What is the shadiest street stretch you have ever seen?

[niwell]

Haha wow - after living in Joburg for a bit it's hard to choose!

But yes, sometimes the really sketchy looking streets aren't quite as dangerous as perceived, especially during the day when people are out and about (there aren't dead zones like in Detroit). The vast majority of robberies are opportunistic and violent crime is still mostly targeted. The middle to upper class suburbs actually have a more visible security apparatus and experience the really nasty home invasions (again, mostly targeted - treat your housekeepers well!). My personal worst experiences have been attempted robbery on Long St in Cape Town, which is the main party street that is full of tourists. I had to tell a dude whose hands were going into my pocket to fuck off and pushed him away.

But driving, and in some cases walking, through Town I've seen some stuff. Here's some examples of locations that stood out to me:

https://goo.gl/maps/QTtvCYMX1D79ddSHA

https://goo.gl/maps/f85Nv6bAZ9rgtegn8

https://goo.gl/maps/o4doj6qCLds4msfJ7

https://goo.gl/maps/7j2hj4Vyd6yeawQW9

https://goo.gl/maps/g9w888VaGYqBP9cQA


For reference, this is where someone tried to rob me: https://goo.gl/maps/Q5SzFXaVG4peSSX27

Originally Posted by eschaton

If anything generally criminals are more hesitant about targeting middle-class white people, because they (rightly) conclude that the police are going to undertake a much more thorough investigation when they are robbed/shot than if it happens to some random poor black person.

Yeah exactly. I remember Segun had a post about this years ago that has always stuck with me. This is actually true in central Joburg as well, weirdly enough. You are more likely to be robbed in a sketchy suburb than in Town, although you may get a lot of stares.

[edale]

I was poking around on Google Streetview a few weeks ago and decided to explore Camden, NJ. I was shocked at how terrible and rundown this neighborhood looked, and I'm pretty used to seeing run down and abandoned urban neighborhoods, coming from Cincinnati. This whole area looks like a bomb went off:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9340...7i13312!8i6656

In terms of places I have physically been, I would say the shadiest is definitely LA's Skid Row. It's just an awful place, and walking around is very unsafe. Mentally ill people everywhere, needles all over the place, open air drug dealing and prostitution at all hours, human waste on streets and sidewalks. It's a complete disaster of a place. It really has to be seen to be believed: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0436...7i16384!8i8192

[austin242]

This stretch in DC has become real shady in the last couple of years.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8973...thumbfov%3D100

[mrnyc]

lets be clear here, because there are like several types of shady:

abandonment ruin porn shady is one, like those detroit google streetviews as extreme examples with all the ghostly bonus clear-cutting. the usa just excels at this as we are generally much more mobile than the rest of the world because of all those highways. people run from one end of the country to the other for jobs at the drop of a hat. sometimes that leaves abandonment like you still see in the former rust belt.

there is also sad shady from the current opioid crisis, like the zombies you see staggering around in some areas like in miami or los angeles and too many places unfortunately.

there is time of day shady. fine in the day, bad at night.

spooky shady? ie., like savannah at night? with no one around, the misty historic square lights and the old south spoopy gothic dripping tree moss? cool, but creepy!

there is wealthy shady, like wall street or those hey boy what are you doing here rich neighborhoods. i ran into that recently looking up modernist houses in the hills above los angeles.

and then there is good old straight up historic racism neighborhoods type shady. take a walk along st. clair avenue in cleveland or around pitkin in brownsville at twilight. or cleveland's broadway for that matter. outside of nyc there is such a thing as white ghettos ya know. but seriously, don't do this.

last but not least there is tree lined type shady. i think everyone prefers that!

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

I was poking around on Google Streetview a few weeks ago and decided to explore Camden, NJ. I was shocked at how terrible and rundown this neighborhood looked, and I'm pretty used to seeing run down and abandoned urban neighborhoods, coming from Cincinnati. This whole area looks like a bomb went off:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9340...7i13312!8i6656

For those into "ghetto tourism" or whatever you want to call it, I would say Baltimore and Philly-Camden are far more interesting than Detroit, because they're more intact and less green/suburban.

This area in Baltimore is about as tough as it gets, while still busy:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3099...7i13312!8i6656

Detroit doesn't really have "urban street corners" anymore. The core is gentrified, the inner city is gone and the fringe is suburban. They went crazy demolishing homes, so much of the city is really green and quiet.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by The North One

Are you surprised?

People have a sick blight/ghetto fetish, it brings them morbid glee and fascination like animals in a zoo and they have no shame about it. Why do you think that charliebob loser on youtube gets so many clicks?

Anyway Detroit is really nowhere near the sketchiest city in the united states. Parts of Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis, south/west side Chicago neighborhoods are far sketchier.


Abandoned neighborhoods by white flight aren't really all that eventful (and if you're at all familiar with the lovely united states you'll know we have it in spades across the country) as said here about five times now. The "hoods" aren't really that eventful either. They're just people trying to live their damn lives. You'll find way more drugs and shady characters in wealthy white suburbia.

I think sensible and reasonable people will realize that those cities have good sides to them. Good neighborhoods. But some don't, and its apparent. I don't think its appropriate to call that you tube channel guy a loser.. just because he showcases some of the worst hoods in the U.S.. Nothing wrong with folks wanting to see those type of areas from their PC or even if they drive to the areas just to see whats up.

Similar to how some won't venture into parts of South Africa, but are curious about certain areas that are "known" to be dangerous per capita.

In other words, we can't mask or hide reality. This is a big problem I have and can tell by some of the language used in other posts. Everyone wants to forget about reality, and suddenly, if something comes up that might showcase blight, folks suddenly get up in arms.

Now the comments on some of those videos, if you read some of the comments made, some are quite appalling, but others are genuine.

Everyone likes to play the racism card when talking about the despair of certain neighborhoods, and if you talk about it, your deemed a racist. I never understood this. What it sounds like to me is that some folks want to live in a bubble, and just talk about the happy stuff. I'm not saying you btw, I'm speaking in general.

Like me personally, I don't find this thread OP query offensive at all. Nor do I find the videos of a guy driving around certain areas, showcasing them, interviewing some of the locals offensive. On a side note, the guy who does those videos is black, so let's not get the idea that its some guy with an agenda.

Not everything is happiness and sunshine. Sometimes its good to acknowledge and study certain neighborhoods. If its to plan for life, debate, learn or just to feed curiosity.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Crawford

For those into "ghetto tourism" or whatever you want to call it, I would say Baltimore and Philly-Camden are far more interesting than Detroit, because they're more intact and less green/suburban.

I think folks use Detroit because unfortunately, its known as the gold standard of having bad areas. Not that its a good compliment to have, because its not, but often its used as the benchmark for how crappy a neighborhood can be.

But yeah, there are other places that can be just as bad.

The thing is, they often think the whole city is like that, but its not. As I said above, sensible and reasonable people will realize that there are good sides to those cities, but rest assured, there are also appalling sections as well. Both aesthetically, GDP wise, school wise, lack of police coverage, and so on.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I think sensible and reasonable people will realize that those cities have good sides to them. Good neighborhoods. But some don't, and its apparent. I don't think its appropriate to call that you tube channel guy a loser.. just because he showcases some of the worst hoods in the U.S.. Nothing wrong with folks wanting to see those type of areas from their PC or even if they drive to the areas just to see whats up.

Similar to how some won't venture into parts of South Africa, but are curious about certain areas that are "known" to be dangerous per capita.

In other words, we can't mask or hide reality. This is a big problem I have and can tell by some of the language used in other posts. Everyone wants to forget about reality, and suddenly, if something comes up that might showcase blight, folks suddenly get up in arms.

Now the comments on some of those videos, if you read some of the comments made, some are quite appalling, but others are genuine.

Everyone likes to play the racism card when talking about the despair of certain neighborhoods, and if you talk about it, your deemed a racist. I never understood this. What it sounds like to me is that some folks want to live in a bubble, and just talk about the happy stuff. I'm not saying you btw, I'm speaking in general.

Like me personally, I don't find this thread OP query offensive at all. Nor do I find the videos of a guy driving around certain areas, showcasing them, interviewing some of the locals offensive. On a side note, the guy who does those videos is black, so let's not get the idea that its some guy with an agenda.

Not everything is happiness and sunshine. Sometimes its good to acknowledge and study certain neighborhoods. If its to plan for life, debate, learn or just to feed curiosity.

I get what you're saying, and maybe somewhat agree but I'd like to point out a several things:

1 - These ruin porn fetishes are only interesting through the lens of a certain class of people, which tends to be westerners from a high socioeconomic status. And because of that, these discussions are always a rehash of classist, if not racist, diagnoses of what went wrong.

2 - Some people (actually many people), including the o/p, are confusing abandonment with "ghetto". That Detroit example is not a ghetto. It's a completely abandoned neighborhood that is the result of Detroit's long history of planning blunders and economic disasters. It more like Chernobyl, than Skid Row.

3 - Every one of these abandoned houses or lots is an example of some family's economic devastation (refer to point 2). I don't feel comfortable making light of that with some silly ass contest about finding the "shadiest" block in the western world.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I think sensible and reasonable people will realize that those cities have good sides to them. Good neighborhoods. But some don't, and its apparent. I don't think its appropriate to call that you tube channel guy a loser.. just because he showcases some of the worst hoods in the U.S.. Nothing wrong with folks wanting to see those type of areas from their PC or even if they drive to the areas just to see whats up.

Except literally every single one of his videos is full of racist/classiest vitriol. It is beyond disgusting yet he continues to run across the country filming and presenting "ghettos" for the entertainment of usually racist people like some sort of circus zoo, and profits from it all. It's not like he's trying to bring light to the issues people in these places face, his videos don't accomplish that.

It is reprehensible. Only shitty people participate in blight tourism and spread it. I guess I can't stop people from watching it, but at least use an ad blocker.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by eschaton

First, neighborhoods like this don't really exist.

Sure, but my caveats re: official crime numbers are still all valid. I gave an extreme example to illustrate a phenomenon; even if your objection "examples that extreme don't really exist" is factually correct, it does not invalidate my point.

Crime numbers are especially tricky, because there are tons of factors that would completely change the picture these numbers paint on paper while the reality (odds of a "bad" encounter for you as a tourist) on the ground is the exact same.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Basically, imagine people are molecules for a second, bouncing around in a closed container. Some of them are one element (normal people) others are another (murderers). Even if you have only one normal person and 100 murderers, if the box is big enough, there's not really a high chance of running into any one of them.

Low density, blighted bad neighborhoods work like this. If there's only one or two intact/inhabited houses on the block, there really aren't enough places left for criminals to live. And people from other neighborhoods aren't going to go there to commit crimes. There aren't enough inhabited houses to rob, aren't enough customers for the dope they're slinging, etc. So even if a relatively high proportion of the people who are left are potential criminals, you're very unlikely to see them out and about on the street at any time, since the neighborhood has deteriorated past the "boys hanging out on the corner" phase.

On the other hand, there are safety in numbers. In a blighted near-vacant neighborhood, true, your odds of running into someone are low, but the odds of that person deciding you're an interesting target, and your options if they do, are both really bad for you.

If I were offered to choose between being dropped alone, on foot and unarmed at 3 am in either LA's Skid Row or on Moenart St in Detroit between E McNichols Rd and Desner Ave (OP location), I'd pick the former for sure.

[edale]

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at bombed out areas and those such as Skid Row that represent a total societal failure. If you're looking at these areas to make fun of them or the people who live in them, that's obviously messed up. But if you're just looking at these places to see what the darker sides of America (or whatever country) look like, I think it can be valuable. When I see these images of Detroit or Camden or Skid Row, I think about what led to these landscapes looking the way they do.

Too often, we see only the sides of cities that people want us to see. We've all seen the shots of LA showcasing the mountains and Beverly Hills and the Getty Center and what not, but how many people have seen the shit show that is Skid Row? If all we looked at on sites like this were of renderings and premier areas of cities, we'd be missing quite a lot. I understand someone from Detroit being a bit salty about this, as Detroit is actually infamous in some circles for its 'ruin porn' and that must be tiring to be from a place that is working to turn things around. But the fact is, Detroit's ruins and totally bombed out neighborhoods are unique. To see acres and acres of urban prairie and crumbling houses and factories all throughout one of America's biggest cities/metros is startling and note-worthy. If you approach the topic with respect, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

On the other hand, there are safety in numbers. In a blighted near-vacant neighborhood, true, your odds of running into someone are low, but the odds of that person deciding you're an interesting target, and your options if they do, are both really bad for you.

If I were offered to choose between being dropped alone, on foot and unarmed at 3 am in either LA's Skid Row or on Moenart St in Detroit between E McNichols Rd and Desner Ave (OP location), I'd pick the former for sure.

Your biggest worry on Moenart St at 3am would be running into a stray dog.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by edale

But the fact is, Detroit's ruins and totally bombed out neighborhoods are unique. To see acres and acres of urban prairie and crumbling houses and factories all throughout one of America's biggest cities/metros is startling and note-worthy. If you approach the topic with respect, I don't see anything wrong with it.

That's where you're pretty much wrong. There's nothing unique about it, nearly every eastern city had/has urban prairies, "bombed" out areas, history of crime and white flight. It's basically the story of this country.

[edale]

Originally Posted by The North One

That's where you're pretty much wrong. There's nothing unique about it, nearly every eastern city had/has urban prairies, "bombed" out areas, history of crime and white flight. It's basically the story of this country.

Not anywhere on the scale of Detroit, though. Many cities have neighborhoods that have been pock-marked by demolition and resulting vacant lots. Very few cities have wide swaths of just....nothingness. The level of destruction and the fact that it's located in many parts of the city and not just one area make Detroit pretty unique in this case. The only places I can think that might have similar situations are St. Louis' north side and portions of NOLA that were completely wiped off the map by Katrina.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by eschaton

If anything generally criminals are more hesitant about targeting middle-class white people, because they (rightly) conclude that the police are going to undertake a much more thorough investigation when they are robbed/shot than if it happens to some random poor black person.

Yeah, police only investigate crimes against whites.

Or...

White people are more likely to call the cops and not take the law into their own hands through retaliation.

That one seems much more likely.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

Not anywhere on the scale of Detroit, though. Many cities have neighborhoods that have been pock-marked by demolition and resulting vacant lots. Very few cities have wide swaths of just....nothingness.

Pretty much every Rust Belt city has this. Flint, Saginaw and Youngstown, proportionally, are likely worse. Gary, Benton Harbor, and East St. Louis much worse. Cleveland is about as bad. St. Louis is better, but not by much.

And, putting aside the ethics, I think the "ruin porn" interest peaked in the 1990's, when there was peak abandonment, but not yet peak demolition. This is when you saw the carcasses of neighborhoods. Now it just looks quasi-rural. What's so interesting about weedy lots with wild turkeys?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I would say especially in Detroit. Any time a middle class white person is killed in that city it dominates local news coverage for weeks or months. The Jane Bashara murder is a good example.

Murders of white people are usually:
A) Domestic
B) Random

Random murders make great news because they are scary. It could happen to anyone. I remember two white teachers in Chicago that were killed made national news within the last year. Two people minding their own business were killed in a decent part of town. That is news.

People getting killed in gang violence in neighborhoods infested with gang violence isn't news.

[Gresto]

Is there anything in the developed world (or anywhere in the world, really) today that comes close to rivaling the decrepitude of 1970s-80s South Bronx?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, police only investigate crimes against whites.

Or...

White people are more likely to call the cops and not take the law into their own hands through retaliation.

That one seems much more likely.

That black people are less likely to report crimes is of course a reason as well. Although in some cases it's because they're worried about getting shit from the police themselves.

I used to work with a black woman who had one of her cousins and her two children brutally murdered in South Carolina. Her husband arrived on the scene and reported it to the police. When they got there, they arrested him. Not because he was a suspect, but because local PD policy was to run everyone's name at a crime scene and he had an outstanding bench warrant over a comparably petty crime. He ended up in jail for just long enough to miss the funerals for his family.