Would anyone buy an $18,000 house in Detroit?

[A Mac Gamer]

Hills? North Dakota has hills? Well, I guess if you go to a specific area. It's mostly flat.

Rural Broadband? GOOD LUCK.

North Dakota has many hills, in fact the further you go west, the more hills there are. The badlands at Theodore Roosevelt National Park are a very cool place to mountain bike with all the hills. Eastern ND is very flat in the Red River Valley, in the Fargo and Grand Forks area.

 

[63dot]

Um, have you every personally been to Boston?

I have a lot of family out there and it is one of the nicest, safest cities in the country.

I am nearly speechless seeing it lumped in with Oakland, Washington DC and indirectly Detroit in regard to crime. I have been to all of these places except Detroit and there is a world of difference between Boston and the others.

Boston and Detroit are the two I mentioned I never have been to. My two best friends live in those cities who also lived where I am now. Either they are lying to me, or they are spoiled from the safer West Coast big cities, or they don't know. Oakland has a crime rate slightly lower than Boston with a 4500 index or so every year (New York and LA are in the 2000-3000 range), but Detroit and DC have the highest.

Most American cities average in the hundreds, safer cities crack 1000, midrange crime cities (usually larger met areas) fall into the 2000 to 3000 range, and more dangerous cities are 4000, 5000, and even 6000. But numbers don't tell the whole picture.

I have never been to the Hamptons, but from talking to people who have been there, and let's say the South Bronx (wife, four cousins, father, etc), it's safe to say that talking to them and looking at crime index numbers can lead me to a safe assumption that the Hamptons are safer than the South Bronx.

I am not here, as I have said before, to judge the people of one city/neighborhood/region vs. another city. The facts show, objectively, that some cities are more dangerous than others. Subjectively, Boston, Detroit, DC, the South Bronx, and Oakland are named among many who have been there, were born there, etc, as tough areas with a crime problem, that's all.

I am not calling you some street hood, but has it ever occurred to you that maybe you are just plain tough as nails and are not bothered by inner city crime? One girl I know from Boston (and this girl is one big and tough MoFo that can whoop most men) thinks there are no real "cities" or "crime" on the West Coast.

She has friends who live in South Central Los Angeles and she loves to hang there and walk around at night. She tells me how much safer and cleaner it looks than Boston or any other major East Coast city. She notes the palm trees, the nice weather, but does not take into account that South Central has crime indexes, if it were itself a city, that rival many major East Coast cities in homicide, robbery, and forcible rape. She judges South Central by it's lack of urban-ness, so fine. I for one will hang out elsewhere when I go to Los Angeles. Maybe I am just some spoiled West Coast chicken.

 

[Unspeaked]

I am not here, as I have said before, to judge the people of one city vs. another city. The facts show, objectively, that some cities are more dangerous than others. Subjectively, Boston, Detroit, DC, the South Bronx, and Oakland are named among many who have been there, were born there, etc, as tough cities with a crime problem, that's all.

I am not calling you some street hood, but has it ever occurred to you that maybe you are just plain tough as nails and are not bothered by inner city crime?

Ok, I will admit that I am rarely uncomfortable in city settings, even those that some people would consider suspicious or dangerous. So you may be onto something there...!

But going back to what you say about Boston being named unsafe by people who have visited, were born there, etc - I have honestly not once seen it referenced that way by anyone, anywhere until I read your comments.

Again, I don't live there personally, so it's not that I'm taking great offense ; I have just visited dozens of times (NYC, as well) and the picture you (or your friends, as the case may be) paint is just not accurate. The crime in Boston - whatever there is - is very much restricted to the poorer neighborhoods on the outskirts of town. Anywhere in the downtown area is extremely safe - day or night, summer or winter.

And a very quick Google search brought up a Yahoo user asking this very question and getting very similar responses:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070927032450AAeKKOY

 

[Don't panic]

NYC is currently one of the safest large cities in the US, especially when you do the math by people living there. there are better and worse areas, of course, and the city is very large, but pretty much all of manhattan is safe, including harlem which often gets a bad rep.
i am not sure how the hamptons got into the conversation, but that's not a part of the city (it's a vacation place something like 200 miles away).

in terms of detroit, it would probably be a good investment long term, but short term can be very iffy.

in the 70s-80s Baltimore was def not one of the prime spots in the US in term of quality of life, and entire historic neighborhoods were so run down/abandoned that the city sold houses for 1$ (and later 200/300$) to homesteaders who would fix'em up (initially they even included the loan for the renovations.
some of those are now among the nicest neighborhood in the city, they are safe and the houses are worth hundreds (of thousands). A pretty decent return.

 

[63dot]

And a very quick Google search brought up a Yahoo user asking this very question and getting very similar responses:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070927032450AAeKKOY

Those are very similar to the blogs from Bostonians who are convinced that their city is dangerous, and definitely in a downward trend than from earlier years. My friends, or even the bloggers talking about the tough areas of Roxbury, or this gang vs. that gang, may have fallen victim to the crime, including falling into a life of crime.

I also know that, statistical outliers make huge differences in smaller cities, but larger cities like San Jose, DC, Boston, on up to the Chicagos and New Yorks have pretty steady crime rates year after, suggesting long term trends. Boston's 4000+ crime index, or 2.1 times national average, under any measure of that city, year after year, does not make it in the same league as a safer area like the Hamtons, or midrange areas like San Jose. If taken as a small sample of (Detroit, DC, and Boston), then yes, it's the safest city in that grouping, but when you add San Jose, San Francisco, New York, Oakland, Dallas, and dozens of others, then it falls in there as one of the more dangerous cities, yet still not THE most dangerous city. That, depending on which crimes we are talking about (crimes against person, crimes against property), it's most likely Detroit or DC as the absolute worst.

If I was given the choice, let's say I was offered a killer job but had to be in the city limits, I would chose Boston over DC and Detroit, but I would choose Oakland, New York, and San Francisco over Boston.

One has to look at all the good and the bad, whether through the objective crime index, individual crime stats on crimes against person/property, and the subjective stuff such as the blogs and accounts from close friends and close family members.

I live in the South Bay Area, so it's certainly no crime haven but at the same time not close to Boston, Philly, New York, DC, or any of the west coast cities like LA and San Diego. Over here, when I hear about "crime" and the "east coast", two major themes come up.

1) Yes, NYC is still dangerous yet safer than Boston these days. New Yorkers take huge pride in this. It could have something to do with baseball though that New Yorkers always have to stick it to Boston. Why not say, "NYC is better/safer than DC?". It's just not a comment I ever hear.

2) Boston is tougher than LA, San Diego, Seattle, SF, or San Jose and these are comments from many transplanted Bostonians. We have a lot of high tech here, and so does Boston (the east coast's Silicon Valley), so Boston comes up a lot in everyday conversation. And the top two things I hear are about when it comes to Boston are it's crime rate/gangs and the Red Sox, with the latter taking a backseat.

................

There is a "transplant" syndrome where people who leave one city for one that is safer, to totally trash the former more dangerous city once they get out. Small changes in safety in the positive get blown up by huge margins.

I do know that, however, it does affect the the 2.1 times national violent crime average of Boston or their 4000+ crime index. Those are objective numbers based on types of crime within it's listed population.

.................

A final possibility I have looked at, and this is something we looked at a lot in law school, is that some crime ridden cities are actually surrounded by very safe areas bordering it. The closest example near me is the next closest big city which is Oakland, a slightly lower than Boston crime rate, but surrounded by a lot of nice smaller cities in the East Bay Area.

The term East Bay Area, while mostly nice, has been given a major black eye by it's most prominent resident, Oakland.

Anyway, I hope the Red Sox win another one!

 

[Leto-Parallels]

I recently moved to Seattle from mid-Michigan. I was about an hour North of Detroit, and now I feel like Kurt Russel at the end of Escape from New York (minus the eye patch).

The area I was located in was certainly livable, but drive 10-15 minutes in any direction and you're in either sparsely populated farmland or neighborhoods consisting of mostly boarded up houses. Even for people there, Detroit is considered a forbidden zone. More crime and horrible road conditions.

Suffice to say, a house in Detroit isn't worth $18k unless it's in absolute pristine condition... which it won't be. Even if it looks nice in the picture, chances are someone's in there right now ripping the copper wire from the walls to sell at the scarp yard.

 

[Music_Producer]

^^^What? Life is about more than saving on rent. If I had to live in North Dakota and be bored to near-death, I'd rather pay more and live.

Don't you know that in the US nobody really 'lives'? They all buy things they can't afford and then slave away the rest of their lives to pay everything off

 

[Music_Producer]

Just wondering, I saw a story about the average house price in Detroit is $18,000. Whilst I'm from London (raised in East London/Essex borders) I'm taking interest in the whole situation because, well $18,000 is amazingly cheap - no mortgage would be required!

I wouldn't even pay $1000 for a house there - what's the point? I researched into the whole buying a house and renting it out scenario - doesn't work. There is a consistent history of 'renters' thrashing the houses, stealing fixtures, and .. not paying rent! If you buy a house somewhere and don't live anywhere nearby, then be prepared to pay a lot of money to check it from time to time.

Then there's maintenance, property taxes, etc - I wish it were that simple as buying an investment and letting it grow - but buying a house can be a considerable risk especially if you don't put a 100% in it.

 

[Unspeaked]

If I was given the choice, let's say I was offered a killer job but had to be in the city limits, I would chose Boston over DC and Detroit, but I would choose Oakland, New York, and San Francisco over Boston.

I've been to all these cities and consider Boston the safest in the group by far.

Maybe tied with San Francisco, but there's way more homeless folks in SF than Boston. I realize that doesn't translate to crime, but it does make the atmosphere a little different.

The fact of the matter is, if you take Roxybury and Dorchester out of the equation - two area that most people who live in Boston never set foot in, much less tourists or business visitors - Boston is as safe or safer than any large city (say, 200,000+ people) in the US, statistically speaking. The crime in Boston is so isolated to these two areas - areas on the outskirts of town and not easily accessible even by public transportation - that the remainder of the city is essentially crime free (and that area includes anything you'd consider to be "real" Boston - the waterfront, the downtown, Fenway Park, the colleges and universities, Cheers, shopping, blah, blah, blah).

What it boils down to is, someone visiting the city would have to try really hard to get into serious trouble, and even someone living there would have to go well outside of their normal routine to find themselves in danger. I don't think the same can be said for New York or especially Oakland.

Anyway, I hope the Red Sox win another one!

Now this I can totally agree with.

(Been a huge Sox fan ever since I was a little kid!!)

 

[Planner Dude]

I live near the City of Detroit (Wyandotte) & work in Downtown Detroit, so I have to disagree with your statements:

My dad grew up there, and it wasn't even quite as bad when he was a kid, but the stories from living there (and the times we visited his dad before he moved) are crazy.

Um... actually it is probably better than it was when your dad was there...We're not dealing with crack addicts and drug wars like in the eighties

LOL
18,000 is probably still a steal, but chances are that house is in the WORST area of detroit, in horrible condition (could be just painted to look nice, but under it's falling apart) or some murders took place there.

There are beautiful, historic homes, generally in good condition. The midwest US has low home prices to begin with and with the foreclosure crisis & economic conditions for many in the Detroit area, you can get houses for a steal. I am not saying this one is great, but to say all inexpensive homes are in horrible condition is ignorant.

DETROIT WAS FOUNDED ON THE AUTO INDUSTRY. Without it, since it's doing SO SO SO poorly, Detroit, (founded on american cars.. like GM - Cadillac, so dying a bit already over the last few years) is essentially dying.

You need a History Lesson, pronto....Detroit was founded in 1765 by French Fur Traders....it has had a wide variety of industries including furniture making, tobacco growing, horse carriage building, ship building, pharmasuteicals.....all way before the auto industry

It was once the fourth largest city in America and because of it's beautiful tree-lined streets of bungalows, with radial boulevards coming into the city known as the Paris of North America.

It wasn't unitl the 20th century that it became an auto hub because of its collection of intellectual capital and revenue from the other industries.

It is true that we did become an auto dominated metro area "Motown", but we did not start this way...

Some of its suburbs were founded b/c of the wauto industry, but the City itself and railroad suburbs like Wyandotte, Royal Oak, Birmingham, etc were not.

We are also home to Robotics firms like the one that created the Roomba, A World Leader in Solar Power Design (United Solar Ovonic), a pharmaceutical Industry (Phizer), and World Class Universities *& Medical Centers (U of M, Detroit Medical Center, Henry Ford Health Systems, Beaumont.

Perhaps a bargain, but 18k that you would have an almost impossible time getting back for the next .. oh... 5 or 10 years depending on economy if/when you decide to sell. Not to mention you could rent, but renting in that area would be a nightmare of repairs and skipped rent payments.
.

Again, it all depends.. if the house was in Palmer Woods, Indian Village, Sherwood Forest, Corktown or other the riverfront, where houses can go between 250,000-1,000,000, you might make some money....Of note, all of thes neighborhoods are within the city boundaries and many are not near the fringe of the city.

Yes... Detroit is in general, not friendly.

Not true at all....yes there are A$ Holes everywhere, jerks too, but like most of the midwest, Detroiters (city & metro) are pretty friendly. As for crime, its usually between gangs or domestic fights....it is pretty rare for random people to be killed...and this in the "Rough" areas like the East side... If you keep to yourself you pretty good for the most part...I am not going to say is Beaver Cleaver land, but I think urbanites, in general know what I am getting at.

Of note: The Crime rate in Downtown Detroit when separated from the rest of the city, is below the state average crime rate and is comparable to most suburban cities.


So I guess what I am trying to say is that Detroit is not nearly as bad a people make it out to be. Yeah, we are having a rough time, but it's by no means a war zone filled with unfreindly people living in filth.

Metro Detroit can be pretty progressive too...it's just a lot easier and fun for the press and peeps to perpetuate a sterotype.....

Sorry for the lecture, but as a life-long Detroiter....I had to chime in....

 

[63dot]

I've been to all these cities and consider Boston the safest in the group by far.

Maybe tied with San Francisco, but there's way more homeless folks in SF than Boston. I realize that doesn't translate to crime, but it does make the atmosphere a little different.

The fact of the matter is, if you take Roxybury and Dorchester out of the equation - two area that most people who live in Boston never set foot in, much less tourists or business visitors - Boston is as safe or safer than any large city (say, 200,000+ people) in the US, statistically speaking.

(Been a huge Sox fan ever since I was a little kid!!)

On the first point, realize that Boston's crime index is almost as high as Los Angeles and New York, combined.

That is objective data.

Subjectively, you like Boston and that is fine, and let's say everybody on Macrumors loves it to death, it still does not change the crime index, nor does it bring back a person who was a victim of the Boston homicide rate.

I could say DC and Detroit are safe if you take out "such and such areas within the city limits", but the fact of the matter is that those neighborhoods you mentioned in Boston, as tough as any in the US, are in Boston.

If you removed certain south central and eastern areas of Los Angeles, the city would post a much better crime index. If you took out certain sections of NYC, that city would also become much safer.

Until they redraw the city limits of Boston, it will remain a city with a 2.1x over national average crime city, and one with that terrible 4000+ crime index. Find a major city with half a million people or more with a lower crime index. Didn't find one consistently as dangerous year to year? I didn't think so. There are only a small handful of big American cities more dangerous, namely DC and Detroit.

In the end, crime rate is what it is and measures crime, not how "nice" the city seems to people who visit or live there. Trying to call Boston safe against its peers (major American urban cities) is trying to put lipstick on a pig.

There was a time when NYC had Boston levels of violent crime, and many measures, maybe even un-Constitutional, extreme ones, were taken. The end product has become a much safer NYC. Boston may have to do the same unless they want to have a crime index higher than their Red Sox' entire lineup's impressive batting averages combined.

 

[Abstract]

2) Boston is tougher than LA, San Diego, Seattle, SF, or San Jose and these are comments from many transplanted Bostonians. We have a lot of high tech here, and so does Boston (the east coast's Silicon Valley), so Boston comes up a lot in everyday conversation. And the top two things I hear are about when it comes to Boston are it's crime rate/gangs and the Red Sox, with the latter taking a backseat.

Actually, until this thread came up, I had no idea Boston was a dangerous city.

Not that I'm an expert on American crime stats or anything.

 

[63dot]

Anyway, here are some real numbers (2002 Boston crime census), which is slightly better than now (which has crimes against people at 2.1 times national average).

Crimes against property:

Burglary 0.86 times national average
Larceny 0.97 times national average
Car Theft 1.83 times national average
Arson = even with national average (hey, that's something good, ain't it )

Total against national average = 1.07 times national average

Crimes against person:

Murder 0.86 times national average
Forcible Rape 1.22 times national average
Robbery 2.14 times national average
Agg. Assault 1.92 times national average

Total against national average = 2.04 times national average

These are not numbers to be proud of. At best, Boston can say their arson average is the national average, and not any worse. Every single crime indicator, whether it is a crime against property or a crime against person, is higher than the national average. In some cases, it's more than double on some crimes.

Cities like San Francisco and San Jose often post crimes below the national average, and many cities post numbers WAY below national average.

So Boston may be fun to visit, pretty, and have nice people, but numbers don't lie.

 

[zelmo]

in the 70s-80s Baltimore was def not one of the prime spots in the US in term of quality of life, and entire historic neighborhoods were so run down/abandoned that the city sold houses for 1$ (and later 200/300$) to homesteaders who would fix'em up (initially they even included the loan for the renovations.
some of those are now among the nicest neighborhood in the city, they are safe and the houses are worth hundreds (of thousands). A pretty decent return.

My brother bought two adjacent row homes in downtown Baltimore (Fells Point area) in the early 70's for a total of $2500. Spent almost 10 years and $40,000 combining the spaces and fixing it up really nicely, then sold it for $350K and moved to Annapolis. Some areas of Baltimore had a great resurgence as a result of that program, but there are other areas that never made it back, and still others that have fallen into tough times more recently. Per capita, Baltimore is one of the most dangerous cities in the USA, but it has some beautiful and safe areas.
I'm sure Detroit has some great neighborhoods as well, but I doubt you are buying an $18,000 home in any of them. I hope it makes a comeback, but it will take a large number of brave and forward-looking people to make it happen, especially given the state of the auto industry. Good luck, Detroit!

 

[Unspeaked]

So Boston may be fun to visit, pretty, and have nice people, but numbers don't lie.

I'm not saying there isn't crime in Boston - as you state, the numbers don't lie - I'm just saying you've painted a completely inaccurate picture of the city.

As the members a few posts up pointed and I've said continuously, Boston hasn't the slightly reputation for crime nor is it ever regarded as one of the more dangerous cities in the US in any article or website I've looked at. Again, the whole reason I've gone off on this tangent with you is because I was both surprised and slightly amused that you grouped Boston together with places like Oakland, Detroit, etc.

And, more to the point of you painting an inaccurate picture, statements you make such as these...

Boston, too where inner city crime is pretty bad and very hard to avoid

My best friend lived in Boston most of his life, moved out to California, and when he went back to Boston, he couldn't find one good area anymore and areas of his youth once safe were no longer there.

Boston are in my opinion places I would never live if anywhere near downtown/city limits

My Boston friend got shot at, stabbed, and knocked out cold several times in just a few months. There was never a night without the sound of gunfire.

...are so far from the truth that anyone whose even spent a weekend in Boston, much less visited for any length of time or lived there, would find it hard to believe you're referring to the same city.

Those quotes don't even describe the very worst part of Boston (Roxbury) accurately, much less Boston proper. It's still big news in Boston (TV reports, newspaper headlines) when someone is stabbed or shot. It's not a routine thing.

In fact, to take on each "objective" quote on its own:

1.

Boston, too where inner city crime is pretty bad and very hard to avoid

Inner city crime is pretty bad in Boston, but it's hard to even find, much less avoid. As I said, a resident of downtown would have to try very hard to even get to any of the bad areas.


2.

My best friend lived in Boston most of his life, moved out to California, and when he went back to Boston, he couldn't find one good area anymore and areas of his youth once safe were no longer there.

Nearly every neighborhood in Boston is extremely safe, the crime numbers you quote raised by the two or three bad areas I mentioned earlier. Not able to find a good area? How about Beacon Hill, one of the wealthiest zip codes in the nation? The North End, where there hasn't been a recorded murder in a decade? Back Bay? Kenmore Square? These are all neighborhoods you can stroll alone at 3:00am on a weekday and not even be spoken to, much less be in any danger (and they make up the majority of Boston).

Boston are in my opinion places I would never live if anywhere near downtown/city limits

That's good, because downtown Boston real estate is some of the most expensive in the US. I don't think that's because it's unsafe - do you?

My Boston friend got shot at, stabbed, and knocked out cold several times in just a few months. There was never a night without the sound of gunfire.

This is probably the single most ridiculous statement you make. Like I said, this is a huge stretch even if you were referring to the ghettos, much less downtown Boston and the surrounding areas, which are all quite nice.

I stayed downtown for a span on one-week as recently as this past autumn and didn't so much as see a toy gun, much less gunfire each night of the week.

Let me remind you I'm not denying crime exists in Boston, as it does in any other major city. Your descriptions are just so completely fabricated that I couldn't help but correct them. I'm going to have to mail this thread to some of my friends in Boston who will no doubt get a great big chuckle from it.

 

[63dot]

Actually, until this thread came up, I had no idea Boston was a dangerous city.

Not that I'm an expert on American crime stats or anything.

I don't take an interest in crime except that law school pounds it into us.

That and torts (civil wrongs) and contract law.

Boston is the second most "physically" dangerous east coast city next to Washington DC. New York City comes nowhere near Boston per capita.

There are some east coast cities like Baltimore, MD and Miami, Florida that have a higher rate of crime against property, but Boston, next to DC, is THE place to get assaulted, raped, robbed, or murdered on the east coast.

For somebody to come out and say Boston is relatively "safe" against other US cities is akin to saying the holocaust never happened. Again, I am not judging why violent crime, see my posts above, is particularly high in Boston. I would not choose to live there if I had to live in a major American, urban city.

Statistically, I am nearly twice as safe in New York or LA city limits, of a crime against me such as me being murdered, shot, stabbed, or hit with a blunt object and sustaining injuries from battery and/or assault.

Is Boston hell? Probably not, just one of the United States' best candidates for the title. I would give DC that title for "hell" on the US east coast for violent crime.

 

[McGiord]

Anyone with the spare money could be interested in investing.
Not everyone who buys a house is going to live there.
There are many different options: you have any kind of prices, condition, locations, taxes, utilities, crime rate, schools, etc...

http://www.moveinmichigan.com/Searc...&PropType=RS&Region=Wayne&Print=false&Seq=5#L

Detroit City is not the best place to live.

However some areas of the Detroit Metropolitan area, are nice and have good and safe neighborhoods.

And some IT jobs are always looking for the right candidates.
http://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=it&l=detroit,+mi

 

[63dot]

Let me remind you I'm not denying crime exists in Boston, as it does in any other major city. Your descriptions are just so completely fabricated that I couldn't help but correct them.

Not my facts, Boston's facts.

Do you want links, I will PM them to you, really.

I didn't do the murders or other violent crimes there. So you visited Boston, hey look, my best friend was raised there and lived there into his 20s. What gives? It's statistically the east coast's second most violent major city in terms of crime.

If you want to worry about fabrication, then take up the issue with Boston and their crime census, not me.

I am not judging the people there. I am just pulling facts from various sources on the internet. Many criminal cases that deal with the most heinous crimes happen in major cities like LA, Chicago, NYC, and Boston, but more per captita in Boston. There was a Boston strangler, but to my knowledge, not a Denver strangler. This was all way before I was born, so I can't help that there was violent crime off the charts then, and now.

Do not blame me for their crime. I didn't do it.

Let me ask you this? Did the holocaust happen? Are there people who are being treated in less than acceptable ways in China and in Africa? Do you look past atrocities?

You don't have to answer me. I know your type. I have a friend who is not racist in the least but he grew up in Hitler's youth, but has a Jewish wife. He is convinced Hitler did not kill the Jews. He thinks because he was a child Nazi and he now accepts everybody that ALL former Nazis can do the same. I am of Japanese descent and I have relatives who cannot believe the Empire of Japan did what history has already proved as atrocities. Google Nanking in WWII.

In the end, the truth sets you free, not a subjective belief. I am glad you believe Boston is nice and safe, but to look away from the facts is pure ignorance. What if you wife/husband/child went there on your recommendation and got murdered for their wallet? What would you say? You saw the facts, heck look them up, I am not arguing with you.

If a city has high crime statistics, from their own gathering of the evidence, write them if you don't agree, not tell me I am making these facts up.

Again, I don't judge Boston, DC, or Detroit. What crime stats come from their own police departments or census bureaus, are their facts, not mine. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Unspeaked]

Not my facts, Boston's facts.

Look, if there's a city with a high crime rate where nearly all the crimes are gang related and restricted to the ghettos/projects on the outskirts of town, no where near anywhere that most people work, live, eat or shop (as is essentially the case with Boston) then I'd consider that a much safer city than somewhere with fewer statistical crimes but crimes that are random and scattered across the city. That's just how I personally define safe, and I'm sure many people would agree with me.

Let me remind you, I did not just visit Boston. I have family there and have spent a significant amount of time in the city nearly every year of my life since I was school-aged. If I had just been once or twice, I wouldn't know it as well as I do nor would I even be comfortable making the comments I am. I would gladly pit my knowledge of the city against anyone who's lived their into their 20s.

You can spout off statistics and quotes from friends who've lived there, but I've actually been there and take my own personal experience above your second-hand knowledge.

I would love if you would defend the line about crime being hard to avoid. Where's the Google map that shows that? Because I've been there and you know what? It isn't.

Or the line about gunfire being heard every night. Can you bring up the city data for that? Because you'd think every night would include the hundreds of nights I've spent there, but I never heard any.

My original post was simply to correct your awful generalizations because I felt bad for what someone from Boston, or someone who'd visited, would think of your post, but after all this you still clearly don't get it.

Edited to Add:

The most recent crime data and rankings I can find anywhere all seem to be here and Boston is not anywhere near the tops of any of their lists, whether it be general lists, metro lists or even by population.

 

[63dot]

Look, if there's a city with a high crime rate where nearly all the crimes are gang related and restricted to the ghettos/projects on the outskirts of town, no where near anywhere that most people work, live, eat or shop (as is essentially the case with Boston) then I'd consider that a much safer city than somewhere with fewer statistical crimes but crimes that are random and scattered across the city. That's just how I personally define safe, and I'm sure many people would agree with me.

Let me remind you, I did not just visit Boston. I have family there and have spent a significant amount of time in the city nearly every year of my life since I was school-aged. If I had just been once or twice, I wouldn't know it as well as I do nor would I even be comfortable making the comments I am. I would gladly pit my knowledge of the city against anyone who's lived their into their 20s.

You can spout off statistics and quotes from friends who've lived there, but I've actually been there and take my own personal experience above your second-hand knowledge.

I would love if you would defend the line about crime being hard to avoid. Where's the Google map that shows that? Because I've been there and you know what? It isn't.

Or the line about gunfire being heard every night. Can you bring up the city data for that? Because you'd think every night would include the hundreds of nights I've spent there, but I never heard any.

My original post was simply to correct your awful generalizations because I felt bad for what someone from Boston, or someone who'd visited, would think of your post, but after all this you still clearly don't get it.

The main thing in this discussion is that you have been safe, and so has your family. That is a good thing. The rest is commentary.

I was a Christian missionary in Belfast, Northern Ireland and the people on both sides treated me well. I liked them and they liked me. Did that change the fact that when I was there, in the 80s, that violence didn't happen? I can't come up with a theory as to why Belfast had violence then any better than why my friend, or the crime stats, paint Boston in a bad way.

If Boston had the same level of crime as LA, then I wouldn't think twice. If Boston had the same level of crime as NYC, then I wouldn't think twice either. But having a crime index of both cities combined? OK, that's something to look at. If I lived there, I would be outraged and try to get involved to change the situation.

Again the numbers I posted are Boston's, not mine. Is the architecture pretty? Are the people more educated than most? Does the city have a rich history? I am not debating those facts.

When Boston itself is posting crime facts that happen to have high numbers, contact them, not me. If you want, I will PM you my sources as Boston has nothing to do with buying property in Detroit. It's only those two cities have similar crime stats, that's all.

You can PM me, too and I will give you all links I have found on Boston. There are other cities, too, who have considerably higher crime rates than the two largest US cities, NYC and LA, and I don't need to start listing them here as it's not a part of this thread. However, there are some cities and metro areas over 500,000 people, which is a major American urban center by definition, which do have certain crimes that have higher numbers than NYC and LA. Would you believe New Orleans, yes that New Orleans, has some shockingly bad numbers on crime? How about Fresno/Clovis met area, CA?

Anyway, we can have the enlightening conversation via PM, but to the OP, I would avoid Detroit city limits, that's my vote.

 

[Unspeaked]

It's clear that you and I look at safety and danger differently, and will just not see eye to eye on the issue.

You said yourself one of your friends considered parts of LA with high crime rates safer than any part of Boston (and trust me, there's parts of Boston that are very safe).

Like I mentioned in my last post, if I can walk around 98% of Boston without any worry of crime, I feel safe. If the other 2% resembles a WWII battle field, it doesn't matter to me. Especially when that 2% is no where near downtown, the skyline, city center, whatever you'd like to call it - which is the exact opposite of Detroit, from what I gather, where the city itself is dangerous and the outskirts might be a little better.

Boston is especially skewed because it's so small a city. If you look at Metro Areas and compare Boston to others, I'm sure your figures would be very different (and more accurate a representation of what living somewhere and traveling would be like). For example, Newton, MA is considered one of the safest towns in America and boarders Boston. Cambridge, MA (which is essentially Boston's sister city) is also extremely safe. But neither of these figures are included in the 89 square miles that make up the city. Contrast that with LA's 498 square miles and vastly lower popular density and you can see how meaningless statistics are. (Without even getting into the subject of which crimes are worse than others, what should be counted as dangerous, etc, etc).

But let's just lay this all to rest, shall we? I respect your comments, I just look at it all differently...

 

[63dot]

But let's just lay this all to rest, shall we? I respect your comments, I just look at it all differently...

Agreed. I respect your point of view. We all have different tolerances. I see your point of view. What is considerd a safe distance in a WWII war zone in Boston would literally be considered right next door, or a few LA city "long" blocks. I just didn't want to see you being one who avoided the obvious and put yourself and others in danger. Everyday, there are people who underestimate a city's crime, or overestimate their ability to defend themselves, and nobody ends up being the winner. The perp eventually ends up dead, wounded, or in jail and the victim ends up wounded or dead. A realistic view is important in any modern American city until, and if, the gun issue gets addressed. But I will stop there before my liberal bleeding heart turns this into a gun control thread!

btw- not my figures, they belong to Boston, not 63dot

 

[Mr. Giver '94]

No. Might as well move to a public toilet.

 

[Sun Baked]

No. Might as well move to a public toilet.

Sad thing is, the public toilet would probably be cleaner living conditions.

 

[Unspeaked]

Agreed. I respect your point of view. We all have different tolerances. I see your point of view. What is considerd a safe distance in a WWII war zone in Boston would literally be considered right next door, or a few LA city "long" blocks. I just didn't want to see you being one who avoided the obvious and put yourself and others in danger. Everyday, there are people who underestimate a city's crime, or overestimate their ability to defend themselves, and nobody ends up being the winner. The perp eventually ends up dead, wounded, or in jail and the victim ends up wounded or dead. A realistic view is important in any modern American city until, and if, the gun issue gets addressed. But I will stop there before my liberal bleeding heart turns this into a gun control thread!

btw- not my figures, they belong to Boston, not 63dot

I wonder if the OP was expecting such a heated debate about Boston to erupt when they posted this??