Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't even characterize Boston as a dump in the mid-1990s either.
I would mostly agree. But there was some serious blight and some very serious crime in large portions of the city and culturally it was lacking. There was also still racial tensions/fights(one major one in a neighborhood i played TeeBall in) and we were juuuust coming out of a massive regional recession. So you could argue it was a dump as most of the middle class was still feeling the city and there was only tiny anemic growth, and the public schools were violent and not serviceable. I remember Boston ofthe late 1990s not the mid 1990s. Still I was outwardly frightened o go to Dudley(Nubian) Square or Grove Hall. And the things and blight I saw as a kid seem so distant now. It seems after rent control was lifted in 1994 blight reduction became paramount.
The Boston I recall then was mostly based in colleges (smaller then), Hospitals (smaller then), construction (Big Dig was blighting parts of the city), governmental (patronage jobs with boated pensions) and non-profit and neighborhood groups (working to 'Rebuild Boston').
..all that aside maybe Chicago has a worse perception problem than Phila?
I would mostly agree. But there was some serious blight and some very serious crime in large portions of the city and culturally it was lacking. There was also still racial tensions/fights(one major one in a neighborhood i played TeeBall in) and we were juuuust coming out of a massive regional recession. So you could argue it was a dump as most of the middle class was still feeling the city and there was only tiny anemic growth, and the public schools were violent and not serviceable. I remember Boston ofthe late 1990s not the mid 1990s. Still I was outwardly frightened o go to Dudley(Nubian) Square or Grove Hall. And the things and blight I saw as a kid seem so distant now. It seems after rent control was lifted in 1994 blight reduction became paramount.
The Boston I recall then was mostly based in colleges (smaller then), Hospitals (smaller then), construction (Big Dig was blighting parts of the city), governmental (patronage jobs with boated pensions) and non-profit and neighborhood groups (working to 'Rebuild Boston').
..all that aside maybe Chicago has a worse perception problem than Phila?
Except on crime, I don't think so. Chicago has managed to grab the violent-crime-capital crown from "Killadelphia," but most of the other attributes of the city remain as strong and positive as they've ever been, and the city's famous machine politics are IMO seen by many as a form of local color.
The total dysfunction in Springfield, however, does seem to be acting as a drag on the regional economy, and a news report I just heard - in which violent crime figured prominently - noted that the city is losing residents.
(Ah, the Big Dig! $16 billion to bury a three-mile-long freeway and still they didn't do the job right.)
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muinteoir
In regards the crime, this is a (willful) perception problem, as D.C.'s rates are worse. For whatever reason, Philly gets called out more often than D.C.
No they're not.
I don't understand for the life of me, how Philly posters feel the need to bring up DC's crime in multiple threads, when overall it's still safer than Philly. The cities essentially are tied in murder rate (with the bulk of DC's coming in about an 10-12 sq mi portion of the city) seeing over half of them. Philly has more large swaths of land mass with higher crime overall. The most brazen crimes across the board in DC are at a lower rate than Philly. DC also has less urban blight which has an appeal to how others perceive the city. And let's not get to the metro areas.
I wouldn't even characterize Boston as a dump in the mid-1990s either.
From an urban renewal/gentrification perspective, the most notable and most drastic change in the 90s the South End.
Though it is not quite as affluent as the other central Boston neighborhoods, it's right up there in the conversation. It's significantly bigger than the other central Boston neighborhoods, too. 25-30 years ago, it was a gritty, fascinating, odd little artist and LGBTQ neighborhood that blended seamlessly into Roxbury.
1990 South End reminds me very much of what is happening in some of Philadelphia's neighborhoods now.
I don't understand for the life of me, how Philly posters feel the need to bring up DC's crime in multiple threads, when overall it's still safer than Philly. The cities essentially are tied in murder rate (with the bulk of DC's coming in about an 10-12 sq mi portion of the city) seeing over half of them. Philly has more large swaths of land mass with higher crime overall. The most brazen crimes across the board in DC are at a lower rate than Philly. DC also has less urban blight which has an appeal to how others perceive the city. And let's not get to the metro areas.
Alright, to help you out, it is because Philly gets such an undue rap for its crime. No one considers D.C. so unsafe, so I brought it up to make a point about Philly. Your point about urban blight proves what I am trying to say: blight =/= crime.
From neighborhoodscout. The "swaths of land" does not really matter, what matters more is how many of these violent crimes are "random" and how many are targeted due to interpersonal disputes. Willing to bet in both cities, they are largely due to interpersonal disputes. Assault in D.C. has a rate of 5.65 per 1k and in Philly it is 4.88 per 1k, for example. This is from a site that uses the same standard of measurement for all cities, not disparate accounting measures.
I really don't consider Philly or D.C. particularly unsafe. Generally, you just need to be street smart in either city to avoid trouble. You run the (small) risk of random crime no matter where you go.
Boston was definitely not a dump 15 years ago. in 2004/2005 Boston was growing and getting rid of the last of the "heavy blight" (boarded up building./abandoned buildings) and dealing with the last of the really serious violent crime in Roxbury Dorchester Mattapan (362 people were shot in 2005..~300 of which were in just 3 neighborhoods). Much of the city was already gentrified and every part of the city except maybe East Boston and Downtown Crossing was on a very obviou upward trajectory. The city was gaining residents and the public schools were improving. Boston was already 20 years into gentrification 15 years ago. It wasn't all that desirable or sexy but it wasn't a dump. 1994/1995 Boston but not 2004/2005.
My apologies. I don't know about anybody else but when I say 15 years ago, I think of the 90s ... thats something I have to work on since it is 2020 now. But in the 90s, Boston had the reputation of being grimey.
From an urban renewal/gentrification perspective, the most notable and most drastic change in the 90s the South End.
Though it is not quite as affluent as the other central Boston neighborhoods, it's right up there in the conversation. It's significantly bigger than the other central Boston neighborhoods, too. 25-30 years ago, it was a gritty, fascinating, odd little artist and LGBTQ neighborhood that blended seamlessly into Roxbury.
1990 South End reminds me very much of what is happening in some of Philadelphia's neighborhoods now.
I was still living in Boston when I came out in 1981. (I was also one of the first contributing writers for Bay Windows, which I think still publishes.)
I had some friends and acquaintances who lived in the South End, and one of my closest Harvard classmates lives in the home his parents owned (a mid-19th-century schoolhouse that was converted to apartments) on East Rutland Street still.
It may not have been affluent back then, but if that was what Bostonians considered dumpy, then they have very high standards. Faded glory is not dumpiness, and I'd say that the neighborhood was well on its way to recovering that faded glory even back then.
And it was the gay men who were doing much of the recovering, providing another data point for my "gays are the shock troops of gentrification" dataset.
I was still living in Boston when I came out in 1981. (I was also one of the first contributing writers for Bay Windows, which I think still publishes.)
I had some friends and acquaintances who lived in the South End, and one of my closest Harvard classmates lives in the home his parents owned (a mid-19th-century schoolhouse that was converted to apartments) on East Rutland Street still.
It may not have been affluent back then, but if that was what Bostonians considered dumpy, then they have very high standards. Faded glory is not dumpiness, and I'd say that the neighborhood was well on its way to recovering that faded glory even back then.
And it was the gay men who were doing much of the recovering, providing another data point for my "gays are the shock troops of gentrification" dataset.
the south end was never as bad as Roxbury Dorchester Mattapan or even Mission Hill-those areas had serious abandonment and blight even into the mid-2000s. I remember a couple blocks around there that were totally burnt up or abandoned. Id also imagine it depeneds on how close to Roxbury you are/were.
I really don't consider Philly or D.C. particularly unsafe. Generally, you just need to be street smart in either city to avoid trouble. You run the (small) risk of random crime no matter where you go.
Does anyone really consider Philly or DC to be particularly unsafe anymore? I'm not familiar with Philadelphia apart from the occasional work trip and a handful of short visits, but I don't hear Philadelphia's named tossed around as a "dangerous" city anymore. I feel like that rep. has largely long gone apart from a handful of older folks who can't shake it. Today, I hear Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, etc. tossed around. Chicago is usually mentioned in more politically charged discussions ("well if gun laws make us safer, why is Chicago so dangerous?!?!"). Rarely ever do I hear Philadelphia or DC mentioned (DC used to also have a very bad reputation) anymore and I haven't for some time.
Hey I can vouch for Baltimore. This is a dangerous city with really really high crime. Pretty much anything you've heard is true. it's amazing to me how crime is ALL OVER THE CITY except 1/2 swaths
that being said even where there is crime there may be no blight and the neighborhoods looks fine. Most of Baltimore doesnt look like the wire
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
