# I wanted to see a ghetto



## Ashok (Jul 17, 2004)

^ What about SouthHall London??? I think it was pretty ghetto. Actually, wouldnt Paris be the place to see ghetto.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 13, 2008)

australia has plenty. in the metropolitan areas too!


----------



## Gzdvtz (Oct 25, 2009)

Guest89 said:


> True. I think Gzdvtz saw more than he wanted to with that thread.


Oh yeah that was excellent actually, but it's from the past. And by the way, not necessarily ghettos, any dodgy, dangerous, run-down, run-by-gangs district would be fine 

Thanks for all suggestions!! I'll check them out later. Wow, so many replies overnight


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Ashok said:


> ^ What about SouthHall London??? I think it was pretty ghetto. Actually, wouldnt Paris be the place to see ghetto.


London and Paris both have their share of not so pleasant areas, I wouldn't like to say who wins that one!


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

I think the worst Ghetto I have been and felt very uncomfortable to be there has to be Camden NJ. You just don't want to hang out there at all. But some Philadelphia neighborhoods are as bad too.

I NYC, I say parts of Brownsville and East New York are probably the worse in the city.


----------



## Andres_RoCa (Mar 28, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> australia has plenty. in the metropolitan areas too!


Thanks for the honesty, finally.




FREKI said:


> ^that's "very nice" to you? :?
> 
> Hmm.. then I think you'll have a hard time finding ghetto's and areas you dislike..
> 
> Maybe parts of Detroit.. :dunno:


I've seen pics of parts of Denmark that are less nice than that.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Andres_RoCa said:


> I've seen pics of parts of Denmark that are less nice than that.


By all means show them then... 

Google Streetview covers nearly every street and road in the Kingdom: www.maps.google.dk


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

Inconfidente said:


> Are slums and ghettos the same thing? I thought only slums have no streets, sidewalks, potable water, energy supply, etc. I thought ghettos were just poor and violent neighborhoods.


I don't know about sidewalks but I thought the favelas in Brazil had potable water and energy supply ... at least to a certain degree.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Inconfidente said:


> Are slums and ghettos the same thing? I thought only slums have no streets, sidewalks, potable water, energy supply, etc. I thought ghettos were just poor and violent neighborhoods.


One difference is that slums usually have lots of human activity and are overcrowded. 

Ghettos (at least in the US) are the opposite, almost devoid of life and with abandoned buildings as well as vacant lots everywhere because of the destruction after white flight, riots, and the general economic destruction that these neighborhoods deal after deindustrialization in the post WWII period. A lot of the worst ghettos are gradually reverting to they were before human development, into prairies and grassland. There are actually small farms in Detroit even, and in some ghettos, wildlife has actually been spotted. 

Here is a picture of the "urban prairie" of Buffalo.










http://www.flickr.com/photos/fixbuffalo/496992604/in/set-72157605770891440/


----------



## 7t (Jun 4, 2006)

I've walked every inch of every corner and every block in the city of San Diego and I have yet to find a ghetto-like/run-down neighborhood. Even the most remote areas are well maintained, clean and safe to walk in the middle of the night. Not bad for a city of 1.3 million


----------



## egypt69 (Feb 21, 2008)

Xusein said:


> 30 years ago, people were comparing the South Bronx to bombed out places like Dresden and the London blitz during WWII. And New York City was bankrupt at the time, as well as going through riots during the blackout in 1977. And then there was the crack cocaine epidemic that later devestated these neighborhoods in the eighties.
> 
> Here are some pictures of it in the past.





egypt69 said:


> :uh:
> 
> OMG!! Shocking Pics of New York!!!!!





ShawnOfTheDead said:


> Wow, Bronx used to be cool  I'd like to visit Bronx back then, looks quite interesting


Can you clarify what exactly do you find cool, and tourist appealing in those photos?

Was it the crack heads?? Crystal Meth addicts?? Or the absolute poverty??? Wait, mabe it was the Gazillion daily murders shown in the pics?? And the spiralling high crime rates, robberies, and dead people shown in the pics??


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

^^ Some people like grit.

I don't really like it myself (although I think that it has appeal), but New York had some of a bit more "flavor" back then. Not everything at the time was bad. The poor conditions of the South Bronx and some other neighborhoods is where hip hop started, creating the movement that is still infleuntial today. The dirt cheap rents at the time also made it into a artist hotspot. 

Even places like Times Square were seedy back then. Lots of porn theaters back then and other smut. There were graffiti all over the subways, 

Now, it's too much of a "Disneyland" fake place. Before 2009 ended, I actually went around the area (don't usually go to Manhattan when in the city) and I was disappointed. Nice lights and lots of crowd activity, but it feels too sterile with all the chain stores and restaurants that can be anywhere in the US. And the rents all over the city are too high, they're pricing out all the artists that once saw NYC as a mecca.

Then again, as a urban enthusiast, my opinion would obviously different than some family in Iowa that is in awe of all that stuff.


----------



## Andres_RoCa (Mar 28, 2007)

FREKI said:


> By all means show them then...
> 
> Google Streetview covers nearly every street and road in the Kingdom: www.maps.google.dk


Pretty much anywhere in Christiania looks worse to me, for example.


----------



## ShawnOfTheDead (Jan 3, 2010)

To be honest, Christinia is the only place in the Denmark that charms me.


egypt69 said:


> Can you clarify what exactly do you find cool, and tourist appealing in those photos?
> 
> Was it the crack heads?? Crystal Meth addicts?? Or the absolute poverty??? Wait, mabe it was the Gazillion daily murders shown in the pics?? And the spiralling high crime rates, robberies, and dead people shown in the pics??


As I expressed, *interesting.* :cheers:


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Andres_RoCa said:


> Pretty much anywhere in Christiania looks worse to me, for example.


Christiania is a former military base where hippies were allowed to set up a camp in the abandoned old military barracks and along the old defenses..

Neither the municipal nor state operates/maintain there as it's self governed by the squatters.. today it's pretty much 80% park and 20% old modified barracks along with some selfbuild homes..


















I agree that it has many ugly ill maintained barracks, but then again it isn't part of anything related to the city or state.. to this day it's still technically military property with squatters on it - it has no official roads ( it's also car free btw ), no state nor municipal involvement, it's basically exactly as the 900 people voluntarily living there wants it to be..


So maybe you could be so kind as to come up with some *real* areas as you claimed :dunno:


----------



## egypt69 (Feb 21, 2008)

ShawnOfTheDead said:


> To be honest, Christinia is the only place in the Denmark that charms me.
> 
> 
> As I expressed, *interesting.* :cheers:


Oh ok, I dono why I got the impression it was on the top of your To-Visit list :lol:

Btw Shawn of the dead is an awesome movie, hilarious :cheers:


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

FREKI said:


> I agree that it has many ugly ill maintained barracks, but then again it isn't part of anything related to the city or state..* to this day it's still technically military property with squatters on it - it has no official roads, no state nor municipal involvement *it's basically exactly as the 900 people living there wants it to be..


So in other words--it's a slum.

Hard to believe that pristine Denmark has a slum.

Reminds me of those random tent cities that sprout in certain US cities from time to time where homeless people congregate.


----------



## A-TOWN BOY (Jan 6, 2009)

i just realized my post on first page of this thread could affect my immigration process...


----------



## ShawnOfTheDead (Jan 3, 2010)

egypt69 said:


> Oh ok, I dono why I got the impression it was on the top of your To-Visit list :lol:
> 
> Btw Shawn of the dead is an awesome movie, hilarious :cheers:


Well, it would be interesting to see the Bronx but I'm planning to live at least a couple more decades lol.

Yeah, whenever I get down I just watch it and ta-da! I'm happy again


----------



## egypt69 (Feb 21, 2008)

ShawnOfTheDead said:


> Well, it would be interesting to see the Bronx but I'm planning to live at least a couple more decades lol.
> 
> Yeah, whenever I get down I just watch it and ta-da! I'm happy again


The only way I would visit the bronx would be in a black, armoured, GMC :lol:


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Xusein said:


> So in other words--it's a slum.


I guess it could be qualified as such... in theory..

The voluntary locals call it a "freetown/freestate" - by the state it's considered a commune..

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania



Xusein said:


> Hard to believe that pristine Denmark has a slum..


It's a case of a liberal nation allowing those who chose, to live as they see fit, even if laws are technically violated..

All who live there do so voluntarily while usually maintaining jobs in the city and while I'm certainly not approving of the area, I do like the idea behind it..

And as far as slum... well.. I don't really agree..











Xusein said:


> Reminds me of those random tent cities that sprout in certain US cities from time to time where homeless people congregate.


Many of them living like this:









These are not homeless, nor in any despair for that matter - it's people who love the hippie dream so much they want to live it - so they move their build their own home and help run the place with the rest from the place..

( camps like this is found many places in the Kingdom, only difference with this one is that it's so centrally located and it's on military property instead of privately own land as the others )


Had I not been so materialistic and opposing to drugs I might even go join them  ( but I'm not so sure building a homemade skyscraper there would be well seen nor especially safe  )


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

SO basically, it's a hippie commune where nearly anything goes. Gotcha. Very different premise than a slum.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Well there is a very important structural difference between the world's few rich countries and the majority of what is considered "third world" (no negative intent involved). 

More material wealth (obviously), but also an older and more controllable urban growth.

And those who are at the bottom of the social ladder and find themselves segregated don't live in "slums". However let's not forget that our cities did have "slums" not too long ago, Paris for example had two very famous ones, in the suburbs of Nanterre, known for housing many algerian immigrants (lasted until 1972) and Champigny sur Marne, known for housing many Portugueses (lasted until 1971).


This is Nanterre in the 60's:


----------



## Andres_RoCa (Mar 28, 2007)

^^ What happened in 1971 and 1972?


----------



## diz (Nov 1, 2005)

Here's the ghetto apartment I lived in when I first moved to the US.

Here


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

@Andres

The houses were progressively destroyed, instead the authorities reconstructed what they called "cité de transit", ie very cheap housing but with basic services that were supposed to be temporary. Although some of these cité de transit still stand today and people live in them.

The cité de transit are part of all the big housing projects that were constructed in this time period (50's-70's), lot's of which now constitute the "ghettos" of french cities.


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

Andres_RoCa said:


> I've seen pics of parts of Denmark that are less nice than that.


I am not from Denmark yet I have some experience of different hippie communes and the people there. I have also briefly walked trough Christiania back in 04. While there may be some poverty , despair and people with issues in places like that , I don't think it is a good example of a slum. Not only is there the stereotype of affluent middle class people turning into hippies or going into other alternative lifestyles. I think those places are also rather nices place to live. 

I would look at train stations at night or under bridges to find the most to say most dysfunctional people. Or just the conditions of people in nice and less nice looking average houses. Just my experience


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

Here is smack dab in the middle of the ghetto in Southside St. Petersburg, FL. The real estate boom did wonders to this place which really looked 10 times worse but speculative investors bought these places and fixed them up thinking the area would go through gentrification. The area is still very bad lots of gangs, drugs, violent crimes, etc. I remember flipping a house here and during remodeling found bullets in the roof along with bullet holes from drive by shootings. Notice in the area all the empty lots are houses that were abandoned that were demolished or some people bought a house right next to another one for sale and knocked the worst one down to increase the lot size.

Streetview
Here is the ghetto of Clearwater to the locals known as Greenwood, same story as with Southside St. Pete but this one is not as bad.
Streetview


----------



## Evan (Jul 8, 2004)

A-TOWN BOY said:


> i just realized my post on first page of this thread could affect my immigration process...


EDIT is your friend.


----------



## Inconfidente (Oct 5, 2006)

koolio said:


> I don't know about sidewalks but I thought the favelas in Brazil had potable water and energy supply ... at least to a certain degree.


It depends on the favela and the part of it. 

All of them have energy supply but it's stolen. Potable water is available for older parts of it and some shacks use a natural source of potable nearby (such as a fountain) since almost every favela is on the hills. There are no streets or sidewalks but pedestrians ways such as stairways in a chaotic pattern. Wastepipes are almost absent.

Some Brazilians cities have their favelas made of bricks, that's the case of Rio and others use wood, very common in São Paulo. Residents of favelas build their shacks by themselves.

Favelas were originally a someone else's property who has been illegally occupied by one family at the beggining and after decades by thousands of people. It's an urban stolen area occupied by many. If there is any word for this in English, please tell me.

Nowadays some cities of Brazil are demolishing favelas and replacing it by 3-4 floors apartment buildings, wide streets and avenues, health centers, schools, parks, etc. There are still many favelas to rase tough.



Xusein said:


> One difference is that slums usually have lots of human activity and are overcrowded.
> 
> Ghettos (at least in the US) are the opposite, almost devoid of life and with abandoned buildings as well as vacant lots everywhere because of the destruction after white flight, riots, and the general economic destruction that these neighborhoods deal after deindustrialization in the post WWII period. A lot of the worst ghettos are gradually reverting to they were before human development, into prairies and grassland. There are actually small farms in Detroit even, and in some ghettos, wildlife has actually been spotted.
> 
> ...


Got it. Thanks!


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 1, 2008)

Here is a rough living area near my hood. A gypsy community settled in the last open space around.


----------



## dtoronto (Dec 31, 2004)

The South Bronx isn’t bad at all anymore, I’ve been many times and never came close to a problem. There are areas I wouldn’t walk around on my own at 3am, but I have drove all over at that time and never felt uncomfortable. I have a friend that lives in the Intervale Avenue and Westchester Avenue area and we walked all over the area at night and it is a decent place, a lot of good Latin American restaurants. I’ve showed her pictures of what the area looked like in the 1980s and she was amazed at the destruction and how it’s cleaned up so much. I’ve also stayed a few times at the Howard Johnson on Boston Road, and went for drinks at a bar on East Tremont and everything was fine. I got looks from people, but it wasn’t bad looks. It’s a very different area from the 1980s, which I remember as a kid as my uncle used to work the night shift at the Hunts Point Market, and a few times I went to work with him and back then it was bad. 

As for cities that are still in bad shape, in my opinion it would be Detroit and North Philadelphia, but most cities in the North-East of the States have run-down areas. Detroit is mostly low density residential, but North Philadelphia is high density, not as dense as the South Bronx is, but probably the closest as to what the South Bronx looked like in the 1980s. But “North” Philadelphia can be confusing as to people not familiar with Philadelphia, it can be anywhere “north” of downtown, which is misleading, as there are many decent neighbourhoods north of downtown that are in Philadelphia. The slums of North Philadelphia “generally” are north of Fairmount Avenue beyoned Roosevelt Boulevard, but at the same time there is redevelopment, and existing decent areas, and also includes Temple University. But in that area there are pockets of the worst urban decay in the states. Also across the river in Camden, New Jersey, for the most part the city is a slum. For North Philadelphia, start around this location and wander around. 
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&so...9pnXgKsz_ar6Z2BCjPhh4Q&cbp=12,310.51,,0,-4.46

Below are some links of posts I’ve made in the past on the South Bronx and Harlem. 

*South Bronx*
The first page has pictures from the 1980s and the second page has images of what the locations look like now, from Google Earth. 
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153781

*Harlem*
Compares what the locations look like now from the 1980s/90s
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149448

The movie “Wolfen”, shows the South Bronx around the Charlotte street area in 1980, a few blocks away from where my friend lives. Back then it was burnt out tenement style buildings, but now is detached suburban type homes. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMzwKSdC7rs


----------



## MiamiMan305 (Oct 24, 2009)

As a white person from deep suburban New Jersey, most of the Bronx doesn't bother me, atleast while driving through (living in could be a completely different story). I don't get what I'm supposed to be "scared" of? Puerto Ricans, Bodegas, and black people, oh my :lol:


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Here is a rough living area near my hood. A gypsy community settled in the last open space around.


This made my angry.
To see a such empty land in inner suburbs especially housing lack so much. hno:
Any development planned here ?


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

This is the notorious "The Block" area on Everleigh St in Redfern, Sydney Australia. Use to be worse in the 80s/90s, but, being an inner-city 'burb, it's steadily getting gentrified.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Quercii said:


> I think most areas of South Bronx are quite nice compared to much of Detroit.


I'm not a New Yorker and I just saw the Bronx from a window of a bus running on a freeway, but I think that Bronx is not an enormous ghetto like people normally think. It is one of the five boroughs of NYC, and like the other ones is quite 'articulated': with many ghetto areas, but also nice areas.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

eklips said:


> Well there is a very important structural difference between the world's few rich countries and the majority of what is considered "third world" (no negative intent involved).
> 
> More material wealth (obviously), but also an older and more controllable urban growth.
> 
> ...


This is La Defense (ore better, close to it): you can clearly see the CNIT u/c (the first building to be built in La Defense)

Even in a city like Rome in '50s and '60s there were such slums


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> I'm not a New Yorker and I just saw the Bronx from a window of a bus running on a freeway, but I think that Bronx is not an enormous ghetto like people normally think. It is one of the five boroughs of NYC, and like the other ones is quite 'articulated': with many ghetto areas, but also nice areas.


Yes the Bronx is very big. The only parts where it used to look like a war zone were some parts in South Bronx.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

Look in these threads and see some of the big changes that are happening in the South Bronx. There is a lot of new construction going on there.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153781&page=3

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=291877&postcount=233

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=294576&postcount=247

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=300505&postcount=270

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=300326&postcount=267

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=300527&postcount=271

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=311019&postcount=298

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=304197&postcount=288


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> This is La Defense (ore better, close to it): you can clearly see the CNIT u/c (the first building to be built in La Defense)
> 
> Even in a city like Rome in '50s and '60s there were such slums


It's quite shocking to think that la defense looked like that in the living memory of many people!

I could be wrong but i dont think we had any large areas of self-built informal slums like that in the UK at the same time.

When people here talk about 'slum clearances' which took place from the early 20th century to the 1970s, it was demolition of poor quality, dark, insanitary workers homes that had often been built in the 19th century by factory owners to house their workforce.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-back_houses

http://www.google.com/m/url?cd=1&cl...__ATAB&usg=AFQjCNG-l5NpDd0hcYscsWIfhaUVF5Efwg


----------



## pokistic (May 8, 2007)

krull said:


> Look in these threads and see some of the big changes that are happening in the South Bronx. There is a lot of new construction going on there.
> 
> http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153781&page=3
> 
> ...


Wow lots of changes! Thanks for these links.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 1, 2008)

The Lisbon links are very appaling. 



Minato ku said:


> This made my angry.
> To see a such empty land in inner suburbs especially housing lack so much. hno:
> Any development planned here ?


No since in this area were former limestone quarries. This is completely unconstructible.
Instead they ceated a park, _Parc des Lilas_. Some market gardeners stayed on this empty space, there is even a "harvest fest". :nuts:
Nothing urban I'm afraid.
There were also quarries North of this district, near to the border to Villejuif. There are some smaller wastelands there too. In this area they allowed small buildings though, I saw buiding permits.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

Philly Bud said:


> The term "ghetto" refers to an enclosed, walled district that was reserved for the Jews of Venice, Italy. It was locked shut at night. Jews were not permitted to live anywhere else. "Ghetto" means "foundry" because the Venetian Ghetto was near a foundry. Eventually it described any segregated section that was set aside for Jews to live in throughout Europe.
> 
> If you want to see a run-down poorer area of a large American city, I assure you we have lots of those here in Philadelphia: especially the neighborhoods of Kensington, Strawberry Mansion, parts of North Philly, Nicetown, West Philly, Gray's Ferry, etc.
> 
> Anyone visiting my city and wanting to see these areas I will happily give you a tour in my car.


A British documentary maker named Louis Theroux (who probably isn't famous in the US, but he's famous in Britain and Australia) made a show about Philadelphia, aptly named 'Killadelphia'. He went around with narcotics police, looked at crack houses etc.

You should try and watch it on YouTube, you may find it interesting.


----------



## Plateau Mont-Royal (Sep 21, 2009)

There aren't any real ghettos in Montreal. Some areas are a little more "run-down" than others I guess.

In St-Henri:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&so...=du66Wptu2PPnMYBaE8rx8A&cbp=12,244.96,,0,0.42

In Hochelaga-Maisonneuve:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&so...id=-d7Dz50iZ-oXJLHA8GfacQ&cbp=12,338,,0,-5.37


----------



## techniques1200s (Mar 11, 2005)

city_thing said:


> A British documentary maker named Louis Theroux (who probably isn't famous in the US, but he's famous in Britain and Australia) made a show about Philadelphia, aptly named 'Killadelphia'. He went around with narcotics police, looked at crack houses etc.
> 
> You should try and watch it on YouTube, you may find it interesting.


The thing is, even though Philadelphia has it's problems, there are still a good amount of cities with much higher crime rates than it, and many cities with lower crime rates than Philly are still much more violent than your average European city too. Louis Theroux could have set that documentary in most large US cities, and it would have still been a "killer city" compared to what you have in the UK or Australia. Murder is just a lot more common here in general, and it happens with guns way, way, way more often too (the entire UK had around 60 gun murders last year. Most US cities eclipse that number by themselves whether it be by rate, raw numbers or both).


----------



## techniques1200s (Mar 11, 2005)

7t said:


> I've walked every inch of every corner and every block in the city of San Diego and I have yet to find a ghetto-like/run-down neighborhood. Even the most remote areas are well maintained, clean and safe to walk in the middle of the night. Not bad for a city of 1.3 million


Well, San Diego is one of the safest cities in the nation as far as violent crime rate goes, and it's been that way for a few years now at least. There's not much in the way of hopeless ghettos there....poor people yes, poor neighborhoods with higher crime rates than average, yes, but crazy violent ghetto culture concentrated to a high degree in certain neighborhoods to the point where you really don't want to be going there? You won't find much of it compared to a lot of other cities.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I guess a ghetto for London would be Hackney with the 'murder mile' haha

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?sourc...d=s_EdYkd3zvIaKyYMb8sh_g&cbp=12,19.26,,0,0.55

And for Manchester...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?sourc...=7eskG2am2QhuOn8m6WUTyQ&cbp=12,106.77,,0,3.87


----------



## Niyyu (Aug 7, 2007)

..


----------



## NvkR (Oct 12, 2009)

In Paris, the areas where theres projects usually dont have google street view. But i still managed to find a few:

Up North:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=clichy&sll=48.901924,2.558162&sspn=0.002408,0.005177&ie=UTF8&radius=0.12&rq=1&ev=zi&hq=clichy&hnear=&ll=48.901765,2.556027&spn=0,359.994823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=48.90185,2.55603&panoid=Kr5Jw5QDucFn5VNvj1BPTQ&cbp=12,246.14,,0,0.48

Down South:
Notice the suspicious guys on that one :lol: :

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vitry+sur+seine&sll=48.880776,2.550373&sspn=0.019276,0.041413&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vitry-sur-Seine,+Val-de-Marne,+%C3%8Ele-de-France,+France&ll=48.786368,2.389634&spn=0,359.979293&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=48.786613,2.389714&panoid=rAw0Mh7836HHou_VD_bTSQ&cbp=12,134.46,,0,19.11

Another One of Vitry:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vitry+sur+seine&sll=48.880776,2.550373&sspn=0.019276,0.041413&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vitry-sur-Seine,+Val-de-Marne,+%C3%8Ele-de-France,+France&ll=48.783074,2.392874&spn=0.004857,0.010353&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=48.783074,2.39287&panoid=Ab_BXFGaNaPMjjViJRYz1A&cbp=12,314.91,,0,11.69

To the West near la Defense (look around), how do you think they got that nice car haha:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=nanterre&sll=48.783074,2.392874&sspn=0.004857,0.010353&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Nanterre,+Hauts-de-Seine,+%C3%8Ele-de-France,+France&ll=48.888438,2.225568&spn=0,359.979293&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=48.888348,2.226744&panoid=kJCtKByxF7v71bKRVNuM9A&cbp=12,30.83,,0,-12.51

Up North again:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=clichy+sous+bois&sll=48.888348,2.226744&sspn=0.00934,0.020707&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Clichy-sous-Bois,+Seine-Saint-Denis,+%C3%8Ele-de-France,+France&ll=48.911106,2.540674&spn=0,359.979293&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=48.909166,2.537709&panoid=Fjd6J_IqcqBpp7WK2cWOtg&cbp=12,122.53,,0,5.39

Inner City:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rue+pajol+18eme+arrondissement+paris&sll=48.909166,2.537709&sspn=0.009689,0.020707&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Rue+Pajol,+75018+Paris,+Ile-de-France,+France&ll=48.889905,2.363777&spn=0,359.979293&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=48.889898,2.363959&panoid=TQgdi5-WNfnOGE1oIrOGSw&cbp=12,326.51,,0,2.34

Way Up North:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=13+Avenue+Salvador+Allende,+93270+Sevran,+Seine-Saint-Denis,+Ile-de-France,+France&sll=48.948337,2.520826&sspn=0.009329,0.020707&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FX7d6gIdrrAmAA&split=0&hq=&hnear=13+Avenue+Salvador+Allende,+93270+Sevran,+Seine-Saint-Denis,+Ile-de-France,+France&ll=48.946589,2.535739&spn=0,359.979293&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=48.946551,2.535624&panoid=3LNYEPnoWUDAh4jdtksQpg&cbp=12,208.69,,0,-11.52

West Again:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=42+Boulevard+Beaumarchais,+Gennevilliers,+Hauts-de-Seine&sll=48.831365,2.379576&sspn=0.009351,0.020707&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=42+Boulevard+Beaumarchais,+92230+Gennevilliers,+Hauts-de-Seine,+Ile-de-France,+France&ll=48.936554,2.287087&spn=0,359.979293&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=48.931872,2.287038&panoid=pBbVrruWRgIprASN5uQqvQ&cbp=12,31.2,,0,6.48

you gotta admit they are pretty bad, not the worst of course!

Tell me if you want more, I'll post some others


----------



## Woozle (Mar 30, 2008)

Most of modern American ghettoes are former white working, middle and even upper-middle class neighborhoods abandoned in the 1940's-1960's. As long as the streets are kept reasonably clean, they will not look particularly "slummy" to a European, even less so to someone from poorer parts of the world.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Woozle said:


> Most of modern American ghettoes are former white working, middle and even upper-middle class neighborhoods abandoned in the 1940's-1960's. As long as the streets are kept reasonably clean, they will not look particularly "slummy" to a European, even less so to someone from poorer parts of the world.


The Bronx and Harlem used to have huge manor houses in like the 1860s etc


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

techniques1200s said:


> The thing is, even though Philadelphia has it's problems, there are still a good amount of cities with much higher crime rates than it, and many cities with lower crime rates than Philly are still much more violent than your average European city too. Louis Theroux could have set that documentary in most large US cities, and it would have still been a "killer city" compared to what you have in the UK or Australia. Murder is just a lot more common here in general, and it happens with guns way, way, way more often too (the entire UK had around 60 gun murders last year. Most US cities eclipse that number by themselves whether it be by rate, raw numbers or both).


I understand what you're saying.

Even compared to Australia, the UK is full of guns.

There's very little gun murders here due to strict ownership laws. Though of course, you can debate the pros and cons of gun control for years. As a resident of Aus, I do like the fact that gun crime is something I really don't have to even think about here though. 

In 1996 there was a gun massacre here, in Tasmania actually. This guy went nuts and shot 20 something tourists at an old jail British convicts were sent to during the days of the colonies. After that, the Federal Government held a gun amnesty and buy-back where they bought your gun back from you and destroyed it.

I guess the main driving point in America's crime is its poverty though. Australia doesn't really have the kind of 'urban poverty' that you can see in the US.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

city_thing said:


> I understand what you're saying.
> 
> Even compared to Australia, the UK is full of guns.
> 
> There's very little gun murders here due to strict ownership laws. Though of course, you can debate the pros and cons of gun control for years. As a resident of Aus, I do like the fact that gun crime is something I really don't have to even think about here though.


Here in the UK guns are illegal, but I know people that live in rough places around London, Manchester and Birmingham etc that can get guns really easily. Although I would knife crime is much worse here than guns...


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ the UK is hardly full of guns by any standard, 60 firearms deaths in a year among a population of 61 million is so small as to be negligible, outside of some parts of London and a handful of areas in a couple of other cities it is very very rare to have any gun crime.


----------



## Gzdvtz (Oct 25, 2009)

Many thanks again to everybody who contributes to this thread.

dtoronto, seeing these changes was pretty interesting, the North Philadelphia street view was precisely what I was interested in — urban decay but not really a slum. Redfern too!

krull, those wirednewyork links aren't working?!


----------



## Woozle (Mar 30, 2008)

There may be more guns than people in Idaho and Montana, as well as a substantial "militia" presence - but their murder rate - hovering around 2.5 per 100,000 population - is lower than that of Finland. Guns are virtually uncontrolled in New Hampshire, yet their murder rate - around 1.2 per 100,000 population in the last decade - is lower than in many Western European nations.

THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GUNS AND MURDER. Repeat it until you internalize it. Stupid, agressive, drunk, drug-addicted and simply evil men murder (pick any number of variables that may be present in a murderer). Guns don't. They protect.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ and if those drunken, drugged, nasty people have guns its much easier for them to murder others. Personally, I much prefer living in a society where carrying guns is not 'normalized', otherwise it just leads to an 'arms race' between criminal and victim. 

The vast majority of house burglars here go unarmed, if they knew that the householder was likely to have a gun, they would increase their offensive potential accordingly, as happens in the US where a far larger proportion of burglaries are armed and far more people die as a result.

Finland does have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe, but is the murder rate really as high as 2.5?

I'm sure that some US states like Idaho have relatively low murder rates but then they are largely rural places with no big cities which is where serious crime tends to be more of a problem. If you compare rural districts in jurisdictions where guns are more tightly regulated, you will see that murder there is much much rarer.

Guns may offer protection in extreme, lawless and dangerous environments but once society has developed to a level where rule of law generally prevails, their continued common presence in society is a hinderance rather than an asset to society imo.


----------



## Zabonz (Feb 5, 2007)

The ''biggest'' ghetto i have seen is Camden NJ

check it out on street view


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

According to wikipedia only 14% of all homicides are done with guns in Finland. So all the drunk nasty people murder each with their firsts or with knives.


----------



## Woozle (Mar 30, 2008)

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^ and if those drunken, drugged, nasty people have guns its much easier for them to murder others. Personally, I much prefer living in a society where carrying guns is not 'normalized', otherwise it just leads to an 'arms race' between criminal and victim.


You do not have a choice of living in a society where criminals have no guns. They always have the option of getting them, whereas the law-abiding citizens will not.

An 'arms race' is a moot point in most instances of crime. A home invasion simply won't take place if there is a good chance that the homeowner is armed - regardless of whether they thugs are armed or not. They will not risk their lives for money or a chance to rape and do not relish the chance of participating in a shootout. They invariably pick EASY targets.



> I'm sure that some US states like Idaho have relatively low murder rates but then they are largely rural places with no big cities which is where serious crime tends to be more of a problem. If you compare rural districts in jurisdictions where guns are more tightly regulated, you will see that murder there is much much rarer.


Let's cut the crap. The non-hispanic white murder rate in New York City is lower than it is in much of Western Europe. Only around 40 non-hispanic whites get murdered in NYC each year, and only around 35 non-hispanic whites commit murder in this city of 3 million n-h white inhabitants and over 40 million tourists annually. Yep, only around 1.3 murders per 100,000 for non-hispanic white New Yorkers. Roughly as dangerous as the UK.



> Guns may offer protection in extreme, lawless and dangerous environments but once society has developed to a level where rule of law generally prevails, their continued common presence in society is a hinderance rather than an asset to society imo.


America can be a bit extreme, lawless and dangerous. It's not old Europe. We are a combination of a First world and a Third world nation.


----------



## techniques1200s (Mar 11, 2005)

city_thing said:


> I guess the main driving point in America's crime is its poverty though. Australia doesn't really have the kind of 'urban poverty' that you can see in the US.


true, combined with drugs which are a really easy way to get money (and also dangerous..a huge chunk of the many thousands of murders every year in the US are related to drugs). Then there's gangs, economic depression (not just the recession of course but perpetually in most ghettos), etc.

That's sad about the Tazmania massacre. I heard about some high profile mass shootings like that happening in Australia and New Zealand too.


----------



## Rumors (Jul 1, 2007)




----------



## Rumors (Jul 1, 2007)

Very sad. hno:


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Woozle said:


> You do not have a choice of living in a society where criminals have no guns. They always have the option of getting them, whereas the law-abiding citizens will not.
> 
> An 'arms race' is a moot point in most instances of crime. A home invasion simply won't take place if there is a good chance that the homeowner is armed - regardless of whether they thugs are armed or not. They will not risk their lives for money or a chance to rape and do not relish the chance of participating in a shootout. They invariably pick EASY targets.
> 
> ...


Lol, of course if I excluded various ethnic and socio-economic groups from the UK stats then our figures would also look better but why is it legitimate to do that? Just because somebody isnt white doesn't mean crime against them somehow isn't a problem.

I've lived on this planet for a third of a century, have never carried a gun, have never felt the need to and have never been in a situation where one would have been useful, neither has anybody else I know. Given those circumstances, surely you can understand why I don't see any advantage in suddenly flooding the society with firearms so that every second person in the street (including all the bad tempered people, drunks and sociopaths) is carrying a weapon.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Xusein said:


> ^^ Some people like grit.
> 
> I don't really like it myself (although I think that it has appeal), but New York had some of a bit more "flavor" back then. Not everything at the time was bad. The poor conditions of the South Bronx and some other neighborhoods is where hip hop started, creating the movement that is still infleuntial today. The dirt cheap rents at the time also made it into a artist hotspot.
> 
> ...


What about the violence and crime? Are you suggesting than having a couple thousand dead bodies and a crack epidemic is acceptable so artists can rent a place to gather around? And do you honestly think graffiti is something desirable that improves transit systems? It resembles the cry of people here in The Netherlands (where I'm living for a while) that Amsterdam lost it's energy and is not a grown-up theme park - the city is thriving, but better enforced noise laws, crackdown on squatting and graffiti and attraction of a yuppie business crowd that can venture out on nice pubs makes people prefer the city like it was a segregated place where being junkie was a precondition to enter some neighborhoods.


----------



## Gzdvtz (Oct 25, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> What about the violence and crime? Are you suggesting than having a couple thousand dead bodies and a crack epidemic is acceptable so artists can rent a place to gather around?


Every sane person will tell you that violence, crime and crack epidemic are unacceptable, we have no reasons to think Xusein isn't sane. I liked a lot of the stuff people showed us here (minus the real slums) it has certain appeal to me but only to look at, because living in a crime and violence ridden area isn't something I fancy.

He's only saying that not everything back then was bad and gives examples, I don't understand how you can interpret all this as props for crime etc.


----------



## Gzdvtz (Oct 25, 2009)

(double post)


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> What about the violence and crime? Are you suggesting than having a couple thousand dead bodies and a crack epidemic is acceptable so artists can rent a place to gather around? And do you honestly think graffiti is something desirable that improves transit systems? It resembles the cry of people here in The Netherlands (where I'm living for a while) that Amsterdam lost it's energy and is not a grown-up theme park - the city is thriving, but better enforced noise laws, crackdown on squatting and graffiti and attraction of a yuppie business crowd that can venture out on nice pubs makes people prefer the city like it was a segregated place where being junkie was a precondition to enter some neighborhoods.


Our societies are full of different forms of violence which go much beyond street delinquency. 

Street crime is only one very small part of it. Labor relations are very violent, gender domination is violent, the police or more generally the agents of the penal state can be very violent and so on. 

Street crime is one of the only areas where being socially dominated (being "poor", "working class" etc.) is not an obstacle, where one can become dominant and violent whatever his position in society.

However pretending that street violence is the only form of violence and reducing working class areas to this dimension only is just a basic form of classism, nothing more.

It'd be like reducing upper class areas to places where exploiters and white collar criminal live, ridiculous.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

eklips said:


> Our societies are full of different forms of violence which go much beyond street delinquency.
> 
> Street crime is only one very small part of it. Labor relations are very violent, gender domination is violent, the police or more generally the agents of the penal state can be very violent and so on.
> 
> ...


This is a very leftist, evil Marxist, approach that I rebuff and reject, though respecting your right to believe so. In the name of "greater" theoretical forms of violence, millions have been murdered for the sake of cleaning countries from their "evil bourgeois elements" and so on. Dictators and tyrants love the idea because it enables them to pursue political violence.

Without discussing the merits of other problems you cited, I think street crime is far more important and disgusting because it KILLS people on the spot. I cannot accept the idea that having street gangs dominating parts of the city so poor immigrants can feel "empowered" is an acceptable excuse for people (mostly likely from their own communities) being shot point bland, mugged, assaulted, raped etc.

Gender discrimination is wrong? Yes, it is. But unless some associated violent conduct is present, no child is losing their parents and becoming orphans because their workplace has gender-bias promotion policies.

Some of the worst "ghettos" had, on the late 80's, life expectancies that were 20 to 30 years lower than the average American population, and THAT is the most important problem.

I also do not like your correlation between "white-collar" workers and crime. There is nothing inherently wrong working on an office.

Finally, most gentrification is not pushed by millionaires, but by high-middle class successful professionals, usually single or in childless households, who have far more discretionary income than the extreme poor from ghettos, yet they are no Hampton-bound people.

200.000 households with income on the 100K-200K average, which is way far below any "rich-enabling" threshold, can displace far more people from ghettos than 1.000 ultra-rich bankers, real estate developers or media celebrities.

Now, if you think that is "immoral" to earn 200K, then we have a fundamental disagreement about whether honest success from hard work is acceptable or not.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Oh geez...

Where have I suggested that "violence" should be used? 

As a matter of fact, where in my post have I suggested anything, I just pointed out a basic fact. There are many forms of violence in society, some are psychogical and social others are physical.

When the police in France never stops harassing arab or african looking people, this is violence.
When I am forced to obey my boss who doesn't know more about the job than I do all the time, this is violence.
When the working class people in france have a lower life expectancy than people who are in higher spheres this is violent, and is more of a matter of life and death than the occasional murder. 
When the educational system convinces working class people that their culture, their language and so on is inferior to that of the upper class with cultural capital, this is violence (a french sociologist coined the term "symbolical violence" for such phenomenons).
As American sociologist Howard Becker famously pointed out in the 60's, crime is rampant in all parts of society, it is present in all social classes. However only certain sectors of society are criminalized. 

There is no suggestion here, just pointing out some facts. You don't believe me? I can point out to scientific investigation studying those elements by PM if interested.

Good night.


----------



## citybus (Oct 22, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> I also do not like your correlation between "white-collar" workers and crime. There is nothing inherently wrong working on an office.


Eklips didnt mean that. White Collar Crime has nothing to do with office workers, it refers to corporate crime committed by senior figures in large companies. For example tax avoidance, laundering dirty money, stealing staff pension funds (British media magnate Robert Maxwell did this in the 80's/90's), fraud... 

Traditionally governments have often turned a blind eye to corporate crime and focus on blue collar crime instead. This is because they havent wanted to interfere with upper classes trying to make money- even if what they are doing is illegal. Poorer people dont have that luxury, and unfortunately they have suffered from the stigma of being poor when people associate being poor with being criminal. Despite the many billions of dollars illegally made from corporate crime, the upper classes generally arent stigmatised as criminals.


----------



## Woozle (Mar 30, 2008)

Thank God we have few Marxists like eklips here in America. Alas, we still have way too many left-wingers.


----------



## hkchan (Sep 24, 2009)

No slummy areas in Toronto, but some areas a pretty 'ghetto'.
Jane and Finch, Regent Park, and St. James town have the worst conditions. Full of crime and gang related activities.
But otherwise, a few cases here and there. And white collar-related crimes are virtually unheard of.


----------



## Elnerico (Aug 12, 2009)

Vancouver Downtown Eastside is ghetto-ish and Regent Park in Toronto. Though these places are beginning to get gentrified. Also none of them are as bad as the bronx was in the 60s-80s I think it was.

South Bronx thread:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=222552


----------



## tka84 (Feb 21, 2010)

Gzdvtz said:


> A North American one, so I went to South Bronx on street view but it actually looks very nice.
> 
> Could someone link to street views of really dodgy areas? The city doesn't matter. Thanks


Very ignorant statement. The South Bronx is among the ugliest ghettos I have traveled through in America, it has a third world vibe. That includes North Philly/Camden. There is a lot of reconstruction in both of those communities but they are both still very gritty, poor and run down.



Elnerico said:


> Vancouver Downtown Eastside is ghetto-ish and Regent Park in Toronto. Though these places are beginning to get gentrified. Also none of them are as bad as the bronx was in the 60s-80s I think it was.
> 
> South Bronx thread:
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=222552



Those photos are from the early 1990's and although there are less empty shells in the community due to community efforts to bring back low income housing the area is very run down even today.

Why is there a thread glorifying ghettos?


----------



## old school (Apr 26, 2009)

Woozle said:


> Thank God we have few Marxists like eklips here in America. Alas, we still have way too many left-wingers.


So, what do you wish to do with "way too many left-wingers?" Like that was tried/done by one of your right-wingers in Germany in the 30s..? 
BTW, when the Tea Party types say "this is our country; let's take it back!", is this what they mean? Get rid of left-wingers?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

old school said:


> So, what do you wish to do with "way too many left-wingers?" Like that was tried/done by one of your right-wingers in Germany in the 30s..?
> BTW, when the Tea Party types say "this is our country; let's take it back!", is this what they mean? Get rid of left-wingers?


I guess it has more to take it back from the over-empowered minority interest groups. I say minority not necessarily in terms of racial or ethnic lines, but indeed as the fact that minority extremists, like environmentalists that want us to go back to stone age ("ditch your car, live in a small apartment, forget overseas holidays"), or hard-core over-inclusive and shame-full (sic) educators that praise and recognize everyone but the Americans as having their inner cultural value (the "everyone is better than us" approach).

I'm not an American citizen, nor do I actively follow post-modern exceptionalism-patriotic inspired grassroots movements in America this days, so take this as my political science two cents.


----------



## dtoronto (Dec 31, 2004)

Some run down areas of North Philadelphia and Camden from Google Street View…

*Philadelphia *





















































































































































































A lot of the redevelopment housing looks like this










*Camden *


----------



## tka84 (Feb 21, 2010)

The new housing sprouting up in the more desolate sections of Philly and Camden is not going in the right direction. Either build low rise apartment buildings or rowhouses that resemble the already existing structures. Members of the community will move into that housing photographed above but only because it is the only affordable housing available. Why not get it right? It will be better for the community in the long run. A more walkable community will mean increase desirability in the long run. That block of six new wasteful homes could have easily been 50 new rowhouses or even a large low rise apartment building both with street corner retail.

I understand the concept of creating a block from scratch to make it more desirable a little at a time. Well why not rehabilitate the remaining rotting rows before building new housing. It will be a long time before those areas of Philly sees any real improvement, even longer for Camden. That new housing photographed above is so wasteful.

Much better:










or










Advertise proximity to public transportation, LEED certification, rooftop gardens and or solar panels to create desirability.


----------



## bosman (Mar 8, 2007)

Many of those pics of Philadelphia are of mostly-abandoned neighborhoods. Few people live there anymore. The population of Philadelphia in 1950 was 2.07 million, now it's about 1.45 million, a loss of about 600K people. In Detroit, the population in 1950 was 1.85 million, now it's about 900K, less than half. It's only natural that there will be numerous abandoned buildings/neighborhoods. The question is what to do with them. It makes sense that you would want to re-fill those areas with new development that was just as dense as before, but with such substantial population losses, how would you justify that? There's a feeling after almost 60 years of general population decline, that it's not likely these cities will ever see their populations grow all that substantially. It only makes things worse when you also take into account the general population trend in the US of people moving from colder/northern climates to warmer areas in the south. I agree it doesn't look good when much of the redevelopment is of suburban-looking houses, but it's unclear whether large-scale high-density development will be able to be sold.


----------

