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'm not really following your logic, either. Some places have a higher crime rate than other, therefore some places are less safe than others. If someone doesn't perceive the safety difference, that's certainly possible, it also means their perception is wrong, or at least not useful.
You can tell someone which areas have more crime and less crime or the chances a crime could happen. But you can't say a place is safe due to how we each gauge safety differently.
I have been through neighborhoods that has a higher than normal crime rate, yet I felt safe in them. My wife doesn't feel safe in Greenwood Heights in Brooklyn, yet the neighborhood has a very low crime rate. We each gauge safety differently therefore it is a subjective term.
I have been through neighborhoods that has a higher than normal crime rate, yet I felt safe in them. My wife doesn't feel safe in Greenwood Heights in Brooklyn, yet the neighborhood has a very low crime rate. We each gauge safety differently therefore it is a subjective term.
I'd rather judge safety from crime stats than someone's opinion.
As for Greenwood Heights, that's a bit extreme, except maybe in the middle of the night. If you don't feel safe there, I'd imagine most of the city feels unsafe. Here's two photos I've taken of Greenwood Heights. This house is guarded by eagles:
One world unity:
The creator of map (with others' input) gave it yellow, the second highest safety ranking. From the areas I've experienced, the map matches well enough with my experience. Some may call different levels safe or no but that's their call, not the actually safety. Still, it's unlikely anyone would labelled a spot colored "red" as safe.
I mean, you consider most of Chicago to be safer than any suburb, which is just factually wrong, so your subjective opinion on the matter really don't mean much to me. Is it safer than Brooklyn as an average, which has a high crime rate? I don't know. I'm not from Brooklyn. I assume it's better than more notoriously rough areas like Bed-Stuy. The fact that it's really not a neighborhood and just a Realtor-Speak label for marketing purposes (like Lower Nob Hill in San Francisco) would seem to indicate that as well.
The creator of map (with others' input) gave it yellow, the second highest safety ranking. From the areas I've experienced, the map matches well enough with my experience. Some may call different levels safe or no but that's their call, not the actually safety. Still, it's unlikely anyone would labelled a spot colored "red" as safe.
"Yellow means that the area should be fine to anybody, but you may still see occasional incidents. You just need basic street smarts (don't go out drunk waving the money and expensive gadgets) and you should be fine."
Sounds like Market Street in San Francisco. I watched some guy at an outdoor cafe on Market run in and grab some napkins. Literally took 15 seconds, more than long enough for the two homeless teens/young adults who were just sitting waiting to run by, grab his Macbook, and take off on their skateboards. Market downtown isn't really "dangerous," you just have to realize that you aren't in the suburbs anymore. In Mountain View or Cupertino I'd be fine just asking the people sitting next to me to watch my stuff while I went in and got a refill. There just aren't a bunch of homeless juveniles with no lives lurking around snatching phones or laptops there.
You can tell someone which areas have more crime and less crime or the chances a crime could happen. But you can't say a place is safe due to how we each gauge safety differently.
I have been through neighborhoods that has a higher than normal crime rate, yet I felt safe in them. My wife doesn't feel safe in Greenwood Heights in Brooklyn, yet the neighborhood has a very low crime rate. We each gauge safety differently therefore it is a subjective term.
As I've long said, often to no avail on here, women have different perceptions of safety than men.
I've been a public health nurse in some pretty sleazy neighborhoods, so I don't have a lot of fears about them, as I go about my business. Generally, supervisors will tell you no nurse has ever had a problem, though cars have been broken into. However, a friend's classmate was raped in Chicago while going about her home visits as a student nurse. That's pretty unsafe.
I think those are some of possible trade-offs some folks will make so that they can live blocks away from places like this.
I find nothing appealing about that place at all: narrow street, parallel parking, few trees, ugly buildings with flat roofs, all available ground is covered in asphalt or concrete. Where is the biological and environmental diversity? That place is unnatural and depressing.
I'd rather judge safety from crime stats than someone's opinion.
Bingo, when someone tells you a place is safe or not, that is someone's opinion. Crime stats tell you the probability a crime could happen but they do not tell you a place is safe due to that being an opinion.
I mean, you consider most of Chicago to be safer than any suburb, which is just factually wrong, so your subjective opinion on the matter really don't mean much to me. Is it safer than Brooklyn as an average, which has a high crime rate? I don't know. I'm not from Brooklyn. I assume it's better than more notoriously rough areas like Bed-Stuy. The fact that it's really not a neighborhood and just a Realtor-Speak label for marketing purposes (like Lower Nob Hill in San Francisco) would seem to indicate that as well.
Safety is an opinion, my opinion is that much of Chicago is as safe as the suburbs of Chicago. Your level of safety could very well be different than mine.
"Yellow means that the area should be fine to anybody, but you may still see occasional incidents. You just need basic street smarts (don't go out drunk waving the money and expensive gadgets) and you should be fine."
Sounds like Market Street in San Francisco. I watched some guy at an outdoor cafe on Market run in and grab some napkins. Literally took 15 seconds, more than long enough for the two homeless teens/young adults who were just sitting waiting to run by, grab his Macbook, and take off on their skateboards. Market downtown isn't really "dangerous," you just have to realize that you aren't in the suburbs anymore. In Mountain View or Cupertino I'd be fine just asking the people sitting next to me to watch my stuff while I went in and got a refill. There just aren't a bunch of homeless juveniles with no lives lurking around snatching phones or laptops there.
Until that person you ask to watch your stuff walks off with your stuff. I know someone who did that in a coffee shop in the suburbs. Asked someone to watch their stuff, came back and the person was gone and so was their stuff. Theft can happen anywhere.
As I've long said, often to no avail on here, women have different perceptions of safety than men.
I've been a public health nurse in some pretty sleazy neighborhoods, so I don't have a lot of fears about them, as I go about my business. Generally, supervisors will tell you no nurse has ever had a problem, though cars have been broken into. However, a friend's classmate was raped in Chicago while going about her home visits as a student nurse. That's pretty unsafe.
A girl was once raped and killed jogging one morning in the suburbs I grew up with, horrible things can happen anywhere. And yes, women view safety different than men which is why I try to think how my wife would view a place before I take her there for any reason.
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.