Jump to content

Should Grand Rapids Convert to Cul-de-Sacs?


x99

Recommended Posts

Perfect comparisons and parallels are difficult to come by. The study I cited was merely an overview of the idea that street design does influence crime. I completely recognize that permeability of the sidewalks is a major problem. However, you are never going to sell cutting them off--not in a million years, unless the area is an absolute den of ungodly amounts of crime. Street reconfiguration is admittedly a partial and imperfect solution. It is, nevertheless, a partial solution, which is better than no solution. It's a tool, and we need all the tools we can get.

As for the comparison cities, they are all of the Midwest rust belt cities from 140,000 to 250,000 population. That's the whole list. If you want to go bigger up the list, you have Lincoln, St. Paul, Toledo, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. Only St. Paul and Toledo bear even a passing resemblance to GR in demographics. St. Paul clocks in at a 447 and Toledo is not reported in the aggregate. GR and Toledo used to be similar, but now Toledo is clearly worse based on the separate burglary, robbery, and auto theft rates. St. Paul is just about the same in most categories. To be able to say you have somewhat less crime than Toledo isn't exactly a badge of honor.

When it comes to crime, we have a lot of it. We just live in it (or don't live in those neighborhoods) and thus don't often recognize how bad the problem really is. We really, really need to fix this with whatever tools we have at our disposal, even if they aren't perfect.

crime has actually decreased significantly in the past twenty years. burglaries are less than half of what they were in the early 1990s. this is without implementing a single cul-de-sac. you could make a case that it due to legalizing abortion (OT, read Freakonomics for a more in depth explanation). violent crime has alway been low.

you could include western new york in your analysis. GR would look very good in comparison to buffalo, rochester, or syracuse. toledo is a good comparison. just because crime is bad in a particular city doesn't mean that it doesn't bear comparison. it is certainly better than using a upscale suburb.

there is a reason that when you live here, you stop recognizing how bad the crime is. it's because you realize that the crime isn't that bad. that it rarely affects you or the people around you and the only time that you see it is when you read the news. living here is not like when I lived in chicago and they would graffiti our house, or steal our car, or attempt to break into our house. I don't witness criminal activity out side my windows. While we shouldn't stop trying to decrease crime, there are many ways to do this, some much better than others. Defensible space theory is built around creating ownership in the area where you live. a cul-de-sac is one idea (albeit not a very good one). you could require landlords to properly maintain their homes. or work to increase the percentage of owner occupied housing. or any number of other ways.

crime is also tied to socioeconomic status. by improving that you will naturally decrease crime. of course then you have all the anti-gentrification a-holes that come out of the woodwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If you want to deny that a problem exists, it's going to be hard to solve it. My original point, which you do not dispute, is that we have significantly more crime than the surrounding areas. The city is less desirable to those who have a socioeconomic status that allows them to live elsewhere. What we need to do as a city is put ourselves in the shoes of the suburb dwellers. Members of my extended family for generations lived in GR. They moved out for one reason: They did not feel safe here.

Those who live here by no choice of their own deserve to have safe places to live and raise their kids. If we can provide that to them, more people who choose NOT to live here might also choose to live here. That brings money, jobs, and a better future for everyone.

What I am quite sure of is that "Green Grand Rapids" and LEED and urban markets and subsidized housing and buses and bike lanes and road diets do not make our city a more desirable place where people will choose to live. None of this makes the city safer. I don't know if traffic calming and CPTED is the answer. It might not be. I don't know if community policing is the answer. It might not be. I don't know if a "guaranteed admission" program to City High is an answer. But they are all worth a try--particularly as part of a comprehensive plan.

GR would look very good in comparison to buffalo, rochester, or syracuse. toledo is a good comparison. just because crime is bad in a particular city doesn't mean that it doesn't bear comparison. it is certainly better than using a upscale suburb. [...]

there is a reason that when you live here, you stop recognizing how bad the crime is. it's because you realize that the crime isn't that bad. that it rarely affects you or the people around you and the only time that you see it is when you read the news. living here is not like when I lived in chicago and they would graffiti our house, or steal our car, or attempt to break into our[...]

crime is also tied to socioeconomic status. by improving that you will naturally decrease crime. of course then you have all the anti-gentrification a-holes that come out of the woodwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.