The problem with these kinds of threads is that some posters include decades old information. A lot of American cities have been going through some pretty amazing changes in the past 10 years or so and what they were like in the 80s and 90s is just so much history.
You have to understand, my dear, Rigamarole is from the burbs, which would also explain why he thinks the USC area is so terrifying. Pretty it is not, but you don’t have to watch your back at night or anything.
Oh, I don’t know. Isn’t Nichols Hills still considered the “rich” part of town? And there’s a lot of NW Oklahoma City that’s pretty upscale.
Oh c’mon, now. I grew up down the street from the Coliseum. It certainly isn’t the worst neighborhood in LA, but you don’t have to watch your back at night? Really?
I grew up a few blocks from the Coliseum, too. No, you do not.
Agreed. “Harlem” and “The Bronx” are no longer accurate shorthand for endless burning slums. For NYC neighborhoods, I’d put East New York on the bottom of my personal love list – I’ve gotten weirder vibes there than in the South Bronx or anywhere in Harlem (where I’ve lived), and unlike those places it’s a long-ass subway ride to get anywhere else.
I think my personal dream apartment would be on Central Park West facing the park and pretty far north (low 90s, say), but your mileage may vary.
For Austin, Texas, I would rather live anywhere in East Austin than in some anonymous condo complex a million miles up 183.
I live in DC and people always say Southeast in these threads, but that hasn’t been true in years.
Cincinnati:
Best: Hyde Park followed by Mt. Adams
Worst: There are so many worse parts, it’s hard to pick. Parts of Over-the-Rhine (the historic Cincinnati ghetto) are still pretty bad, but there’s some gentrification going on along with a lively nightlife on Vine St. There’s nothing gentrified about Lower Price Hill, however. Queensgate (industrial + derelict buildings + low-income housing) is pretty bad as well.
Columbus, OH:
Best: Grandview and Upper Arlington–lots of nice shops and restaurants, nice houses, great schools, located close to downtown and OSU. Worthington is also nice, but you suffer with the commute a bit.
Worst: The Bottoms or the Near East side for ghetto, Reynoldsburg for a ghetto out in the suburbs.
London is such a patchwork that to talk of ‘bad areas’ is not really applicable most of the time.
SanVito names Acton as the worst part of West London, I lived there (as a lodger while working on my PhD) for four years and would have stayed had the rental on 1 bedroom flats not been so much higher than in South London. It does have some dodgier parts around the South Acton estate but most of the area is quite safe. Same with Illuminatiprimus suggestion of Woolwich, which along with Plumstead gets a bad rep and has admittedly become a bit run down but has loads of potential.
Having said that, in the spirit of answering the OP, by the accounts of people who’ve been in London longer than I have since I have not spent much time in most of these parts, some of the less pleasant parts of London are:
North - Tottenham, Wood Green
East - Homerton & Clapton (parts of Hackney), Dagenham, Barking, Romford (grim)
South - New Cross, Tooting, Peckham, Thornton Heath (just outside Croydon)
West - Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Hayes End
However even in most of these places you’ll find professionals paying substantial monthly rents.
Brooklyn
The Best: Park Slope, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and pretty much anywhere west of Grand Army Plaza along the IRT.
The Worst: East Flatbush, Brownsville, East New York – in descending order.
Yeah, but they’re still in THE VALLEY … . 
I’d agree with the other Londoners that it’s hard to say because the city is a patchwork of villages: there are nice parts and nasty parts in every area.
However, a Canadian acquaintance of mine moved to the Barking/Romford border. Whenever she mentioned where she lived, everyone would kinda do a slow nod and utter a low-pitched ‘ohhhh,’ like you might do if your innocent friend had just started dating a notorious lowlife.
That area is rough, has terrible public transport compared to the rest of the city, little nightlife, little cultural life … Well, it’s one of the few places where you’ll meet someone who grew up there and they won’t defend the place. It is getting better, but all that means is it’s moving from ‘utterly shit’ to ‘utterly shit but getting better.’
Richmond is the nicest, definitely. Mayfair has its drawbacks - horrible congestion and pollution being the worst (moreso than in other parts just as central).
Sticking within zones 1-2, I’d say West Kensington for best and Homerton (part of Hackney) for worst. (Not Clapton, because there are some really gorgeous part of Clapton; there aren’t in Homerton). Peckham comes close too.
This is all going on what newspapers or whatever would call ‘best and worst,’ not individuals, because that varies too much.
Baltimore, Maryland:
worst sections: west side and east side (drug infested and crime ridden)
best section: Roland Park (very pricey)
Tel Aviv, Israel:
worst section: south Tel Aviv
best section: North Tel Aviv
–SMM
I was almost mugged up on the Mexican War Streets. :eek:
This is of course subjective, but:
Best: Virginia-Highland, Poncey-Highland, Whittier Mill, Inman Park, Cabbagetown.
Worst: Southwest Atlanta, commonly called “the SWATS”; Buckhead. (Yes, Buckhead - bad traffic, overpriced houses, and bars full of braying assholes. I wouldn’t live there if you offered me free sex and booze.)
Of course, as per the OP, these are only areas within the City of Atlanta - if we’re including suburbs, I’d add Decatur and Lake Claire to the goods, and Alpharetta and Riverdale to the bads.