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!
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.
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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
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.
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