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.
This may seem like some sort of trivial distraction or side point to you, but I really do think people also feel, if not absolutely safer, then at the very least more comfortable walking through an urban environment where trees abound.
That describes a good chunk of the District of Columbia, including many of its rougher neighborhoods.
That describes only a small portion of Philadelphia, primarily Center City, University City and the Northwest.
I don't think anyone's done research on the relationship between tree cover and crime, but it seems that since a bigger tree canopy brings with it many other environmental benefits that outweigh the costs of maintenance, it might also have some psychological benefits that, if they don't actually reduce crime, reduce the perception of an area as dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muinteoir
I've lived in a majority low-income part of the city for fourteen months, and I have never had a problem or felt unsafe.
What he said. The only difference between him and me being I'm not athletically built, and I've lived in my very-low-income pocket of a mostly-low-income neighborhood for five years without incident (though I have seen incidents, or at least their aftermath).
The friends I've invited up to visit haven't had anything happen to them either, save for my boyfriend, who left his bike locked to my front porch railing and didn't come back for it. About three days later, someone else did come for it, and took it and a couple of porch railing slats with him.
This may seem like some sort of trivial distraction or side point to you, but I really do think people also feel, if not absolutely safer, then at the very least more comfortable walking through an urban environment where trees abound.
That describes a good chunk of the District of Columbia, including many of its rougher neighborhoods.
That describes only a small portion of Philadelphia, primarily Center City, University City and the Northwest.
I don't think anyone's done research on the relationship between tree cover and crime, but it seems that since a bigger tree canopy brings with it many other environmental benefits that outweigh the costs of maintenance, it might also have some psychological benefits that, if they don't actually reduce crime, reduce the perception of an area as dangerous.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,550,614 times
Reputation: 5785
It's not just trees though. DC is a much cleaner city than Philadelphia, not that I think Philly is overly dirty or anything, but by and large DC is squeaky clean. The sidewalks are very even and concrete is well placed, the Metro is very clean, the city simply doesn't have anywhere near the amount of blight that larger Philadelphia has. Even Georgetown which is almost as old as Philadelphia and has similar qualities to some of it's neighborhoods with smaller streets, just feels much more clean and high end.
DC overall has larger geographic portions of it's city that aren't really dangerous at all. MUCH of the crime rates and recent influx of crime in DC has been East of Anacostia River.
Last edited by the resident09; 09-27-2018 at 07:50 AM..
If there's a perception DC is safer than Philly (TBH I'm not sure there is), I think you have to account for the monumental drop in homicides the city has witnessed since the 1990s. DC peaked at around 500 homicides in the early 1990s and had around 80 last year. While that is by no means a great homicide rate, DC sort of gets the "Most Improved Player" award among major cities in this category. For residents of the DC area, they are comparing DC to what it used to be rather than comparing it to other cities they do not live in.
Philadelphia, I think, doesn't really get the same narrative because its violent crime rate hasn't dropped nearly as much. Philadelphians may ask how a city that is about 1/3 the size can have a comparable homicide rate, but New Yorkers often wonder how a city that is 1/6 the size has a substantially higher homicide rate. When Michael Nutter was interviewed by one of the big networks, that was the exact question he was asked: "How does a city one-sixth the size of New York have as many or more murders?"
So the extent anyone may feel DC is safer, I think part of it may be because DC has made a lot more progress on that front. I think it's also the case that the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates are far removed from the most gentrified areas. I also think that Philly doesn't have a single neighborhood that's had as dramatic a turn around as Logan Circle. Lastly, DC has a lot more White faces walking the streets in neighborhoods were there were previously very few White people, and that would certainly contribute to a certain perception.
I think Philly would feel unsafe to a person who is not used to a Urban Environment. Everyone who walks by doesn't have a gun or knife or attacking you. I think that feeling can be overwhelming when you see and hear things you are not used to.
You're right. And I can appreciate how someone looking at a crime map would be fearful.
But having lived in Phila.'s urban environment for a long time, and having close family members living in higher crime areas, I'm not afraid to go to those areas at all.
People should, I hope, understand that a lot of crime(particularly violent crime) isn't random.
As seen in City/Metro Crime threads on this site, DC still has a higher homicide rate than Philly (in spite of DC's crime rate having reduced drastically since the 1990s).
However, the general perception is that Philadelphia is the more dangerous city. When you visit, Philly does 'feel' a bit more dangerous (to me).
Do you feel that Philly feels more dangerous than DC (in spite of stats to the contrary)? What do you think causes this?
In my opinion, I think that there are two factors at play here:
1) Center City Philly (if you take a liberal view of Center City to include University City, Northern Liberties and the Art Museum area) is in some sense almost surrounded by crime-ridden neighborhoods (Point Breeze to the South, North Philly to the North, and West Philly to the west). The core of DC is a bit more removed from the worst of DC and is surrounded exclusively by safe neighborhoods to the west.
2) DC west of Rock Creek park has no bad neighborhoods. Philadelphia is much more patchy. So in Philly, you're much more likely to be close to a bad area even if you're in a good area.
1.) Even if you take a "liberal view" of Center City, you still wouldn't have it "surrounded" by crime-ridden neighborhoods. For example, if you say that Center City's northern border is Girard Avenue, I'd point out that Brewerytown, Templetown/Cecil B. Moore, Ludlow, and South Kensington aren't overly dangerous. One would really have to go north of Cecil B. Moore Avenue to really see truly "bad" neighborhoods. Same situation with West Philly, as University City and certain neighborhoods south of Market are nowhere near "bad". One would have to go west of 52nd Street and north of Market (excluding Wynnfield, certain portions of Overbrook, Overbrook Farms, etc.). Point Breeze is gentrified as hell nowadays, and most of the crime that happens in South Philly typically occurs in Grays Ferry.
2.) I'll give you that one. You'd have to be/be with a local to know how to avoid those "patches." If one wanted to explore historic Germantown, for example, they might make their way through a rough neighborhood named Nicetown, assuming they follow Germantown Avenue. Although the city is becoming less patchy, they still persist. Because of the Anacostia River, D.C. has the advantage of shielding its worst neighborhoods away from visitors and tourists who aren't making an effort to go down there. I was just in Congress Heights and Anacostia a few weeks ago, and I walked past a dead man on MLK Boulevard. Having just arrived from the Navy Yard, it was like day and night.
With all of that said, I don't feel unsafe in any part of Philly. Admittedly, I am a 6'2" dude with a slightly muscular build; however, I'm also used to urban environments. The presence of tight streets and rowhomes built out to the property line aren't factors that will scare me away from a neighborhood.
Last edited by PhilliesPhan2013; 09-27-2018 at 09:52 AM..
It's not just trees though. DC is a much cleaner city than Philadelphia, not that I think Philly is overly dirty or anything, but by and large DC is squeaky clean. The sidewalks are very even and concrete is well placed, the Metro is very clean, the city simply doesn't have anywhere near the amount of blight that larger Philadelphia has. Even Georgetown which is almost as old as Philadelphia and has similar qualities to some of it's neighborhoods with smaller streets, just feels much more clean and high end.
DC overall has larger geographic portions of it's city that aren't really dangerous at all. MUCH of the crime rates and recent influx of crime in DC has been East of Anacostia River.
Specifically Georgetown was founded in 1751 and Phila. in 1682 although there was a Swedish settlement along the Delaware R.(where parts of S. Phila are today)about 40 years before that.
DC(all of it) should absolutely resemble completely clean cities like Geneva. It doesn't. Claiming to be the richest country should mean that our capital city should reflect that.
MarketStEl (Sandy) said it all, trees! Walking the streets of DC are generally a lot leafier and many homes have front yards, similar to Chicago. It can trick the eye with regard to crime.
I think DC's crime is overlooked because its DC, just like how New York gets away with a lot of negatives, yet Philadelphia seems to get called out on everything.
Most of my friends who live in DC know the city is dangerous and run down in many parts, they just don't like to admit it or talk about the cities faults, yet Philadelphians seem to commiserate over its faults.
DC and Chicago seem to be in the same boat in that their best areas are quite separated from their bad areas, in spite of both having PLENTLY of bad areas. Philadelphia has a similar crime rate to both DC and Chicago, but its good areas aren't in nearly as much of a bubble.
You're right. And I can appreciate how someone looking at a crime map would be fearful.
But having lived in Phila.'s urban environment for a long time, and having close family members living in higher crime areas, I'm not afraid to go to those areas at all.
People should, I hope, understand that a lot of crime(particularly violent crime) isn't random.
yeah kinda is crazy to see a crime map like that to be fearful
as long as you be nice and mind your buisness then you good
same thing happened to me in charlotte we were visiting family members i wasnt petrified or scared to death but i was being aware since we were going through a high crime area or nearby since the city has alot of murders right now since shootings would happen daily as it seem but thats the news talk
just as long as you mind your buisness be aware of your surroundings and maybe be nice if its okay or not then youre good
Last edited by shimmy42; 12-05-2019 at 12:11 PM..
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.
