longer living in conditions so bad that the Old Nichol estate was widely considered the worst slum in England.

Gyrate
06-08-2010, 06:48 AM
Also, of course, the East End is downriver of the West End and the docks were on that side of the city.

There are some "bad" parts of South London as well (Brixton, Camberwell and so forth) but like the rest of London it's very much a mixed bag, often depending on which street or which side of a railway line you live on.

SciFiSam
06-08-2010, 07:29 AM
What I mean is that the East End was the bad suburb of the City of London long before the West End was even a suburb - it's not dependant on its relationship to the western half.

Hypno-Toad
06-08-2010, 07:48 AM
The East End was also the bad part of town long before the Luftwaffe redecorated. It's not exactly coincidence that it was poor folks who got bombed most. They lived near the military targets because they worked at them and because it was less desirable to live next to the battery manufactory, the ball-bearing plant, etc...

Acsenray
06-08-2010, 08:04 AM
The bad part of Dayton, Ohio, is the west side.

The bad part of Bombay is the eastern suburbs.

The bad part of Washington, D.C., is the southeast.

The bad parts of New York are in the north and the east.

The bad parts of Chillicothe, Ohio, are in the south and in the east side.

krisolov
06-08-2010, 08:51 AM
Baltimore would be an exception to this. The few rich people living there tend to cluster around the harbor and, IIRC, upper Charles Street, whereas West Baltimore is (according to author David Simon) known to law enforcement as "The Land of the Misdemeanor Homicide."

yup, it sure is. I have reason to drive through the west side occasionally and the number of blue-light crime cameras mounted on telephone poles to provide continuous surveillance is pretty remarkable. I'm usually driving a state vehicle and I make sure I stay on the main roads and keep my head on a swivel. Not unusual to see blatant drug deals, and lots of guys just hanging out in the middle of the day, obviously not working. Well, not traditionally employed at least ;)

pulykamell
06-08-2010, 09:50 AM
In Budapest, the general feeling is that the hilly, Buda side (west of the Danube) is considered more upscale than the urban, Pest side (east of the Danube). Buda is also, on the whole quieter with more green space, so, along with the hills and views they offer, it's no wonder why it's generally considered more upscale (although it does have its Pest-like urban parts, too.)

Chefguy
06-08-2010, 10:08 AM
Northeast Portland
East Anchorage
South Boston

APB
06-08-2010, 10:19 AM
The main factor is that it's just outside the borders of the old (tiny) City of London. When people wanted to do things that weren't allowed inside the city walls, like brick-burning or plays that criticise the monarch or bear-baiting, they'd go to what is now Bethnal Green, Wapping, etc.

That was well over a thousand years ago and the reputation hasn't changed since, although people are no longer living in conditions so bad that the Old Nichol estate was widely considered the worst slum in England.

What I mean is that the East End was the bad suburb of the City of London long before the West End was even a suburb - it's not dependant on its relationship to the western half.

No, that gets it almost completely wrong.

Firstly, the development of outlying areas to avoid to control of the City was true all around London and was most true not to the east but to the south in Southwark. The outlying parts of Westminster in the west, such as Tothill Fields and Millbank, were just as grotty before they got engulfed by the expansion of the West End.

Secondly, the East End outside the boundaries of the City hardly existed before the late seventeenth century. Before then, what would become the East End was still largely rural, except for some ribbon development along the main roads and along the river (http://ideal-homes.org.uk/images/lambeth/maps/01312-640.jpg). You specifically mention Bethnel Green. That was then actually rather middle-class (http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22743) and, as Weinreb and Hibbert put it in the London Encylopedia entry on Bethnel Green, the area in the seventeenth century was 'a pleasant country area attracting wealthy residents'.

Now contrast this relative lack of development in the east in the mid-seventennth century with the developed area to the west of the City boundaries. That was then roughly as extensive as the City itself. The West End, especially around Covent Garden and St. James's, was already developing fast as the fashionable, upmarket alternative to the City. It was the West End that was the good suburb before the East End even existed.

Also, of course, the East End is downriver of the West End and the docks were on that side of the city.

That's a big part of it. But remember that the East End docks didn't really develop until the early nineteenth century. Until then, ships still mostly used the City quays, as can be seen in the Rhinebeck Panorama (http://museumindocklands.org.uk/English/EventsExhibitions/Permanent/Rhinebeckpanorama.htm).

AK84
06-08-2010, 12:17 PM
In London I lived where City, Islington and Camden met. You could often seen "good" and "bad" right across each other.

The East part of London has seen some gentrification recently, for example the Docklands. They provided the stage for Vietnam in "Platoon".

Baron Greenback
06-08-2010, 01:06 PM
They provided the stage for Vietnam in "Platoon".

It was Full Metal Jacket.

Johanna
06-08-2010, 02:12 PM
South Tehran is the slummy side, while the north is the plummy side. The south is sprawling over the plains; the north is built in the mountain foothills where space is limited.

Johanna
06-08-2010, 02:16 PM
The posh part of St. Louis is the Central West End, while the really, really bad areas are across the river in Illinois. Both in terms of crime (East St. Louis) and pollution (Dupo).

Johanna
06-08-2010, 02:25 PM
The posh area of Kuala Lumpur is the hilly Bukit Damansara along the western edge, and the slum is Chow Kit, centrally located a bit to the northeast of downtown.

SanibelMan
06-08-2010, 02:51 PM
The posh part of St. Louis is the Central West End, while the really, really bad areas are across the river in Illinois. Both in terms of crime (East St. Louis) and pollution (Dupo). Yeah, but most of North St. Louis would count as the "bad" part of town as well. South St. Louis is not posh, but it's not crime-ridden either.

Madison seems to have bad pockets everywhere. The south side is the "bad" part of town, but the southwest side of the city seems to go from good to bad on a block-by-block basis. The east and north sides are working-class, except for the few very mice areas (Maple Bluff) and the few bad blocks. It's really not easy to classify the "good" and "bad" parts of Madison.

BrotherCadfael
06-08-2010, 03:11 PM
The bad part of Newark, NJ is... Newark.

Shinna Minna Ma
06-08-2010, 04:24 PM
yup, it sure is. I have reason to drive through the west side occasionally and the number of blue-light crime cameras mounted on telephone poles to provide continuous surveillance is pretty remarkable. I'm usually driving a state vehicle and I make sure I stay on the main roads and keep my head on a swivel. Not unusual to see blatant drug deals, and lots of guys just hanging out in the middle of the day, obviously not working. Well, not traditionally employed at least ;)

I used to volunteer to watch the cameras at the Northwest District police station in Baltimore. I went about once a month, about 4 hours at a time. I never saw anything while I was watching the cameras,, but I learned a lot about what went on in the northwest area. ("See that bench on camera 4? Remember reading about the drug dealer murdered last week in the paper? That's where it happened.") I learned how to move the cameras,, zoom in and out and coordinate how the cameras moved automatically so I could see up and down a street. Cool stuff.

SciFiSam
06-08-2010, 04:57 PM
No, that gets it almost completely wrong.

Firstly, the development of outlying areas to avoid to control of the City was true all around London and was most true not to the east but to the south in Southwark. The outlying parts of Westminster in the west, such as Tothill Fields and Millbank, were just as grotty before they got engulfed by the expansion of the West End.

Secondly, the East End outside the boundaries of the City hardly existed before the late seventeenth century. Before then, what would become the East End was still largely rural, except for some ribbon development along the main roads and along the river (http://ideal-homes.org.uk/images/lambeth/maps/01312-640.jpg). You specifically mention Bethnel Green. That was then actually rather middle-class (http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22743) and, as Weinreb and Hibbert put it in the London Encylopedia entry on Bethnel Green, the area in the seventeenth century was 'a pleasant country area attracting wealthy residents'.

Now contrast this relative lack of development in the east in the mid-seventennth century with the developed area to the west of the City boundaries. That was then roughly as extensive as the City itself. The West End, especially around Covent Garden and St. James's, was already developing fast as the fashionable, upmarket alternative to the City. It was the West End that was the good suburb before the East End even existed.


But Westminster wasn't part of London. Note the times I'm talking about - over a thousand years ago. Brick Lane is called Brick Lane because that's where the bricks were burnt - it was no rural idyll even back then. Hackney certainly was until only a couple of centuries ago, but I didn't mention Hackney or any of the wider East End (the areas in the map in your first cite).

The second cite you give contradicts pretty much everything I've read about the area in its conclusions and even contradicts itself. (It says there were no medieval settlements outside the green and then goes on to cite numerous medieval settlements). And the problem is that, well, there was never an actual Bethnal Green as in a central green space known by that name, so that's an odd thing to say in the first place.

But, TBF, this is GQ and I'm too tired to go and find online cites to back up the ones in my hardcopy books, so there's a limit to how far this can go. And, of course, it doesn't have much to do with the OP's question anyway, interesting as it is.

Sunspace
06-08-2010, 05:14 PM
The scruffy parts of Toronto are in the northeast and northwest, in the outer ring of 1960's style suburbs just inside the boundary of the expanded city. These areas are relatively-far from the centre and not well served by transit. There are a few older neighbourhoods closer in that are somewhat sacruffy though; these are east and west of the downtown core, and have gone through almost a whole cycle of rich -> poor -> rich; they are starting to gentrify again.

Una Persson
06-08-2010, 07:51 PM
FWIW, the bad part of Kansas City is the center.

Bijou Drains
06-08-2010, 10:01 PM
I read the wind does play a role. Rich people lived upwind of the factories that had a bad smell. If winds come from the South the rich lived in the south. If wind is from the North they live in the North part of town.

AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet
06-08-2010, 10:38 PM
hile the really, really bad areas are across the river in Illinois. Both in terms of crime (East St. Louis)
I thought St. Louis was basicly a hell hole? And I've heard about how bad East St. Louis is all of my life, but exactly HOW bad is it? Like is it basicly a very inner city slum in a city?

Johanna
06-09-2010, 12:10 AM
St. Louis is the most racially divided city I've ever seen. The north half is practically all black, the south half is practically all white, and only a narrow band across the middle is integrated (where St. Louis University is situated). Or at any rate that was the situation when I went to college there in the 1970s. So charges that the north is a bad place are inextricable from America's long heritage of racism. I dated a north St. Louis girl when I was in college. The only people I was afraid of there were the cops, who were white, racist as hell, and would pull over anybody white who dared to be there at night.

East St. Louis makes northern St. Louis look pretty good by comparison. Their main problem seems to be no functioning municipal government and no municipal services (including law enforcement). North St. Louis gave us Chuck Berry and Dick Gregory. East St. Louis gave us Josephine Baker, Katherine Dunham, Miles Davis, and Jackie Joyner-Kersee.

Kyla
06-09-2010, 12:38 AM
The bad part of Ann Arbor is Ypsilanti.

Rayne Man
06-09-2010, 03:14 AM
The bad part of Newark, NJ is... Newark.

Thank you for clarifying that!

Nava
06-09-2010, 03:42 AM
The bad parts of Barcelona (both the city itself and its metropolitan area) change periodically thanks to "urban renewal", generational change and whatnot: one of the big discussions pre-Olympic games was which area to "renew", Poble Sec or Poble Nou, both being areas that got settled in the XIX and XX centuries and in an unplanned way. The very-large area called the Eixample, settled in the XIX and XX centuries but in a planned fashion, used to have a vertical classification: as you went higher within a building, not only did you have to climb more stairs, but the ceilings got lower and less decorated, there might be more apartments per floor... so it was a good area (wide streets, parks, clean, professional services nearby) but one where you also got a mixture from all socioeconomical classes.

A factor in many European cities is that, some 200 years ago, the space being occupied by the city now would have been occupied by what's now the city's "old area", fields, and villages.

HeyHomie
06-09-2010, 08:45 AM
I thought St. Louis was basicly a hell hole? And I've heard about how bad East St. Louis is all of my life, but exactly HOW bad is it? Like is it basicly a very inner city slum in a city?

St. Louis is a very nice city, with a vibrant art and culture scene, beautiful and diverse neighborhoods, and great restaurants. It's had its ups and downs, but like many US cities it's going through a (very slow) gentrification process. The north part is basically one big ghetto. The south part is mixed, from working-class white neighborhoods to rich white areas to ghettoes. However, all throughout the city there are pockets of gentrification, so even saying that "the north is one big ghetto" is really an overstatement.

Lust4Life
06-09-2010, 09:44 AM
Central/South L.A. ?

senpai71
06-09-2010, 12:42 PM
In S.F., the two 'bad' parts are in the South East part of the City and are known as the Bayview and Hunter's Point. The HP is where the navy had a large shipyard and Pacific Gas & Electric has a large power plant. Parts of the HP are now a Superfund site (i.e. very polluted). The Bayview is the hill overlooking the HP.

These two areas are significantly poorer than the rest of the city and contain the largest concentration of African-Americans in San Francisco (which is, after all, an expensive, pretty white city...). They are being slowly gentrified and there have been recent improvements in public transit (including a new light rail line right into the heart of Bayview), but the crime rates are still pretty high.

Very near the S.F. downtown, there is the area known as the Tenderloin, which is also slightly seedy, but not really 'bad' as such - a fair number of drug addicts, public intoxication, prostitution etc., but very little violent crime. The 'Loin is also being gentrified, and its proximity to the touristy downtown areas mean that its reputation is no longer really deserved...

kopek
06-09-2010, 12:52 PM
The bad part of Newark, NJ is... Newark.


I was expecting you to say the bad part of Newark NJ is ...... New Jersey.

sittininlab
06-09-2010, 12:55 PM
When I was living in ATL (1997-2000), The southwest part of the city proper in Fulton County was considered bad, with the area around Bankhead hwy particularly so. Gentrification was taking over areas during the real estate boom, so places like, College Park, Eastpoint (Located in the southwest of ATL), Grant Park and Cabbage town were cleaning up. No idea what they are like today.

The nice parts were the northern suburbs, mostly in Cobb and Gwinett counties.

Athens, GA was bad a for a few blocks east of Hancock, near the University, but South of Lumpkin, can't recall what the southern border was. Again, gentrification was starting to creep in there too.

Are universities often bordering bad neighborhoods? I know the scales of the cities, and severities of the crimes might be different, but in the 90's the are around Marquette in Milwaukee was bad, the area around GA Tech in Atlanta never looked very good, and the area near UGA was not so good.

Or is it the low rents to attract students end up attracting others of low income, some of whom will take advantage of suburban kid who doesn't know how to secure doors and windows from B&E theft?

Mr. Excellent
06-09-2010, 01:39 PM
The bad part of Washington, D.C., is the southeast.


Eh - this is partly correct, but requires some elaboration. The District of Columbia is divided into four quadrants, centered on the Capitol - Northwest, Southwest, Northeast, Southeast. Not all are the same size - SW is relatively tiny, because much of the area that would make up the "full" quadrant was retroceded to Virginia about twenty years before the Civil War.

The Northwest quadrant is normally viewed as the most desirable. It's the highest-income quadrant, and it includes a lot of very well-regarded and expensive neighborhoods: Georgetown, Glover Park, Foggy Bottom, Cleveland Park, Dupont Circle, and so on. It's the safest quadrant, and I'd say that "Upper" Northwest - Tenleytown, AU Park, Spring Valley, Chevy Chase, etc - is safe enough that anyone could walk the streets at any time of day or night without fear. That's pretty damn safe.

Even Northwest, though, has some moderately dangerous areas. People get shot in Columbia Heights and Mt. Pleasant. The U Street nightlife corridor has its share of crime, and my favorite Ethiopian place in Adams Morgan had a botched muder/successful suicide happen at one of its tables a couple years ago. I still eat there. :D And Shaw/Petworth can be very dodggy.

Southwest is poorer than Northwest, and much smaller, but not all that dangerous.

Northeast is a thoroughly mixed bag - the H Street corridor is gentrifying fast, and a fun place to visit, but I'd be very reluctant to live there. The bit of Northeast on Capitol Hill is fun and safe. Once you get out to the Rhode Island Avenue metro, you're in a bit of a slum - my friends who live there have shootings and dealers in their neighborhood. Further in, you get to the Trinidad neighborhood, which was so plagues with drive-by shootings that the MPD tried to lock-down the whole neighborhood with checkpoints a couple years ago. Keep heading northeast on the Red Line, though, and you'll end up in Takoma - right on the border wtih Takoma Park, a perfectly pleasant Maryland suburb.

As for Southeast - well, much of it is fine. The bit on and near Capitol Hill is fine - you needn't panic at seeing "SE" on a street sign. Eastern Market is in Southeast, near the Hill, and a genuinely great place to live - good restaurants, a charmingly cluttered used bookshop, and a weekly farmer's market that's tremendous fun.

When most people think of Southeast, though, they're thinking of Anacostia - the bit of DC east of the Anacostia River. That's ... a bad place. I keep meaning to visit, because there are things worth seeing there - Frederick Douglas' old house, some good architecture, a Smithsonian. But the level of crime and violence there is such that it's hard to find friends who'll go with me - and I'm reluctant to go by myself.

St. Louis is the most racially divided city I've ever seen. The north half is practically all black, the south half is practically all white, and only a narrow band across the middle is integrated (where St. Louis University is situated). Or at any rate that was the situation when I went to college there in the 1970s. So charges that the north is a bad place are inextricable from America's long heritage of racism. I dated a north St. Louis girl when I was in college. The only people I was afraid of there were the cops, who were white, racist as hell, and would pull over anybody white who dared to be there at night.

DC might give St. Louis a run for its money - there are black people living in the rich areas, but the worst-off poor neighborhoods are almost exclusively black. So are the DC public schools, for that matter - mostly black, some hispanics, a very few white kids.


Very near the S.F. downtown, there is the area known as the Tenderloin, which is also slightly seedy, but not really 'bad' as such - a fair number of drug addicts, public intoxication, prostitution etc., but very little violent crime. The 'Loin is also being gentrified, and its proximity to the touristy downtown areas mean that its reputation is no longer really deserved...

Agreed. I've lived in the Tenderloin, and would cheerfully do so again. Cheap curry + Dottie's True Blue Cafe (best pancakes ever!) would make it worthwhile in itself.

Mr. Excellent
06-09-2010, 01:46 PM
Good rule of thumb for DC: If you're west of Rock Creek Park, you're almost certainly reasonably safe. If you're west of the Anacostia River, you're probably fine, but you might need to follow the standard sort of common-sense rules you need in any large city. If you're east of the Anacostia ... head West.

fiddlesticks
06-09-2010, 02:11 PM
Milwaukee segregated itself in the opposite way as Chicago just down the way. The south side was the "white" side of the town while the north side was the "black" side of town. To this day the South Side (of Milwaukee proper) has a much nicer reputation as a whole.

Acsenray
06-09-2010, 02:16 PM
What about Ali G's "Westside!" Is that the west of London or just the west of Staines?

MrDibble
06-09-2010, 02:27 PM
The bad parts of Cape Town are the flat parts, the tony parts are the hills & mountainside.

sittininlab
06-09-2010, 03:18 PM
Milwaukee segregated itself in the opposite way as Chicago just down the way. The south side was the "white" side of the town while the north side was the "black" side of town. To this day the South Side (of Milwaukee proper) has a much nicer reputation as a whole.

It's because the Poles attract.

Alessan
06-09-2010, 03:28 PM
The bad parts of Tel Aviv are the south and southeast, including most of Jaffa, with the nexus of badness being the Central Bus Station area; however, many southern neighborhoods (like Neveh Tzeddek and Florintin) have been seriously gentrified in recent years, so the boundaries are not as clear as they used to be.

The part by the sea isn't that great either, but that's because of the tourists.

dobieman
06-09-2010, 03:46 PM
Well, since we are dealing with cosmopolitan cities of the world, here in Fairbanks, Alaska, the south side of town (i.e. from about 19th Ave. on down to the Tanana River) does tend to be the rowdier area. However, if one wishes to indulge in the truly rascally aspects of the area, the nearby city of North Pole is infamous for being a) highly religious, b) highly conservative, and c) the meth lab capital of the Interior. Not sure if there is a connection amongst these three factors.

Mr. Excellent
06-09-2010, 04:11 PM
The bad parts of Tel Aviv are the south and southeast, including most of Jaffa, with the nexus of badness being the Central Bus Station area; however, many southern neighborhoods (like Neveh Tzeddek and Florintin) have been seriously gentrified in recent years, so the boundaries are not as clear as they used to be.

The part by the sea isn't that great either, but that's because of the tourists.

Interesting. What constitutes badness in the Israeli context? I ask only because (a) most of your cities have gone through a *lot* of development over the past sixty-some years and (b) - well, you've got types of crime (terrorism) that we don't encounter all that often in the States.

So, do the bad neighborhoods just have lots of poor people, but fairly well-maintained buildings? Or do they look pretty much like American slums? Or do they tend to get hit by terrorists more often?

Mr. Excellent
06-09-2010, 04:18 PM
The bad parts of Cape Town are the flat parts, the tony parts are the hills & mountainside.

This seems to be a common theme. I wonder why? It makes sense, I guess - if a city was built before modern sanitation, you head to hills to get above the smell. But it's not good during mudslides.

ctnguy
06-09-2010, 04:22 PM
The bad parts of Cape Town are the flat parts, the tony parts are the hills & mountainside.

That's broadly-speaking true, though there are some flat parts that are pretty nice - I'm thinking Edgemead/Bothasig, for example, and the below-the-line parts of the Southern Suburbs are actually basically flat.

To give the specific compass direction, well, the "bad" parts lie for the most part to the south-east of the city centre.

Darth Panda
06-09-2010, 04:34 PM
The bad part of Newark, NJ is... Newark.

Ditto for Gary.

bleach
06-09-2010, 04:54 PM
What about Ali G's "Westside!" Is that the west of London or just the west of Staines?

I'm not 100% sure what Ali G is referring to, but it's likely that by saying "Westside!" he's claiming affiliation with the US West coast, particularly Los Angeles gang culture and rap styles. For example, Tupac Shakur (2Pac, an influential rap artist) used to flash Westside gang signs. There are other rap artists who identify with "Westside" or West coast style, and so "Westside!" evokes their style and attitudes (other examples are Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, Eazy E).

My guess is that Ali G shouting "Westside!" is supposed to be funny due to its irony; there's likely no connection with a UK city (although I could easily be wrong).

MOIDALIZE
06-09-2010, 07:12 PM
In this thread (http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/showthread.php?t=510194), we covered the north side.

Johanna
06-10-2010, 01:31 AM
my favorite Ethiopian place in Adams Morgan had a botched muder/successful suicide happen at one of its tables a couple years ago. I still eat there. :D And Shaw/Petworth can be very dodggy.
I love Meskerem and can't wait to go back. I think that incident was a fluke. That block of 18th Street is the liveliest spot in the whole District. As for Petworth, I've been volunteering at the reopened Sisterspace on Georgia Avenue. They give me change for the parking meter.

If DC has all-black areas, it has a considerable black majority, so that isn't surprising. What DC has that St. Louis doesn't is plenty of racially integrated areas, especially Adams Morgan, which I've always held up as an example of successful integration.

Kyla
06-10-2010, 01:39 AM
These two areas are significantly poorer than the rest of the city and contain the largest concentration of African-Americans in San Francisco (which is, after all, an expensive, pretty white city...).

:dubious: San Francisco has no ethnic majority, and the single largest ethnic group is Asian. Whites are #2.

Agree re: the rest, thought. Bayview-Hunter's Point is the worst part of the city, although there are probably worse neighborhoods in other parts of the Bay Area. (I'm thinking Richmond in particular.)

Spectre of Pithecanthropus
06-10-2010, 02:30 AM
Central/South L.A. ?Mentioned in the OP.

Except for Skid Row, much of downtown L.A. isn't especially dangerous, at least not more than a randomly chosen spot north of Market in San Francisco, or somewhere on Manhattan Island. Though like they say about New York, the change from feeling safe and comfortable and happy versus a growing sense of fear can be as little as one block. A lot of the paranoia about urban crime in the U.S. is a suburban construct; you grow up in the suburbs and there's usually one adult in the family who seems to believe if you dare to walk a block or two in the commercial districts at night--anywhere--you'll immediately be mugged. Or killed.

About 13 years ago I was regularly taking the train through Watts (where I had to change lines), up through South Central and on into downtown--late at night--and never once did I meet with any trouble, or hear of it happening to someone else.

MrDibble
06-10-2010, 03:41 AM
This seems to be a common theme. I wonder why? It makes sense, I guess - if a city was built before modern sanitation, you head to hills to get above the smell. But it's not good during mudslides.We don't really get mudslides, but the flat parts have to deal with having been seasonal wetlands and moving sands.
That's broadly-speaking true, though there are some flat parts that are pretty nice - I'm thinking Edgemead/Bothasig, for exampleSorry, my prejudice is showing, nothing in the Northern Suburbs rises to the level of "desirable location" for me. "Not hellholes", sure, especially for something otherside the gordyn, but not in the class of Durbanville or Welgemoed, even., and the below-the-line parts of the Southern Suburbs are actually basically flat.I'm not sure what area you mean here - Plumstead? Marina de Gama? Sure, there are nice bits. You're right, it was a general rule, and by "flat bits" I did mean the Cape Flats part.
To give the specific compass direction, well, the "bad" parts lie for the most part to the south-east of the city centre.Yep. And also S-SE.
I'm not 100% sure what Ali G is referring to, but it's likely that by saying "Westside!" he's claiming affiliation with the US West coast, particularly Los Angeles gang culture and rap styles.
No, he's mocking that, but in character, he's claiming affiliation with Da West Staines Massiv posse, as opposed to Da East Staines Massiv, their bitter rivals.

Alessan
06-10-2010, 06:16 AM
So, do the bad neighborhoods just have lots of poor people, but fairly well-maintained buildings? Or do they look pretty much like American slums? Or do they tend to get hit by terrorists more often?

Terrorists generally hit anywhere they want - plenty of attacks have been in poor neighborhoods, while several upscales malls have also been bombed. Basically, attacks tend to take place in tighly-packed commerical areas, regardless of social status.

No, bad Israeli neighborhoods are pretty much like bad neighborhoods anywhere else - run-down buildings, grafitti, street crime, the works. I don't think we have the same massive slums you see in other countries, and by and large they're still generally safer then comparable neighborhood abroads, but I still wouldn't want to live there. Here's (http://blog.tapuz.co.il/dominolog/images/%7B28D7DCE2-5CE2-4035-8412-DA5720AAAB11%7D.jpg) a representative shot of a downscale Tel Aviv street corner; here's (http://blog.tapuz.co.il/dominolog/images/%7B2F7FD577-0B83-4210-88E8-DACCA780EFF3%7D.jpg)another; we also have our share of "projects (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1022/875307781_5f132cc8fa.jpg?v=0)".

ctnguy
06-10-2010, 08:57 AM
Sorry, my prejudice is showing, nothing in the Northern Suburbs rises to the level of "desirable location" for me. "Not hellholes", sure, especially for something otherside the gordyn, but not in the class of Durbanville or Welgemoed, even.

Fair 'nuff. :D

I'm not sure what area you mean here - Plumstead? Marina de Gama? Sure, there are nice bits. You're right, it was a general rule, and by "flat bits" I did mean the Cape Flats part.

Nah, I'm thinking Rondebosch/Claremont/etc. between the railway line and Kromboom Parkway - they're just as flat as Athlone etc. to the east. But I take your point; they're minor exceptions to the general rule.

Thing Fish
06-10-2010, 10:45 AM
WRT Chicago, I would actually say that the the Austin neighborhood, which is referred to as the "West Side" although it is technically "North", is the part I would least care to be wandering around on crutches at 3 AM wearing a diamond-studded tiara. Though I have not made an exhaustive exploration of the South Side, the only comparably scary parts I have seen were on the State Street corridor by the now-demolished Robert Taylor Homes. I know there are some very nice upper-middle-class areas on the South Side, such as Beverly and Hyde Park. Similarly, until the Cabrini Green projects were demolished, that area (which is on the North Side, quite close to some VERY wealthy districts) was about as bad as it gets.

hogarth
06-10-2010, 12:10 PM
The Northwest quadrant is normally viewed as the most desirable. It's the highest-income quadrant, and it includes a lot of very well-regarded and expensive neighborhoods: Georgetown, Glover Park, Foggy Bottom, Cleveland Park, Dupont Circle, and so on. It's the safest quadrant, and I'd say that "Upper" Northwest - Tenleytown, AU Park, Spring Valley, Chevy Chase, etc - is safe enough that anyone could walk the streets at any time of day or night without fear. That's pretty damn safe.
You should still keep your eyes open for Deathclaws and Super Mutants, though.

pulykamell
06-10-2010, 12:19 PM
WRT Chicago, I would actually say that the the Austin neighborhood, which is referred to as the "West Side" although it is technically "North", is the part I would least care to be wandering around on crutches at 3 AM wearing a diamond-studded tiara.

You might be surprised. (http://publicofficiala.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/chicago_violent_crime_map.png)

I agree that parts of the West Side are as bad as parts of the South Side. It's just the worst parts of the South Side are worse than the worst parts of the West Side, and the bad parts of the South Side are far more extensive geographically than the West Side. That map is from 2005. The last report I saw in the papers detailing Chicago crime (sometime earlier this year) had the most dangerous police beat (unfortunately, I can't remember the exact metric) as one that is in Greater Grand Crossing, around 75th and Cottage Grove. I personally would have guessed a part of Englewood.

pulykamell
06-10-2010, 12:24 PM
Actually, it looks like for the first quarter of 2010, Chatham (http://suntimes.com/news/24-7/2304378,CST-NWS-crime23.article) (South Side) has the most violent police beat. (Which is just south of Grand Crossing.)

senpai71
06-10-2010, 02:07 PM
The bad parts of Cape Town are the flat parts, the tony parts are the hills & mountainside.
Mainly true for San Francisco too, but that's because the hills are bedrock, so when the 'big one' hits, those houses will be left standing.

Although as I said in my earlier post, pretty much the whole of S.F. is 'tony' (if by 'tony' you mean 'ridiculously expensive'). YMMV, of course.

senpai71
06-10-2010, 02:10 PM
:dubious: San Francisco has no ethnic majority, and the single largest ethnic group is Asian. Whites are #2.

Agree re: the rest, thought. Bayview-Hunter's Point is the worst part of the city, although there are probably worse neighborhoods in other parts of the Bay Area. (I'm thinking Richmond in particular.)
Fair point, Kyla. But the rich hilly bits are white..

I lived in Point Richmond for a while and it's a bit sketchy.

Driver8
06-10-2010, 04:49 PM
This seems to be a common theme. I wonder why? It makes sense, I guess - if a city was built before modern sanitation, you head to hills to get above the smell. But it's not good during mudslides.In the Cape Town example, the areas on the hills and mountain are really, really gorgeous. Those areas are expensive for the same reason beachfront property is typically quite expensive.

Mr. Excellent
06-10-2010, 05:08 PM
I love Meskerem and can't wait to go back. I think that incident was a fluke. That block of 18th Street is the liveliest spot in the whole District. As for Petworth, I've been volunteering at the reopened Sisterspace on Georgia Avenue. They give me change for the parking meter.

If DC has all-black areas, it has a considerable black majority, so that isn't surprising. What DC has that St. Louis doesn't is plenty of racially integrated areas, especially Adams Morgan, which I've always held up as an example of successful integration.

Agreed, on both counts. But I love to trot out the Meskerem murder/suicide thing, especially when I'm taking friends from out of town to eat there. :D I sometimes suspect that I'm not a very nice man.

You should still keep your eyes open for Deathclaws and Super Mutants, though.

Well, of course. That's a problem you'll (presumably) run into in any large city, though. Lousy nukes.

Rin Twisted
06-10-2010, 07:01 PM
St. Louis is the most racially divided city I've ever seen. The north half is practically all black, the south half is practically all white, and only a narrow band across the middle is integrated (where St. Louis University is situated). Or at any rate that was the situation when I went to college there in the 1970s. So charges that the north is a bad place are inextricable from America's long heritage of racism. I dated a north St. Louis girl when I was in college. The only people I was afraid of there were the cops, who were white, racist as hell, and would pull over anybody white who dared to be there at night.

East St. Louis makes northern St. Louis look pretty good by comparison. Their main problem seems to be no functioning municipal government and no municipal services (including law enforcement). North St. Louis gave us Chuck Berry and Dick Gregory. East St. Louis gave us Josephine Baker, Katherine Dunham, Miles Davis, and Jackie Joyner-Kersee.

I was really surprised to read this...it doesn't tally at all with my impression of St. Louis.

Out of curiosity, when you say 'the south half', what are you referring to? Do you mean the suburbs (like South County, Sappington, and Chesterfield?) The suburbs around the city of St. Louis are indeed almost exclusively white- as many others have pointed out, gentrification is definitely a factor around here. Some of these suburbs are in the county of St Louis- but no one here really considers them part of the city of St. Louis.

Downtown itself...I don't know. You see white and black people everywhere you go. Maybe you see more black people than white?...I don't know, I think it depends on the neighborhood. When I think of it, it sure doesn't scream 'most racially divided' to me.

I'm sitting here trying to think if I've got some sort of blind spot to this. I don't know.

As to the hell hole question that was posed, I can speak a lot more confidently: no way. Downtown St. Louis is not a place you would feel unsafe in if you've ever visited an urban area before. The transportation is pretty clean, if limited; there are so many major tourist attractions downtown that the place is kept in clean, relatively safe working order. On a day that a major sports game is playing, the whole city is filled with fans, heading in leisurely throngs towards the stadiums. There is a huge amount of diversity in restaurants, and some nice cultural institutions as well, like the Black Rep and the City Museum. Yeah, it's a smaller city, but a pretty cool one.

ctnguy
06-10-2010, 07:40 PM
In the Cape Town example, the areas on the hills and mountain are really, really gorgeous. Those areas are expensive for the same reason beachfront property is typically quite expensive.

Also, in the Cape Town example, the Cape Flats are sandy and some parts are subject to frequent flooding in winter.

B. Serum
06-10-2010, 08:07 PM
FWIW, the bad part of Kansas City is the center.

Not really. The rule of thumb I heard most often is "East of Troost Avenue."

Drake Christensen
06-10-2010, 10:40 PM
In Dallas proper, the bad part is south and southeast of downtown.

When I was in high school in the late '70s, we took our horses down to the State Fair grounds late Friday nights for horse shows over the weekend. 15 years later, that part of town became so bad that the police wouldn't drive through there on their own. I think it has calmed down a lot since then, but still nothing like when I was a kid.

Drake

Johanna
06-10-2010, 11:54 PM
Out of curiosity, when you say 'the south half', what are you referring to?
West of downtown, but east of the suburbs, you got your St. Louis City. Soulard, Tower Grove, Shaw, Dogtown, the Hill, Carondelet, to name a few examples. I was only talking about the city, not the county. And not downtown either, but the residential neighborhoods. Downtown is part of the aforementioned racially mixed narrow band across the middle.

Kyla
06-11-2010, 01:21 AM
Except for Skid Row, much of downtown L.A. isn't especially dangerous, at least not more than a randomly chosen spot north of Market in San Francisco, or somewhere on Manhattan Island. Though like they say about New York, the change from feeling safe and comfortable and happy versus a growing sense of fear can be as little as one block. A lot of the paranoia about urban crime in the U.S. is a suburban construct; you grow up in the suburbs and there's usually one adult in the family who seems to believe if you dare to walk a block or two in the commercial districts at night--anywhere--you'll immediately be mugged. Or killed.

About 13 years ago I was regularly taking the train through Watts (where I had to change lines), up through South Central and on into downtown--late at night--and never once did I meet with any trouble, or hear of it happening to someone else.

Really? This is outside of my personal experience, but a friend of mine grew up in South Central and we've had a couple of rather deep conversations about our backgrounds and frankly, she seems pretty traumatized by the experience. (I'm using her words here; she's of the belief that inner-city life is literally a violation of human rights.) I don't know that she experienced daily violence or anything like that that would mark a neighborhood as "bad" to an outsider, but growing up in a place with very few economic and cultural assets seems to have left a really permanent mark on her psyche. We're both grad students in one of the top programs in our field in the country, and rather than feeling proud of her accomplishment in getting out of the situation in which she grew up, she mostly seems troubled and upset that she doesn't fit in with her classmates and that no one understands her experiences. Very people she knows went to college. I don't think she knows anyone that went to grad school.

I don't know. I feel like a lot of the stuff mentioned in this thread is from the perspectives of outsiders who happen to go into these neighborhoods, saw that there wasn't any visible violence, and decided that it wasn't that bad. But from our privileged point of view (hey, I've wandered around the Tenderloin and Richmond myself, nothing bad happened), we're missing the problems that people who actually live there have to deal with, and may be dismissing legitimate problems that they have to suffer through because we "know" that those neighborhoods aren't "that bad".

In closing, I'm kind of drunk and may regret this post in the morning if it turns out not to make any sense. I feel like you should be impressed at how awesome I am at typing while drunk, though.

Rigamarole
06-11-2010, 01:52 AM
Central/South L.A. ?

I came in here to say the bad part of Los Angeles is most of it. But I suppose if you had to focus on one area, former South-Central (now officially called South Los Angeles) is a pretty good bet.

Desert Nomad
06-11-2010, 01:59 AM
Dubai doesn't really have bad parts - I'd go anywhere by myself at 3am with no worries. The nicer areas are Jumeirah and Umm Seqeim along the southern coast, and the poorer areas include Karama which is a bit more northerly and inland.

Captain Midnight
06-11-2010, 12:10 PM
In Memphis, the North side of town is the roughest, but the whole city has a lot of crime and one must be careful there. Some areas around the airport are not that great either. Most of Memphis is awash with drugs, including crack cocaine and meth. There are gangs who weren't there 10 years ago. There are now Hispanics, most who are illegals, with some, especially Salvadorans being gang members (like M-13 etc.) terrorizing other Latinos. A legal Mexican immigrant was murdered by a Latino gang member for money recently. Mexican/Hispanic places get knocked over a lot in Memphis because the criminals know that a lot of people are illegal and going to the cops might mean detention and deportation.

In Jackson, Mississippi, a lot of neighborhoods west of I-55 highway were the working class and poorer areas. The middle class/wealthy people lived in the east and the north of the city. The whites, like in Memphis have moved to the suburbs. Really, all in all, Jackson is not a bad town. Like Memphis, just stay away from the drug element and one will do fine.

I think people are scared of crime because they see it all the time on the news and on the internet. The facts are that most people are murdered by family members, "friends", acquaintences, jealous girlfriends/boyfriends, or someone in a relationship. Murders also happen a lot between strangers looking for drugs or other trouble. The random stranger abduction murder is still rare.

Robberies usually happen in places that is easy to rob or places with a lot of money. Convenience stores, especially at night are easy targets. It is always good to travel in groups of people at night. Thieves and muggers want to find easy targets. Women by and large are smaller and weaker than men so they are a target. People who are from out of town and are unfamiliar with the area are targets. People who show wealth are targets because they are usually soft and weak and can replace what has been ripped off, which justifies to the robber why a particular person was robbed.

The demographics of an area also shows where most crime is. Poor areas have more crime simply because the people there cannot get work that will support them, with many selling drugs or stealing to help themselves out of poverty and I think as a personal "F U" to society. The demographics thing is an 800 pound elephant in the middle of the room shitting everywhere that is being ignored, because it is not politically correct to point fingers at ceetain segments of society.

Major Matt Mason
06-12-2010, 01:43 AM
Lessee...I escaped Philly a few years back, and it's easier to define the good neighborhoods than the bad 'uns. Society Hill and the historic district are still relatively good, as are the South Street area and Fabric Row (south 4th St.) and most of the Northeast. Philly, though, is another of those places where you can go from safe to slum in the space of a block or two; for example, 12th and Pine is nice, where 13th and Walnut can be hazardous to your health after dark. Interestingly enough, a lot of former slum area in South Philly (4th and Washington and south) has gone from slums to nice new semi-detached homes, while the Point Breeze area (west of Broad Street, south of Washington Ave) is a war zone. West Philly outside of the University City area is mostly rough, and a large chunk of North Philly/Fishtown/Kensington is referred to as 'the Badlands' with good reason. The Oregon Avenue corridor isn't too bad, and the Riverview section (waterfront from the Ben Franklin Bridge south to the Walt Whitman bridge) is OK for the most part.

On the New Jersey side of the Delaware River, Camden used to be legendary as one of the worst slums outside of Newark but, at least along the river, is improving. Outside of Camden, most of South Jersey is OK, with the exception of the Inlet area of Atlantic City, which is the historic slum and hasn't really improved much over the last century.

-MMM-

Spectre of Pithecanthropus
06-13-2010, 03:19 PM
I came in here to say the bad part of Los Angeles is most of it. But I suppose if you had to focus on one area, former South-Central (now officially called South Los Angeles) is a pretty good bet.I really don't know where people are getting this. Compared to thirty years ago, the incidence of crime in most of L.A., as in most other major cities of the country, has gone down very significantly. That is, if you mean "crime" specifically, and not just areas inhabited mostly by renters, near commercial streets, and not at all like the tracts of spacious single family houses in Encino, or neighborhoods hidden miles away in the canyons of the Hollywood Hills.

Recently on CNN I heard some commentator saying that crime topped the list of national issues, and that's patently ridiculous. Chicago is currently the exception that proves the rule; in the news items about the crime wave there we frequently are reminded of the contrasting situation in other towns. If by "bad" you mean dirty sidewalks, the occasional beggar, and graffiti, well, I've seen those things in every other city I've ever been in. On the other hand, if you mean the peculiarities of geography and climate that make L.A. different from other places, that's a different issue and I would tend to agree with some of those complaints.

Regarding my earlier remarks on South Central, I don't mean to discount its crime problem completely, but I despise the sort of people who are so paranoid they won't, for example, go to the Exposition Park museums even on a sunny summer day, because it's in South Central. Nor would I care to take a long walk there after dark, and I would consider taking a bus under those circumstances to be a dodgy proposition. But the trains have always seemed to be well policed, and I always felt safe on them.

Doug Bowe
06-13-2010, 11:32 PM
The bad part of Newark, NJ is... Newark.

I call your Newark and raise you Juarez.

Dr_Chicago
06-14-2010, 01:48 AM
Generally the further south you go in Seattle, the less desirable it is. South of downtown feels like a totally different place from north or east of it (west is the water).

The general consensus in Oslo is that the less affluent eastern part is somewhere you need to look out. Bygdøy and Frogner in the west are super posh, and the first person to take me and some others on a tour of the city warned us "not to cross this bridge after nightfall" as we walked into Tøyen, east of downtown. And then we saw all the immigrants, of course. Gotta love homogeneous cultures. :rolleyes: Great food and bars there though.

I assume this was asked out of curiosity and not practicality, cause I will say, for both of these cities, I have never once felt threatened. In Oslo, it was perfectly safe to walk all up and down Tøyen and Grønland after dark, which I did on several occasions. Those may be the worse neighborhoods, but walking there is like not getting your favorite flavor of pizza.

Terra1041
06-14-2010, 12:50 PM
The bad part of Detroit, where I lived until recently, is pretty much the entire city.

Here in Seattle, the bad part is in the south.

Best Topics: snorg tees redhead sanitized tapeworms two step snake slavery in ohio periscope depth addicted to altoids 6 legged mammal cheap distance glasses chinese food farts giving anonymously prussia etymology longbow range mormon stockpiling grease pencil board fish poop fertilizer easiest business degree rusty kettle louisiana law system toughest engineering majors porn is boring re enter email sore taste bud snapple fact 1 deet soap navy showers otters for pets magnets in microwave fretted string instruments og mean the others husband goodday sir nair in shampoo negro community mary poppins porn rotors resurfaced price incontinentia buttocks meaning 46 year old woman how to clean rusty sockets man with a paper ass how to pronounce lich kitchen nightmares us vs uk is gulf wax edible how many horsepower is 190cc briggs and stratton how do golf carts work will a dog keep mice away kicking kids out at 18 when does the post office postmark how big is 60 square feet what did maureen o'hara say to john wayne how to build corrugated metal fence difficult songs to sing best bicycle seat for hemorrhoids replacement for curry powder knee buckles but no pain 1000 ways to die furry toss a salad what does it mean cost of new airbags how to set up a pool triangle does forrest gump have aids mickey mouse in italy jar jar binks is kylo ren is fancy feast good for kittens congestive heart failure in dogs final stages do lobsters have gills can i put a 40w bulb in a 60w socket can i take aleve with hydrocodone race to escape game show difference between a right and a privilege i papi in spanish how much to pay a teenager to babysit