Cecil needs help - what's the bad side of these towns?

[Ed Zotti]

For an upcoming column on the Bad Side of Town, the Master has asked me to confirm the following. Having a somewhat vague knowledge of geography, I appeal to the Teeming Millions, preferably those who actually live, or lived, in the towns below. I need to confirm that:

In the following cities, the SOUTH side of town is the bad side:
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Dallas
Indianapolis
Los Angeles
Phoenix
San Antonio

In the following, the NORTH side of town is the bad side:
Houston
Philadelphia

In the following, the EAST side of town is the bad side:
Cleveland

We'd appreciate hearing from anyone who can confirm or deny the above characterizations. Please say how you know, e.g., you live there. Thanks. -Ed

[NanoByte]

I lived in Philly for short times in '52 and '54. The SOUTH side of town was then the bad side. There's no way I would believe that this has changed. I lived in Germantown, which is on the north side. There were patches around it that were not good then; perhaps they are worse now; but I cannot believe that that end of town could've gotten worse than the south side. The northwest side of town and the northwest suburbs -- Bala Cynwyd, etc. were then considered the best side of town. I never checked them out.

I never returned to Philly. You never here anything about Philly. I'm not really sure it still exists. Does it still have scrapple?

Ray

[Guy Propski]

North Philadelphia is the bad side of town. It consists mostly of crack houses, abandoned lots, and poverty stricken African-Americans. There's been a lot of talk about how to improve the situation, but so far it's just been talk.

Houston doesn't really have one specific bad area. There are pockets all around it. For example, the 3rd Ward, a very rough part of town, is southwest of the city. The Ship Channel is no great shakes either; that's south.

[phouka]

I grew up in San Antonio and now live in Dallas. Cecil is right on both counts.

(I get to help Cecil!)

------------------
Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua.

[Ringo]

Houston is not so easily characterized. There are a few areas on the north side of town that are a little rough; around the Intercontinental Airport, W. Mt. Houston Rd, etc. But a little southwest of town from S. Post Oak to Gulfton has been gang-banger territory for a while. South of town an area running from around UH down to Broadway has had a bit of a jumpy night life.

Hmmm...I need to go to work in a minute and I realize I don't really have the time to adequately address the patchwork sociology of Houston at the moment. Suffice to say that characterizing the north side of Houston as the bad side of town is wrong.

I don't know if this is related or not, but remember that Houston, unlike I believe, every other city on your list, is, mercifully, unzoned.

[AWB]

Regarding Baltimore, Cecil's "favorite" city: yes, the south side is the bad side.

The city has tried to revamp that area's image with nice marina facilities, restaurants, aquarium, and the new Oriole & Ravens' stadiums (stadia?). But go more than a couple of blocks away in any direction, and you're in some scary, seedy areas.

This is also the area where sailors and other shipworkers cruise on their shore leave while in port.

I work in Dallas and live in the suburbs.

If by "bad" you mean less affluent and largely minority, then your perception of Dallas is correct. As with most sweeping generalizations, it's not universally true, however. Not all parts of South Dallas are bad. Not all parts of North Dallas are good.

Yep.the east side seems to be the most crime-ridden. I doubt anyone else here from the Cleveland area will dispute this.Although,I've heard the west side referred to as white-trash town. There is no north side,it'd be in the lake!

[C K Dexter Haven]

When I lived in Atlanta (1976-78), the center was the really bad side of town, but generally speaking the south side of the city was less desirable economically than the north side.

[Missy2U]

To confirm Chicago for Cecil, yes.

[pldennison]

Yeah, generally speaking, the perception of Cleveland is that the East Side is bad, although the near West Side, from about W.25 to W.99, and from Detroit Ave. south to Lorain or so, is considered pretty bad, too. And the South Side is where all the porn is.

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[BurnMeUp]

Also, no one asked but I'd like to provide the following information:

In Salt Lake City the bad part of town is the West side. That is where most of the gangs, drugs, and other such lovely things can be found.

------------------
"She's nothin but a little lyin' ass bitch... I know she says she loves you but you know she don't care..."

Gee pl,how do you know where all the pron is? ;)

[tomndebb]

It's hard to picture Nap Town having a "bad side" (as opposed to pockets of blight), but, yeah, I guess that the most poverty and highest crime in Indianapolis is South of Washington.

------------------
Tom~

[pldennison]

Well, you know, I, um . . . that is to say, whenever I'm at . . . er, taxi!

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

I know. I meant porn. Guess I can't type well with one hand :D

[Sealemon88]

I'' backup the "pockets" statement of Houston. I live in the Northwest part, and it's not bad, except for this little pocket about 5 minutes from me....

The Third and Fifth Ward areas are a little spooky (a lot of our rappers claim Fifth Ward as their version of Compton), but there really isn't an entire section of Houston you could consider "bad".



------------------
You say "cheesy" like that's a BAD thing.

[StrTrkr777]

While it was not on the list, since CK mentioned Atlanta, I will confirm his thoughts. I have been living here since '89 and the center is really the bad part (most in the suburbs do not like to go to downtown Atlanta) But due to the Airport not a lot of affluent people live on the south side.

Jeffery

[Satan]

Let's not forget New York.

The SOUTH BRONX is generally considered a bad place, but that is to the NORTH of Manhattan, and in fact the northern parts of Manhattan (i.e. Harlem) are also not considered to be desirable to raise a family either.

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[Chef Troy]

I've lived in Dallas since 1991 and the south side is definitely bad news -- at least parts of it are bad news. However, there is also a largish section of southeast Dallas that is pretty scary.

------------------
Live a Lush Life
Da Chef

[Stevie Rave On]

I grew up on the South Side of Chicago. It's more blue collar, and now I live on the North Side, which is more white collar. Both sides have their problem areas.

On the South Side you don't want to be anywhere east of the Dan Ryan Expressway by the projects.

On the North Side is where the scariest place in all of Chicago is: the Cabrini Green projects at 1200 N Halsted.



------------------
Ty Webb: I like you Betty.
Danny Noonan: That's Danny, sir.

[Chef Troy]

Also, I did some research in Miami for a security company and lemme tell ya, that town has a very disorganized "bad side." It is all over the place. Particularly in areas like Coconut Grove, huge beautiful houses will be cheek by jowl with rows of depressing little tract houses (festively painted though).

------------------
Live a Lush Life
Da Chef

[tanstaafl]

CK and ST777 - Having lived in Atlanta since 1976 I would say the south side is the bad side. (Specifically, anything south of I 20). Things do get better way south (Peachtree City comes to mind) and College Park isn't bad, but working right around the airport I can assure you this isn't a part of town I would spend a lot of time in if I didn't work here.

------------------
"Drink your coffee! Remember, there are people sleeping in China."

Dennis Matheson --- dennis@mountaindiver.com
Hike, Dive, Ski, Climb --- www.mountaindiver.com (http://www.mountaindiver.com)

[DSYoungEsq]

Ed, as was discussed to some extent in the message thread either here or in GD posted I believe by Nanobyte last month or so, it is hard to call ANY side of a city the bad side without making either exceptions to the general rule or noting the time frame under discussion.

As an example, in just trying to define the 'side' of LA is difficult. Remember, the damn city goes all the way up into the San Fernando Valley, and all the way down to the harbor. Most of the central portion around downtown is bad, no matter WHICH direction you head, especially the barrios of East LA and the more black sections to the south. But Hollywood would be to the north of downtown, and nevertheless, so would Van Nuys (ugh).

[metroshane]

south dallas bad, north dallas good!

[Strainger]

I've lived in the Phoenix area for 6 years and will confirm that the South side (counting Ahwatukee as a separate entity) is definitely the Bad Side of Town (had that one fingered before I even read the choices).

Having lived in the Atlanta area for 13 years (5 in Mid-Town) before moving to Phoenix, I'll confirm that the South side there is pretty bad too, especially around East Point (which is South and a little West of Atlanta).

[C K Dexter Haven]

The point does seem to come up fairly often, that there may be "bad" areas (high crime, muggings, slums, drugs) and there may be blue-collar, lower-income neighborhoods that are not "bad" but are lower economically than the white-collar neighborhoods.

[Yarster]

Having grown up in LA, I can confirm that the south side is definitely worse than the north side, but it's generally more the SOUTHEAST portions of the city (for San Diego too) that suck. South in and of itself by the ocean or just inland is not bad. Parts of Torrance and Westminster are quite nice for example. But head east into Compton and Watts, and well, let's just say I wouldn't want to be white and driving my car through there at night.

It wasn't on your list but in Buffalo, NY, South-West is the "bad" side and North-East is the "good" side. The is because most of the now-bankrupt industries were based in the SW to be nearer the lake and river.

As for Rochester, NY, it's pretty much like Houston. No particular "bad side" just some poorer neighborhoods scattered throughout the city.

[Beruang]

By "bad" I assume we mean crime, which is linked to poverty, which tragically in this land of plenty is linked to race, and oh what misery stems from that sweeping generalization...

Having lived in Chicago all of my life, I have come to view the WEST side as the really bad part of town (though pockets are slowly gentrifying -- near United Center, or Ukranian Village). To say "the South Side" is far too general. As Stevie Rave On noted, there are two South Sides. The "white" south side, west of I 90, is largely blue-collar, insular, and safe for anyone who is white, straight, and a Democrat. The "black" south side, east of the expressway, has the projects, poverty, shootings, etc. It also has Hyde Park, a very nice place with the University of Chicago, etc., so there are exceptions. (The north side has Uptown, which is not pleasant after dark. I understand Chicago is the only city in which "Uptown" is a worse neighborhood than "Downtown.")

I have also spent considerable time in LA, and I would agree that South CENTRAL and South EAST are the trouble spots. (The Blue Line from Downtown to Long Beach is quite a study in economic stratification.) Plus Hollywood, to the north.

My one visit to Houston supports the notion that the city has no "sides".

[LongHrn99]

The problem with Houston is that, as has been said, there are pockets. My personal opinion is that the East side of town is pretty bad, going from downtown out I-10 before you get to Baytown. Lots of gang activity, etc. And central Houston is pretty bad as well, excluding River Oaks. Which I always found odd that it was about 3 blocks from the late Alan Parkway Village (ghetto all the way for those of you that don't know). My friend from San Antonio says that the South, East and West sides are bad, and the North is the only decent part of town.

------------------
"There are many sweeping generalizations that are always true" -Space Ghost

[Arnold Winkelried]

I live in the greater Los Angeles Area. (The city of Los Angeles itself is only a small portion of the greater urban agglomeration.)

I assume by "bad part" of town, you mean the areas with the higher rates of violent crime. Those would be South Central Los Angeles and East Los Angeles. (South Central is the area in which the Los Angeles riots occurred in April 1992, and the Watts riots in 1965.)

In general, the wind from the ocean pushes the smog inland towards the hills surrounding the Los Angeles basin, so when you go east, you encounter more extreme temperatures and more smog. Which makes those areas less desirable to live, hence lower incomes of the inhabitants of the eastern suburbs.

Of course, people that live in Los Angeles itself will tell you that the "bad parts" of town are the outlying suburbs where all the houses look the same and the population is homogenous.

------------------
J'ai assez vécu pour voir que différence engendre haine.
Henri B. Stendhal

[Jophiel]

While I agree with the previous statements about generalizing, I'm still going to vote for South side of Chicago being the bad part of town, although the West is no picnic either.

Oddly enough, I was always under the impression Cecil was a Chicago boy. Shouldn't he know these things?

------------------
"I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."

[Mark Mal]

Regarding Boston - yes, the south side is the "bad" side of Boston, but that's true almost by default. Downtown Boston is about a 1 mile wide, roughly circular penninsula surrounded by the Charles River on the west and north and by Boston Harbor on the east. All the residential neigborhoods, both good and bad, stretch off to the south and southwest of downtown (except for Charlestown and East Boston, which are across the river, but are technically part of the city). The worst parts of Boston are probably areas of the Roxbury and Dorchester neighborhoods along Blue Hill Avenue, which runs south-southwest from downtown. Of course, if you happen to be black, the worst place to be is probably South Boston, the mostly-Irish neighborhood (remember the busing riots of the early '70's?). By the way, the South End (not to be confused with South Boston) happens to be a very upscale, funky, desirable place to live.

Of course, even the worst parts of Boston look quaint and livable compared to the worst parts of some other cities (NY, Philly, etc.)


------------------
"For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes" - Francis Bacon

[VileOrb]

Unless the rewards are greater than I know, I would recommend Cecil back off this whole generalization. I know Baltimore very well and I would not feel comfortable saying the south side is the "bad" side. There are some bad areas in the south, and the west, and the east, and the middle, and the north.

I can't think of any upscale neighborhoods on the west side (northwest maybe). The south side has Federal Hill which is Yuppie central. Also, the inner harbor and sports complexes have done a lot for the area. You notice the bad there because it directly abuts the nice with no transition.

Go up to the middle of town and head west. Things get gradually worse and then better and then worse again. Get off the main roads and things get really ugly in several areas.

The projects on the east side are the most dangerous as far as drive-by shootings etc., but most of the east is not too bad.

The North is probably the least bad. It's less dense.

The Center of Bmore goes from bad to good to awful to wonderful every other block. The infamous "Block" (Strip joints and porn shops) is right next to the upscale Gallery at Harborplace.

There's also a racial issue here. Bmore in the south east and to the far south, below federal hill, is mostly blue collar whites. There's a lot of domestic violence and drunk and disorderly offenses, occasionally a rape. Most drug busts involve marijuana. Other "bad" areas are predominantly black and the associated crimes are more in the line of drive by shootings and crack houses. A black person would probably think of the white neighborhoods as a place to avoid at night while whites would avoid the black neighborhoods. The blacks have a little more sense about this and you almost never find a lone black walking in a white neighborhood. A white guy with a drug addiction will go wandering around where he shouldn't and get himself killed.

------------------
If men had wings,
and bore black feathers,
few of them would be clever enough to be crows.

- Rev. Henry Ward Beecher

[jab1]

I grew up near Dallas and can definitely confirm that the south side of Dallas was PERCEIVED to be the "bad" side of town. (I assume Cecil's interested in the perception of a city section and not its true nature.) As far as Dallas goes, there is an interesting fact about the south side: it's the only place in the city it's legal to buy alcohol. Back when Carrie Nation was destroying saloons, the Texas Legislature passed a law allowing each county to decide for itself if it would be wet or dry, or half-wet and half-dry. During Prohibition, every county was dry, but the old law went back in force after Prohibition was repealed. Dallas County elected to go half-wet and half-dry, using the Trinity River as the dividing line. (Texas Stadium, in Irving is on the "dry" side, and for twenty years, Dallas Cowboy fans could not buy beer at the game. [Maybe that's why Dallas fans were once considered less rowdy than most football fans.] Recently, the Irving city council gave Texas Stadium a variance. Cowboy owner Jerry Jones has friends in high places...) Anyway, whether by coincidence or design, the poor part of Dallas is also the only place one can find a liquor store.

------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana

[SqrlCub]

I lived in San Antonio most of my life. The South side was not too bad. It was dirt poor but overall not as bad as the far west side or the Southwest side. That was bad.

I lived in Baltimore recently, it was worse more on the Southwest side. The pure southern part went into Fell's Point which is essentially a party type of area.

[SqrlCub]

PS, when I lived in the Philadelphia metro area, the north side was the worst, west Philly was pretty bad too. The Fresh Prince song talks about this on tv. It is true.

Sqrl

[theuglytruth]

Ed- for Uncle Cecil:

PHILADELPHIA- I'm from Philly. There is a section just north of Center City (downtown) that is so bad cops call it the "Badlands".

South Philly is tough, but is a predominantly Italian-American neighborhood controlled by the Mob, and I would say a good deal of the crime is Mafia related; if you are an innocent tourist, you are more likely to get punked in North Philly than South.

This in should no way be meant to confuse North Philly with Northeast or Northwest Philly. NE and NW are both . . OK this gets confusing . . geogrpahically NORTH of what most Philadelphians would call NORTH Philadelphia when you look at a map of the city.

NE has neighborhoods such as Frankford and Tacony, and a relatively safe for a city, while NW has Roxborough, Manayunk and Andorra and Germantown, and are in fact in many ways considered safer than many of the suburbs!

West Philadelphia actually can be pretty scary too.

CLEVELAND- I was hanging out at the Flats last month and was definitely told by the denizens there that EAST Cleveland is the part of the city to stay away from.

BOSTON- South Boston just below downtown is known as the "Combat Zone". That tells you all you need to know there.

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/parliament/1685/

[jab1]

BTW, why are most Greyhound Bus stations in the "bad" part of town? Cheap land? Was it "good" when they moved in and "bad" later?

------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana

[Sake Samurai]

D.C. - SE is the bad side (temped at a United Way in SE between two projects)

Portland, Oregon - NE is the bad side o' town (ain't nothing compared to DC though)

[cornflakes]

I'll second (third? fourth?) the claim that Houston has no bad sides. If you went back 30-40 years though, you would probably find that the East Side (and the wards, mostly north and south of downtown) was (were) the less preferable place to live. The Port of Houston ends just east of downtown, and the warehouses continue north of downtown and south of Buffalo Bayou (which passes for Houston's river.)
Strangely, the southern half of the Heights, which is the Near West Side, has been working class for as long as I can remember (25 years) with yuppies moving in here and there throughout that time. The homes there look like old middle class homes, though, and at least they're still standing. We went to the East Side once to find my father's boyhood home and found a coffee plant where he thought it was.

[Mojo]

Cleveland- Definitely the East side up to (but not including) Cleveland Heights.

[SqrlCub]

As a current resident of the DC area (yeah I move around a lot) the southeast side is by far the scariest. I would not want to go into Anacostia during the day time much less at night. I got lost when I first moved up here and drove around in Anacostia for about 15 minutes (it seemed like hours). Every time I slowed down at corners, crack whores, drug dealers, and various gang members would run after the car. I was even shot at a couple of times in the car. I am not exxagerating. This really happened. It was very scary. With this said, there are a couple of decent pockets in the southeast. Waterfront is very nice in fact. The other neighborhoods outside of Anacostia are ok, I would not want to live there though. I guess comparing it to Anacostia makes anything seem better.

Sqrl

[SqrlCub]

What's the deal, I sent three responses, saw them temporarily and now they are gone?

Sqrl

[Satan]

You think people in North Dakota warn people, "Don't go down to South Dakota. Bad shit happens there..."

[BobT]

Yarster in his post about Los Angeles' "bad" areas referred to the "south" part and said that parts of Torrance and Westminster are nice. That doesn't make much sense and those two cities are in different counties. He could be referring to Westchester which is a neighborhood of Los Angeles which contains LAX.

According to LAPD statistics, the most Class I crimes (felonies basically) occurred in the Wilshire area. The Southwest Division and the 77th St Division (both perceived as the "bad" parts of town) didn't have as many. However, the Wilshire area was slightly larger than others.

The number of offenses reported on the Eastside town made for an even smaller percentage of crimes.

My general experience with L.A. is that an old neighborhood usually is the least desirable, unless the neighborhood was originally built for upper class whites (such as cities like San Marino or neighborhoods like Hancock Park.)

[AuraSeer]

I definitely agree that you can't determine the "bad part" of a city simply by direction.

Here in St. Louis the area with the worst reputation is the east side, across the river in Illinois. But there are bad pockets scattered all over the place.

In University City (a suburb), the area north of the Delmar Loop, between Skinker Road and Big Bend Boulevard, is considered so dangerous that pizza places no longer deliver there. (A driver for Papa John's pizza got shot there a few years back.) A fairly big apartment there may cost less than $200 per month. But less than a mile away you can find a very different area, with almost no crime, where rents are at least three times as high.

Similiarly, the Central West End (a neighborhood within the city) is in general considered a wonderful place to live; a lot of rich college kids have apartments there. But the long, narrow strip between Euclid and Kingshighway is very run down, with a lot of closed businesses and abandoned buildings.

A city map of crime rate or per-capita income would not be like a world map, where you could draw a line down the middle and say, "This part is Us and that part is Them." It'd look more like a random spattering of paint, with a few large areas, but many more little spots and stripes.

------------------
Laugh hard; it's a long way to the bank.

[Falcon]

Sqrl -

Waterfront is NICE?!?! ::shudder:: Um, gotta disagree. I consult for EPA and have to go down to Waterside Mall a lot. I have never been more afraid in my life. I hate driving down there, I hate Metroing, I hate the fact that the EPA publishes warnings on getting mugged while being there... Ick.

Overall, I agree with you - SE is by FAR the scariest area. New York Avenue and Florida Ave. NE aren't too shabby either, though.

[Diceman]

I know Detroit wasn't on the list, but it's southwest side is definitely the bad part. That's where most of the crack houses, drive-bys, etc. occur. Northern Detroit is the better part, except that Highland Park (a small city surrounded by north-central Detroit) is a study in post-industrial blight. It used to have Chrysler's World HQ. Now it has nothing. I wouldn't go there in broad daylight, much less at night.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Ed Zotti]

Here's a related question. Cecil got to pondering whether there were any generalizations one might make about north vs. south on a REGIONAL or GLOBAL level. I piped up that I recalled one of those futurist type of guys, such as John Naisbitt or Alvin Toffler, commenting that in the years to come the major conflicts will not be between EAST and WEST (that is, between the free world and Iron Curtain countries) but between the affluent NORTH (chiefly example northern Europe and North America) and the less developed SOUTH. However, I am unable to track down the source of this observation. Does anyone recall who made it and in what book or article? Thanks.

[Mojo]

I know DC isn't in the OP but this is in response to SqrlCub & Falcon. IN GENERAL, the whole South side of DC is bad- South not meaning all of SE & SW but primarily the parts south of Capitol Hill/395. Go two blocks over from either the Arena theatre or the waterfront and you're in a bad part of town. The only reason SW isn't considered so bad is because a) there's not very much of it, and b) most of what is there is the military base and industrial sectors.

I would say that for Tucson, Phoenix, and DC, the bad parts are the south of town.

[Stoid]

LOS ANGELES:

The only clear cut "direction" that is either good or bad is the west side, which is very good. LA is so damn big that good and bad flow in and out of each other, but the earlier poster had it right when he talked about east LA and South Central LA having bad reputations. They are certainly the lowest income areas (generally) and they have alot of gangs. South Central is populated largely by low-income blacks and East LA by low-income Hispanics. But it is a sore point with many middle-low income blacks who live in South Central that it is not entirely bad, and they get touchy when you suggest that it is.

[Felinecare]

Washington DC is divided into quadrants, but the neighborhoods don't divide along those lines.

Capitol Hill is ground zero. Reasonably safe until about 15th St. in both NE & SE. NW is the opposite - neighborhoods get better the further you go out (yes, yes, I know about downtown gentrification - I'm generalizing.)
NE has a bad reputation, but that comes from an *eek! It's a black quadrant* attitude. Yes, there are crack houses there, there are also upper-middle class neighborhoods.

Anacostia (SE section divided from the rest of SE DC by the Anacostia River) is a byword for crime.

What's always amused me is that because the area is so small, there's no gradual deterioration, just a change from one street to the next. I always picture a city meeting that divided up the territory: *OK, crack houses here and here, porn shops here, this side of 14th St. will be one race, the other side another, yuppies over here,....*

[SpoonsJTD]

I haven't lived in Indy very long, about 3 years, but I have lived in areas pretty much central to mainly north. I did notice, though, that everything outside the loop (I-465) has cheaper car insurance rates. Once you get inside 465, the rates are based on whether you live north or south of 38th St., with south being the higher rates. Apparently the car insurance companies think the 'south' side is the 'bad' side.

[Ed Zotti]

OK, let's try this again:

In the following cities, the SOUTH side of town is considered the bad (or at least less affluent) side. Of course we're generalizing here; I realize none of these "sides" is uniformly bad:
Atlanta
Baltimore
Boston
Buffalo (southwest)
Chicago (south and west)
Dallas
Detroit (southwest)
Indianapolis
Los Angeles (south and east)
Phoenix
San Antonio
Washington, D.C. (southeast)

In the following, the NORTH side of town is the bad side:
Philadelphia (everything I read suggests that North Philly is the rough side of town these days)

In the following, the EAST side of town is the bad side:
Cleveland

In the following, the WEST side of town is the bad side:
Salt Lake City

Comments?

[ruadh]

In San Francisco the worst parts of town are in the south (apart from the Fillmore and the Tenderloin districts, which are sort of north-central and north-east respectively).

Re: the observation about north vs. south and east vs. west, I think I might have seen Chomsky write something about that, but I could be wrong.

And oh yeah. SE DC is the scariest place I've ever been in my *life*.

[David B]

Ed, I know Springfield, IL, is probably too small to care about, but in case you do: The East side of town is the bad side; the West side of town is where all the new, expensive homes are. And, of course, the state house and senate buildings are where the worst thievery in the state occurs.

[typertrphy]

Philly? Goodness. North Philly IS a large, and depressed area. It is by and large the most dangerous area within the city, and as for the usual sprinkling of "bad" neighborhoods outside of the city? North Philly dwarfs them all. It is square mile after mile of either badly maintained rowhouses, burned and damaged- OR industry belly up against gang turf. It is very sad, I grew up in Philly. West Oak Lane, then Cheltenham. North Philly for me was a scary, but also lovely place. It was obviously, at one time, an area that was VERY popular, and well-maintained. I dare not enter the realm of why that changed. Suffice to say, it is as Cecil has read.

Typer :)

" If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel "

[Lawrence]

Ed: the first time I saw that North-South countries thing was in a book called The Third World War: August 1985 by General Sir John Hackett. It came out in 1979. If I remember correctly, Hackett sourced this idea to the guys who originally came up with the concept.

As for cities: in Kansas City, Missouri, the bad side is the east side. The public perspective is that the bad side equals the black part of town, which is anything east of Troost Avenue below downtown as far as about 75th Street. A few white working-class suburbs on the east and southeast sides like Independence and Raytown are also considered pretty crummy, as is all of Kansas City, Kansas. The crappiest part of KCK is its black neighborhood, Quindaro, in the northeast part of the city. Note that Johnson County, Kansas, in the southwest quarter of the metropolitan area, where most of the middle- and upper-middle class suburbs are, is a suburb of Kansas City, Missouri, rather than Kansas City, Kansas.

[Satan]

Skewing this are cities like Bridgeport, CT, where the whole damn place is a cesspool of human waste...

[Koxinga]

I'll second what jab1 said a while earlier: in a lot of smaller towns in Central Texas (and throughout much of the South, I imagine--though not to imply that Texas is part of the "South" by any means) the "bad" side of town is (or was) synonomous with the "wet" side of town, and the boundry between the two is/was the county line.

IIRC, in Austin the east side is the "bad" side and the south side is the "poor" side. Blacks in the east, rednecks in the south, Mexicans in the strip bordered by IH-35 and Lamar Blvd. Funny thing, though, is that the most drug-riddled high school in town is (or was) located in the affluent northwest, and at least one or two drive-by shootings have occurred in that area as well.

Guess I'm giving my geographical background away,

DHR

[jab1]

I have to make something clear. I said that the north side of Dallas was "dry". There are clubs, restaurants and bars where one can buy liquor by the drink. But to pick up a six-pack (or case) of brew or a bottle of the hard stuff, you have to cross the Trinity into the "bad" part of town.

------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana

[DougC]

- - - I lived in San Antonio for a few months - the good part of town was the North quarter, ie. from N.W. to N.E. My observations were that the nicest houses in the city were there. Everywhere else was considerably poorer.
- - - And you didn't ask, but in St. Louis City/metropolitain area, the north side of town is the bad side but the area directly across the river in Illinois is pretty bleak too. Whether you include this in the "city" is your own decision. - MC

I read somewhere someone postulated that of wars fought,the country or section farther north would always win. I doubt this is true though.

[Crafter_Man]

I live in Dayton, OH, which is the epitome of the "good side / bad side" city. Here, the bad side is definitely the west, while the good side is south.

[Johnny Angel]

You know, I spent my formative years in Uptown, Chicago. I was always told it was a terrible neighborhood, but it really didn't seem that bad to me.

The library I work in in Huntsville, AL has a book called Uptown; Poor Whites in Chicago. It has pictures that are apparently supposed to evoke pity over the horrors of poverty, of little white kids lying around on abandoned furniture in an alley. But when I look at those pictures, I see my own childhood, and I've got to tell you, it wasn't so bad.

[sunbear]

St. Louis:the bad side is North.

In some places the geography may have an influence.Like where does it flood most?

[Mojo]

I had thought that the bad side of St. Louis was east. And the bad side of Chicago was Gary, IN.

[Markxxx]

I disagree with south side being the bad part of town. It is no where near as bad as the west side.

The south side has U of C. It has Chatham, Marquette Park, Hegwisch and lots of nice areas. Lots of bad parts too but I don't think anything on the west side of Chgo is nice.

[DougC]

- - - In the state of Missouri, the bad side of St. Louis is the north side (of the metro area; I don't know right off if the area I speak of is entirely inside city limits). Across the Mississippi River in Illinois you have East St. Louis (Ill) and a few other smaller adjoining towns that are fairly dangerous places to get lost in. - I'd say that the Missouri side is worse; the east side of the river doesn't seem to have the money flow the west side does (which, in a poor area means money involved in gangs, drugs and whores), so you generally don't see the weaponry you do in the west side. On the other hand, the east side's police and fire departments have been sorely neglected for a long time and are only now getting up to speed. I recall that at one point, E. St. Louis police had only one running department car and it had no working radio (for a long time most of the department cars had no working radios) - officers had to stop and use pay phones to contact the dispatchers. Officers protested when the police chief asked them to use their own personal vehicles until another solution could be found. - {East St Louis 1990 population: 40,990} - I also remember for a long time there was only one fire truck, and the water pump on it was broken. The hydrants were always open, so there wasn't enough water pressure for them to be very useful. The firefighters just tried to get people out of burning buildings - they didn't have any way of actually putting out the fire. Trucks from other districts had to come and do that. I think the city fire dept. has two or three "mostly" functional pieces now.
-
- I do go places in East St Louis now and then; it's not like everyone there is wreckless and bloodthirsty but I know where to go and where to avoid. If someplace is the best, then someplace else has gotta be the worst. - MC

[putrid]

Yay yay, I'm able to post today. The replies show that "bad side of town" mean many different, if not opposite, things to different people. Sure Chicago's West Side is bad and parts of the South Side aren't but "everyone knows" that classically the South Side is bad. Just as "everyone knows" that there is no good side to Detroit. (I can insult that wimply place, as I frequent the muder capital of the world, Gary, Ind.) I would add East Chicago, Ind., to Mojo's definition of the bad side of Chicago. As Hyde Park was mentioned (way) earlier, I will interject that true Chicagoans (I did used to live there and I know plenty) all laughed when the pathetic short-lived tv series Chicago Story (or something like that) used "Hyde Park" to signify a desirable part of town. Ha! And now I know that it's not only LA tv writers who believe the pap put out by the city's film promotional board (though I do like their getting films shot there.)

I think my sister, who used to live in Boston, did say the South Side was the bad part of town. I looked on a map though and what I was thinking was the south side wasn't really. Which brings up the matter of "the South Side" in name vs. the southern side in reality -- of all these cities. They ain't necessarily the same things, which seems to be part of why posters disagree so much. I assume Cecil is more interested in classically nameed areas and perceptions or reputations rather than 100% current realities, no? I'm surprised that Indy has a bad side, it's such a sweet little burg, but if there is one (and I wouldn't have thought it'd be the south), it must be an old named area, before unigov greatly increased the size of the city. Which brings up metropolitan areas. Those aren't the same things as the cities themselves, people. The suburbs are rarely (though occasionally, such as East St. Louis) in the same leagues as the bad part of the cities.

Nasville isn't on the list, but....

The center/downtown area is the pits. The fringes of the city are the good parts.


An apple with a rotten core, that's our state capitol. Embelimatic(sp?) of the worms in our legislature, I'm sure.

------------------
YO-HO, ME HEARTIES! ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR THE MUSICAL BATTLE AT SEA!

[Doobieous]

Ruadh: Where exactly is the Tenderloin district in SF? Would it be near City Hall? Anyway, i remember the last time I was in SF with friends, we were trying to find the Orpheum theater, and we had to walk down by City Hall and U.N. Plaza. I remember that once you got past Hyde, there was an almost amazing transformation from ritzy hotels and restaurants to what we thought was the ghetto. Don't think i'd walk around there at night but I didn't feel scared in that area (though we were probably not in the worst area of town). Another interesting phenomena was walking up Market St. towards powell, and seeing ghetto give way to nice stores and touristy areas up near Union Square.

In Sf at least the best parts of town (from what i have seen) are in the north where Pacific Heights, Nob Hill, and Russian hill are.

------------------
'The beginning calls for courage; the end demands care'

[ruadh]

Doobieous, you're exactly right. The Tenderloin stretches from around City Hall down to near Union Square.

I despair that my hometown isn't on the list. On the reasonable assumption that it is merely an oversight, I offer the following:

Battle Creek, Michigan-- Don't go in any direction. Just stay inside with the doors locked. Arm yourself.

[Zeb]

In Baltimore, the West and Southwest sections are considered the worst. An absolute horror show

[matt_mcl]

I know nobody asked about Canadian cities *snoot*, but the "bad" part of Montreal is the east end, as well as Verdun and Point St. Charles, which are the southern parts of the island.

A possible alternative candidate is the area right around St. Laurent and Ste. Catherine streets downtown, which is the red light district.

However, I'd personally characterize the West Island, with its bungalows, bedroom communities, traffic, and mindless affluence, to be worse. It's like Stepford. Brrrr.

[jab1]

Orlando, Florida has a bad side, which Disney would rather not talk about, since it would hurt their business. Therealbubba could confirm this: It's mostly the part of town south of Colonial Drive and west of I-4 and/or Orange Blossom Trail. Lotsa strip joints, seedy motels and the like 'till you get near Florida Mall. From there on to Kissimmee, it's more open and very new.

I think I just hit something here: It's not necessarily location that determines "good" or "bad" but AGE. Generally speaking, it's the OLDEST part of the city that's perceived as "bad." It's certainly true in Orlando, Dallas and L.A., the three cities I know best.

Doobeious mentioned San Francisco. Try downtown L.A. West and north of Broadway is shiny and new, south and east is rundown and EVERY business has those steel shutters that roll down in front of the doors and windows.

------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana

[Doobieous]

Jab: Well every business in the Tenderloin from what I saw (since now I know we walked through there), had those steel shutters. In fact every business in China Town in SF has those steel shutters too. China Town is also another place I wouldn't walk alone through at night. I have a friend who used to live in Queens (IIRC) who said he used to hang out in all of the bad spots of NYC, and said if you looked like you were scared to be there you would get picked on.

Back to SF, it was interesting being around city hall, since the highest concentration of homelss people (as I saw that day) hangs around there at UN plaza. We also didn't get hassled, and kept to ourselves.

Locally a good example of the east side of town being the bad side is in Salinas.The entire east side is the industrial area of the city and has low income housing and mostly apartment buildings. Most of the gangs are in that area of the city. The west side of the town is fairly nice residential homes with tree lined streets. Though, it's not that scary to be in, since I used to tutor at an elementary school there every friday and never felt fear.

Sorry, Jab 1. Nashville refutes your idea. The oldest buildings in town are on the Second Avenue tourist/historical area. That street is the safest place in town after dark. By design. In Nashville, smart people don't f**k with the tourists. Even DUMB PEOPLE don't do it twice.

Police -uniformed & plainclothes , private security & cameras, & hefty reward programs keep the criminals away.

------------------
YO-HO, ME HEARTIES! ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR THE MUSICAL BATTLE AT SEA!

[Kaje]

Not that anybody asked about it, but in El Paso, the East side is the bad side. You may just scoff off El Paso as insignificant, but it is in fact the 17th largest city in the country, so =P

------------------
The only thing a nonconformist hates more than a conformist is another nonconformist who does not conform to the prevailing standards of nonconformity.

[jab1]

I think I should have allowed for re-development. In my mind, a part of town built in say, 1912, that was re-developed in 1998 is now a "new" part of town, and, usually, the crime rate goes down. And that's the whole point of re-development, isn't it? (Though some would say the point of re-development is to make money for the developers.)

------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana

[Road Rash]

>>And central Houston is pretty bad as well, excluding River Oaks.<< Actually much of the inner city, especially to the west is being rebuilt. High priced condo's are replacing more modest old 4th ward houses. Pizza delivery places won't go to the old neighborhoods, but will go to the new condo's across the street.

I grew up just a stone's throw away from the Gulfton Ghetto (see above message on Houston), in SW Houston. Yet SW Houston overall is the most affluent part of town.

How do you describe neighborhoods where, on the main streets it look like shit, but a few blocks into the residences the houses are quite well maintained and have maintained value.

BTW, I am not about to pay for an overpriced condo. I am a single male. I can live in a cave.

[Road Rash]

>>And central Houston is pretty bad as well, excluding River Oaks.<< Actually much of the inner city, especially to the west is being rebuilt. High priced condo's are replacing more modest old 4th ward houses. Pizza delivery places won't go to the old neighborhoods, but will go to the new condo's across the street.

I grew up just a stone's throw away from the Gulfton Ghetto (see above message on Houston), in SW Houston. Yet SW Houston overall is the most affluent part of town.

How do you describe neighborhoods where, on the main streets it look like shit, but a few blocks into the residences the houses are quite well maintained and have maintained value.

BTW, I am not about to pay for an overpriced condo. I am a single male. I can live in a cave.

[Road Rash]

>>And central Houston is pretty bad as well, excluding River Oaks.<< Actually much of the inner city, especially to the west is being rebuilt. High priced condo's are replacing more modest old 4th ward houses. Pizza delivery places won't go to the old neighborhoods, but will go to the new condo's across the street.

I grew up just a stone's throw away from the Gulfton Ghetto (see above message on Houston), in SW Houston. Yet SW Houston overall is the most affluent part of town.

How do you describe neighborhoods where, on the main streets it look like shit, but a few blocks into the residences the houses are quite well maintained and have maintained value.

BTW, I am not about to pay for an overpriced condo. I am a single male. I can live in a cave.

[KenP]

Regarding Boston, Mark Mal's answer is quite accurate. Roxbury and parts of Dorchester, to the S and SW are probably the worst. Boston is interesting because it covers a much smaller area than the other cities named.

The "Combat Zone" (now mostly a memory) is not in South Boston.

I lived in and around Boston for about 25 years, until the mid '80s.

[cornflakes]

A common theme here is that the bad part of town has been rennovated and isn't so bad anymore. I suspect that the whole idea of a bad part of town goes back to when smokestack industries drove the economy and racism was legal. In Austin, Tx., where I now live and which has traditionally been considered a liberal/progressive town, the city plans of the Twenties to the Fifties zoned the East Side for industry and minority housing. With the environmental movement, the move to cleaner industries and the rise of the service sector, there aren't as many smelly or soot-covered neighborhoods in most cities, and who would we choose to stick there if there were? Perhaps the Bad Side of Town is becoming a thing of the past.

[Diceman]

Not a chance, Cornflakes. Detroit is not really very dirty or sooty, but parts of it are extremely run-down and neglected. Any suburbanite knows there are certain areas where you DO NOT go after dark, any that white folks should steer clear of in general. (To be fair, there are certain poor white suburbs that blacks fear, with some justification.) These run-down areas are usually the parts of town where the poorest people live. I'm sure that lack of money is the main reason for the neglect, but there are probably psychological factors as well. In summary, bad parts of town continue to exist well after the era of "smokestack industries."

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island